THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 30

What rhetorical strategy did Lou Gehrig borrow from Aristotle that allowed him to hit a home run in his final speech in Yankee Stadium in 1939?

Subject:  Rhetoric - Advantageous

Event:  Lou Gehrig plays his final game, 1939

. . . you need to convince your audience that the choice you offer is the most “advantageous” — to the advantage of the audience, that is, not you.  This brings us back to values. The advantageous is an outcome that gives the audience what it values. -Jay Heinrichs

On this day in 1939, New York Yankee first baseman Lou Gehrig played his 2,130th consecutive major league game.  The game would also be the final game of his career. Not long after his final game, Gehrig learned that he had an incurable and fatal disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) — a disease known today as Lou Gehrig’s disease.  

In his 17 seasons, all as a Yankee, Gehrig was a World Series champion six times, an All-Star seven consecutive times, an American League Most Valuable Player twice, and a Triple Crown winner once.  Gehrig was the first major league baseball player to have his number (4) retired, and he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York in 1939.

In June 1939, the New York Yankees officially announced Gehrig’s retirement, and on July 4, 1939, they invited him to speak at Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day (1).

On that day, Gehrig gave what has become not just one of the single most memorable speeches in sports history, but one of the most memorable speeches in history, period.

It was a speech of startling magnanimity.  Everyone in Yankee Stadium that day came to honor Gehrig and to share the sorrow of a career and a life that would be cut short.  Under the circumstances, it would be natural for the speaker to give a mournful, gloomy speech about himself, about his bad luck, and about all he had lost.  Instead, Gehrig spoke in positive and thankful tones, focusing not on himself but on all the people who helped to make him the “luckiest man in the world.”

Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?

Sure I’m lucky.

Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy?

Sure I’m lucky.

When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift – that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies — that’s something.

When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter — that’s something.

When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body — it’s a blessing.

When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed — that’s the finest I know.

So, I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for.

The effectiveness of Gehrig’s speech illustrates an ancient principle of rhetoric.  Aristotle taught that giving a speech is about much more than just what you want to say; instead, it’s important to consider the audience.  The Aristotelian triangle is a model that helps speakers and writers assess the rhetorical situation. The triangle’s three points are the speaker, the subject, and the audience. Looking at all three points of the triangle reminds us that the speaker is only one part of the formula for successful persuasion.  Truly successful speakers, like Gehrig, must appeal to the audience’s advantage. Therefore, when we think about our purpose in speaking, we should not just ask, “What’s in it for us?” Instead, we should ask, “What’s in it for them?”  As the American humorist, Will Rogers put it: “When you go fishing you bait the hook, not with what you like, but what the fish likes” (2).

                                    Will Rogers - Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 

Winning rhetoric always employs “The Advantageous” by considering the rhetorical situation from the audience’s point of view.  Gehrig might have made his speech all about himself; instead, he made his message much more inclusive by considering his audience.  His thankful and optimistic tone transformed a seemingly sad, hopeless occasion into a positive, hopeful reminder of the indomitable nature of the human spirit.

In the opening chapters of Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout recounts her first day of school.  Seemingly everything that could go wrong, goes wrong for Scout, especially when it comes to her relationship with her teacher, Miss Caroline. As Scout tearfully recounts her run-ins with her teacher to her father, she declares that she doesn’t ever want to return to school again.

At this point, Scout’s father, Atticus Finch, shares a valuable lesson with her:

`First of all,' he said, 'if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.'  (3)

Atticus, a lawyer, understood that winning over a jury requires more than just arguing your case; instead, it requires understanding your audience’s point of view -- their beliefs, expectations, and desires. 

Atticus’ lesson is summed up in an ancient persuasive principle that is directly related to ethos, known as “the advantageous.”  When trying to persuade, resist the temptation to appeal to your own advantage; instead, frame your message in a way that appeals to your audience’s advantage.  In other words, instead of focusing on what is good for you, climb into your audience’s skin and try to see things from their point of view -- what’s good for them.

