0:00

M. This

0:02

is Mesters in Business with very

0:04

Renaults on Bluebird Radio

0:08

this week on the podcast. I know I

0:10

say this all the time, I have an extra special

0:12

guest, but man, I

0:14

have an extra special guest. Professor

0:17

Robert Sheldini, author of

0:19

Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion,

0:22

is back. Professor Sheldon's

0:24

books have sold more than seven

0:26

million copies. Influence

0:29

is on a ton of people's

0:31

top book list, including

0:34

none other than Charlie Munger of

0:36

Berkshire Hathaway. I

0:38

wish we had another three hours. I had so

0:40

many questions. I was taking notes furiously.

0:43

You can hear me writing and typing in the

0:45

background. We I wanted to circle

0:47

back to so many things he brought up.

0:49

There's so much to talk about. Really,

0:52

it needs about eight hours. We

0:54

were lucky we had him for well

0:56

over an hour talking about

0:59

you know, most people when they

1:02

expand a successful book, they

1:04

do a light touch up. This new book it's

1:07

double the size of the original. It

1:09

absolutely is practically

1:11

a brand new book. Look for the blue

1:14

and gold cover if you want to make sure you're

1:16

getting the edition. I

1:19

found the conversation to be nothing short

1:21

of of fascinating and spectacular

1:24

and I think you will. Also, you

1:27

will hear my thought

1:29

process of do I just stay with this

1:31

topic, do I get to the next question? Let

1:33

me circle back? And of course you run

1:35

out of time. There's there's I literally

1:38

had forty more questions to ask him,

1:41

plus all of my notes and and unfortunately,

1:44

you know, these podcasts aren't nine hours long.

1:47

But you will find this to be absolutely

1:50

fascinating. He is an intriguing person

1:52

and just so knowledgeable about

1:54

why people do what they do and how

1:57

we influence each other in

2:00

including some of the ethical considerations

2:02

of that. Let me stop babbling

2:04

with no further ado. My conversation

2:07

with Professor Robert Chaldeini, author

2:11

of Influence, the Psychology

2:13

of Persuasion. This

2:16

is Master's in Business with very

2:19

renaults on Bluebird Radio.

2:22

My extra special guest today

2:24

is Dr Robert Chaldeini. He

2:27

is the region's Professor Emeritus of

2:29

Psychology and Marketing at Arizona

2:31

State University. He is the author

2:33

of books that have sold more than seven

2:36

million copies, including

2:39

Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion

2:41

and Persuasion, A Revolutionary

2:44

Way to Influence and Persuade.

2:47

His new and expanded version

2:49

of Influence is just out

2:52

Robert Chaldini, Welcome back to

2:55

Master's in Business. Thank you, very

2:57

good to be with you again. Same. I've been

2:59

looking forward to this for a while, and I

3:02

have to start with, you know,

3:04

my my something

3:07

version of Influences, the skinny,

3:09

little dog eared

3:12

paperback. The new

3:14

book is I don't know, it's probably

3:16

double in size, it's bigger, it's it's

3:18

expanded, it's more in depth. How

3:20

much of this book is new

3:22

and different compared to either

3:24

the original or any of the prior revisions.

3:27

We added two hundred and twenty

3:30

new pages, so

3:32

it's almost like a new

3:34

book. It's we didn't just append

3:37

two d and twenty pages. We uh

3:40

integrated the new material

3:42

into the existing material,

3:45

because the existing material

3:47

still UH fortunately stands,

3:51

and we wanted to emphasize

3:53

new directions, new UH

3:56

information, new examples,

3:58

and specific new

4:01

ways to harness those principles.

4:03

One of the things we got as feedback

4:06

on previous editions is, you know,

4:08

Professor Sheldy, we we understand

4:11

those principles of influence,

4:13

We see their utility and

4:15

business, but can you give us

4:17

the exact words that we can use

4:20

to ignite them,

4:22

to activate them in

4:24

a particular situation. So there's a lot

4:27

more of uh, specific

4:29

things to say, specific

4:32

scripts to use, specific sequences

4:35

of information to provide

4:37

that allow you to uh

4:40

uh to be the benefit of those

4:42

powerful sources of change.

4:46

But quite interesting, I have

4:48

to go back to the original

4:50

book and ask you a question

4:52

that you know, just grabbed

4:54

me when I first read this and

4:57

in in the beginning of your research

4:59

for ins LUNs, which really

5:01

dates back to you as a grad student, you

5:04

spent a few years working undercover

5:07

at places like used car dealerships

5:09

or telemarketing firms. Tell

5:12

us a little bit about the genesis

5:14

of influence, you

5:16

know. I started working as a

5:19

academic research psychologists

5:21

social psychologist, studying

5:24

my passion, which is persuasion

5:26

and social influence in a laboratory,

5:29

using college students as my subjects

5:32

for the most part, and learning some

5:34

important things I think by being able

5:37

to structure an environment

5:39

in which we were able to test exactly

5:42

the question that we were

5:44

interested in um in a rigorous

5:47

way. But I quickly began

5:49

to see that I was limiting myself

5:52

in recognizing how

5:55

we could generalize the results

5:57

that we got from college students

5:59

in a lab. A tory to the influence

6:02

wars that are being fought all around

6:04

us every day, in which people

6:06

are trying to move us in a particular

6:08

direction, and we're trying to move others

6:10

in a particular direction. What's

6:13

the evidence of what works in naturally

6:17

occurring interactions

6:19

between people that cause one

6:21

person to say yes to another?

6:24

And it seemed to me that there were

6:26

professions whose business

6:28

it is to get others to say yes

6:30

to them, right, they must know

6:33

what works, otherwise they would go out of

6:35

business. So I began

6:37

to take training undercover in

6:40

as many of the influence professions

6:43

as I could get access to by

6:46

UH signing up to be a

6:48

trainee. So I would learn

6:50

what they had learned that got

6:53

people to say yes in a variety

6:56

of these professions. So I learned

6:58

how to sell automobile from

7:00

a lot. I learned how to sell insurance from

7:02

a desk. I learned how to sell portrait

7:05

photography over the phone. But I didn't

7:07

stop with sales. I learned how

7:09

advertisers, as and

7:12

and copywriters get

7:14

people to say yes from an

7:16

ad they write. How how charity

7:19

solicitors get people to give

7:22

funds and donations to particular

7:24

causes, How recruiters

7:27

get people, not just arm

7:29

service recruiters or business

7:32

uh you know, corporate recruiters

7:34

get people to move in their direction.

