Kevin

Why do we find it so difficult to persuade others?

A question for coach Bart Provost.

Bart

Well, essentially, to put it very simply, you cannot persuade anyone. And that sounds very strange, of course. Because most people have this idea of: wait, I have persuaded someone often enough in my life to dare to think that I can indeed persuade someone.

Now, psychologists have known this since the 1970s. A lot of research has been done on it, but it is usually only taken seriously when neurologists get involved, as they do nowadays. And they have actually discovered in the brain that there is a certain spot—you could call it the argument shredder—that completely shreds every argument if it does not align with, or—and this is an important addition—does not seem to align with what the other person believes or finds important.

Kevin

So you are actually saying now: every argument you give someone to persuade them, they simply throw away.

Bart

If it does not align with what is important to that person. Or if they are, in fact, convinced of the opposite.

Kevin

Okay.

Bart

And the joke is that even the very best argument, scientifically substantiated arguments, the absolute, ultimate truth, something that can indeed be realized very pragmatically, and so on, is simply, casually, shredded by the other person’s argument shredder. So actually, the brain of the person you are trying to persuade is the biggest obstacle at that moment. So it is immediately shredded, immediately thrown in the trash, not considered true, and people then simply come back with their own arguments again.

Kevin

Of course, you don’t get very far if both of you are doing that.

Bart

No, that’s right.

But there is a possibility to do something about it. There is also a second part in the brain. That can inhibit or switch off that argument shredder, as they so beautifully call it. So yes, at that moment, if an argument comes in that aligns with or—and now it gets interesting, of course—seems to align with what the person you want to persuade finds important, or what fits with that person’s values, then that argument shredder will be turned off. And that is, of course, a very nice piece of knowledge. The art, therefore, consists of not—as the gentleman shows here—stuffing someone’s throat with a, well, let’s call it a foie gras strategy of arguments. It is precisely about first listening very carefully to what is important to the other person.

We actually have an adage: two ears, one mouth. Why did Mother Nature give us those? Precisely because we should actually listen first to what someone else says, rather than unloading all those arguments ourselves. And then, at that moment, you will actually also get the explanation of what the other person finds important. Even in their counter-arguments, even in their resistance, they will reveal a bit of what they already believe in and why they believe in it. What is important to him or her. And then, at a certain point, you can actually share your own story.

Now, wonderful experiments have been done with, among others, wine experts, oenologists, who were asked to taste two very different bottles of wine. A very expensive bottle of wine and a much cheaper one. But the wine was poured into each other’s bottles. And then they were put under a brainstem scanner, or a brain scanner, rather. And then they actually… At that moment, they saw which parts started to light up, so what that argument shredder is. And so they were given the low-quality bottle, the low-quality label, but with the very good wine inside.

And what did they get at that moment? They got a number of arguments—color, aroma, taste. Well, that was naturally not what they expected. So what they then started to do was to rationalize what was wrong: well, gosh, hm, it’s better than I expected, but well, yes, for a small brasserie somewhere in a village, this is okay as a house wine.

So actually, the arguments that they, as wine experts, should have recognized were simply shredded. And at that moment, one particular part of the brain was also seen to light up intensely.

Conversely, they were given the very good bottle, the very good label. Immediately, that piece of the argument shredder was inhibited, was turned off. And they got three arguments—color, aroma, taste—and what turned out? It was naturally not what they expected, but there too they started to rationalize again. And it was like: yes, this is not the best year, probably, but well, it is from a very good house. They actually started to rationalize a number of things. And with many stories added about what the reason could be why it didn’t taste the way it was supposed to taste.

Kevin

And how do you handle that in practice, if you really want to persuade someone? And you know what is important to that person.

Bart

Then it actually becomes a very fine matter of finding the common ground between what you are proposing and what the other person finds important. And you could describe that as a piece of empathy. Very often people have a problem with that, with that empathy.

Kevin

But can you make that very concrete with an example?

Bart

Yes.

Imagine someone goes to the bank and they are, for example, handing in a transfer form. And the bank employee says: well, it would actually be better if you arranged your payments online. We will give you a little device, you insert your card, you type in your code, then you can in all safety…

“Safe? Oh, absolutely not! Safe? With everything I read in the newspaper, of course it’s not safe.”

That is an initial resistance the customer gives. They do not want to be persuaded. But because of that, you know that the customer, at that moment, finds safety important.

And then it is actually about a very beautiful exercise, and there are wonderful techniques for it, to actually go along with a person and go along with their reasoning. So showing empathy, maintaining the ‘rapport’, as it is so beautifully called. If you maintain that rapport, then you actually go along with the reasoning of the man or woman opposite you, without having to agree with it in terms of content. And then you say: yes, but I understand, with everything you read in the newspaper these days or hear on television about hacked accounts. Yes, of course it is the case that you find safety important or that you have doubts about it. And that is precisely why it is important that…

And then you actually build further, with your own reasoning, on what the other person has said.

Kevin

And that is how you get past that shredder?

Bart

Yes, that is one way, linguistically speaking. There are more, of course. That is just a one-sentence technique, but you can go much further by showing real empathy. And empathy happens here. This is sympathy, that is empathy. By showing real empathy, you say: everyone has a right to their own opinion, everyone has a right to their own fears, so the person here in front of me has absolutely every right in the world to hold their own opinion. But what is important then?

And then you actually use that connecting piece of communication…

That means, in the first place, asking a lot of questions. Asking questions, open questions: what does that mean for you? How does that actually make you doubt, for example, that safety? How do you see it happening? In what way do you think the team can perform more efficiently? What makes you think that…, and so on. So asking very good questions. And then you actually get a lot of information. And then you can see to what extent there is a match with your own proposal. Between what you want to convey to the other person and what might be received by the other person in that way.

Kevin

Extremely interesting Bart, thank you.

Bart

Thank you.

Kevin

And you at home, thank you for watching.