It’s been said that yesterday’s young people trusted the claims of people who declared their opinions boldly. In fact, proof of the experts’ rightness was in how deeply they dug their heels. This method of persuasion is seen in the stodgy wisdom of today’s grandparents. In contrast, today’s young people trust the authority of the “lived experience.” Flitting feelings are trusted above calculated conviction.
The lived experience is more than I-feel-this-therefore-it’s-true; it makes everyone an authority, if only on their worldview. It can be hard to persuade otherwise.
But two books on my shelf speak on how to persuade in this day and age, because they also talk about how any of us are persuaded. These are Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know by Adam Grant and All the Ideas Living in My Head: One Guy’s Musings About Truth by Don Everts.
As an organizational psychologist, Grant is assuredly an expert—though he encourages readers not to dig their heels further into position. And Everts, author and pastor, illustrates how we prejudice beliefs because we’ve never questioned them. Both books provide invaluable perspectives on how to think twice about our convictions, which enhance our ability to persuade.
Grant says to think like a scientist. To our detriment, we often argue like a preacher, prosecutor, or politician. When the preacher’s beliefs are challenged, he sermonizes his ideals. Meanwhile, the prosecutor proves his case right by proving the other side wrong. And the politician garners a constituency by tickling ears with promises, jokes, and the old bandwagon effect. In all three styles, winning the argument is more important than being right or seeking truth.
A scientist, however, isn’t afraid to be wrong, much less interested in winning a debate. A scientist seeks truth above proving their hypothesis. They’ve even learned to enjoy when their hypotheses are disproved because it means they are closer to the truth.
Scientists who want to persuade approach new thoughts with open-ended questions. They display empathy for and curiosity about the other side. They have conversations rather than arguments, and establish that all debate is in good faith. Think Again offers methods for finding better answers in any situation: contentious topics, career decisions, relationship boundaries, public and private beliefs, even narratives of your family of origin.
According to Grant, as long as we’re willing to be wrong, we can resolve many
disagreements and more closely approximate the truth that lies between us and the other person. Think Again is a necessary read in a time when—as it’s overused—we’ve never been more divided.
The other book on my shelf says it’s unrealistic to think like a scientist. (Everts isn’t
responding to Grant; Musings was published almost thirteen years prior.) Everts recognizes we have too many presumptions to think again in so sterile a laboratory as Grant urges his readers. The reality is, we see each idea we encounter in relation to the beliefs we already hold.
But because, as Everts notes, “every idea unto itself has a sort of internal logic,” we can’t weigh every idea at its face value, or even after some study. “It's when the ideas start interacting with each other that we begin to see their deficiencies.” So, Everts imagines ideas as trying to rent rooms in the house of our minds.
When they knock on the door, they’ll have to contend with those already living there. We’ve got Permanent Residents (ideas we’ve held for a while and wouldn’t give up, at least not easily) and Temporary Residents (ideas that are useful for a time). But with new ideas coming at us from every which way and with so many disguises, changing our mind is rarely a one-for-one swap.
Everts calls some ideas that come knocking Pointy. These are inconvenient truths that we might be able to dismiss if we are biased enough against them, like (my example) “Using preferred pronouns isn’t lying.” Sugar Ideas are comforts though they may not be true, as with the sentiment that all religions can coexist. And Back Door Ideas generally come with the culture we grew up in. Everts’ examples of these are: “Waiting is unfair”; “Retirement is necessary”; and “Members of your family are more important than anyone else.” Back Door Ideas can be the most difficult to rethink as they’ve likely never been questioned.
The ideas living in our head don’t prevent us from considering new ones; they guide what we accept and reject. We just have to be honest that they’ve persuaded us previously.
Whether you are the stodgy grandparent or their self-assured grandchild, you live in a time where the lived experience is king. Here are some basic rules, then, from both books, to get to the truth of any matter.
Ask open-ended questions. Ironically, when I’ve used this in hopes my opponent will admit their own illogic, I end up being corrected in the narrative I assumed of them.
Limit your arguments. Grant reported that, “The more reasons we put on the table [to prove our case], the easier it is for people to discard the shakiest one. Once they reject one of our justifications, they can easily dismiss our entire case.”
Hear from as many sides of the story as possible. I am easily duped by the first story I hear. So, Proverbs 18:17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”
Comments