7:36

What do cult recruiters do? Right

7:39

and down the line? I looked

7:42

for what were the commonalities

7:44

that worked in each of these various

7:47

professions that everybody

7:49

said, do this, do

7:52

this thing because it

7:55

enriches us if

7:57

you do so. Tell us some of

7:59

the common analities, what phrases

8:01

and thoughts and influence

8:05

programs for lack of a better

8:07

word, because I think sales training

8:10

is the wrong description. What

8:12

was the common thread in all of these

8:14

different entities. I was

8:17

shocked at how small the footprint

8:20

was. I only counted

8:22

six universal principles

8:24

of influence that were recommending

8:27

in each of these um

8:30

influence professions. The

8:32

first is reciprocity.

8:35

People say yes to

8:37

those they owe. So

8:41

one thing you can do is give first,

8:44

give something of value to people,

8:47

and they will stand ready

8:49

to give back to you when you

8:51

ask for something, not

8:53

necessarily directly in return,

8:56

but down the road. If you give them

8:58

um information that's

9:00

a value for them, You give them

9:03

something a favor

9:05

or a service for free, and

9:08

then uh, the

9:10

it's their turn, They're

9:13

much more likely to say yes

9:15

to you in return. There's a

9:17

lovely little study it done in a

9:19

candy shop. Right if

9:22

the manager gives a little

9:24

piece of chocolate two

9:26

people as they come in as

9:29

a sample, they're forty two

9:31

more likely to buy candy. Right

9:35

now. The key is you

9:38

might say, well, maybe they just like the

9:40

chocolate, so they bought some more. If you look

9:42

into the data, the great majority

9:44

didn't buy any more chocolate.

9:47

They bought something else because

9:50

it wasn't what they had received.

9:53

It was that they had received.

9:56

So I always advise if you go into

9:58

a situation where you want to be more influential,

10:00

Let's say you're in a new situation, maybe

10:03

a new organization or setting,

10:06

and there's a group of people you want

10:08

to be influential there. The

10:10

first question to ask is not to look

10:13

around that room and say, who can

10:15

most help me here? The first question

10:17

is home can I most help

10:19

here? So show up with donuts

10:22

and coffee the first day, and and it will

10:24

pay dividends. Those people

10:26

will stand on the balls of their feet

10:30

ready to give back to you. I

10:32

remember a couple of years ago we started

10:35

getting solicitations through the mail

10:38

for some charity

10:40

where they included a dollar bill

10:42

in the mailer, and you say, wow, that looks

10:45

so expensive, And I remember they used to do

10:47

it. I might have been the Heart Association

10:50

used to send return receipt

10:53

stickers for you to put on a

10:55

piece of mail you were sending out, so you had

10:57

your name and address. But this was the

10:59

next level. And then you stop

11:01

and think about it. Well, between the stamp and the

11:03

envelope and the printing and putting it together,

11:06

the dollar may be the cheapest part of

11:08

it, but still that has to

11:10

have an impact on people who open up an

11:13

unsolicited letter and there's a dollar

11:15

in it. Right. Here's

11:18

the thing. You can't send the dollar back,

11:20

right right, So

11:22

you keep it. And as soon

11:24

as you've kept it, the rule of reciprocity

11:27

that's been installed in you from childhood

11:30

that says you must not take without

11:32

giving a return kicks in. And

11:35

the American Veterans

11:39

Association gives that

11:41

little pack of uh

11:45

gummed address labels in

11:47

there. Right, it increases

11:51

donations.

11:53

That doesn't surprise me at all, because not

11:55

only does my wife use them,

11:58

but I imagine every time she pulls

12:01

out that role of shiny

12:03

gold return addresses

12:05

and pulls it off she remembers,

12:08

Oh, this came to me from this group,

12:10

and it it has to be, it has

12:12

to be a nagging motivation that

12:14

I should really reciprocate

12:17

their generosity. You know, I

12:20

get these pins at

12:22

various conferences and so on that have

12:25

some sponsors name on

12:27

them and so on, and and

12:30

uh, you know, Uh, they're

12:32

so trivial. I hardly pay attention

12:35

to them, and they usually go in a drawer with

12:37

fifty other pins. Right, But

12:39

I went to one conference, all

12:42

right, I was a speaker, so

12:44

they knew who I was and

12:47

they put my name on

12:49

the pin. Jeez, what

12:52

was the impact of that on you? So

12:55

that's one of the accelerators

12:57

of the proof. Not only should you give first,

13:00

which is kind of different from the new usual

13:02

business exchange where we say to people,

13:05

you buy our product, you sign

13:07

our contract, and we will give back

13:09

to you exactly what you hope

13:12

for. That means they have to go first.

13:15

Rule for reciprocity says you go first

13:17

anyway, and if you give something

13:19

personalized to the individual,

13:22

right, the

13:24

rule for reciprocity immediately

13:27

becomes more muscular. That

13:30

pen. I carry it around

13:32

with me because it's

13:34

got my name on it, and every time

13:36

I look at it, I see my name on

13:38

one side of the pen and

13:40

the sponsor's name on the other side of the

13:42

pen. Just like your wife remembers,

13:45

I remember that they gave me

13:47

this pen personal

13:50

gift, not just a a

13:53

universal gift, the gift to everybody.

13:55

That's one of the keys to accelerating

13:58

the power of this principle. You

14:00

know, after our first conversation,

14:03

I think that was two years ago, I

14:05

got a lot of email from from

14:07

different people, but the one

14:09

that really stood out to me was

14:12

from a fan of yours, Bob, and he

14:14

said, you were burying

14:16

the lead in your insight

14:18

about reciprocity, and he

14:21

believes that reciprocity

14:23

is even more powerful than

14:26

you suggest. So I have to ask you two questions

14:28

about this. First, have you ever heard

14:30

this concept? Has anyone ever told

14:32

you, hey, you're not emphasizing reciprocity

14:36

enough, and and what are your thoughts on on this

14:39

idea of his? Yes, I

14:41

think he's right. Uh,

14:44

it is so fundamental

14:47

that it appears in every human

14:49

culture. There's not a single

14:51

human society on earth that fails

14:54

to train its members in reciprocity

14:57

from childhood. You must not take without

14:59

giving him turn. You must not take

15:01

without giving and return. In

15:03

every language, we have very nasty

15:06

names for people who don't abide

15:08

by that rule. We call them moochers

15:11

right who take without giving a return

15:13

or or or or uh

15:16

um. We can call

15:18

them various things like

15:21

like that, spongers, or takers,

15:23

or ingrates or teenagers.

15:27

To be honest, nobody

15:30

wants to be labeled like that. So

15:32

people always give back to

15:35

us. And in

15:37

keeping with what your listeners

15:39

said, UH, I

15:42

have in the new

15:44

book got language

15:46

to help uh

15:49

help us employ the situation

15:52

in places where we used to drop

15:54

the ball. How many

15:56

times have you heard somebody say, Barry,

15:59

thank you so much for this. That

16:01

was really great. You really helped

16:03

me out. And what do you

16:05

put in the moment after genuine

16:09

thank you right where the rule for reciprocity

16:12

dominates that situation, I'll tell

16:14

you what I used to say, don't

16:17

worry about it. There was not a big

16:19

deal. Big deal would

16:21

have done it for anybody. My pleasure, my

16:23

pleasure. It's not your pleasure.

