Column for week of November 3, 2014 In prior columns we have considered that everyone always makes the choices they believe will be the most satisfying. We also considered forcible obstruction and punishment as ways to prevent or discourage others from making the choices they believe will bring the most satisfaction. Now we will consider using persuasion to influence others to alter their choices. Back to the candy bar example. Suppose Erwin is about to eat his candy bar. Fred wants to persuade Erwin to refrain from eating the candy. There is only one way Fred can succeed. He must convince Erwin that he will gain more satisfaction from refraining from eating the candy bar than from eating it now. Fred might convince Erwin that he will gain the most satisfaction from giving away or destroying the candy bar. Perhaps Fred only convinces Erwin that he can increase his satisfaction by postponing eating the candy. If Fred's goal is to stop Erwin from eating the candy bar, the latter result buys Fred more time to pursue his goal. If Erwin still believes the most satisfying thing he can do is eat the candy now, he will start chewing. We might give a thought or two to why Fred wants to keep Erwin from eating the candy. The bottom line is that Fred expects to gain satisfaction from persuading Erwin to refrain from eating the candy bar. Not only that, Fred also believes that in his present circumstances the most satisfying thing Fred can do is try to persuade Erwin to not eat the candy. If Fred believed he had an option that would bring him more satisfaction, he would forget about Erwin and the candy to pursue the more satisfying option. How might Fred gain satisfaction from keeping Erwin from eating the candy? Perhaps Fred believes candy will be bad for Erwin. Fred might gain satisfaction from doing a good deed. Possibly Fred hopes to get the candy from Erwin. Fred might gain satisfaction merely from convincing Erwin not to eat the candy. The possibilities are nearly endless. Only Fred could know the real reason. He might not be honest enough with himself to even recognize his real motivation. Fred could make a serious and honest argument to Erwin. Also, Fred could make an emotional appeal. Outright lying and fraud are other possibilities. The bottom line is that Fred must somehow influence Erwin to expect more satisfaction from passing up the candy than from eating it. What really happens to Erwin's satisfaction in the long run is irrelevant to the choice Erwin will make. He has only his expectations to guide him when he chooses. The consequence of the choice may influence future choices and Erwin's confidence in Fred. Trying to influence the choices of anyone for any reason is subject to all of the same limitations and pit falls. It generally isn't easy to convince most people to change their expectations about satisfaction. Often people don't even try using persuasion to influence others' choices about what is satisfying. Instead, they cry out "there ought to be a law." Saying there ought to be a law is usually an appeal to force, violence and threats thereof. A law is merely an order from government that is meaningless if not backed by the threat of forcibly decreasing the satisfaction of the violator. The law could offer a reward for certain changes, such as a bounty for killing foxes. An individual could offer the reward without any law. When someone appeals to government to offer a reward they are asking government to use force to collect the money to pay the reward. So far in our search for ways to influence others in the choices they make while pursuing satisfaction, we haven't found anything that promises great success. Next time: Trading for satisfaction. aldmccallum@gmail.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright 2014 Albert D. McCallum
Considering the issues of our times. (ADM does not select or endorse the sites reached through "Next Blog.")
Monday, November 10, 2014
Persuading Others
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment