I have often said the most powerful idea today is a conversation. Conversation can change the way people see the world, break down barriers, generate new solutions, help people understand themselves better, etc. Today I’ve spent my day having conversations with interesting people.
I mentioned the book I’m reading – A Whole New Mind- and the challenges of convincing strongly rational managers of the merit of emotion. In essence it’s the perennial challenge of influence – how do you get people from where they are to where you want them to be! Lester coined the term ‘the stroke of normality’. An over-focus on the rational is normal but ignores one half of your brain. It’s like suffering from a stroke. Except, the victim doesn’t acknowledge that there has been a stroke!
It clarified and reminded me of the confusion between starts and ends. Although it’s always great to have an end in mind, often we make the mistake of starting to influence at the end. By talking about where we want to end – eg. the case for using emotion. As opposed to starting at the start – eg ‘were you aware you’d had a stroke?’
All influence starts with your audience’s acceptance of the problem.
I quite agree Bernie.
On a related note, I recently had an interesting conversation with my Dad where I put forward the idea that the scientific method has been extended (by many people, but ny no means all) beyond its original purpose and has become something of a religous doctrine.
To my mind, the scientific method is very good at certain things, figuring out how the universe works for example, but should not be the be-all-and-end-all of any decision.
The example that brought this up for me was a conversation I had with a colleague about the placebo effect and Maori health funding. His approach was that is was hokey, and if it really woked it would work for everybody.
My approach was that if it worked for them (even if it was the placebo effect) then why not fund it. It doesn’t matter why it works so long as it works.
Some people are so identified with their mind, and have such a rigorous belief in the scientific method (as a belief system) that they are blind to anything outside of that. They forget that the strictures of the scientific method are there to test scientific truth, not to limit one’s view of what is possible.
Matt, along those lines, John Ralston Saul’s ‘Voltaires Bastards’ is a great read. It’s about the dictatorship of reason in the west and how we are driven more by what the answer should be, rather than what’s actually happening. The current response to the economic apocalyse is a case in point. Rather than examine the underlying assumptions and create a new model, it’s about preserving the old model (ie Borrow+spend=Growth=Goodness