Dale Carnegie, in his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People, recounts a story about the American poet, philosopher, and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson:

One day Emerson and his son tried to get a calf into the barn.  But they made the common mistake of thinking about what they wanted; Emerson pushed and his son pulled. But the calf was doing just what they were doing; he was thinking only of what he wanted; so he stiffened his legs and stubbornly refused to leave the pasture.  A housemaid saw their predicament.  She couldn’t write essays and books; but, on this occasion at least, she had more horse sense, or calf sense, than Emerson had.  She thought of what the calf wanted; so she put her maternal finger in the calf’s mouth and let the calf suck her finger as she gently led him into the barn. (4)

The housemaid was successful because she looked at the situation based not on what she wanted, but on what the calf wanted.  By applying the advantageous, a little effort was all that was needed to win over her audience.

Challenge - Aristotle, Ads, and Addresses:  What are some examples of great speeches or classic advertisements where the speaker or the writer has employed the advantageous for effective persuasion?  Analyze a specific speech or advertisement that is an example of effective persuasion. Use the Aristotelian Triangle to discuss the relationship between the speaker, the audience, and the subject.  How did the speaker specifically relate and appeal to his or her audience to effectively fulfill the purpose? 

Sources:

1-Larkin, Kevin. “April 30, 1939: Lou Gehrig plays his final game with Yankees.” Society for American Baseball Research. 

2-Heinrich, Jay. Thank You For Arguing. Three Rivers Press, 2007.

3-Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York :Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.

4-Carnegie, Dale, 1888-1955. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York :Simon & Schuster, 2009.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 29

How does the marketing of popcorn at movie theaters illustrate the irrational thinking of consumers?

Subject: Persuasion - Decoy Effect

Event:  Psychologist Dan Ariely is born, 1967

Even the most analytical thinkers are predictably irrational; the really smart ones acknowledge and address their irrationalities. -Dan Ariely

Imagine a movie theater concession counter.  Two options are available for popcorn:  a $3 small size or a $7 large size.  In an experiment conducted by National Geographic, the vast majority of movie-goers opt for the small size, perceiving it as the better value.  Next, imagine a slight change in the scenario:  

We add a medium option for $6.50.  Theater-goers now have three options:  The small ($3.00), medium ($6.50), or large ($7.00).  You might predict that the small option would remain the most popular; however, you might base your guess on the assumption that consumers are rational.  The truth is, however, that the large popcorn now becomes by far the most popular of the three options.

                                                                        Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 

Psychologists have a name for what happened in the popcorn experiment; it’s called the decoy effect.  It describes the marketing strategy of adding a third, less attractive and inferior option, as a strategic method of influencing the consumer’s perception.  In the popcorn example, the goal is to get the consumer to purchase the most expensive option; adding the medium size ($6.50) changes the consumer’s perception of the large option ($7); instead of viewing it as much more expensive than the small size, the buyer now perceives it as only slightly more expensive than the medium option.  In presenting the medium size, the theater has nudged the buyer to spend four more dollars because the large size just “feels” like the best deal.

One man who would not be surprised by the irrational behavior of the popcorn buyers is Dan Ariely, a psychologist and behavior economist, who was born on this day in 1967.  Ariely is so certain that humans are predictably irrational that he wrote a book called Predictably Irrational.

In the introduction to his book, Ariely presents some famous lines from Shakespeare (Hamlet Act II, Scene ii) that celebrate the human mind:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action, how like an angel, in apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.

Ariely explains that although he does have great respect for the capabilities of the human mind, his research reveals that human thinking is often irrational:

Whether we are acting as consumers, businesspeople, or policymakers, understanding how we are predictably irrational provides a starting point for improving our decision-making and changing the way we live for the better.

One illustration of this predictably irrational behavior is explained in a chapter about how ownership of something alters our perception of that thing.  Ariely explains a ticket study that was conducted at Duke University.  The tickets were for entry to a Duke Men’s Basketball game. The tickets are limited and highly prized by all students, so many participate in the lottery in hope of getting their hands on tickets.  The experiment began after the lottery as researchers called both winners and losers in the ticket lottery, asking them how much they would pay to either sell the ticket they had in their possession or purchase a ticket that they were unable to obtain in the lottery.  The results revealed that on average students who were not in possession of a ticket were willing to pay on average $170 for a ticket.  In contrast, those who had a ticket were unwilling to part with it for no less than $2,400 on average.  

