New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

 New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Eric Barker who wrote Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong also has a blog where he shares his insights based on Barker’s research. I recommend his book. I also recommend reading his summary of another book which I read recently. It’s Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes by Ian Leslie.

I’ve been reading several books lately on how to overcome the extreme polarization we see, particularly in politics. So far, I haven’t come across anything in these books that I found to be earthshaking, “eureka!” insights. But there is one that I believe deserves promoting; Eric Barker agrees. He devotes a long blog post to capturing the key points of Conflicted. Below I’ve provided Barker’s summary of these key points. I debated whether to do this because you might read the summary below and think, “Eh, what’s the big deal?” If so, I invite you to read Barker’s entire post to get a better idea what is behind these key points.

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

• Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
• De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
• Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
• Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
• Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
• Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
• Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree: Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes

Eric Barker who wrote Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong also has a blog where he shares his insights based on Barker’s research. I recommend his book. I also recommend reading his summary of another book which I read recently. It’s Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes by Ian Leslie.

I’ve been reading several books lately on how to overcome the extreme polarization we see, particularly in politics. So far, I haven’t come across anything in these books that I found to be earthshaking, “eureka!” insights. But there is one that I believe deserves promoting; Eric Barker agrees. He devotes a long blog post to capturing the key points of Conflicted. Below I’ve provided Barker’s summary of these key points. I debated whether to do this because you might read the summary below and think, “Eh, what’s the big deal?” If so, I invite you to read Barker’s entire post to get a better idea what is behind these key points.

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

• Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
• De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
• Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
• Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
• Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
• Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
• Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.

Review of How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide

It seems just about everyone agrees that the vicious rift in how we disagree with each other has never been worse than it is today, especially in politics. Friends have disowned each other over whether they support gun control, immigration, climate change or Trump. We all shake our heads as if this was a hopeless, irreconcilable divide. Although this might be ultimately be true I believe we should still try.

I’ve read several books and articles that offer suggestions on how to bridge this gap. Of the ones I’ve read I’d highly recommend How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay. Peter Boghossian is a faculty member in the philosophy department at Portland State University and is a speaker for the Center of Inquiry and an international speaker for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. James Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. Because I liked this book I’ve been planning to write a review for this blog. However, this review by Eric Barker, author of Barking Up The Wrong Tree, does such a nice job hitting the key points that I’ve decided to quote from his blog entry to share the key points from How to Have Impossible Conversations.

I should note that the book’s advice is laid out in a sequence starting with beginner’s level recommended skills then intermediate and expert levels. The authors explain that they evolved these skills “drawn from the best, most effective research on applied epistemology, hostage and professional negotiations, cult exiting, subdisciplines of psychology, and more.”

Quoting more from the book, it is “organized by difficulty of application: fundamentals (Chapter 2), basics (Chapter 3), intermediate (Chapter 4), advanced (Chapter 5), expert (Chapter 6), and master (Chapter 7). Some techniques teach you to intervene in the cognition of others, instill doubt, and help people become more open to rethinking their beliefs. Other techniques are oriented toward truth-seeking. Some are just plain good advice. Their underlying commonality, regardless of your conversational goal, is that they all empower you to speak with people who have radically different political, moral, and social worldviews.”

So what are the key points of this book? Here I’ll rely on Eric Barker’s summary. (I’ve edited it slightly and added comments to explain a point if it needs to be expanded.)

·      Be a partner, not an adversary: If you’re trying to win, you’re going to lose. The best approach is: Be nice and respectful. Listen. Understand. Instill doubt. (I refuse to change my mind about this.)

·      Use Rapoport’s rules: They can seem awkward but they reduce conflict better than Valium. [I’ll add an explanation of Rapoport’s rules below.]

·      Facts are the enemy: Unless we’re talking about the savvy, attractive people who read this blog, yes, facts are the enemy. [I have some additional thoughts below.]

·      Use the “Unread Library Effect”: Let them talk. Ask questions. Let them expose their ignorance. Do not cheer when that happens.

