Irresistable Manipulation

Two groups of students are given tests. Group A gets a test asking them to consider sentences that have politeness as a common theme. Group B gets a test without such a theme. The students are then sent to meet a professor who never shows up. Group B people leave after some amount of time, in tens of minutes perhaps. Group A people basically wait forever. Without realizing it, members of Group A have been subjected to subtle yet powerful manipulation.

Students are surveyed and rate a professor at the end of a course. A different group of students attend a single lecture by that professor and rate him. Another group of students watch 10 minute video clip of the professor's lecture and also rate him. Another group does the same with a 5 minute clip, then another with a 1 minute clip, another with a 10 second clip. The result? All the groups of students give the professor the same rating, regardless of how much time they spent observing. The implication here, is that snap judgements are formed quickly and that, once formed, are difficult to change.

These examples come from Malcolm Gladwell's recent book "Blink." I heard them this morning in an interview with Gladwell on NPR, I have not read the book. I have, however, read Robert Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion," which describes many powerful effects and was written more than 20 years ago.

In sales training, we learn the tip of the iceberg in navigating social constructs and influencing individuals and groups to our desired outcome. I've seen it work in practice. Reams of psychology research and papers confirm: the ability to irresistably manipulate minds is real. All it takes is knowledge. And this body of knowledge grows every day.

Well, perhaps "irresistable" is not entirely correct.

In "The Exorcist," Max von Sydow's character warns his young protege "The devil will mix lies with the truth. You must not listen." We can envision vivid portrayals of a cranky Brooklyn man with his family, listening to something disagreeable on the radio and yelling "This is total BS. Turn it off!" We've heard the stories of religious zealots who, rather than reasoning against their less religious foes, simply cut them off and instruct their followers not to listen. I don't need to pay attention to the person speaking to me. I can think about my upcoming vacation and stare out the window into the parking lot, counting the cars. A test subject in Group A can, instead of earnestly taking the test, randomly circle answers in order to get out as quickly as possible.

But this would be a pretty sad way to live one's life. There are people who do this; I try to avoid them. Closing one's mind to the world creates the fundamental assumption that one's internal model of the universe is the pinnacle of accuracy and that nothing can improve it. Studies are assumed to be biased and manipulative. Logic assumed to be false.

Instead, I try to consider the world in a way influenced by Russo and Schoemaker's "Winning Decisions : Getting It Right the First Time." Especially after taking Prof. Russo's related course (and discovering him to be one my my favorite professors of all time). It seems obvious that my model of the world is, while usable, heavily biased by a number of random and non-random factors, making it brittle, and thus requires constant input and adjustment. To receive that adjustment and make improvements in my capabilities, I need to be constantly open to listening, receiving, and considering input from others; especially disconfirming evidence that shows that something about my view of things is wrong.

How can one reconcile this need to be open to external influence (especially influences that conflict with existing beliefs) with the evidence that the act of receiving is all that's necessary to be subject to powerful external manipulation?