Content advisory: opinions on ethical advertising, passing mention of personal mental health, and a naughty word or two.
Persuasion in a fact-resistant culture
Cognitive Dissonance is a tricky thing. You can craft a perfectly logical, fact-based argument, but if it contains information that the audience doesn't like, all the facts in the world don't matter.
The response is not to question one's own beliefs, but to disregard facts that contradict them1.
This is why narratives are so powerful. They're a tool, like anything else. They can be used for good, evil, greed, altruism... anything. But they're necessary in persuasion.
Necessary.
As someone who thinks about the ethics of persuasion a disproportionate amount, I think it's important to remember the power of stories. If you're on the receiving end of a story, I recommend taking a step back and trying to look at the facts. If you're trying to impart facts, I recommend employing a narrative to communicate them.
Wild Speculation: The advent of the memetic age probably has a lot to do with this. Memes tell a story. Just like political cartoons that draw an analogy by writing the names of things on their iconography, so too does the modern meme express ideas via rough contextual iconography. /Wild Speculation
Humans are herd creatures, and out instincts push us to be skeptical of new information... unless we're in one of those BLAZE ALL THE TRAILS moods.
Does this mean that facts have no value? Quite the opposite. If you aren't coming from a factually robust place, you're selling snake oil: and will come back to haunt you. Narratives aren't an excuse to go full-on SalesBro and push vaporware on your audience.
Not only is that unethical2, it's also terrible strategy. You'll destroy your long-term positioning, as well as immediately shut down anyone who's critically thinking while engaging with your message. Some of those folks will be opinion leaders3, and guess what? They’ll tell stories to their friends: stories about how full of crap you are. It’s just not worth it.
Teenage me was fond of saying "if you hold beliefs that you haven't questioned down to their core, you don't hold those beliefs. You're just doing as you're told."
When I eventually realized the immense hypocrisy of me saying that without questioning my own beliefs, it wound up with me radically uprooting my beliefs, the structures and communities I was part of... it was destructive. Wonderful, but hardly harmonious.
Bottom line? This shit's hard. So if we're trying to do something gentler - like say, inform dental patients of the benefits of a computer-guided implant surgery - we can't just hit'em with facts and trust that to be enough. Those facts need context.
A Narrative.
Humans tell stories. It's what we do.
Okay, but what about neurodivergence? Not every brain works the same way, Killstring.
Legit! My own weird brain chemistry issues (anxiety etc.) are a fine example. That said, I'm not really an expert on the topic, so I don't want to just run my mouth and make assumptions. But if your audience is engaging in a more evidence-based, factual analysis of your argument, well... your argument is factually robust, right?It had better be.
Narratives are not a substitute for content. Once more for the sales team in the back: narratives are not a substitute for robust content. Brand management is relationship management: let's not sabotage ourselves for a quick fix.
In other words...
Don't burn a bridge just to look brighter in the moment.
~Killstring
- The study that sparked this ramble. Text of said study.
- Yeah, I said it. Fight me.
- Two-Step Flow theory of communication. Wikipedia's got a dope overview.
x