Researchers call this drastic difference in value the endowment effect, which explains why the ticket holders placed such a higher value on the tickets.  The endowment effect kicks into action when we add value to an item that we own based on our emotional attachment, irrationally inflating its market value.

Just as the decoy effect makes people irrationally pay more for popcorn, the endowment effect makes ticket owners irrationally overprice their basketball tickets.  Not only is this behavior irrational, it is, as Ariely argues, predictably irrational.  

All of us, not just economists or salespeople, are affected by ownership. Throughout our lives, we acquire things by buying and give up things by selling.  It makes sense then to understand more about why the endowment effect has the impact it does on us.  

As Ariely explains, the first reason is that “we fall in love with what we already have,” either recalling the emotions attached to the thing or -- as in the case of the tickets -- imagining the experiences and emotions we will have in the future.  

Secondly, is loss aversion, the fact that humans experience more pain by losing something than gaining something.  For example, losing a ten-dollar bill for many would be twice as painful as the pleasure experienced in finding a ten-dollar bill.

Thirdly, we are so wrapped up in our feelings and emotions about a thing to realize that others don’t see that thing the same way.  As Ariely puts it, “It is just difficult for us to imagine that the person on the other side of the transaction, buyer or seller, is not seeing the world as we see it” (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How do movie theaters use the decoy effect to get customers to think irrationally?

Challenge - Eradicating the Irrational:  Cognitive biases reveal the ways in which human thinking is predictably irrational.  Research a specific cognitive bias.  Define it, and explain how it causes us to be predictably irrational.  Finally,  prescribe how we might counter this effect to be more rational.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

April 29, 1962:  On this day President John F. Kennedy hosted a White House dinner honoring 49 Nobel Prize winners.  Addressing the gathered collection of extraordinary minds, Kennedy gave a brief speech, one sentence of which is on of the most memorable of all presidential quotations:

 I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

Sources:

1-Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational:  The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decision.  New York:  HarperCollins, 2008.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 28

What counterintuitive lesson about creativity does Dr. Seuss’ book ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ teach us?

Subject: Creativity - The Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis

Event:  Article “Introducing the Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis of Creativity” is published, 2016

Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom. -Leonardo Da Vinci

On May 25, 1954, Life magazine published a story criticizing the boring books used to teach students how to read.  Primers like Fun with Dick and Jane did not have captivating narratives, and despite the title, there wasn’t anything “fun” about them.  In response to the article, William Spaulding, director of Houghton Mifflin’s educational division, challenged Theodore Geisel -- better 

known as Dr. Seuss -- to write a story that would captivate young readers.  Spaulding’s challenge included a requirement that the book's words be limited to 225 distinct words from a list of 348 words from the standard first-grade vocabulary.

                                                           Image by nugroho dwi hartawan from Pixabay 

Geisel took the challenge, and nine months later he presented Spaulding his book, The Cat in the Hat, which was published in 1957.  Although Geisel exceeded the word limit by eleven words, Spaulding was pleased with the book, which sold over a million copies in its first three years of publication.  

Later Geisel took on another challenge when Bennett Cerf, co-founder of Random House, bet him $50 dollars that he couldn’t write a children’s book using no more than 50 words. Geisel won the bet, creating a story with 49 monosyllabic words and one three-syllable word, “anywhere.” The book is the classic Green Eggs and Ham, published on August 12, 1960 (1).

In an article published on this day in 2016 in The Cut, an online magazine, Melissa Dahl presented research that examines human creativity when constrained by limiting factors, such as Dr. Seuss’ 50 word limit.  Based on her research, cognitive psychologist Catrinel Haught Tromp has formed what she calls the Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis, which presents the counterintuitive idea that creativity is actually enhanced, rather than limited by constraints.