·      Use scales: Bring extreme statements down to earth with numbered comparisons. And unless they’re certain at a level 10, they’ll mention their own doubts which can aid your cause.

·      Use disconfirmation: “Eric, under what conditions would disconfirmation not be effective?”

·      Serious beliefs are about values and identity: Don’t attack what they believe, focus on the validity of their reasoning process and whether that identity is the only way to be a good person.

What are Rapoport’s rules? Impossible Conversations explains, quoting from Daniel C. Dennett’s book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. (Rapoport is a game theorist.):

1.    Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2.    List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3.    Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4.    And only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Rapoport’s rules would fall under the concept “steelmanning” in which you restate your opponent’s case in the strongest possible way before challenging it. This approach treats your partner’s beliefs more fairly than using the “straw man” approach in which you purposely weaken or exaggerate someone’s case then refute it.

What about facts? Why do Boghossian and Lindsay urge us not to argue with facts? Well, they don’t say you should never use facts. “It does mean that introducing facts into a conversation is likely to backfire unless done at the correct moment and with great care. … Many people believe what and how they do precisely because they do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence – not because they’re lacking evidence. … Few people form their beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments. Complicating matters, most people believe they do have evidence supporting their beliefs.  … We tend to form beliefs on the basis of cherry-picked selective evidence that supports what we already believe or what we want to believe. Virtually everyone formulates most of their beliefs first then subsequently looks for supporting evidence and convincing arguments that back them up.” As Jonathan Haidt says, we think we’re being detectives who piece together the facts before reaching a conclusion when in fact we act like lawyers who choose facts to make a case.

The authors conclude that introducing facts can backfire and harden your partner’s viewpoint rather than leading your partner to change their mind. They suggest that a more effective way to work facts into a conversation is through questions and by saying something like “I may be wrong about this. It’s my understanding that …”

They also offer a valuable tip on choice of words: eliminate the word “but” and replace it with “and.” For instance, instead of saying “Yes, but how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?” we say, “Yes, and how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?”

I’ve found that when I disagree with someone on a subject the person I’m talking with often asks why I disagree. They’ll ask what evidence do I have. That gives me the opening to introduce the facts I’ve used to support my conclusion. I should note that sometimes my partner doesn’t ask for my reasons. The less reasonable person will just launch into an attack because I dare to disagree with their unshakeable opinions. In that case, I might still cite my reasons but find a way to end the conversation. Diplomatically, of course!

While I admit I haven’t mastered all of the techniques in this book the key points discussed above have helped me when talking with people who don’t see things the way I do. Read How to Have Impossible Conversations because I think it is possible to have reasonable conversations.

An Idea for Civil Discussion

I posted the entry below in my Thinking Objectively blog but I thought it would be worth posting it here too. The overall topic covers a political discussion I had this week but the lesson I learned can apply to personal development as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I had dinner with a couple friends when our conversation eventually drifted to the 2020 presidential election. One of my friends expressed disappointment that President Trump had done nothing about gun control. I said that I’m happy he hasn’t been pushing for more gun control. Knowing that my friend is liberal I figured it would carry more weight if I cited a study done by Leah Libresco, a statistician, former news writer at FiveThirtyEight, a self-described liberal and an advocate of gun control. Libresco wrote an article on a study in which she describes a study she conducted. (I also wrote a blog entry on her article.)

[M]y colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Libresco’s study revealed that most gun deaths fall into one of these categories: suicide, gang violence and domestic disputes. She admits that the most commonly touted gun control measures would have no impact on these outcomes. When I cited this study to my friends I also referred to the high murder rate in Chicago which has tough gun control laws.

But here is where I stumbled onto a potentially valuable approach to talking about controversial subjects. Given the findings of this study by a gun control advocate and the results in cities like Chicago I said, “I’m not sure what else we can do.” My friend said maybe longer waiting periods to buy guns and universal background checks would help. She didn’t say “let’s confiscate guns” and didn’t label me as an unrepentant gun nut. I said I’d be willing to consider her ideas. I think by citing these facts from a source on her side of the political spectrum and saying that I didn’t know what else we could do about gun violence left the door open for a civil discussion.

