We talk a lot about stories being a great way to persuade and influence – and quite rightly so. The problem is that the bad guys are using the same tactics, sometimes better. Why is it so hard to change people’s minds, even with stories.. and what can you do about it?
Here’s the story-science bit (that you can skip if you’re in a hurry!)
One of the things that the world go round (even more than money and sex) is something called Truth Bias. We’re primed to assume that what we hear is true. If we didn’t have the default assumption society couldn’t function.
“Hello, I’d like to buy this bottle of wine”… would you really? how could I check? how could the customer prove it?
“Certainly. That’s $9.50”… is it? isn’t it a different price? how can we be sure?
See what I mean? If everything has to be proven before it’s accepted even “good morning” becomes a problem and a challenge to be proven. We’d all starve to death before I could agree on what to eat for breakfast!
This bias effectively means that if your audience hears something at the start of the presentation, they judge everything after it against that “truth”.
(As a side note it also suggest that if you’re presenting as part of a debate you should go first 😉 )
There’s also plenty of research to the effect that the way something is first described frames the agenda for subsequent evaluation and conversation. If you describe crime by analogy as either a “social problem” or as a “health issue” you get different outcomes if you describe it as the “result of bad actors”. And by different outcomes I mean different policies with millions of dollars behind them (dollars because the research was done in America).
For example, while I’m writing this, I’ve just seen a notification that the American Academy of Pediatrics will not follow guidelines from the American Secretary of State for Health JFK Jr.
Now, setting aside the additional complication of whether I want this to be true or not (you can probably guess my politics) my immediate assumption is that it’s true. If I hadn’t been writing this very article I probably would have accepted it as fact without checking. (Side note, it looks true-ish when I look into it on sources I have found robust in the past.)
Something else plays into this too – it’s called confirmation bias. The long, ugly story is that our brains are expensive to run and changing our minds is expensive. That means we’ve evolved to be stubborn… and in turn that means we notice/pay attention to/trust more something that supports our current position than if it contradicts it.
It’s one of the reasons being a research scientist is pretty hard work!
This means that if you can get your story/opinion/options/whatever in early and convince people it’s harder for anyone else to change their minds than it is for you to “hold” them with you.
And here’s the helpful tip!
Here’s where I step past the research. Normally I’m all about the research but I’ve not found any in this particular area, so I’m extrapolating a bit from what the research tells us and my experience… here’s the key thing.
It’s not impossible to change someone’s mind if they’re set in their ways, but it’s hard work. Just try changing a Trump supporter’s mind etc. Fortunately, people are really good at holding two (opposing) ideas in their head at the same time, so you don’t have to change the narrative about “the thing”.
Instead, consider that it’s probably better value for your time/effort/energy to give them something new to believe in, that’s a bit parallel to the original problem. If someone believes that “immigrants are the problem” you’re going to have a problem changing their mind, but you can also get them to invest in the story of how immigrants have saved an otherwise run down neighbourhood.
Here’s a specific example I’ve used on stage. If you’re in the UK you’ll remember the Brexit debate and in particular, this story…
It really caught the mood of a disgruntled population. With sensible logic, the remain side tried to counter this story logically… but I ask you, what chance does the following statement have against a story-slogan on the side of a bus like the one above…
Spoiler alert – this sort of thing had no impact significant impact whatsoever.
On the other hand, a new story, one of how immigrant doctors and nurses were keeping the NHS running would have been an easier sell.
See what I mean? If you can avoid going head to head with a “known fact” in your presentation, it’s probably a better plan to avoid doing that and just work with an alternative narrative.
I’ve found this to be remarkably effective. Sometimes it’s led to questions such as “but how does this square with…?” and at that point you can go in with your logical refutation or whatever, because someone’s asked for it and is, presumably, open to learning.
I can’t say this enough… I’ve used this technique over and over and found it to be far, far better than taking on the original story. There are exceptions, such as when I can get in before the story takes root in someone’s mind, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Stop mucking about fighting things head on and just go around the story in their heads!