Brandon_7_I

“We tend to cast ourselves as the hero or heroine and paint those denying our requests or obstructing our progress as villainous. It is easier to imagine our adversaries as dumb, stubborn, or lazy than to consider they probably believe they have a “good reason” for not cooperating with us and may even think we are the dumb, stubborn, or selfish ones.”

I think this is a good point. However, when we need to influence somebody to get them to say what we want them to say, I think there are other factors involved.

Portraying ourselves or our ideas as the hero may not be the best way to go all the time. The consequence of this may be the thought of us coming off as cocky or pompous.

I think that when we are in a communication situation where we somebody is trying to influence us, we naturally try to find a reason to oppose the person’s arguments… playing “devil’s advocate.”

So, when we want to influence somebody, a tactic might be to say the opposite of what we want them to say, just so that the person will play “devil’s advocate” and say the opposite of what we said, which is what we wanted them to say in the first place. I hope that’s not too confusing.

The same tactic is used when somebody is “fishing for compliments.” For example, I have a painting that I did that I think is great. Jane also has a painting. I approach her and tell her that I think her painting is better. Out of politeness, or by her playing “devil’s advocate,” she disagrees and tells me that my painting is better. I win. Sign on the dotted line.

I think the same type of tactic could be applied in a business situation, to a degree. But it cannot be overdone. Being able to “read” people plays a big part here. Each person that we communicate with must be dealt with in their own custom manner in order to sell them our idea.