From the author: This is what we will talk about: Barriers against which all your arguments can be broken… “The probability barrier”: what it looks like… The “probability barrier”: typical mistakes in overcoming… Don’t do that! “Home statistics” doesn’t work! “You need to explain it to him so he understands”... Don’t, he already understands! “The barrier of significance”: what it looks like... Typical mistakes in overcoming the “barrier of significance” are essentially the same. Irrationality - the way to overcome the “barriers of probability and significance” Do you know why they say “Love is blind”? About the technology of forming attraction - the subconscious state of falling in love. About teaching psychotechnologies for the subconscious state of falling in love. WHAT TO DO WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE YOUR RIGHT? Here's what we'll be talking about: Barriers that all your arguments can break down... The "Probability Barrier": what it looks like... The "Probability Barrier": typical mistakes in overcoming... Don't do that! "Home statistics" doesn't work! “We need to explain to him so that he understands”... No need, he already understands! “The barrier of significance”: what it looks like... Typical mistakes in overcoming the “barrier of significance” are essentially the same. Irrationality is the way to overcome the “barriers of probability and significance” You know, why do they say “Love is blind”? About the technology of forming attraction - the subconscious state of falling in love. About teaching psychotechnologies for the subconscious state of falling in love. Barriers against which all your arguments can be broken... Psychology describes two psychological barriers against which any evidence, any arguments are broken - this is the “Barrier of Probability " and " Barrier of Significance ". How can you see that this is a rationally insoluble situation, and - most importantly - how can you still convince your interlocutor (if it is impossible to prove)? This will be discussed in the coming articles. Let's start with the “Probability Barrier” - first what it looks like, and then how to overcome it…. “The probability barrier”: what it looks like...Example 1. A mother, taking her son out for a walk, tells him to put on his coat: “Put on your coat, because it’s cold outside and you can catch a cold.” (“Put on your coat” is a thesis that the son must ultimately accept. But since the mother is not sure that the son will accept this thesis a priori, she reinforces it with the argument: “... because it’s cold outside and you can catch a cold.” )—I won’t catch a cold.—And I say, you will catch a cold.—I won’t catch a cold, Mom.—Well, what are you like, really. They tell you if you catch a cold, that means you will catch a cold! Please put on your coat.— ................... Here the partners disagree in assessing the probability of the occurrence of an event - a cold: one believes that this is unlikely (“I won’t catch a cold, mom"), and the other considers the occurrence of this event to be very likely. There is a “Probability Barrier” (see Figure 1). It is also clear why this situation is a rationally unsolvable situation: the evidence and arguments given here do not work. Everyone knows well how such conversations end: with metal in the voice, forceful pressure like: “Otherwise you won’t go for a walk.” But we are interested in how mom can get her way... - Yes, it’s very simple, author... if you don’t force him, then prove that he will catch a cold if he doesn’t have a coat... What’s easier... - Do you think so? Let's see... Theoretically, you can prove the connection between low temperature (if without a coat) and a cold by presenting your opponent with statistical material (statistics show a pattern), showing that with a combination of low temperature and a light jacket ("without a coat", i.e. at low temperature ) the likelihood of a cold occurring is quite high. Let’s say this: “Statistics show that in 92% of cases the combination of these two factors (low temperature plus a light jacket) causes a cold.” This is what they do, for example, in science when it is necessary to prove a high probability of the occurrence of an event. But in this situation, the mother does not have this kind of statistical justification (by the way, just as the son in such cases cannot give the same justification for his position - “ there won’t be a cold.”But! The burden of proof lies on the one who convinces!) And it turns out that there is no way to resolve this contradiction (between mother and son) in a rational way (through evidence). - So this is understandable, author, how to explain to a child about probability... - Sorry, my dear opponent, the mother is not trying to do this, because she does not have evidence in the form of statistical material. And as for your remark that it cannot be proven because her opponent is a child (that is, he is still illiterate in matters of statistics, in matters probability), then here is another example for you - this time with adults... Example 2. A manager calls a subordinate to him and asks him to urgently draw up such and such a document (for example, a report for a higher organization). - I ask you to urgently draw up this document. (The manager’s message consists only of a thesis. Probably the manager did not assume that the subordinate would not accept this thesis.) - What are you saying, N.N., I already have a lot of work today! (The thesis, contrary to the expectations of the manager, was rejected.) - But if you don’t do this, our department could be in big trouble, we could be deprived... (Finally, the manager brings up the argument “there could be trouble.”) - What are you talking about, N.N. ., Nothing will happen! (The argument is not accepted.) - And I say, there will be troubles (remember? - “And I say, you’ll catch a cold”), and not only for me, but also for you (an argument is used for the personal interest of the partner. But he, as it turns out, ignores this “additive”) - No, no one will notice in this confusion that they don’t have this material. - Well, what kind of you are, really. They tell you that there will be troubles, which means there will be!