16:26

You went beyond I

16:28

know that I went above and beyond it. I

16:30

went to some effort to do it, and then I just

16:32

slap it out the window with the back

16:34

of my hand. So here's what

16:37

I say. Now, one

16:39

of two things. If that

16:42

individual is somebody who

16:44

I have a long term relationship with,

16:48

I say, of

16:50

course, I

16:52

was glad to do it. It's what long term

16:55

partners do for

16:57

one another. I put

16:59

it on the map. I don't

17:02

deny it, I don't dismiss it, I

17:04

don't diminish it. I

17:06

say, it's what long term partners do for

17:08

one another. And now when

17:11

I need something from that individual,

17:13

you know, to turn something around more quickly,

17:16

and so I could whatever the issue is,

17:18

right, they'll move heaven and earth for you.

17:21

Yeah, they'll Now let's

17:23

say you don't know that person,

17:25

it's the first time, and

17:27

you've done something above and

17:29

beyond the call for this person. They

17:32

say, thank you, that was

17:34

great. Very Here's what

17:36

I think I would say in that moment.

17:39

Look, I was glad to do

17:41

it. I know that if the situation

17:44

had ever been if the situation

17:46

were ever reversed, you

17:49

do the same for me. Once

17:51

again, we don't diminish it. We

17:54

just say you play by the rules.

17:56

I know you. Look, I

17:58

know you'd played by the rules. And

18:02

let's be careful not

18:04

to say if the situation

18:06

had been reversed, you

18:09

would have done the same for me. That's in the

18:11

past. If ever happened in the

18:13

in the past, what you do, what

18:15

I say now is if

18:17

the situation were to be reversed,

18:20

I know you would do the same for me. So

18:22

you're planting the seed perspectively

18:24

as opposed to referencing

18:27

what already took place in the past. I'm

18:29

planting the seed, and I've cultivated

18:32

the earth before I planted. It's almost

18:34

like it's pre suasion, exactly

18:36

right. So we're

18:38

talking about reciprocity

18:41

on a micro level. And

18:43

some of the examples that you reference

18:45

in the book social Etiquette,

18:48

gift giving, handshakes, the Golden

18:50

rule, um, things like collaboration

18:53

or even collusion. But what about

18:56

reciprocity on a macro level,

18:59

and some examples include the

19:01

Martial plan or open

19:03

immigration policies. How

19:06

does macro reciprocity

19:08

work. It works remarkably.

19:10

It goes back to the Magna Carta

19:13

in fact, where you know the British

19:17

statement of how we govern

19:20

now. One of the one of the

19:22

features of it from I

19:24

think the twelfth century said, if

19:27

we're in a war with another

19:29

country. If our

19:33

people are representatives

19:36

who are selling our commercial representatives

19:38

are people who are selling in their country,

19:41

or you know, if they are

19:43

protected, then we have to protect

19:46

their foreign citizens

19:48

who are in our country. It

19:50

explains something that I'm

19:53

old enough to remember that the Cuban

19:56

missile crisis back

19:58

in the early sixties when

20:01

the world was on pins and needles,

20:03

because the

20:06

US had found that Russia

20:09

Soviet Union at that time had

20:11

sent guided missiles

20:13

and put them in Cuba and pointed

20:16

them to the United States nuclear missiles.

20:19

Well, John F. Kennedy

20:21

was president at the time, confronted

20:24

Cruscheff, head of the Soviet Union

20:26

at the time, and demanded that they

20:28

be removed otherwise

20:30

there would be war. And

20:33

said, We've set up a blockade,

20:35

so any Solviat

20:37

ships that are currently coursing to

20:39

Cuba to continue to add

20:41

to the nuclear stockpile

20:44

there, they would be stopped, right

20:46

And Cruisia said, if you do that,

20:48

that's an active war. If not any

20:51

war, it was a nuclear war

20:53

that was estimated

20:55

to eliminate one third

20:58

of the population on Earth.

21:02

How did they get out of it? Well,

21:04

the the story

21:07

was that Kennedy

21:10

was so steadfast, so steely,

21:12

i'd so resolute

21:15

that he refused to back down.

21:17

And eventually Kruscheff

21:19

blinked and removed

21:22

his missiles from Cuba and

21:24

the US one, and Kennedy built

21:26

his reputation as an

21:28

anti Soviet leader.

21:32

That increased his popularity.

21:35

Would there have been some new documents

21:38

released recently from the

21:40

Kennedy library that showed

21:42

that it was not that at all. It

21:44

was reciprocation. Kennedy

21:49

promised to remove

21:52

missiles from Turkey that

21:54

we're pointed to the Soviet Union

21:57

if Kruscheff would remove miss

22:00

from Cuba and

22:02

required that Kruscheff not

22:05

tell anyone about the

22:07

reciprocal exchange

22:10

because that would weaken his political

22:13

Kennedy's political position at

22:15

home as somebody who

22:17

compromised with the Soviets.

22:19

And so what happened was the

22:22

rule for reciprocity was

22:24

suppressed as the true reason.

22:28

Instead, stubbornness was

22:31

elevated. The thing that

22:34

actually would have created

22:37

a war was elevated

22:39

to permanence as

22:42

the reason we got out of it. It was the opposite.

22:44

It was reciprocity that

22:47

exists in all human cultures.

22:49

That's what got us out of the Cuban missile.

22:52

So there's a whole another conversation to be

22:54

had about why

22:57

politicians have to hide what really

23:00

happened and present such a strong

23:02

face. I'll hold off on that, but

23:05

I have to ask you a

23:07

question about evolutionary

23:09

biology because you

23:13

said reciprocity and a

23:15

lot of the rules of influence show

23:17

up in every single culture

23:20

on earth. So is this

23:22

a learned behavior or

23:24

is this really written in

23:27

our genetics as social primates.

23:30

This is something that only

23:34

humans have. In terms of

23:36

future reciprocity. There

23:39

will be some exchanges, cooperative

23:42

interactions between uh

23:44

infra humans and within

23:47

their species right there, they

23:49

can cooperate, but the idea

23:51

of getting something and

23:54

having an obligation to

23:56

give into the future, only

23:59

we have that, and it's mostly,

24:02

in my view, socialized

24:04

into us rather than evolved

24:08

into us. Now, I'm not going

24:10

to take a clear stand

24:12

on that, but for the most part, in

24:15

my view, the reason

24:18

it exists, and we have

24:20

those nasty names in every

24:22

human culture for people who violate

24:24

the rule, is that if we have

24:26

a society where people give

24:28

and take and cooperate and

24:31

exchange, the society

24:33

thrives, it flourishes. So

24:37

that's why it's socialized

24:39

into us. I think primarily quite

24:42

fascinating. I have to start

24:44

with a quote from

24:47

the new version of the book that that I

24:49

found quite fascinating.

