Friday Forward - Argument Dilution (#432)
When building a persuasive argument, less is often more
At the end of the movie Jerry Maguire, Tom Cruise’s Jerry shows up to a book club meeting unannounced and delivers an impassioned pitch to win back Dorothy Boyd, played by Renée Zellweger.
Jerry monologues for several minutes, sharing how much he needs Dorothy in his life and apologizing for his prior behavior. Eventually, Dorothy cuts him off, delivering one of the most famous quotes in film history: “Just shut up. You had me at hello.”
This famous scene effectively depicts a person “selling past the close,” or continuing to pitch someone after they’ve already agreed. While the unnecessarily long speech worked out for Jerry, making a long, impassioned case featuring an overabundance of facts and rationale often comes with a risk.
When trying to make a compelling argument, we often believe more will be more: more data, more talking points, more impressive rhetoric. However, significant academic and psychological research says it’s better to make a brief, focused case that only emphasizes our strongest points.
When individuals are presented with a large amount of argumentative information, which inevitably includes a mixture of strong and weak arguments, the weaker arguments stand out most in the listener’s mind, diluting the overall strength of the case. This dilution means that adding more argumentative points will often damage an otherwise persuasive message unless the added statements are extremely compelling.
For example, imagine my wife and I are debating where to go for December vacation—she wants to go to the beach, while I want to go skiing. In stating her case, she makes the following arguments to me, ordered from strongest to weakest:
I got to pick where we went last year, so it’s her turn.
When she agreed to go skiing last year, I promised we could take a beach vacation this year.
We have hotel points that would lower the cost.
Skiing in December can be risky, as there often is not enough snow.
Some of our friends, including the Joneses, are going to the beach.
My wife’s first two points are quite hard for me to counter without coming off as selfish or unfair. Had she limited her argument to just those two statements, I probably would have started packing my swimsuit.
However, by introducing several weaker points, my wife has given me several openings to counterargue. For example, I might note that the hotel points would allow us an extra night at the ski resort, which is nicer than the beach hotel. Then, I could note that weather is risky at the beach, and that it rained that same week in December the past two years. Finally, I could remind her that I don’t really like the Joneses and our kids didn’t get along with theirs the last time we vacationed with them, so they probably wouldn’t want to repeat that experience.
Had she diluted her argument with weaker points that I could easily counter, my wife would have squandered a strong position. Likewise, when you present arguments that can be easily dismissed, or even factually discredited, you may damage your case, and even your reputation. Even if you aren’t speaking to a skeptical audience, presenting too much information may just overwhelm the listener, preventing them focusing on and processing your best arguments.
Less is often more in persuasive communication. Deliver your strongest, most irrefutable talking points, and skip the rest.
What is an argument you’ve lost, or are losing, where you could improve your case with quality, not quantity?
Quote of The Week
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson
Have a great weekend!
New For Premium Subscribers
The scripture has a lot of good examples the Less.
This was excellent, Bob!
The story telling threaded in this issue and the example of the tact and process necessary for very real and critical situations in all of life was fantastic.