[Note: Libresco concludes her article with: “A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.” Amen!

Review of How To Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds by Alan Jacobs

I’ve read a number of books in the last few years that tell us how we think we’re being objective but we’re actually hostage to a laundry list of various biases, many of which influence us subconsciously. Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow probably is the most influential of these books based on how frequently it is cited in the other books. While Jacobs’ How To Think tills some of the same ground there is a difference. Jacobs’ personal background helps him see how biases influence how different groups of people perceive the world and think about it. Why do I say this? Because he straddles two worlds. He is an academic (teaches in the Honors Program at Baylor University) while also being a Christian. This gives Jacobs a unique perspective where he can see how different groups perceive each other.

When I hear academics talk about Christians, I typically think, That’s not quite right. I don’t believe you understand the people you think you’re disagreeing with. And when I listen to Christians talk about academics I have precisely the same thought.

Jacobs differs from Kahneman and others by saying that thinking involves much more than recognizing and fighting our inherent bias. He believes:

[W]e suffer from a settled determination to avoid thinking. Relatively few people want to think. Thinking troubles us; thinking tires us. Thinking can force us out of familiar, comforting habits; thinking can complicate our lives; thinking can set us at odds, or at least complicate our relationships, with those we admire or love or follow. Who needs thinking?

Here is Jacobs’ suggested first step how to address this taken from his Can Evangelicals and Academics Talk to Each Other? in The Wall Street Journal.

[T]here is a first step that all of us can take in resisting the hold of our Inner Rings and the reflex to push away our “repugnant cultural others.”

The Inner Ring that Jabobs refers to is from a C. S. Lewis talk titled “The Inner Rings” which describes our fear of being left out of our preferred social group, of being considered an outsider to the ingroup that we want to belong to. Jacobs’ discussion uses his term “repugnant cultural other” (or RCO) throughout his book. RCO captures how we tend to be repelled by those who disagree with us in politics, religion, or issues such as gun control.

Or another way to summarize his approach is:

The person who genuinely wants to think will have to develop strategies for recognizing the subtlest of social pressures, confronting the pull of the ingroup and disgust for the outgroup. The person who wants to think will have to practice patience and master fear.

I do disagree somewhat with Jacobs’ explanation why some people cast those who disagree with them as enemies worthy of being demonized and even disposed of.

When you believe that the brokenness of this world can be not just ameliorated but fixed, once and for all, then people who don’t share your optimism, or who do share it but invest in a different system, are adversaries of Utopia. … Whole classes of people can by this logic become expendable – indeed, it can become the optimist’s perceived duty to eliminate the adversaries.

I wouldn’t label people who think this way necessarily as optimists. I’d say they’re sadly lacking in objectivity. They’re not asking themselves why people who disagree with them could possibly take that position. I’ve seen this especially rampant here in Massachusetts among my liberal friends, where I’ve chosen in some cases not to get into arguments. I know a couple people who have quit talking to me simply because I disagreed with their support for Hillary Clinton as president. Having said that, I’ve also seen conservative, libertarian and Objectivist friends treat people who disagree with them in a less than civil manner.

Jacobs describes how each group creates their own keywords so that allies can easily understand each other while judging other people by their use of these keywords. (It reminds me of Arnold Kling’s Three Languages of Politics in which liberals talk in terms of oppressors and the oppressed, conservatives cast debates in terms of barbarism versus civilization and libertarians judge whether acts impede our freedom or coerce us.) As Jacobs correctly says, “keywords have a tendency to become parasitic: they enter the mind and displace thought.” After all, it’s easier to slap labels onto ideas we agree or disagree with than it is to objectively consider them.

