If the professor says the material WILL BE or WONT BE on the test, you take a note, write it down, and you’re done with it quickly. On the other hand, when the professor says the material “MIGHT BE” on the test, it forces you to pay more attention for a longer, indeterminate time.<\/p>\n
When it comes to persuasion and public speaking techniques, people don’t think very long about what IS, but we all pay close attention to what MIGHT BE–especially when what “might” be is DREADFUL!<\/p>\n
The Unthinkable<\/h2>\n
What’s most\u00a0dreaded? Most unthinkable?<\/p>\n
Not long ago I was riding the sardine can (aka moving sidewalk) at\u00a0the airport, drowning out the claustrophobic commotion of a thousand\u00a0travelers by listening to\u00a0an audio book:\u00a0The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes<\/em> by Amanda Ripley.<\/p>\n Amanda Ripley creates what she calls the Dread equation:<\/p>\n Dread = Uncontrollability + Unfamiliarity + Imaginability + Suffering + Scale of Destruction + Unfairness<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n She’s absolutely right! Since she touched on so many scientifically proven principles, I want to take Ms. Ripley’s dread equation and apply it to public speaking techniques. If you want to influence more people, present in a more persuasive style, or just take your public speaking skills up a notch, use the dread equation.<\/p>\n The reason her dread equation works is because everything that creates “dread” is based NOT an what IS, but on what “might” be.<\/p>\n How many times have you felt nervous when someone else was driving–even though the driver felt completely in control?<\/p>\n In fact, isn’t that why many presenters\u00a0experience fear of speaking in public? Because they feel out of control?<\/p>\n Use this presentation technique to generate emotion in your listeners. Consider this internet headline:<\/p>\n Could a Trump presidency go wrong?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It’s playing on your lack of control over what Trump “might” do.<\/p>\n How about this insurance ad suggesting parents “might” die:<\/p>\n Of this planned parenthood ad suggesting a man “might” impregnate someone unintentionally:<\/p>\n Scare tactics? right? Yep. They–and pretty much ever other advertisement ever–want to make you feel like you are not in control. What “might” happen is out of your control. And that makes you pay attention.<\/p>\n Talking about “uncontrollability” is a technique I would categorize with the red “Anticipation” principle in my SpeechDeck public speaking skills system<\/a>.<\/p>\n The second\u00a0solenoid manifold on the quarter panel of your car’s engine caliper\u00a0is cracked.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you are familiar with auto repair, you know that the previous sentence is utter nonsense. If you are unfamiliar with correct auto part names, the mechanic can scare you about what “might” happen, just\u00a0by using “unfamiliar” terms.<\/p>\n Here’s Joe Biden at the Democratic convention in 2012:<\/p>\n What I don’t understand<\/strong> is in spite of that, he [Romney] was …\u00a0 it literally amazes me<\/strong> they [Republicans] don’t understand<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or as he said in 2016:<\/p>\n This guy [Trump] doesn\u2019t have a clue<\/strong> about the middle class, not a clue<\/strong>!\u00a0…\u00a0He has no clue<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I use Biden as an example because in nearly every speech he uses this communication tactic to paint the “other” as a group that is impossible to understand (unfamiliar). He gets credit for sounding “folksy” but he does this unfamiliarity routine so frequently, it’s clearly an intentional attempt at persuasion.<\/p>\n Trump draws obvious lines between “us” versus “them.” Biden does exactly the same thing using more subtle language. It’s the same scare tactic. The message from both sides is to be afraid of the unfamiliar, because you don’t know what the unfamiliar “might” do.<\/p>\n Sometimes the words\u00a0that appear most authentic (in Biden’s case) or or the most shocking and divisive (in Trump’s case) are actually the most carefully crafted manipulations.<\/p>\n The effect of what\u00a0Amanda Ripley calls “unfamiliarity” works because of the principle I call “developing relationships.” The in-group relationship you are promoting should be familiar, and the out-group relationship or antagonist should seem unfamiliar.