July 7, 2012
-
Influence versus manipulation
JDN 2456115 EDT 18:28.
As popular behavioral economics books go, Robert Cialdini’s book Influence is not as rigorous as Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow; but it is surprisingly well-researched. I would highly recommend Influence to anyone who doesn’t already know much about behavioral econ, because it’s a very gentle introduction that’s focused around practical applications in terms of media literacy and resisting manipulation.
Cialdini focuses on six fundamental heuristics: Reciprocity, commitment, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity. One thing Cialdini does really well (even better than Kahneman I would say) is emphasizing the point that these are heuristics—they are methods of judgment that are easy and fast and they work 90% of the time, but watch out for the 10%. Hence, you need to figure out when to turn them off; but you don’t want to leave them off all the time, or you’ll literally fail 90% of the time.
Indeed, one thing that I really liked about Influence was the way it draws a very firm line in the sand between influence that is legitimate and influence that is not: Above all, never lie. So it’s all right to invite all your customers at 6:00 AM (which will enhance their desire to compete) as long as you don’t tell them that you invited different people at different times. It’s all right to start out with a bold offer and then offer some concessions, if you really were interested in the bold offer. It’s all right to point out that your product is scarce if in fact it really is. What’s not all right is lying to people.
One case where I’m not sure this is enough is in relationships. It seems to me that dealing with a friend or a significant other, you have to be held to an even higher standard. Even if you don’t outright lie, there are a lot of really sleazy techniques you can use to get people to do what you want, and that’s manipulating them. (See also pickup artists.) For instance, you could hook up with a lot of women at once to make them compete over you. You could withhold affection from women who won’t first sleep with you. That’s not lying, and it’s not something more awful like rape or assault; but it’s still unethical.
But if even just this practice of never lying were actually adopted in business, our economy would change radically. Right now we have laws against publicly stating explicitly false facts, which is great; don’t ever take that away, we’d be back in the Wild West. But we need more than this. We need companies to not be allowed to use laugh tracks, or hire sports starts to hawk products. We need real honesty, and not just “well, I didn’t actually lie…” How do you enforce that? I’m not sure, but one good way to start is the power of the market. Boycott companies that use deceptive methods of advertising, or if you can’t boycott them all (you still need milk, and perhaps all the milk companies do this), then boycott the worst ones and publicly announce that you have done so. Tell all your friends, and make them tell their friends, and so on.
Realizing that lines like this can be drawn—even if it’s not always easy—has given me renewed hope in combating my autism and social anxiety. I finally realized what I didn’t like about so much of the advice I was getting (especially pickup-artist material). In the game of life, I couldn’t win on my own, so I want the player’s guide—but I don’t want the cheat codes. I want to win fair and square because I really know what I’m doing, not find the buttons to push that give me total control—and thereby turn me into a Machiavellian psychopath. This is the distinction that a lot of people fail to make, and it’s literally one of the most important things in the world.
Comments (7)
Cialdini is a brilliant social psychologist. “Influence” is on a level all its own. Great post.
So…you believe there is never a time when lying(I am playing the bad guy here) is okay or the right thing to do?
Also, I don’t know if you explained it( I did read your post), but I am not sure what Heuristic is?
I do like psychology, I am not really into economics though so I don’t know if that is book I could read and get something out of. I shall check it though.
Lying is not always unethical. Suppose someone asks you how their new hat, haircut, et cetera looks, and you think it is hideous. Should you tell them that, or should you lie, even if only a little white lie???
@StrawberrySunrises -
I can find obvious cases where lying is ethically justified by some much greater good. The Anne Frank scenario comes to mind: “Are there Jews in the house?” asks the Nazi, and you say “No, of course not. I would never harbor filthy Jews. Heil the Fuhrer! Would you like some sausage?”
But it has to be pretty serious before I think lying is ever the right thing to do. There’s a slogan for radical honesty that expresses my views pretty well: “Never lie to someone unless you’d slash their tires.”
Would you slash a Nazi’s tires? Of course you would; it saves innocent lives. Indeed, you’d blow up a whole camp full of Nazi trucks and tanks if you could, and save even more. Hence, you may lie to Nazis, because their deeds are sufficiently evil that you need to use whatever means necessary to stop them.
But would you slash your mother’s tires? No. Therefore you may not lie to your mother.
@lonelywanderer2 -
No. You should not lie. Indeed, this is a very deep flaw in our culture; we think it’s all right to make “little white lies” in response to questions like “How are you?” and “Do I look fat in this dress?”. But no, every “little white lie” debases the currency of human communication. It makes it that much harder to be truly genuine and intimate with other human beings. Words become nothing more than routine sequences, “How are you?; I’m fine, how are you? I’m fine.” that might as well be meaningless gibberish for all the information it conveys.
When someone asks about their new haircut, and you don’t like it, be tactful, be kind—but be honest. “I don’t care for it myself. Is it the new style these days?” When a woman asks you “Does this dress make me look fat?” respond with “It’s too tight on you. You need a bigger size for your curves.”
By the way, a heuristic is a method of reasoning that is quick and easy to implement and produces accurate results most of the time, but not all the time; it systematically deviates from optimal reasoning. We need heuristics though, because we aren’t smart enough to work out every detail of every situation before every decision we make. There are just too many variables.
In fact, this isn’t because we’re stupid and it isn’t because life is complicated. Non-heuristic methods are just mathematically not tractable. Consider a chess game: Remarkably simple really, 64 spaces, 32 pieces, straightforward rules. But a computer program that sorted through every possible chess game before choosing what to do, would have to run for longer than the age of the universe before it could come to a decision on a single move.
@pnrj - Good answer!!!