In Tromp’s study, she tasked 64 undergraduates to create two-line rhymes for greeting cards.  For half of the two-line rhymes, the participants were given a constraint:  their message must include at least one of the following words:  shirt, vest, dog, frog, doll, kite, drum, or harp.  Some of the participants completed their rhymes with the constraint first, while others did not receive the constraint until half way through their writing.  After all the rhymes were composed, they were judged by three independent judges.  The judges’ evaluation determined that the more creative rhymes were the ones that had been composed with the imposed constraint.  In addition, the judges’ evaluation

revealed that even when the constraint was removed, students wrote more creative rhymes than other students who began writing their rhymes without any constraints (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis. What bet did Dr. Seuss win by writing the book "Green Eggs and Ham"?

Challenge - Single Syllable Story, Sonnet, or Speech:  Try writing a composition of at least 100 words with the following creative constraint:  Every word must be only a single syllable.  Write whatever form you want, but use words only single-syllable words. 

Sources:

1-Mikkelson, David. “Did Dr. Seuss Write ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ on a Bet?” Snopes 25 Feb. 1999.

2-Dahle, Melissa.  “Introducing the Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis of Creativity.”  The Cut. 28 April 2016.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 27

When asked, 17% of homeowners agreed to put a “Drive Carefully” sign in their front yard.  What strategy did researchers employ to increase this compliance rate to 76%?

Subject:  Persuasion - Six Weapons of Influence

Event:  Birthday of Robert Cialdini, 1945

There is a group of people who know very well where the weapons of automatic influence lie and employ them regularly and expertly to get what they want. They go from social encounter to social encounter requesting others to comply with their wishes; their frequency of success is dazzling. -Robert Cialdini

Robert Cialdini, who was born on this day in 1945, has spent his life trying to figure out how to get people to say “Yes.”  

Imagine, for example, that you were tasked with persuading homeowners to display a large sign in their yards that reads, “DRIVE CAREFULLY.” Normally about 17% of homeowners will comply with such a request.  What could you do to boost participation to 76% of homeowners?  

The secret, according to Cialdini, is to begin with a small request before the large one. Two weeks before being asked to put the large sign in their yards, homeowners were asked to put a small, inconspicuous sign in their window that said, “BE A SAFE DRIVER.”  Being such a small request, the vast majority of homeowners agreed.  Next, the same residents were approached again two weeks later with the request to display the larger sign.  Over 75% of these homeowners agree to place the larger sign on their front lawn.

The explanation behind the success of this two-pronged strategy, according to Cialdini, is a psychological principle known as consistency.  By agreeing to the first small request, homeowners became committed to the cause of safe driving.  When they were approached again two weeks later, they now desired to act consistently with their own perception of themselves as people who are concerned with safe driving.  Known by salespeople as the “foot-in-the-door technique,” this influence strategy capitalizes on the human tendency to make and stick to commitments and our desire to see ourselves as acting consistently (1).

Consistency is just one of the six “Weapons of Influence” that Cialdini has identified, the other five powerful tools of persuasion are as follows:

Social Proof:  Humans are “herd animals.”  We like to think we are individuals who think for ourselves, but the truth is we look to others - to the group - for assurance that we are behaving correctly.  It’s one of the oldest appeals there is:  “everybody’s doing it; therefore, it must be right.”  It makes perfect sense that it “feels” right to do the popular thing, to give in to the herd instinct.  After all, a big reason that our ancestors survived long enough to have offspring is, in part, because they stayed with and followed the group.  It’s our default. Marketers know about social proof and use it against us.

Reciprocity:  Humans are very sensitive to the give and take of interactions with each other.  Whether or not we’re conscious of it, we keep track of what others give us and what we give them, such as favors, gifts, or money.  We are especially sensitive to being in debt to others.  Restaurant servers understand reciprocity; the one or two pieces of candy that you get with your bill is not a purely altruistic gesture; instead, servers know that by giving you a small “gift,” their tip will be substantially larger.  This is because of reciprocity:  when given something, we feel obligated to reciprocate.