— ……………And in this quite life-like situation, there is a discrepancy between the partners in assessing the likelihood of an event (“trouble”) occurring: according to one, “trouble” will come with highly probable, in the opinion of another - this event is unlikely. There is again the “Barrier of Probability.” If we do not resort to a “forceful” solution, then theoretically, to prove that they are right, each of them would have to present statistics on the frequency of coincidences of “failure to provide materials” and “trouble.” But naturally, neither one nor the other has such statistics. It turns out that in this case it is impossible to prove that you are right. A situation of rationally insoluble contradiction. “The Probability Barrier”: typical mistakes to overcome... Don’t do it! "Home Statistics" doesn't work! Opponents of forceful methods still try to present statistics like: “Misha didn’t listen to his mother, walked without a coat and caught a cold,” but in response, the same convincing “statistics”: “And Kolka walked without a coat at all and didn’t catch a cold”; or: “I’m telling you, there will be trouble. The year before last there were troubles in the neighboring department because of the same thing,” and in response: “And Fedotov also didn’t write this certificate - and nothing.” Dead end. “We need to explain to him so that he understands”... No need, he already understands! Here is the most typical sentence from their listeners: “In such cases, it is necessary to explain to the interlocutor so that he understands” (that he may catch a cold; that there may be trouble for the department, etc. .P.). But even a child knows that cold air (when without a coat) can lead to a cold, not to mention adults, for whom it is obvious that if the authorities discover the absence of a document, there will be trouble. There is no need to explain this, because everyone knows it. And although the mother said: “Well, how can you not understand that you will catch a cold if...” - but in fact, the child understood this. The son understood that from his mother’s perspective he could catch a cold. But - only from the mother’s position! So the discrepancy was not explained by a lack of understanding, but simply by a different assessment of the probability of the occurrence of a “cold” (“trouble”). - So, author, we just need to explain this to them! - Excuse me, but how can we explain the magnitude of the probability? Not what probability is (after all, this can be explained to a child, albeit with examples), but to explain the magnitude of the probability - how? It is possible to justify the magnitude of the probability (with the same statistics), but to explain it - how?it turns out that it is impossible to eliminate the disagreement caused by the “barrier of probability” in a rational way - through explanation. Because in such situations it is impossible to provide evidence of your rightness (and references to precedents do not give anything). In one word - “a rationally insoluble contradiction.” - And what now - complete hopelessness? - If possible, do not rush to conclusions yet. The author did not talk about another type of situation, the name of which is “significance barrier.” “Barrier of significance”: what it looks like... As a model of this barrier, he uses a slightly adjusted dialogue between mother and son. Example 1. A mother, sending her son for a walk, says: “Put on your coat, because it’s cold outside and you can catch a cold.” “It’s not cold!” - No, it’s cold, only five degrees. - Is it really cold?! - Well, how else can I explain it to you?! Since I say it’s cold, it means it’s cold.— — (see 2nd picture) Example 2. A manager asks a subordinate to urgently draw up such and such a document: — I ask you to urgently draw up this document. (Thesis, already known to us.) - Why, N.N., I already have a lot of work today. (Also a well-known reaction.) - But if you don’t do this, our department could be in big trouble! (Let’s interrupt the dialogue in order to remind you: in the first version of this example, as you remember, the disagreement between the partners was caused by their different assessment of the probability the onset of an event (“there will be trouble” - “there won’t be”) In this version of the example, events take a different direction.) So what, they’ll scold you, well, they’ll punish you, that’s nonsense; but instead, we will finish it to the end... and maybe we will also be rewarded! - For you, this reprimand is nonsense, but I have no use for it at all. Everything “doesn’t matter” to you. - So what! You can be patient. But maybe we’ll do something that will make everyone gasp! “You won’t do anything, but they’ll deprive us of our bonuses!” It’s all nonsense to you!— From this dialogue it is clear that this time the subordinate does not deny the likelihood of unfavorable events; this time there is no “barrier of probability” between the partners. But there is no agreement either, because there is another barrier between them - due to different assessments of the significance of the consequences: for one of them, a reprimand is almost a disaster (or maybe he has a high sensitivity of the nerve center of punishment - this happens); for another, the same reprimand is of little significance (probably, he has a greater reserve of “psychological strength” than his partner, which is characteristic, for example, of the period of early adulthood. But this is a question about genesis, an interesting question, but not ours yet). Typical mistakes in overcoming the “significance barrier” are essentially the same. How can the boss prove to this subordinate that the reprimand is serious? And is it possible to