24:52

Quote. Essential assertion of this book

24:54

is that our choice of what to say or do

24:57

immediately before making an appeal

25:00

significantly affects its persuasive

25:03

success. But there's a related choice

25:05

that occurs even before that one. It's

25:08

whether on ethical grounds to

25:10

try to attain success in

25:13

such a way. That's the beginning

25:15

of chapter thirteen. Discuss why

25:17

you thought it was important to dedicate

25:20

a big chunk of the book to this. Because

25:23

the principles we talk about in the book

25:26

our dynamite, and

25:28

we've got possession of dynamite, so

25:31

we have to use it ethically. We

25:34

can use these principles

25:36

for ill, or we can use it for

25:39

them for good. And the

25:42

clear recommendation is

25:45

if we use them in an

25:47

ethical, responsible way,

25:50

we build relationships, We build

25:52

long term, sustainable

25:55

exchange histories

25:57

with people, and that can hinues

26:00

into the future. If we use it

26:02

to to exploit

26:05

or deceive or course people

26:08

into change, we may get

26:10

that change in the immediate

26:13

situation, but we've we've

26:15

essentially um

26:17

created an adversary, Uh,

26:19

somebody who resents being

26:23

pushed or tricked into

26:25

assent. So uh.

26:28

In fact, Richard

26:30

Taylor, Nobel Laureate,

26:34

in in one of the

26:36

endorsements for the book, here's

26:38

what he says about the book.

26:41

There's dynamite here. Please

26:44

what use what you learn with

26:46

care? That's a very wise

26:50

thing for him to say, not surprisingly

26:53

it's Nobel Prize winner. It's

26:56

the ethics of the process that are so

26:58

important to producing long

27:01

term relationships that continue

27:04

to pay off for us. You know, I

27:06

mentioned earlier that you had

27:08

gone undercover at car dealerships

27:11

and charities and insurance sales

27:13

place. There's a line that has

27:16

always stayed with me from the book, which

27:18

is, quote, the number one

27:20

rule for salespeople is to

27:22

show customers you genuinely

27:24

like them. Why is this so important

27:27

for a salesperson to demonstrate

27:30

affection to a customer

27:32

or a client Because people

27:35

like those who like them.

27:38

And now we're into the second principle of

27:40

influence liking that. Uh,

27:43

it allows us to be more influential

27:46

if we can arrange for people

27:48

to feel a sense of rapport, sense of

27:50

liking for us before we begin

27:52

the process. We're halfway

27:55

there, already to assent

27:57

before we even deliver the

27:59

re asked or the recommendation

28:02

or the proposal. And

28:04

uh so, one way to do

28:07

that is to turn the

28:09

rule that I always heard in every

28:11

one of these training programs

28:14

on its ear. They we were always

28:16

told, if you want to get somebody

28:18

to um say yes

28:21

to you for your request or proposal,

28:25

get them to like you, right,

28:28

and then there are various ways to get them to like

28:31

you. But one thing I recognized

28:34

is that the way you the

28:36

best way to do it

28:38

is to come to like them

28:40

and show them that you like them

28:43

and down come the

28:45

barriers to change because

28:48

they know that if you like

28:51

them, you're going to steer them correctly.

28:53

That's what we do with the people

28:55

we like. That's what we do with our friends,

28:58

right, and the and

29:00

the fact is they will be right. If

29:03

you truly come to like somebody,

29:06

you will try to give that person the

29:09

best possible arrangement because

29:11

of that sense of rapport and

29:14

affection you have for that person. So

29:16

that's what we can do. Because

29:19

we can control how

29:21

much we like other people more

29:24

than we can control whether they

29:26

like us or how much they like us so

29:29

let's work on ourselves. Find

29:31

things that are genuinely praiseworthy

29:34

about that person. Right.

29:37

It may take a little longer for certain people

29:39

and other people, but

29:42

you can do it. Focus

29:44

on that and let that person

29:46

know, give them a compliment, a

29:48

genuine compliment, or find

29:51

things that are genuinely similar

29:55

between you and that person. Not

29:58

only do we like people who who

30:00

like us, we like people

30:02

who are like us, members

30:05

of the same tribe. That's right, you

30:08

referred recently to. I

30:10

forgot who you were talking about.

30:13

But they were a fan of the

30:16

same team that you're a fan of. And

30:18

suddenly everything about that

30:20

person is Hey, they were smarter,

30:23

their books were, but everything about them took

30:25

a step up. And that's just because

30:28

they're members of the same you

30:31

know, they like the same things, the members of the

30:33

same trime. They have similar affiliations. It's

30:35

that powerful social proof. It's

30:38

that powerful. It's that powerful.

30:41

And I mean, and I'll

30:43

give you the exact situation. I grew

30:45

up in Wisconsin. The NFL team

30:49

that's the home team in Wisconsin has

30:51

always been the Green Bay Packers. I

30:53

read an article a few months ago that

30:55

said that um

30:58

justin Timberlake, that's and

31:01

Little Wayne. Any all, these two musical

31:04

celebrities, right, they are both

31:06

avid Packer fans. Very

31:09

I immediately thought better

31:11

of their music, and

31:14

I wanted them to succeed into

31:16

the future because

31:18

we are members of the same tribe, and

31:21

you are not what I think of as a Little Wayne

31:23

fan from

31:25

the outset. But man, now,

31:30

so since we're talking about ethical

31:32

considerations and questions, it

31:35

raises a really important issue.

31:38

How do we protect ourselves from

31:41

people who may not have your level

31:43

or Dick Taylor's level of ethical

31:47

recognition, and how

31:49

do we protect ourselves from

31:51

unscrupulous users of of these

31:53

psychological techniques. Right,

31:56

So, at the end of

31:58

every chapter in the book, I have a section

32:00

called defense how

32:02

to say no to somebody who's

32:05

used these principles. Right, So,

32:08

let's let's take the liking principle

32:10

for example, And let's say you're shopping

32:13

for a car, or you've got

32:15

somebody who wants to partner with you

32:17

on some business deal, and

32:20

you find yourself liking that person

32:23

more than you would have expected

32:26

for the amount of time that you've spent

32:28

together. Let's let's go to

32:30

the car sales room and

32:33

and if you recognize

32:36

that liking is there in

32:38

the situation, added to an

32:40

extent that's inordinate

32:44

more than you would expect. Step

32:46

back from the situation and

32:49

recognize why did Why

32:52

am I liking this salesperson?

32:54

Oh yeah, he gave

32:57

me donuts and coffee. Oh

32:59

yeah. Uh. He says that his

33:01

wife grew up in the same place that I

33:03

grew up. Oh yeah, he complimented

33:06

me on my uh, interior

33:09

choices for the car. I'm looking all right?