Jacobs disagrees with the idealistic image of us as independent thinkers who reach our conclusions unencumbered by the influence of what others think.  “Thinking is necessarily, thoroughly, and wonderfully social. Everything you think is a response to what someone else has thought and said.” I’m sure we can find examples of people who indeed did heroically work out their ideas in isolation. Based on the summaries of the abundant psychological research I’ve read in the books on how we think, I do believe we are swayed by how our friends think and we tend to surround ourselves with people who tend to agree with us. I agree with Jacobs and others (like Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind) that despite our advancement from our caveman days we still are tribal in nature. However, I also believe that we can strive for objectivity if we follow Jacobs’s advice such as “when faced with provocation to respond to what someone has said, give it five minutes.” Or “value learning over debating. Don’t ‘talk for victory.’ ”

Before I close let me say that Jacobs doesn’t say we should never come to firm conclusions. “You simply can’t thrive in a state of constant daily evaluation of the truth-conduciveness of your social world, any more than a flowering plant can flourish if its owner digs up its root every morning to see how it’s doing.”

I believe if you take the steps Jacobs puts in his final chapter, The Thinking Person’s Checklist, you can still firmly hold and defend your opinions while also accepting that people can disagree with you. You can be secure in your beliefs without demonizing the other person.

At the beginning I said that I’ve read many books, not just on how biases can affect us. For a number of these books after I finish them I sarcastically ask, “Gee, how did the author shoehorn the contents of a three page article into a 300 page book.” By that I mean the author took an idea that made a good magazine article then expanded it into a book by adding filler and stories but not much else. Jacobs’ book sets an example of how to do the opposite: how to pack many ideas into a slim 156-page volume. His book could have been titled How To Think -- and Write.

How To Ace A Job Interview: 7 Research-Backed Tips

How To Ace A Job Interview: 7 Research-Backed Tips

The tips in this article are aimed at helping you interview better but a number of them apply to relationships and communication too. Be sure to follow the links to other sources. In particular look at these steps:

Be Similar To The Interviewer. This touches on mirroring the other person.

Frame The Conversation. “Optimize first impressions from the outset by framing the conversation with a few well-rehearsed sentences regarding how you want to be perceived.”

Feel Powerful. “People who felt powerful before going in to an interview performed better. … How can you make sure you feel powerful? Harvard researcher Amy Cuddy recommends doing a “power pose” in private before the interview.” Cuddy’s research showed that people who used a “power pose” before an important meeting performed better than those who didn’t. I’ve tried it and believe it works.

The 50 Best Social Psychology Books on Persuasion, Influence and Understanding Your Brain

The 50 Best Social Psychology Books on Persuasion, Influence and Understanding Your Brain

This is an interesting list of books. I've read 19 of them, seven of which fall in the top ten, so I'd say it's likely I'd like most of the other books he recommends. In case you're interested, I've read the following books on his list.

2.) Influence: Science and Practice

3.) Yes! (50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive)

4.) Thinking, Fast and Slow

5.) Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard

8.) Stumbling on Happiness

9.) Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us

10.) Predictably Irrational

11.) Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation

12.) Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die

23.) The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us

29.) Mindfulness

30.) Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior

32.) Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving

34.) What Makes Your Brain Happy (and Why You Should Do the Opposite)

35.) Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain

38.) Blink

44.) The Tipping Point

46.) How to Win Friends and Influence People

47.) Strangers to Ourselves

Winning Body Language Review

I've read a number of books on body language so when I started to read Winning Body Language I expected just more of the same. I was wrong. Mark Bowden, author of Winning Body Language, offers some different advice than the usual based on his own approach called the TruthPlane.

Bowden divides our body into different planes, each of which is best suited for different kinds of communication. For most presentations (and communication) Bowden recommends that our gestures stay in the TruthPlane, the horizontal plane extending from the navel.

If you can concentrate on sending out nonverbal messages that are easy for the receiver to interpret correctly – clearly coded, with congruent images and sound – then the audience’s brains stand a far greater chance of relaxing and getting your meaning in the way you intended.

The navel is indeed the control center of your physical balance and the center of your biological mechanism for coping with stress.

Placing your hands in the TruthPlane is the single most effective way for the business communicator to fight back effortlessly against the natural stress reaction and send out a clear signal to the audience that there is no problem.

