To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sentry18

Thrivalist
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
19,105
Location
US of A
The human brain is an interesting thing.


https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...ple-to-change-their-minds-is-now-backed-up-by

To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right

A philosopher’s 350-year-old trick to get people to change their minds is now backed up by psychologists.


  • Olivia Goldhill
direct


The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for Pascal’s Wager which, in the first formal use of decision theory, argued that believing in God is the most pragmatic decision. But it seems the French thinker also had a knack for psychology. As Brain Pickings points out, Pascal set out the most effective way to get someone to change their mind, centuries before experimental psychologists began to formally study persuasion:

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Pascal added:

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

“One of the first things you have to do to give someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already staked out,” he says. “If I immediately start to tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position in a way that allows co-operation.”

Markman also supports Pascal’s second persuasive suggestion. “If I have an idea myself, I feel I can claim ownership over that idea, as opposed to having to take your idea, which means I have to explicitly say, ‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.’ Not everybody wants to do that,” he adds.

In other words, if it wasn’t enough that Pascal is recognized as a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, it seems he was also an early psychologist.
 
Kind of like the saying it is better to " understand than to be understood ".

Understanding where their opinion comes from so you know why is important . Then present the facts or evidence of why they are wrong. It has worked on me when I was wrong. My childhood friend told me this long ago. He said just try to understand why people are of opinions before you place blame on them. And try to persuade ,not attack. This is what the article is basically saying or am I wrong ?:dunno:
I'm very opinionated so I fail at this more often than I'd like to.

Is this reply one of those times you have to be nice to me,to tell me its not the same thing?:D
 
We use this methodology during remediation with millennial LEO's. Otherwise they go into this cycle of either being unable to accept the remediation or blaming it on organizational deficiencies. As long as they don't have to be accountable for their shortcomings. However if you praise them for what they did right and then follow up with how much better they could have done if... then they are far more accepting and will correct their procedures.

This is why we often try and hire people in their late 30's and early 40's who always wanted to work in law enforcement buy started late. That policy will hopefully continue until I retire.
 
Lass I took years ago pointed out something similar. Never start off a meeting or ounseli g session with anything negative. Always start with some yolks both agree on and get some buy I. Before the bad news or what ever. It works, I have found in many applications since then.
I always did this in parent teacher conferences, especially with particularly difficult children. I always discussed achievements, strengths, successes, before discussing concerns. I also find that it was important to end them on a positive note so that they didn't leave on a negative.
 
Yes, my wife likes that show. It's entertaining but about as realistic as Star Trek.
Yes, my wife likes that show. It's entertaining but about as realistic as Star Trek.
Egad .... you aren’t suggesting Star Trek isn’t realistic are you? Everyone knows that it’s accurate future history
 
YEP! Star Trek is as real as it comes.
It is the future that we all wanted or expected.
Then NASA went to the moon and for 50+ years after went around the earth and accomplished nothing.
Now they (NASA) acts like they are doing something big by going back to the moon and doing the same thing there that they have done at earth, go around the moon for a while. I'm all excited, can you tell?:rolleyes:
 
YEP! Star Trek is as real as it comes.
It is the future that we all wanted or expected.
Then NASA went to the moon and for 50+ years after went around the earth and accomplished nothing.
Now they (NASA) acts like they are doing something big by going back to the moon and doing the same thing there that they have done at earth, go around the moon for a while. I'm all excited, can you tell?:rolleyes:

What are you talking about? Star Trek is a utopian socialistic future where greed and hunger no longer exist (and they disregard their prime directive whenever it doesn't suit them).
 
See! you agree...:p
 
Yes, my wife likes that show. It's entertaining but about as realistic as Star Trek.
Same with my wife.
I knew the writers had lost all touch with reality when the rookies had shot 3 people in the first 2 days on the job. Then they were back on patrol within the hour and not doing any paperwork. I was never in law enforcement but every time I read about an officer shooting someone they report the officer is on limited duty.
But it's TV and reality has nothing to do with TV.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top