33:12

And then and then separate

33:16

that sales person from

33:19

the car, because

33:21

you'll be driving the car off the

33:23

lot, not him.

33:26

Quite interesting, you know. Before

33:28

we get into some specifics. My

33:31

favorite story in the original

33:33

book is how you met

33:36

Charlie Manger. Tell

33:38

us about how your relationship

33:41

with Charlie Manger came about. One

33:44

day I went to my mailbox to

33:46

find an envelope, big

33:49

envelope, and I opened it to

33:52

find a note from

33:54

Charlie Manger appended

33:58

to a single goal share of

34:00

Berkshire Hathaway stock. The

34:03

note said, you don't know me, but

34:07

we have used the

34:09

material in your book Influence

34:12

to make us so much money here

34:15

at Berkshire Hathaway. I'm

34:17

sending you a share

34:19

of a a stock out

34:21

of reciprocation. Your first

34:24

principle, right, you deserve

34:26

something in return. At the time

34:29

that share was worth seventy dollars.

34:32

This was like, is that what we're

34:34

talking about? Yes, and

34:36

today that's worth about four hundred

34:38

and thirty dollars exactly.

34:41

And let me tell you the

34:45

reason I held onto that

34:47

share all these years

34:49

with great benefit

34:52

was because of what Warren

34:54

Buffett and Charlie Munger do in

34:57

there in Warren's letter

34:59

to his shareholders every

35:01

year for Brickshire Hathaway, where

35:05

Warren establishes his credibility

35:08

on the front page, on the

35:11

first or second page of text of every

35:14

of those uh of those

35:16

letters, he does something

35:19

to give me a sense

35:22

of his credibility, his knowledge

35:25

and trustworthiness. He mentioned

35:27

something that went wrong that year, something

35:31

that didn't go as expected, and

35:34

then he says, of course we've

35:37

learned from that, we will never do that

35:39

again. And then he

35:41

moves on to the strengths of

35:44

the year, all the things that went right. Very

35:47

every year, I would say

35:50

to myself, Wow, I'm

35:53

dealing with a straight shooter here. Not

35:56

only is this guy knowledgeable,

35:59

he knows, you know, what's what

36:01

went right and what went wrong. He's not

36:03

trying to fool himself with this. He's

36:06

trustworthy. He's willing to tell

36:09

us what went wrong before

36:12

he tells us what went right. Right,

36:14

he establishes his truthfulness,

36:17

which makes me believe in

36:21

what went right, to

36:23

truly process it deeply

36:25

and believe it fully. Because

36:28

he first was willing to tell

36:30

me what went wrong, I now

36:32

believe the next thing he said.

36:35

I recall reading something about that in

36:37

influence someone who is honest

36:40

and humble exactly, so

36:43

I have never thought about selling

36:46

that unit of a

36:49

share of stock because

36:52

every year I see how honest

36:56

and knowledgeable the man is. On

36:58

the front page of the text

37:01

that he said, there was a

37:03

couple of years ago Berkshire

37:06

did so well that year. There

37:09

wasn't anything they did wrong. So

37:11

you know what, what what

37:14

Warren did? He told us about

37:16

a mistake he made

37:20

with Dexter shoes, about

37:23

an error, just so he's

37:26

making clear to us. Look, I'm not

37:28

trying to claim that I know everything.

37:30

Look, I make mistakes right,

37:33

And once again I'm astounded

37:36

by the um, the honest,

37:39

the transparency of the guy,

37:41

and am willing to follow him from

37:44

there on. So uh, it's

37:46

it's a brilliant Uh, it's a brilliant

37:49

tactic that it's not a tactic

37:51

in the sense that he's doing something phony.

37:53

He is an honest guy. He's

37:56

showing us his honesty

37:58

by doing something I recommend

38:01

too. I would recommend to all your listeners.

38:03

If you've got a case to make, and

38:06

all cases, of course have strengths and weaknesses,

38:10

mention a weakness

38:12

relatively early in your case,

38:17

because that establishes your

38:20

credibility for what you

38:22

say next, and

38:24

that's the moment for your strongest

38:26

argument, immediately after

38:29

you've mentioned a weakness, if you're saying, you know, I

38:31

think we ought to move in this in this

38:33

direction for your

38:36

investments, let's say your h

38:39

an advisor. H but

38:43

there, let's talk about there's some

38:45

tax consequences of this. And this may take

38:47

a little bit longer, right, but

38:50

I think it will be well worth

38:52

it for these reasons. People

38:55

will now listen to those reasons

38:57

differently in the

39:00

moment after you've managed mentioned

39:02

a weakness, and you will allow

39:04

those strengths to just wipe out the

39:06

weakness. Quite interesting.

39:09

The other story in the book that

39:11

really cracked me up. I guess

39:14

we should have talked about it when we were discussing

39:16

the ethical considerations.

39:18

Is the story of the two tailors Sit

39:21

and Harry, where one of them

39:23

pretends to be hard of hearing.

39:25

To tell us a little bit about

39:27

that story, because it's just unbelievable

39:31

that these guys figured this out

39:33

and used it so effectively. The

39:36

breck Yes, the

39:38

story of the who were

39:41

ran a man's clothing shop

39:43

back in the nineties in the depression

39:46

right there and uh when

39:48

a a person would come in,

39:50

a man would come in to buy a suit. Um,

39:53

he would be in front of that

39:55

three pained mirror

39:58

you know you stand and be getting

40:01

trying on a suit, and one

40:03

of the brothers would

40:06

call to across

40:08

the room to the tailor, his other

40:10

brother, Harry, how

40:13

much for this?

40:14

Uh? This beautiful? Oh will

40:17

suit right? And Harry

40:19

would call back and

40:24

the other brother would say, uh.

40:27

He would cut his ear to hear, and

40:29

then he'd say he says twenty nine dollars

40:32

as if he didn't hear it correctly, and

40:35

the guy would jump at it, sits

40:40

and hustle out of the store, thinking

40:42

he had pulled something over on the

40:44

do bag brothers. In fact, the dog brothers

40:47

and pulled something over on him, which

40:50

was to say, you're getting this deal.

40:52

They're getting this at a at a big discount.

40:55

In fact, was

40:58

the true price of the suit. So

41:00

here's the question that story raises,

41:02

and I'm fascinated by it. So

41:06

in the traditional world of behavioral

41:08

finance, folks like

41:10

Failure or Kneman would say

41:13

the buyer there the suit, buyer was anchored

41:16

on thirty nine dollars and suddenly

41:18

twenty nine looks relatively

41:21

inexpensive. So so it kind of raises

41:23

a couple of questions. Is this just

41:26

anchoring? Is this is there

41:28

some social authority about oh, I'm getting

41:30

a thirty nine a more valuable

41:32

suit. What's going on with this?

41:35

And then I want to ask you some questions about

41:37

behavioral economics. Why does the

41:39

buyer think they're getting a bargain?