<\/p>\n As long as your remarks are authentic and honest, you can\u00a0make use of “unfamiliarity” without any ethical qualms. When it comes to presentation skills, authenticity is the key to keeping persuasion ethical.<\/p>\n OR<\/p>\n Your breath might smell like a maggot infested rat carcass. Your back tooth will throb so badly\u00a0that you would literally grab it with a pair of rusty pliers and wrench it out by the root.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n “Gum disease” isn’t visual or sensory–rat carcasses and maggots are. When your example becomes sensory, people pay attention, understand, and remember.<\/p>\n In\u00a0SpeechDeck<\/a>,\u00a0I call the core principle “Engaging the subconscious.” The public speaking technique Amanda Ripley would call “Imaginability,” I call “Using visual language.”<\/p>\n Which is scarier, terrorism or influenza?<\/p>\n 20,000 to 30,000 people in the US die each year from the flu. About 160 die on average from terrorism. In other words, your chance of dying from just this one common virus is over 150 times higher than from terrorism.<\/p>\n According to federal government and CDC statistics you at 1,744 times more likely to die from slipping in your bathtub than from terrorism. 115 more likely to die from\u00a0lightning.<\/p>\n Don’t get me wrong. Terrorism is real a problem. This is not a political blog. I’m not arguing whether you should or should not concern yourself with terrorism.<\/p>\n I’m merely illustrating that we fear BIG things like nuclear weapons, terrorist attacks, and airplane crashes, but somehow small things like flu viruses, thunderstorms, and bathtubs seem benign.<\/p>\n If you want people to be afraid, make it BIG.<\/p>\n Make the scenario seem\u00a0out of control, unfamiliar, imaginable, big, and then if you want sympathy for your cause,\u00a0illustrate the unfairness. Show that someone “might” be cheating, and you’ll stir deep\u00a0moral reactions.<\/p>\n For more information on Dr. Haidt’s research check out his excellent book : The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.<\/em><\/p>\n What is more dreadful than a plane crash in which you have no control? A plane crash in which the pilot “might” have been drunk, or “might” have cheated in order to get his license.<\/p>\n In SpeechDeck parlance, pointing our unfairness is a way of “Empowering the Individual.” Instead of just presenting your argument, attempt to frame your argument based on the “unfairness” moral foundation of your audience.<\/p>\n Another way to empower the listener is by pointing out personalized consequences. One of those consequences is what Amanda calls “suffering.”<\/p>\n Imagine if you had to have your right\u00a0arm amputated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dreadful, right? But don’t worry, you will be drugged\u00a0by the anesthesia during the procedure. Right?<\/p>\n The doctor will put you under for the amputation–he thinks. BUT he didn’t give you enough! In actuality you will be paralyzed and conscious, unable to alert the doctor that you feel everything.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just add suffering. Stir. It increases the dread instantly.<\/p>\n Notice that everything in Amanda Ripley’s dread equation focuses on what “might” be true. It’s a dreadful concoction of fear mongering, negativity, and pessimism. All of that dread can be used in public speaking.<\/p>\n Remember, I said at the beginning of this post that if you are a positive person, you might dread what I say.\u00a0Unfortunately, all this negativity really works–really well.<\/p>\n![\"41xiceiurcl\"](\"http:\/\/michaelspeaks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/41xIceiURcL.jpg\")
<\/a>Admittedly, I’m a little late to the party. Amanda’s book was published way back in 2008. Nevertheless, her words line up so well with tried and true communication skills, that I had to share with you the simple way she summarizes “the unthinkable.”<\/p>\nUncontrollability<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nUnfamiliarity<\/h3>\n
Imaginability <\/em><\/h3>\n
<\/a>If you don’t brush your teeth you might get gum disease<\/p><\/blockquote>\nScale of Destruction<\/h3>\n
<\/a>A great communicator or presenter can\u00a0take advantage of the listener’s subconscious in another way–by talking about the extremes.<\/p>\nUnfairness<\/h3>\n
<\/a>According to researcher Jonathan Haidt, the morality of fairness and cheating can influence everyone on the political spectrum. Frame the “unfairness” in terms of equality to appeal to liberals or in terms of proportional consequences to appeal more to conservatives.<\/p>\nSuffering<\/h3>\n
The Dread Equation<\/h2>\n