Previous Next

According to Grant, influencing others to rethink their opinions is a skill that can be learned. To prove his point, Grant analyzes the way a debate champion, Harish Natarajan, was able to out-argue his opponent, a computer with unlimited access to data. The human debater found areas of agreement with the computer and used those as a springboard from which to undermine the computer’s argument. Grant suggests that this collaborative approach, where shared values are recognized, is more likely to succeed than an adversarial approach. If a person demonstrates open-mindedness by acknowledging where they agree with their critics, they have a greater chance of getting others to revise their views. Coming across as a preacher or a prosecutor, says Grant, is less effective than showing a scientist’s level of humility and curiosity. 

By studying the psychology of negotiations and observing his own experience, Grant learns that “logic bullying,” the practice of bombarding someone with logical arguments, seldom changes minds. Grant likens a good negotiation to a dance rather than a fight. Like the champion debater, expert negotiators prepare their cases by finding common ground. Another successful persuasion tactic is to present only a few strong reasons in support of a case. Too many reasons will water down the strongest argument and overwhelm listeners. Successful negotiators seldom go on offense or defense. Instead, they express curiosity through asking questions. This method is effective because it gives those in the audience the freedom to change their own minds. Grant asserts that these techniques, used together, encourage listeners to abandon their overconfidence and engage in rethinking. The more anger and hostility an interlocutor expresses, the more curiosity and interest a negotiator should show. Communicating opinions with some uncertainty, says Grant, signals confident humility and invites curiosity. 

In Chapter 6, Grant explores effective ways to persuade individuals within communities to rethink communal opinions and beliefs. He uses the example of Daryl Davis, a Black musician who was able to persuade some white supremacists to rethink their prejudices, to illustrate that even deeply entrenched group mentalities can be changed. He also examines effective strategies to persuade Boston Red Sox fans to reconsider their prejudices against fans of their bitter baseball rivals, the New York Yankees. When fans were assigned to reflect on the arbitrariness of their stereotypes, their animosity dwindled measurably. A key step in getting people to rethink stereotypes is to encourage counterfactual thinking: helping them consider what they’d believe if they were living in an alternative reality. Counterfactual questions such as “how would a New Yorker’s stereotypes be different if he’d been born in Boston?” invite people to reconsider how they view other groups. A study of people on both sides of the abortion debate revealed that counterfactual thinking caused a measurable lessening in hostility between the two factions. Grant suggests that if people are encouraged to reflect on the arbitrariness of their opinions, they sometimes come to find their stereotypes and the beliefs that underpin them as absurd.

Read more about Main Idea #2: How individuals can influence others to rethink.

In Chapter 7, Grant explores how the practice of motivational interviewing can inspire others to rethink. To illustrate his point, he describes how a woman from a community that is resistant to vaccinating was persuaded to inoculate her newborn after talking to a “vaccine whisperer.” This man, a local doctor, didn’t preach, prosecute, or get political when he talked to parents about vaccination. Instead, he interviewed them. Grant recommends motivational interviewing when dealing with individuals who are resisting rethinking. Since giving someone advice rarely motivates them to change, a better strategy is to help them find their own motivation to change. Motivational interviewing involves asking open-ended questions, engaging in reflective listening, and affirming the person’s desire and ability to change. This technique, says Grant, isn’t limited to professional settings but can be used in everyday interactions. Unlike giving advice, motivational interviewing guides people to self-discovery, making them more likely to try to change.

In the second half of Chapter 7, Grant discusses the skill of influential listening, claiming that listening well is not just a matter of talking less, but also a matter of asking the right questions. To illustrate his point, he recounts the story of Betty Bigombe, a Ugandan politician who, in the early 1990s, was able to convince a warlord to listen to peace talks simply by taking the time to listen to him. Listening well starts with showing genuine interest in the other person’s opinions through questions that don’t mask a hidden agenda to fix, save, advise, or convince. A skilled listener and motivational interviewer resists the “righting reflex” and instead shows curiosity and confident humility. Through this process, people are often inspired to rethink their opinions and to generate their own solutions.
 

Previous section Part 1: Chapters 1-4 Next section Part 3: Chapters 8-10

Take a Study Break