41:42

And by the suit and run out right,

41:46

you're correct about the anchoring

41:48

process. If I give you

41:50

a high number initially,

41:53

if I ask you the distance to the sun,

41:56

very and then I want

41:58

to sell you a bottle of mineral

42:01

water, right, the

42:04

price of that bottle of water seems

42:06

smaller to you by the

42:08

process of anchoring, right,

42:11

And so you're more likely to buy it.

42:14

It's crazy, but that's the truth. That's the way

42:16

we work. It has to do with something called perceptual

42:19

contrast. Anyway, in

42:21

that contrast that the nine

42:24

dollars suit now seemed less

42:26

expensive than it would have if

42:29

he hadn't heard thirty nine dollars first.

42:33

So that's one component. The other is he

42:35

thinks he's getting a great deal

42:38

on this. Besides the

42:40

fact that it seems less expensive.

42:43

It seems like it's a thirty nine

42:45

dollars suit that he's getting for nine

42:47

dollars. So both of those things are

42:49

are working. So let's talk

42:52

about behavioral finance and

42:54

and throughout the book, you know, I kept

42:57

having in the back of my head parallels

43:00

to behavioral economics. Your

43:03

first version of this was, did

43:06

you have any idea that you were operating

43:09

in parallel with people like Conomen

43:12

and Teversky or Richard Thaylor or Robert

43:14

Schiller or Thomas Killovich. How

43:16

aware were you of

43:19

that fields which really

43:21

wasn't recognized for at least

43:23

a decade or two later. I

43:26

had no idea, but

43:28

I think I understand why it turned

43:30

out that way. So, for example, influenced

43:34

the book has been called the Bible

43:37

of um, of e

43:39

commerce, of digital

43:42

marketing. Well, when it was written,

43:44

there was no e commerce,

43:47

there was no digital market there was no internet.

43:50

And people have said how could you see

43:52

a hit so far in

43:54

the same way that you would say how could you

43:56

see so far ahead into behavior

44:00

of finance or behavior economics? It

44:03

was not by looking forward

44:06

as some sort of oracle. It

44:09

was by looking inward. What

44:12

are the things that have always

44:15

moved us as a species

44:18

towards change? What are the

44:20

things that have always counseled

44:22

us correctly as to its

44:25

time to to act

44:28

in this way versus some other way?

44:31

It were it was the six

44:33

universal principles of influence

44:36

that had always driven us

44:39

into change. And so that's

44:42

what I did. I didn't look forward

44:45

thirty years. I looked

44:47

inward to the factors

44:49

that have always moved us

44:53

as a species. Huh.

44:55

So let's talk about some of those six We

44:58

talked about reciprocity, we talked

45:00

about social proof. What

45:02

other key drivers do you

45:04

think are worth mentioning. We've

45:07

also talked about authority to a degree,

45:10

the extent to which you you you

45:12

you want to say yes to those individuals

45:14

who have showed you that they are credible

45:17

sources of information. They are both knowledgeable

45:20

and trustworthy. We've talked about that.

45:22

Another is, of course, scarcity, the

45:25

idea of that. Let's talk about that because

45:27

that is such a key issue in

45:30

economics and finance, in

45:33

psychology, Why is scarcity

45:35

such a giant driver? It

45:38

turns out that the

45:40

key to scarcity, that is uh,

45:43

the idea that people want more of

45:45

those things they can have less of, right,

45:48

is that they're afraid of losing.

45:51

They're afraid of losing that desirable

45:53

opportunity. They're afraid of

45:56

missing out on this uh,

45:58

this chance to move in

46:01

a productive direction, and so on. And

46:04

as Daniel Kaneman has shown

46:06

us, loss a version,

46:08

the idea of losing something

46:11

is more powerful, more motivating

46:14

than the idea of gaining that very

46:16

same thing, right, and scarcity,

46:19

So loss is the ultimate

46:21

form of scarcity. It means you can't get

46:23

it anymore. Right. So,

46:26

the thing that makes

46:28

scarcity so powerful across

46:30

the widest range of situations

46:33

is the idea that we will lose

46:36

something, and that

46:38

loss drives us crazy to

46:40

an extent that a

46:43

gain doesn't benefit

46:45

doesn't make us as as

46:48

satisfied as a loss

46:50

makes us dissatisfied with the very

46:52

same thing, right, So it's almost

46:54

a two to one ratio. We feel losses

46:57

twice as intensely as

46:59

we feel the pleasure of gains. And

47:01

my pet theory on that I want to want to ask

47:04

you about it feels that

47:06

gains are temporary.

47:08

You get a windfall, you can go out and

47:11

you know, spend it freely and

47:13

it's gone. But losses feel

47:15

like they're permanent and never

47:17

to be recaptured again. Why

47:19

do you think the loss factor

47:21

the scarcity factor is so much more intense.

47:25

I have my own opinion, but I really

47:28

like yours as well. So my

47:30

guess is that if you ever see something

47:33

with a big effect, it's

47:35

never caused by one thing, always

47:39

multiplely multiply caused.

47:42

So here's what I have

47:44

thought. Uh, And it's an evolutionary

47:47

explanation. If you are

47:49

if you are um

47:52

operating at a level

47:55

of survival, right, and

47:57

you have a chance to gain something,

48:00

Okay, you'll get an increment upward.

48:03

Right, if you get an increment

48:06

downward, you may be gone.

48:08

Game over right, You're

48:11

gone. So you

48:13

have to pay much more attention

48:15

to the idea of losing something

48:18

because you it may eliminate you. Right,

48:21

existential threats are

48:23

are more significant than you

48:25

know a few I I always think about

48:28

this question in terms

48:30

of Las Vegas. Not that I've been to Vegas

48:33

and it seems like years, but right

48:35

outside of the casinos is very often

48:37

jewelry shops, and you watch

48:39

people come out with winnings and buy

48:42

you know, crazy expensive jewelry

48:45

and stupid expensive watches. But

48:47

the people who lose the rent money,

48:50

they're really in dire straits.

48:52

And that's not for people

48:54

on the edge of survival. If you're if

48:57

you're just above that subsistence level,

49:00

in it's an existential threat to suffer

49:02

a loss. Existential is

49:04

precisely right, you're gone, so

49:08

you have to be alert to it. You have to be

49:10

suspicious about any situation. You

49:12

have to be willing to

49:14

move against encounter. The

49:17

possibility of loss to a much

49:19

greater extent than the

49:21

probability of gain makes

49:23

a lot of sense. Any other

49:25

of the main principles that we didn't get

49:27

to that you think is worth mentioning

49:31

before I have one more question I

49:33

have to ask you, but I want to stay with the principles.