While most of our gestures would occur in the TruthPlane Bowden also proposes other planes: PassionPlane at chest level for adding excitement, DisclosurePlane at the mouth level, ThoughtPlane (eye level) and EsctaticPlane (above the head).

All of these planes can be used at appropriate times while there is one plane, the GrotesquePlane (below waist level), where he says we should avoid placing our hands. Bowden claims this lowers energy. This contradicts advice I've seen in a couple other nooks which recommend dropping your hands to your sides when not gesturing. As a test I've paid attention to TV hosts who don't work behind a desk, politicians and actors. Many of them gesture mostly in the TruthPlane. I don't know if they were trained to do this or if they just do it subconsciously but my informal survey showed that many people use Bowden's TruthPlane.

He also suggests we use symmetrical gestures to make your message easier to process.

For a message that you send to stand the optimum chance of being interpreted correctly by the audience, it must be taken in coherently by both the left brain’s linguistic logic and the right brain’s nonverbal image processor. This means gesturing with more symmetry between the left side and the right side of the body.

Winning Body Language covers more than just giving presentations. It also talks about how to establish your territory in a room, how to break down barriers to communication and how to structure a presentation. While all of this information is good and useful I found the TruthPlane concept, the core of Winning Body Language, the part I apply the most. And that's the plane truth about the TruthPlane.

The Power Presenter Review

In earlier reviews I’ve recommended Jerry Weissman’s earlier two books, Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story, Updated and Expanded Edition and In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions...When It Counts. Presenting To Win shows how to structure and design presentations while In The Line of Fire gives advice on how to handle tough questions and answers. His new book, The Power Presenter: Technique, Style, and Strategy from America's Top Speaking Coach, fills a gap between the first two books: how to actually deliver the presentation. Like the first two books, Weissman’s latest is a worthy addition.

The Power Presenter offers advice I have not seen elsewhere. Most noteworthy is his recommendation for the presenter to think about how the audience is doing to shift the natural focus away from the “How am I doing?” concern that bedevils most presenters. While Presenting To Win talked about designing your presentation by constantly thinking how your presentation will benefit your audience, The Power Presenter tells the presenter to continuously ask how your audience is doing to counter-act the normal concern about how you, the presenter, are doing. This differs from the usual recommended solutions such as visualizing your audience naked or other tricks to distract you away from being concerned about how you are doing.

The Power Presenter also gives unique advice regarding eye contact and the use of pauses. Weissman tells us to make eye contact with one person in the audience, deliver an entire thought to that person, pause while moving on to another person in the audience then deliver a full thought to the new recipient. He contends this approach converts your presentation into a number of one-on-one conversations with the pauses allowing the audience to absorb your points while you take time to formulate your next thought. I haven’t tested this idea yet but I can see how this will make a presenter look confident. I definitely will apply Weissman’s ideas.

Weissman also takes a different approach on a key question every presenter asks: What do I do with my hands? The current thinking, based on a presentation skills class I took at work and observing TV personalities, is to hold your hands together at waist level in front of our body. Weissman instructs us to let our hands drop at our sides in a “touch-and-go position”. This means you drop your hands for an instant, gesture with one or both hands then drop back to the rest position. He claims this method provides several benefits. First, your hands have to travel a longer distance which makes your gestures more pronounced. Second, dropping your hands avoids the hunching of the shoulders produced by the “body wrap position”. Plus there are other benefits. And third, it opens your body to the audience, showing your confidence to face them openly as opposed to protecting your midsection with your arms.

I do want to comment that Weissman never says how he concluded why certain behaviors or gestures work. Is it based on empirical research? His own personal testing? He doesn’t say. His ideas make sense but I find his silence on this subject interesting.

I’m looking forward to using Weissman’s ideas. I’m sure they work if for no other reason than the impressive list of clients Weissman says he has worked with over the years.

