83,057
edits
Commitment: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Redirected page to Influence) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|psychology|<youtube>G0ZZJXw4MTA</youtube><br>Sir Humphrey demonstrates the power of commitment to Bernard, yesterday<br>}}Documented in {{author|Robert Cialdini}}’s seminal book on [[persuasion]] techniques, {{br|Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion}}, one of the six is commitment. Lead your counterpart up the garden path with a series of leading questions, at the end of which, like poor old Bernard, he has no choice but to give you the answer you want — unless he wants to flat-out contradict himself, or mount a sophisticated, complicated and quite confrontational reverse-ferret. | |||
===In a nutshell=== | |||
{{commitment capsule}} | |||
Is the commitment gambit legitimate? Depends. On one hand, it is easy and tempting to use it for nefarious ends: it is a fake news bonanza. Will you ever believe an opinion poll again? But it was ever thus. | |||
On the other, if you want to achieve an outcome — and let’s face it, friends, all but the most [[passive aggressive]] of us generally ''do'' — and you have the choice between doing this the easy way or the hard way, wouldn’t you take the easy way? | |||
And bear in mind it is a competitive market. If you don’t, someone else will. And guess who will get the deal. | |||
That is to say, it may be ''logical'' to present matters in a dry, dispassionate and infinitely particularised way, but it isn’t, as Rory Sutherland would say, ''psycho''-logical. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{br|Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion}} | |||
*{{br|Alchemy: The Surprising Power of Ideas that Don’t Make Sense}} | |||