Liking:  We often think that we make our purchasing decisions based purely on reason rather than on whether or not we like the salesperson.  The truth, however, is that the more attractive a person is, or the more the person is like us, the more likely we are to buy from that person.  Salespeople know about this liking bias.  They try to establish a rapport with their customers by giving compliments, or they try to be more like the customer by mirroring his or her gestures or language. 

Scarcity:  We like to think we judge a product purely on that product's merit.  The truth, however, is that we are influenced - whether we realize it or not -- on how much of that product is available.  Marketers know about the scarcity error and exploit it with phrases like “only while supplies last,” or “today only.”  The Romans had a saying:  “Rara sunt cara,” which means “rare is valuable.”  In a study, subjects were tasked with rating ten posters on attractiveness; their reward for the task was that they would be given one of the posters.  After rating the posters from 1 to 10, the subjects were then told that the poster rated the third best was no longer available.  The subjects were then asked to re-do their rating of the ten posters.  This time, the poster that was no longer available was rated as the most attractive.

Authority:  We like to follow a leader, a person who we feel is credible and knowledgeable.  For example, you’re more likely to follow the exercise routines that a physical therapist gives you if your PT displays his or her diplomas on the office wall.   For better or worse, we defer to experts (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What are the six Weapons of Influence, and how is each distinctive in persuading individuals?

Challenge - Deadly Half Dozen:  Which of the Six Weapons of Influence would you say is the most persuasive?  Give a specific example of where you have seen it being used.

Sources:

1-Goldstein, Noah J., Steve J. Martin, and Robert B. Cialdini.  Yes:  50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. New York:  Free Press, 2008.

2-Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. New York: HarperCollinsCollegePublishers, 1993. Print.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - April 26

How did one ancient philosopher undergo a publicity campaign to spread his ideas to the general public?

Subject:  Epicureanism - The Philosopher’s Stone 

Event:  Birthday of archaeologist Martin Ferguson Smith, 1940.

In 1968, scholar and classicist Martin Ferguson Smith -- who was born on this day in 1940 -- made a pilgrimage to the ruins of an ancient Greco-Roman town in Southwestern Turkey called Oinoanda.  Smith wanted to see stone fragments that had originally been discovered there in 1884. The fragments were inscribed with writings by an Epicurean philosopher named Diogenes of Oinoanda.  

Epicureanism is a school of philosophy that dates back to the fourth century B.C.  Founded by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, the goal of this school of philosophy is the pursuit of happiness via self-sufficiency, independence, fellowship, and an analyzed, reflective life. Hoping to spread the good news of Epicureanism, Diogenes in 120 A.D. paid to have his words inscribed on the wall 

of a stoa, or covered walkway, in the town’s public square.  In the philosophical tradition of the examined life, Diogenes hoped to publicize his prescription for the good life.  As one of the fragments reads, “The majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things . . . . I wished to use this stoa to advertise publicly the [medicines] that bring salvation.”

                                        Epicurus - Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay 

Martin Smith discovered 136 previously unknown fragments from the original wall and speculated that the wall was either destroyed by an earthquake or was deliberately torn down in antiquity by Christians who were hostile to Epicurean ideas.  Smith speculated that the wall once stood 12 feet tall, stretched more than 200 feet, and contained some 25,000 words.

Epicureans were not known for making public declarations; instead, they typically lived in private communities.  Nevertheless, Diogenes’ wall is one of the earliest examples of a publicity campaign, an attempt to reach out to ordinary people in the marketplace, sharing with them the virtues of Epicureanism, and offering them some of the ingredients of a happy life (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  Why did Diogenes want his writing inscribed on the walls of Oinoanda? What is Epicureanism?

Challenge - Billboard Philosophy:  Imagine that a huge billboard was going to be put up in your hometown. Do some research on quotations by Epicurus.  What is a quotation by him that you think would be worthy enough to be placed on a billboard, the modern equivalent of Diogenes’ wall?

Sources: 

1-Powel, Eric A. “In Search of a Philosopher’s Stone.”  Archaeology.org July/August 2015.