Our life basically consists of words. We're either thinking, talking, or dreaming, and all of those usually include language. So it's unbelievable, after being so used to words and basing my life around them, to realize that they can be a lie. By using rhetoric we can completely alter our words, and then everything becomes a lie.
It's not only by being subtle that we are able to manipulate people with our words, but also by changing our verb-tense. If we use past-tense rhetorically, it's called forensic and its purpose is to place blame. When we use present-tense, it's called demonstrative and it's used to discuss values. And finally, when we use future-tense, it's denominated as deliberative and is utilized when referring to choices.
So evidently, when trying to change somebody's mind, it is best not to use forensic. Sentences as simple as "Where you the one who left the light on?" not to mention "You left the light on," automatically make their audiences raise their guard. Subconsciously, with sentences like these, people feel victimized and become pretty defensive. So the best way to reach an agreement is definitely not through blame.
Sentences in present-tense, though not as anger-awakening, are not the best way to reach an agreement either. They simply either state or question somebody's morals. "Do you approve of abortion?" or "You approve of abortion,"are just phrases about somebody's values and beliefs. It's not trying to convince them of anything, so it will do barely any good when it comes to persuasion.
However, there's deliberative, and that one is they key to have someone do things your way. Instead of focusing on the past or the present, this technique allows you to focus on the short and long-term benefits your choice would bring. "You would be able to carry out a much safer lifestyle and spend more time with your family." Don't you think this statement in the future-tense does a lot more to convince someone to move than these would: "I don't understand why you chose to live under such dangerous situations," or "Are you comfortable living this way?" With the first one, the person will obviously feel blamed and will not feel inclined to agree with you. With the second one, if the person answers "no", then s/he will start rethinking and consider your choice, but if s/he answers "yes,"it automatically put an abrupt stop to your argument.
Just by knowing that conviction is easier with the help of the use of deliberative rhetoric, everything becomes so much easier. It simply consists on implying that as long as your choice is supported, the future will be better. If I knew this before, this could have helped me with so many conviction situations I failed at. It could have aided me in getting my parents to buy me toys when I was younger, as Nanda explains in her own blog entry, or even to persuade my parents to let my go to certain places or do things they're reluctant to allow me to do in Bogota (like walking through the streets). But now, after learning this shot and simple, yet very beneficial trick, I'll be sure to use it and do my best until I get it to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment