I’ve finally finished The Persuaders: The Hidden Industry That Wants To Change Your Mind (2016), delayed by life and illness. If you are the sort that likes to look behind the curtain and see how things are done, especially those processes that most people don’t even suspect, and if they did they’d disapprove, then I can heartily recommend this book.
First, the author is James Garvey, PhD, listed as employed by the Royal Institute of Philosophy (his Wikipedia page says he’s the Secretary of that institution). In this book, he reveals how our urge, natural or not, for persuasion has been gradually circumvented by entities, usually corporate or political, seeking specific behaviors from the generic “us”, the citizens who have something of value they want, whether it be money, votes, or general inclinations.
His Preface gives his motivation for the book, a lecture he attended by an Oxford theologian in which, during Q&A, he lodged what he consider a “killer objection”. Did this bring the theologian to his knees? No. Garvey was simply ignored.
I began to suspect [argument and logical reasoning are] not even remotely how things actually go at all. I don’t want to overcook the point and suggest that arguments are entirely unpersuasive – but we might well over-estimate their hold on us. … I believe there is something newsworthy here, something worrying over and above all the obvious stuff, something just out of focus, on the corner of our collective vision. [p. xii]
Chapter 1 kicks things off with a little known story out of history: The Robin Hood Society of Butcher Lane, London. Created in the early 1700s, it consisted on members who argued, in a structured manner, the issues of the day. Some participated, others remained silent, enjoying the glory of the debate. Judging was strict and more or less objective In 1780, its activity abruptly became a fad, as the number of such societies escalated. Their endpoint, however, was detestable and worthy of loathing:
In the end, London’s flirtation with rationality did not last long. Largely in fearful reaction to the brewing French Revolution, the debating societies were violently repressed by the government — thugs were hired to break up debates, police constables blocked the doors, landlords were threatened with fines or worse, popular speakers were roughed up, and finally Parliament voted in the Seditious Meetings Act, effectively making public debate a treasonous offence. [p. 6]
An ominous comment on the nature of those on top.
From there it’s on to the current state of disputation: the goal, to win by any means necessary. Furthermore, he meditates upon the loss of the practice of reflection, referencing Bertrand Russell’s observation:
The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. [GoodReads]
His final observation?
So I think we have an obligation, maybe a moral one, to understand what contemporary persuasion does to us. It bothers me, and I hope that now it bothers you, too.
Chapter 2 covers public relations, including the infamous testimony to Congress prior to the American entry into the Gulf War, from an anonymous Kuwaiti girl, that Iraqi soldiers invading a hospital, taking the incubators, and leaving the preemies to die on the floor – a lie, as it turns out, formulated by a PR firm, and delivered by a member of the Kuwaiti royal family operating under cover. An unwary Congress bit on it, backing the war. He covers the history, which he begins at World War I, hitting the turning points, end with …
While I’m all in favour of education and democratic renewal … I worry that education and legislation might never actually manage to thwart an industry worth so many billions of dollars, an industry that’s better at ‘education’ than any university system, and an industry that specializes in ensuring that laws that might harm its clients’ interests never see the light of day.
Chapter 3 concerns tweaks and nudges, something many of us are familiar with in regards to our 401Ks, where the trend has been to make contributions to our 401Ks the “default setting,” rather than forcing us to actually go through the administrative work of setting up and contributing at firms which support 401Ks. Why? Research indicates people often go with default settings, as the recent Facebook debacle has highlighted.
Garvey also introduces us to the idea that we have two thinking systems. The first is the fast one, and is the one that is employed when, on a camping trip, the bushes rustle and you take off running. There’s no active, rational thinking, but rather the instinctive consideration that a mountain lion is about to leap upon you. What should one do? Run for your life. The second is the much slower, rational system, where we try to apply logic and reasoning to a situation. The goal of the Persuaders? To activate and manipulate the first system, leaving the second quiescent, through the use of keywords.
We also think we are much less vulnerable to manipulation than we actually are. Levine found that 70 per cent of those questioned said they were more aware than average of how manipulation works. 61 per cent said they knew more about manipulation than their peers.
Reminds one of those driving statistics, doesn’t? 70% of drivers think they’re better than average. These are usually the tailgaters and people who cut you off, aren’t they? So if you think you’re good at detecting manipulation, think again.
Chapter 4 works on the concept of social proof. Coins left in buskers’ cups, long lines at nightclubs, the people standing behind a candidate at a rally, and other faux clues function to manipulate you into thinking or doing something that you might not otherwise decide. He recounts the research that has gone into focusing social proof on all of us, some representative experiments, and that sort of thing. That free food that shows up at the supermarket? It’s not to introduce you to the product. It’s to induce feelings of reciprocity, so that you’ll buy something in return for their gift. And more. And more.
Chapter 5 explores the superior use of communications by various political parties, as compared to their opponents. Following Bush’s 2004 victory,
Democratic strategists found themselves consumed by insights from cognitive science and linguistics. … Not arguments, but the careful use of resonating turns of phrase was the key – words that evoked or fit into established worldviews were better heard and more strongly believed.
Framing the debate became key, and thus the presence of Frank Luntz, Republican strategist, researcher, and resource for many Republican candidates. Luntz says 80% of life is emotion, and that’s where he works. Thus the subtle appeals not to reason, but to emotion in Republican speeches – xenophobia, racism, and that sort of thing.
Garvey comments,
But even with this limited grip on political language, I now find myself turned off by political speeches. I don’t want to hear and be affected by them. Sometimes I look away and hum to myself when a politician appears on TV to respond to the news of the day.
This chapter also includes an appalling example of buzzword usage in England, which I will desist from quoting. It was quite enlightening, though, and I suggest that media refuse to broadcast messages in which the politician ignores the question in favor of answering their preferred question, or, worse, just employs buzzwords designed to elicit emotional responses. We saw the former just last week on The Late Show, when Cynthia Nixon completely ignored host Stephen Colbert’s question concerning her lack of experience in her run for Governor of New York. I was appalled, but the audience applauded, rather than booing her as they should have.
Chapter 6 gives the history and usage of persuasion in the retail world, from the days of Pompey and Herculaneum to today, including pivotal names, research, and processes. People who view shopping as a leisure or entertainment activity should read this and then hide in their bedrooms for at least a month.
Chapter 7 concerns data collection and analysis, which has been much in the news of late due to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and includes the amusing anecdote concerning the father of a teenage daughter who receives a coupon for diapers, is outraged, and then a week or two later discovers his daughter is, indeed, pregnant. The big retailer Target knew before the prospective grandfather. The subject of retail use of data for planning the layout of a store is explored in almost tiresome detail.
The final chapter returns to the honest subject of simple argumentation. Garvey gives a history, beginning with the poet Parmenides, who he labels the first to explore formal, reasoned debate, but,”… an awful poet.” From there, he covers the big Greek three of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, knocking down the relativists in the process, but his real purpose here is to remind us that we can be rational creatures making rational choices, so long as understand that manipulation occurs all around us.
He includes a fascinating view of his day as he tries to avoid being manipulated, identifying the various tricks used to separate him from his valuables, from money to inclinations to votes. It’s an illuminating trip, and he admits sometimes it exhausts him, as the brain needs to rest after so much effort – it is an organ like any other, after all.
So there you go.
Recommended.
How about you?