How to say No: Update

Back on December 31, 2007 I posted a review of The Power of a Positive No and outlined their basic method of yes-no-yes. This means when faced with saying no to someone you first state your interest (the first "yes"), say your no (that you can't or won't do what is requested) then end with an alternate proposal (the second "yes"). I have been applying this since that review and can report that it does help in two ways. It helps me to resist doing things I don't want to while still maintaining a relationship if the request is coming from some with whom I have a continuing relationship.

Here is an example from work. A broker I deal with on my accounts asked me to remove something from one of our reports (while copying two of my account contacts). I said that my company policy wouldn't allow it even if I agreed with him but that I would investigate it further by discussing it with our technical expert. The key is that I offered to write an e-mail or letter that indicates that the recommendation in our report is our best advice but does not affect how we look at the account. The broker thanked me for the offer but said he was willing to wait to see what happened with our technical expert's review. I believe my explanation about being limited by company policy but willing to help if I could kept the broker on my side and left him willing to see how things play out. I think if I had left off the final "yes?" the situation could have escalated.

Made to Stick Review

Have you ever needed to make a memorable point? If you answered no then you must live by yourself, work in a job with no interaction with people, don’t have kids and aren’t married. For the rest of us every day we’re faced with making a point, asking for someone to do something, convincing someone of your position and so on. Some people do it better than others. A lot better. Why? What makes some people so effective while the rest of us struggle?

Chip and Dan Heath have studied this question and concluded that all of us can craft messages that “stick” by applying several principles which are explained in Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.) Being true to their own advice even their book cover is catchy: it has what appears to be duct tape across the front.)

Their formula for success is SUCCES.

S: Simple. Find your core idea and make it compact.

U: Unexpected. Find something unexpected about your core idea and communicate it in a way that keeps your audience guessing. You do this by focusing on what questions you want your audience to ask.

C: Concrete. Make it easy to understand by translating jargon into laymen’s terms. Too many times we slip into using our profession’s jargon and think everyone else understands our lingo.

E: Emotional. Your audience is constantly asking, “What’s in it for me?” Keep this in mind or you’ll lose them!

S: Stories. When possible wrap your message in a story.

This last feature - how to tell stories - has become a cottage industry. But this approach recognizes that we become more involved and receptive when listening to a story as opposed to a dry lecture or a litany of facts. (See The Secret Language of Leadership by Stephen Denning.)

The Heaths provide many examples and stories to support their principles. In the interest of keeping this entry short I have only reported the key points (in a fashion typical for an engineer).

Coming from an engineering background where the currency of the field is facts, facts and even more facts, I’ve come to appreciate the effectiveness of appropriately packaging and presenting these facts to improve how they’re received. The Heath’s advice is sticking with me.

How to say No?

How do we say No? Why is it so hard to say for many of us? Is there a way of saying no that respects our interests while respecting those of others? Many of us feel uncomfortable telling people no so we take several ways of doing it. Probably the most common way is to avoid saying no by giving in, thus making us feel bad about doing so and begrudging the person who put us into that spot. As one who tests as an Amiable in Social Styles I know it’s hard for me.

On the other hand we all know people who have no trouble saying no and seem to relish in it with the sensitivity of brass knuckles. (Fortunately, this group seems to be a minority.)

Are these the only ways of handling saying no? No! (There, I said it!) William Ury, who has written a number of books on getting to yes [Getting Past No and Getting to Yes] and directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University, tackles the flip side in The Power Of A Positive No.

His book lays out a three-step process consisting of 9 sub-steps. In essence his three steps are yes-no-yes. By that I mean:

1. Prepare by expressing your interests,
2. Deliver your no
3. Follow through by offering a yes that stays true to your interests while acknowledging theirs.

Throughout the book Ury also offers tips on how to word your no. “I won’t be serving on the committee. Thank you for thinking of me.” “I’m saying No now. Thank you.” As for offering an alternative yes, Ury suggests making a proposal that gives the other person a chance to say no to you. The idea behind this is “As Churchill realized, showing respect comes not from weakness and insecurity, but rather from strength and confidence. Respect for the other flows directly from respect for self. You give respect to others not so much because of who they are but because of who you are. Respect is an expression of your self and your values."