do this, if we take into account that his interlocutor is not a child at all and knows (understands) the possible consequences of a reprimand, and if we take into account that the interlocutor “does not care” about these consequences and are not significant for him? - But maybe the author, increase the value of the thesis (the importance of drawing up the document)? - It’s possible, but it’s not necessary, because, as we have seen, someone who is subordinate to the subject (the importance of the document) does not argue (otherwise he would say something like this: “Yes, all this is nonsense - write such papers. Who needs them now?”, etc.). The disagreement between them lies elsewhere - in the significance of the adverse consequences, and not in the significance of the document. - But then, perhaps, correct the position of the subordinate and change his view of the significance of the “reprimand”, for example, scare him more strongly with the consequences, huh? But how to eliminate Is this a discrepancy between partners - a discrepancy in the importance of one or another factor? “Explain to your partner what this means for so-and-so” - this is our listeners again insisting on the importance of “understanding.” But how, excuse me, can you explain that +5° is cold? Especially for a seven-year-old child - how? Yes, and to an adult... Just as it will not be possible to “explain” significance, value, since these parameters are very, very subjective. For much of what is significant or not significant for a person (valuable or not)valuable), are the result of the educational process, since education in the narrow, proper sense of the word is the formation in a person (a child) of a certain system of relations to the world around him, a certain system of values ​​and anti-values ​​(“this is good, and this is bad”, “this important, but this is not important”, etc.). Attitudes formed in childhood in adulthood are practically not amenable to rationalistic correction. And even long hours of discussion, more and more new arguments will not change what was formed in childhood. Not hours, not days, but years will be needed for such discussions in order to ultimately change such values, the system of “significances.” Years are allotted for this for teachers, educators, but not for a businessman persuading a banker, not for a manager persuading a subordinate, and even not a husband who convinces his wife to buy a car rather than a set of furniture. Agree: it is now necessary that the son put on a coat before going for a walk; it is necessary now to convince the employee that the document should be ready by tomorrow morning; it is necessary for the patient to begin doing therapeutic exercises from today (in extreme cases, from tomorrow); it is necessary for the person under investigation to tell about his accomplices not in a year, but as soon as possible (and he has formed the blocking value “not to betray his own”); it is necessary for the customer to buy “in my store” this coat, and not that one, since that one is for youth, and “Your age, excuse me...” (and the customer has another dominant value - to attract attention to herself in any way)... Irrationality is the way to overcome “barriers of probability and significance.” In all these and similar situations of “rationally insoluble contradictions,” a rational way to eliminate the discrepancy is possible only theoretically, but in practice, in real situations of persuasion, especially in the activities of professionals, movement along such a path is at least unprofitable, and more often - simply impossible. And then it involuntarily comes to mind: it means that we must use something opposite - a non-rational, i.e. irrational way, a way of influencing feelings, not the mind, the subconscious, not the conscious. In psychological science, special techniques have been developed for influencing feelings. The effectiveness of these techniques is based on one of the laws of the psychology of persuasive communication - the law of acceptance (internal agreement) of the position of the interlocutor: “All other things being equal, people more easily accept the position of the person towards whom they have a positive attitude (from simple respect to love), and vice versa - it is more difficult to accept (even reject) the position of the person towards whom there is a negative attitude.” Do you know why they say “Love is blind”? Do you know why they say “Love is blind”? – Because this law of persuasive communication works: when a person is in love, he accepts everything unconditionally (of course, he is truly in love, like when he was 17 years old). Do you want your interlocutor to unconditionally accept your position? Use the law of psychology of persuasive communication - make this person fall in love with you. What, is it difficult? So this is for non-professionals... And professionals know the methods of forming attraction - methods of psychologically attracting a person to themselves. Another thing is important: so that you know when without these methods of attraction it is simply impossible to convince. - So, maybe, author, you can still tell me what these methods are? About the technology of forming attraction - the subconscious state of falling in love - I will definitely tell you and, perhaps, not only tell you, but also teach you. Moreover, half of the book describing the psychotechnologies of persuasive influence (“How to convince that you are right. Modern psychotechnologies of persuasive influence”), which was written as a textbook for the course “Modern psychotechnologies of professional communication,” is devoted to them. And so that this information does not look like an advertisement for a book, I make a proposal: if you are interested in these techniques, write to the author about it and I will publish excerpts from this book here in the form of articles. For now, I’ll say: the principle of making people feel good about you