49:36

Yes, and there's the new one, the

49:38

one that I call unity. I've actually

49:40

added a seventh for this addition,

49:44

um and we've kind of talked

49:46

about it already. It's that the willingness

49:49

of people. If if it as a communicator,

49:51

you can arrange for people to see

49:54

you as one of them, right,

49:57

as of them, not just like them

49:59

in tastes or preferences

50:02

or styles or so on, that that's

50:04

what that increases liking. But if

50:06

you can get them to see you as one

50:09

of the category

50:11

of individuals that you consider a

50:14

WE group and US group,

50:18

everything inside that category

50:22

becomes easier to influence.

50:24

Your more cooperative. You believe

50:26

those people more, you trust those people

50:28

more, you say yes to those people

50:31

more. And

50:33

what's what's key is you have to

50:35

bring to consciousness

50:37

that unity that exists. Right.

50:41

And I'll give you a short example of something

50:43

that worked for me. A while ago.

50:45

I was writing a report. It was due the

50:47

next day, and as I was skimming

50:50

it before putting in an envelope

50:52

and sending it off, I uh,

50:55

I saw that there was a section of it that

50:58

was not really compel. I didn't really

51:01

have the evidence to make that

51:03

case in that one section that I

51:05

that I I wanted to be persuasive

51:08

about but I knew that a colleague of

51:10

mine, let's call him Tim

51:12

uh did some research

51:14

the previous year and he had the data

51:16

that I needed, but I didn't

51:18

have them. He had the data, so

51:21

I sent him Uh an email. I

51:23

said, Tim, I explained,

51:26

you know, I have this thing. It has to go in the mail tomorrow

51:28

to this granting agency, and

51:31

UM, I don't have the data.

51:33

Could you go into your archives

51:36

get that data out for me and send

51:38

it over to me so I could get it

51:40

into my report and and get it off

51:42

by the end of the day. I

51:45

said, I'm going to call you to tell you

51:47

about the specifics of what I need. Well,

51:49

I called him, and Tim was

51:52

known to be an irascible kind of

51:54

sour guy. He just was a negative

51:56

guy. So he picked

51:58

up the phone. He said, Bob, I know why you're calling

52:01

and the answer is no. Look

52:04

I can't I can't

52:06

be responsible for your poor time

52:08

management skills. Man, I'm

52:11

busy too. Very

52:14

before I knew the research

52:16

about unity and being raising

52:20

to consciousness

52:22

the category similarity

52:24

between people right that

52:27

defines them right, I

52:29

would I would have said, come

52:31

on, Tim, I need this

52:33

this thing is due tomorrow. He already

52:36

said no to that. Here's

52:38

what I said instead, Tim,

52:42

We've been members of the same psychology

52:44

department now for twelve years.

52:47

I really need this. I

52:49

had the data that afternoon. I

52:53

imagine not a lot of people say no to

52:55

you and get away with it. Well

52:59

my kids, Well

53:02

reciprocity doesn't always work with kids,

53:04

for for obvious reasons they expected.

53:07

So so let me ask you this question.

53:09

The last time we I had

53:11

you on the show, I asked

53:14

you a question what made Donald Trump

53:16

such an effective communicator? Given

53:19

the fact that we now have a new president

53:22

and there's all sorts of of things

53:24

going on around that, I want to ask you this

53:26

question about President Biden.

53:29

A large percentage of Republicans

53:32

don't believe he was legitimately

53:34

elected. They believe

53:36

President Trump that the election was stolen.

53:40

Given everything you know about tribes

53:42

and influence, what do you

53:45

think President Biden can do to

53:47

influence this group of Republicans

53:50

that he was legitimately elected.

53:53

I'm going to suggest something. It's

53:55

a little used, very

53:58

under used strata g from

54:00

persuasion science. The convert

54:03

communicator. This

54:05

is somebody who used

54:08

to believe what you believed,

54:10

but you currently believe he's one

54:12

of you or she's

54:15

of you, and

54:19

then has a new piece of information

54:21

that you don't have that

54:24

changed his or her mind and

54:27

tells you why

54:30

you can't dismiss that person. This

54:33

is of your tribe, this

54:35

is of you, this is

54:38

one of you. Now you've got a communicator

54:41

not speaking from outside

54:43

of your WE group, but speaking

54:45

to you from inside of your

54:48

WE group and providing

54:50

a piece of information you don't have.

54:55

So let's say it's about getting

54:57

vaccinated and

55:01

you're just not convinced that

55:03

you should and it's

55:05

not necessary. And then you have somebody

55:09

who says, I

55:11

used to believe that, and

55:14

then my mother

55:18

got she wouldn't wear

55:20

a mask, she wouldn't socially distance,

55:23

she wouldn't get vaccinated just

55:25

like me, and

55:27

we buried her last week. Or

55:31

if it was it's about measles

55:33

vaccinations, and you say, and

55:35

then my daughter got measles and she's

55:38

deaf, right, all

55:40

right, Now that's a piece of information

55:42

you don't have, but it's coming

55:45

from one of you. That's

55:47

what I would recommend, So

55:50

I know I only have you for a limited

55:52

amount of time. Let's

55:54

this has really been absolutely intriguing.

55:57

But let's jump to our favorite questions

56:00

that we ask all of our guests, starting

56:02

with tell us what you've been

56:04

streaming this past year under Lockdown? What

56:07

are your favorite Netflix or Amazon

56:09

Prime shows? Or what podcasts are keeping

56:11

you entertained. I've

56:13

been re streaming Breaking

56:16

Bad. I love this show and

56:19

These Days The Crown I've been I'm

56:21

still in the middle of The Crown, right, So

56:24

those are the two I've been entertaining

56:28

myself with when I'm haven't

56:30

been writing this uh expansion

56:32

to the book quite quite interesting.

56:35

Tell us about your mentors who helped

56:37

influence your career, either

56:39

as a professor or or an author.

56:42

Yes, so there are three individuals

56:45

in in graduate school and

56:47

in my post doctoral fellowship.

56:51

One was my major advisor at

56:53

chat Insco. Another uh

56:56

famous psychologist at my

56:58

graduate institution u

57:00

n C at Chapel Hill, John Tebow.

57:03

And then my post doctoral

57:05

fellow advisor, Stanley Shackter at

57:08

Columbia University. But I'll

57:10

give you a mentor who

57:12

taught me something that I think saved

57:15

my career. Um, before

57:17

I went into college,

57:21

I was a very good high school

57:23

baseball player, and I had an offer

57:25

to play minor league baseball,

57:28

uh, from a scout from the

57:31

White Sox, and I was going to be

57:34

in so I don't know, level

57:37

D baseball, you know, way down

57:39

below and to start. And

57:43

he came to my last game and he had a contract

57:46

and he had he wanted me to sign it.

57:48

And I was a center fielder. I wanted to be Mickey Mantle

57:50

or Willie Mays, you know. And his

57:53

pen wouldn't work. And

57:55

on the way to the car to get his other

57:57

pen, we walked. He

58:00

asked me, hey, kid, are you any

58:02

good at school? I said yes.