This last step – offering a counter-proposal - might seem to be controversial but to me it ultimately makes sense especially for on-going relationships. This proposal might be as simple as saying, “Thanks for the offer to work on this project but my plate is full. Maybe next time?”

There is much more to The Power Of A Positive No than I can cover here. Truth be told, I don’t have the 9 complete steps memorized. Maybe if I took a course on the subject all 9 steps would stick. But I can attest to the effectiveness of packaging my no’s in the yes (to my interests)/no (declining to agree)/yes? (offering an alternative) has worked for me. Plus, Ury’s approach is based on maintaining your objectivity, which appeals to me. By doing so you can clearly express your interests while respecting the other party. Being a proponent of passionate objectivity, Ury’s approach to saying no gets a big yes.

Presenting to Win/In the Line of Fire

Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story I know there are lots of books out there on how to make presentations. I’ve read many of them. Why single out this book? Because I found it provided useful, unique information. Presenting to Win constantly reminds us to keep the following thought in mind: what’s in it for the audience. Over the years of sitting in presentations I’ve seen all too often the “show up and throw up” approach. By that I mean the presenter tried to win the audience by throwing out every conceivable bit of information in the hope that something will strike a nerve. Presenting to Win by Gerry Weissman provides different advice. He presents four basic ideas.

1. What is your Point B? (What conclusion do you want your audience to reach?)
2. WIIFY What’s in it for you? (What benefits will your audience get, not you?) In other words every feature about your product or service that you want to present needs to be translated into benefits for the audience.
3. What are your key ideas? (He calls them the Roman Columns.)
4. What flow structure will you use?

In addition to his advice on flow and structure Weissman also suggests how to design slides using how our eyes sweep a slide. For instance, he recommends bar charts increase in size from left to right. A chart that decreases from left to right creates the mental image of decline which we would not want to use (unless, of course, your goal is to paint a negative picture).

Weissman also recommends using phrases that do not talk down to your audience. Use “As you recall” instead of “Like I said.” Or, “I think you’ll see that” is better than “We believe.”

The common theme is that everything, from the structure to design to delivery has to be geared to the audience. The advice might appear obvious but we often tend to get wrapped up into what we want to say that we lose sight of how the message is being received.

In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions...When It Counts

In the Line of Fire takes on Q&A’s, especially confrontational ones. While I found this book useful and different too, I do have a negative comment to get out of the way. This is one of those cases where it manages to squeeze a good article into a book. You know what I’m talking about. The content is enough to warrant a 10-page article. To fit it into a book the author has to pad it with lots of stories and filler. I’ve read books in this category where I felt it was not worth the money I spent. However, in the case of In The Line of Fire, the value of the core concept was worth the price and the padding. Weisman lays out a structure for answering questions. Not just questions at the end of a Q&A but handling tough questions in general.

Like Presenting to Win, Weissman advises us on how to phrase questions to show the benefit to the audience. He also recommends rephrasing questions using words like “what” (such as “What will we do to …”) or “how” (such as “How are we going to …”) which require more than “yes” or “no” answers and also do not admit to uncertainty or doubt about your being able to deliver. We say “How do we” instead of “How can we.” Rephrasing also strips out emotional words. The question “Why are your prices too high?” becomes “What is our pricing rationale?”

The key idea is how to slow down, think and structure your response first. Our normal reaction is to plunge into answering the question. Weissman says that we should buffer the answer from the question by rephrasing or restating it. This accomplishes three things. First, it buys you time to formulate your answer. Second, it lets you take the initiative by framing the question. Perhaps sanding the edges off of an antagonist question. Third, you can check whether you properly understood the question when rephrasing it by watching the questioner’s body language.

After the third step, which is to answer the question, you give your answer “topspin.” This lets you show your audience “what’s in it for you” and for you to get back on track towards your Point B, the message you want your audience to retain and hopefully accept.

I have been working on applying the key ideas from both books and feel they do work. I highly recommend both books.