In the 2020 election, one thing is clear… Minorities (African Americans, Latinos, Jewish, etc.) are converting from Democrats to Republicans in record numbers. People like Bill Whittle, Candace Owens, and especially Trump himself are proving we can turn increasing numbers of traditional democrats into conservatives.
In this article, I want to reveal to you a terrific and simple method for converting more traditional democrats into conservatives.
17th-century philosopher, Blaise Pascal provides the KEY…
Pascal is perhaps best known for his formulation of “Pascal’s Wager” (the first formal use of decision theory) in which he argued that believing in God is the most logical decision. There are 4 possibilities, he argued…
- Pray and there is no God
- Don’t Pray and there is no God
- Don’t Pray and there is a God
- Pray and there is a God
Pascal argued, if there is no God, then whether we believe or not makes no difference (i.e. no “consequence”) but if there IS a God, then not believing has dire consequences.
Thus the safest “bet” is to believe and pray!
Well, it turns out that Pascal also set out the most effective way to get someone to change their mind, and experimental psychological studies of modern day have backed this up!
Pascal said, “People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others”.
In other words, BEFORE telling someone they’re wrong, FIRST tell them they’re right!
Simply put, before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right and THEN lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord.
I myself have been in sales and marketing for over 30 years and I have trained sales people to use this very effective technique.
Say, for example, that a customer comes up with an ‘objection’ (i.e. a reason not to buy) such as, “well we want to shop around some more” or some such. Typically, the sales person might come back with something like, “well we have a ‘lowest price’ guarantee” or “trust me, you won’t find a better deal”… Now you are in a ‘tug of war’ with the customer and the more you press, the more the customer ‘doubles down’ and resists! Result?…
NO sale.
Here’s the better way to handle the situation…
Customer: “We want to shop around”
Sales person: “Of course!… I feel the same way… We all want to know we’re getting the most value for our money right?… What if I could save you all the time and effort of shopping around? ….. Well we have a ‘lowest price’ guarantee you see…”
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.
By acknowledging where someone is right, and then leading them to an alternate view, you allow them to come to their own (changed) conclusion themselves, rather than needing to “defer” to your stated view.
Happy converting!
4 replies on “17th Century Philosopher Provides a Killer Technique for Converting More Leftists to Conservatives? Yes!”
The technique you describe is indeed effective. A good technique to add is called “steel-manning,” where you intentionally do you best to show that you understand what your opponent is saying so that you’re not arguing against an inaccurate version you’ve come up with through misunderstanding (a straw-man).
It has been known for centuries, however, that Pascal’s Wager is a poor argument for the existence of God. For example, the simplest argument against it is – which god are you going to bet on? Pascal says that it’s the Christian god you must bet on. But if you bet on the Christian god and the true god is Zeus, you lose. Since there’s no way to prove which god is the only correct one, it’s a bad bet. In other words, taking a betting approach to theology is no good.
Yes good point re “steel manning”…In sales, when a customer comes up with an objection (i.e. a reason to not buy) the sales rep should 1) express understanding to validate the customer, 2) restate the objection to show understanding (“steel manning” as you say) then rebut and reclose… Same technique can be used to win arguments…or more accurately… win someone over to your point of view.
On God, yes, Pascal assumes a single God… Given the multiplicity of gods to choose from, and that they are mutually exclusive, yes in reality there is no winning bet to be made…Even if we restrict ourselves to Christianity, there are still too many to make a safe bet…Our only hope is the true God is merciful and accepts us even if we ‘choose’ the ‘wrong’ “God” but with a good heart.
Good points!
Point well made! I too feel that working from a point of common ground works best. That’s why I think you’d also agree with this lovely counterpoint argument … just kidding.
I do! 😉