58:05

He said, good enough to get into college.

58:07

Yeah, good enough to finish college.

58:10

Yeah. Do you like

58:13

school? Yeah?

58:16

He said, go to school, kid, you're

58:19

not good enough to make the Major's

58:22

And he was right. I couldn't hit a slider. I

58:24

couldn't hit a good slider and I was going to

58:26

see a lot more good sliders as I went

58:28

up to Bronx and

58:33

he and I went to school instead.

58:37

That man. I mean, if

58:40

I had wound up in you

58:42

know, Class A ball, I moved

58:45

up to the middle or

58:47

maybe Class double A baseball, and

58:49

then I just couldn't get any further. After

58:52

four years let's say of trying

58:55

by four years. Maybe

58:58

I'm married, maybe

59:00

I have a child. I

59:02

don't get to go to college. Now you

59:05

know what I get to do. I get

59:07

to be the assistant

59:09

manager of the pizza

59:12

hut in the last

59:14

city I wound up in, and

59:18

Barry, we're not having this conversation.

59:20

Probably not, that's amazing. Did

59:23

you ever get a hold of who that

59:25

guy was? Do you know who he is? He

59:27

passed away. His name was Bunny Brief. I

59:30

remember him. Did you have an opportunity

59:32

to Detroit back

59:34

in the forties and thirties? And

59:37

but he was a scout in Milwaukee where I grew

59:39

up in? Yeah, did you

59:42

ever have an opportunity to thank him

59:44

for his Never? Did? He

59:46

passed away before I had

59:48

the chance to recognize how

59:52

important it was for him to tell

59:54

me, Look, don't

59:56

just follow your

59:59

passion, which everybody else says,

1:00:01

right, follow your passion

1:00:03

that you're good at that great at

1:00:07

right right, that's an unbelievable

1:00:09

story. So let's go

1:00:11

to uh books. Tell us some of your all time

1:00:13

favorite books and what are you reading right

1:00:16

now? So, in

1:00:18

terms of fiction, Remains

1:00:20

of the Day by

1:00:25

UM and Underground

1:00:27

Railroad by Colin

1:00:30

Whitehead for nonfiction,

1:00:32

I'm going to go to the things that are influence

1:00:35

related Aristotle's rhetoric.

1:00:38

My God, at the first time

1:00:40

anybody tried to systematize

1:00:43

the process of of persuasion,

1:00:46

he did it. And then my

1:00:50

Nobel laureate authors, uh

1:00:54

you know Daniel Koneman for thinking fast

1:00:57

and smoke slow, Uh

1:00:59

nudge for Sailor

1:01:03

and Sunsteen uh. Those

1:01:06

And what I'm reading now is

1:01:09

Um Sapiens by

1:01:12

Uval Noah Harari.

1:01:15

Brilliant, brilliant

1:01:18

book, really

1:01:20

really interesting. Let's talk

1:01:22

about you mentioned don't

1:01:24

always just follow your passion.

1:01:27

What sort of advice would you give to a

1:01:29

recent college graduate who

1:01:31

is interested in a career in

1:01:34

in psychology or academia, or

1:01:37

in writing, or any combination of those

1:01:39

three. If you're really interested in a

1:01:41

career in psychology, there's a little

1:01:44

secret that you

1:01:46

can employ.

1:01:48

It's called independent study

1:01:51

credit. You get credit

1:01:53

for working on a project with

1:01:56

one of the professors um

1:01:59

in in psycho in the psychology

1:02:01

department, or in the communications department

1:02:04

or in the marketing department, whichever one you want

1:02:06

to go to, and you

1:02:08

get experience working as

1:02:10

a professional on a project

1:02:12

that they have. That

1:02:15

tells you whether you really want

1:02:17

to go further in this, but

1:02:19

it also gives you somebody

1:02:22

who can write a letter of recommendation

1:02:25

for you to the next step to

1:02:27

the master's program or MBA

1:02:30

programmers or PhD

1:02:32

program to be in

1:02:35

a psychology related

1:02:37

career. Quite quite

1:02:39

interesting. And our final question,

1:02:42

what do you know about the world of psychology

1:02:45

today that you wish

1:02:47

you knew back when

1:02:50

you were first writing Influence.

1:02:53

Here's what I wish I knew about

1:02:55

the influence process back

1:02:57

then that would have uh

1:03:00

made for a better environment

1:03:03

for me going forward.

1:03:07

It is when you

1:03:09

are going into a situation

1:03:13

with people you don't know right,

1:03:16

you don't know much about them

1:03:18

at all, think the

1:03:20

best of them, think

1:03:24

the best about them.

1:03:26

It allows you to be

1:03:29

generous with them.

1:03:32

And here there are three downstream

1:03:35

consequences of that generosity.

1:03:38

First, by the principle

1:03:40

of liking, they will like you

1:03:43

more for being a generous person.

1:03:46

Second, by the principle of reciprocation,

1:03:49

they will give you that generosity

1:03:52

back. Third,

1:03:54

by the principle of commitment and consistency.

1:03:58

When they recognize that they are

1:04:00

being generous with you, they are giving

1:04:02

you things, They are working together

1:04:05

with you. They will want to be

1:04:07

consistent into the

1:04:09

future with what they have already

1:04:12

done. And

1:04:14

now you have a set

1:04:16

of people you like,

1:04:18

who like you, who are exchanging

1:04:22

favors, gifts and services

1:04:24

and information into

1:04:27

the future. If I had known

1:04:30

that thirty years ago, I

1:04:32

would have done it immediately. It took

1:04:34

me a long time to recognize

1:04:36

that. Huh. Quite fascinating,

1:04:39

Bob. Thank you so much for being so

1:04:41

generous with your time. We've

1:04:44

been speaking with Robert Sheldini, author

1:04:46

of Influence. If you enjoy this conversation,

1:04:48

well, be sure and check out any of our previous

1:04:51

four hundred such interviews. You

1:04:54

can find those at iTunes, Spotify,

1:04:56

wherever you feed your podcast fixed. We

1:04:59

love your comments, feedback ends suggestions

1:05:02

right to us at m IB podcast

1:05:04

at Bloomberg dot net. Sign

1:05:06

up for my daily reads at Ridholtz

1:05:09

dot com. Check out my weekly column.

1:05:11

It's on Bloomberg dot com slash Opinion.

1:05:14

Follow me on Twitter at rit Haltz.

1:05:17

I would be remiss if I did not think the

1:05:19

practice staff that helps put these

1:05:21

conversations together each week. Marufle

1:05:24

is my audio engineer. Michael

1:05:26

Boyle is my producer. Atika

1:05:29

val bron is our project manager. Michael

1:05:32

Batnick is my head of research. I'm

1:05:35

Barry Ritholtz. You've been listening

1:05:37

to Master's Business on Bloomberg

1:05:39

Radio.