NATIONAL UNIFICATION MADE SIMPLE

NATIONAL UNIFICATION MADE SIMPLE

Unification Following Comey’s Firing During His Russian Investigation

.

Comey is gone, but the national divide created over his Russian hack investigation has a unifying solution.  A strategy that unifies requires equals agreeing together to change their minds in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solutions.  The “winner takes all” tactic can achieve many goals, but unification is not one of them.  That approach rises out of the losing strategy of dominance.  Consequently, the goal should be to convince people to reexamine their beliefs and then change their minds.

.

.

Politics is not only local, but also deeply personal.  I have watched the strategy of dominance play itself out, repeatedly, on social media.  Changing someone’s mind is nearly impossible, even when an effective approach is used.  Unfortunately, too often both social and mass media waste their time and ours, dominating us corporately and individually with unpersuasive rants, without any pretense to sway our opinion.   

.

A Cornell University study contained in The Washington Post describes clues to look for when locked in a controversy with someone on social media.  The first discovery was that “if you haven’t convinced someone after four replies each, your argument isn’t gonna be the one to move them.”  They also found using less dogmatic language like ‘it could be the case,’ – is actually associated with more persuasive arguments.”

.

Other clues the study revealed were the type of personal pronouns used.  “The first person pronouns (“I”) indicate an opinion is malleable, but first person plural pronouns (“we”) suggest the opposite,”  Also, when a post expressed calmly and positively uses “words including ‘help’ and ‘please,’ and more adjectives and adverbs” indicates some degree of pliability.  On the other hand, the use of decisive “words like ‘anyone,’ ‘certain,’ and ‘nothing,’ and superlative adjectives like ‘worst’ and ‘best,’” are signs of stiffened unchangeable views, especially if the poster seem agitated.

.

“The researchers find that the factor most linked with successfully persuading someone is using different words than the original posts do – a sign that commentators are bringing in new points of view.”  It saddened me to read that, “Longer replies tend to be more convincing, as do arguments that use calmer language.”  I personally hate to write longer posts, not on grounds of persuasiveness, but because of time and deliberation, they require.  Not only that, but I’m usually in a hurry.  

.

Surprisingly, to me anyway, quotations and question marks don’t appear to help an argument, but giving examples does.  With that in mind, I beg you to stay with me while I cite some experts in the field of persuasive communications, then I’ll give a hypothetically political example.

.

Rebecca Webber of Real Simple Magazine provides the advice of five experts in “the art of gentle persuasion.”  I condensed them to their essential points.

.

1)    Try to dis­cover the interests and needs of poster.  That can help you come up with something that’s mutually agreeable.

2)    Don’t debate, but rather find a way to recast or reframe the person’s comment to cause them to think about things differently, you are far more likely to make a long-term impact. 

3)    The most persuasive tactic is to convince your opponent that the solution you want is really their idea.  (If anyone needs help with this one, ask my wife, Patsy.  She’s good at it.)

4)    To persuade successfully, you have to understand people’s situations and where they are coming from.  Really, that’s more than half the battle.

5)   “Cop to the Holes in Your Argument”

“When you are battling someone to win, you are not truly persuading someone.  It’s like that old saying, “One convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”  Instead, be up-front about the drawbacks to your argument and address them.  When you do that, you accomplish two things: You signal that you understand the full complexity of the argument; you’re not just regurgitating glib talking points.  And you show people that you’re honest.  Instead of giving only the points that make your case, you’re addressing the whole spectrum of argument.  This makes you more trustworthy and therefore easier to listen to.”

.

#6) Geoffery James, Contributing editor, Inc.com@Sales_Source, offers an additional principle to Rebecca’s list from his article, How to Change Someone's Mind.  “Contrary to what you might think,” Geoffery says, “providing evidence just isn't the right way to be more persuasive.”  He explains that once a decision is made, changing someone’s mind is an emotional rather than intellectual, thing.

.

I modified Geoffery’s dialog approach to sales instruction to illustrate unifying political discourse.  Obviously, it is an oversimplified interchange but it includes the above principles for opinion unification.  

.

UNIFYING THE RUSSIAN HACK INVESTIGATION

.

• Republican: "We've decided no independent counsel is necessary.”
• Democrat: "I'm sorry to hear that.  For my own understanding, could I ask you to explain why you've made that decision?”  (Seek Motive)
• Republican: "There is already an ongoing investigation, which has found no incriminating evidence.
• Democrat:  “There certainly is an attempt to implicate the White House in collusion.  If I were you, for that reason I would see no reason to appoint an independent investigating/prosecutor counsel ether.” (Agreement.)
• Republican:  (a bit confused):  "Oh.  You think my decision is right, then?""
• Democrat:  “Yes, you’re right.  I was also wondering if you considered the effect of lingering doubts about Presidential involvement if the Russian hack issue is unresolved?”  (Reframe.)
• Republican:   "No.  Because, further investigation opens the door for more false accusations.  Especially, when no evidence of collusion has been found."
• Democrat:  “I understand.  I ask because there is a way to assure the skeptics of no collusion, while resolving  the Russian hack issue, which does not include an independent investigation.” (Flexibility)
• Republican:  "But the intention of further investigation is incrimination not resolution.”
• Democrat:  "If we separate any incrimination from the investigation, would you be willing to reconsider?"  (Face Saving)
• Republican:   "Maybe.  Let's see what you've got." (Solution Seeking)

.

So, what might they work out together?

.

How about, a congressionally approved nonpartisan Assistant FBI Director finishing the investigation Comey was conducting.  Then, if and only if, compelling evidence warrants some type of subpoenas, a congressionally approved Assistant Attorney General could assume the role of Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the Russian hack investigation.

.

I hope the principles I submitted here, will influence the way you try to change minds.  Unification is worth the effort, because not only is it personal pleasing, but more importantly, it means national unification rather than national destruction.