Using Comparative Language For Persuasive Purposes

[NarrowJ]

After reading quite a lot of Chase's material, whether it be forum posts or articles on the main site, I had noticed how thorough he is when writing comparative dialogue. He doesn't leave you wondering or mining for his opinion on a subject.

A good comparative statement always contains 3 components:

1) The entities/methods/ideas that are being compared,
2) The pros involved in the preferred entity/method/idea, and
3) The cons involved in the less desirable entity/method/idea.

An example of this might look something like:

"The way to command a woman's attention is not to pester her endlessly with information about yourself, but rather to get her talking about the things and activities that she likes and does for fun. If you just sit and talk about your accomplishments, it makes you look try-hard and self-centered as opposed to getting her to do most of the talking, which not only helps her open up to you and feel comfortable but also follows the Law of Least Effort as you get her investing more and more in the interaction"

This is an extremely comprehensive statement. After reading something like that, you know exactly where this person stands on the subject of who should be doing most of the talking during a conversation. He presents two ways of doing something, and presents you with the argument for or against each side of things. You have all the information you need there. As I've been reading quite a lot of books lately, I notice that there are so many writers who never bother to encompass the full scope of what they're comparing or explaining. They simply tell me that one is better than the other, but they don't tell me why it's better or give me any real reason to believe it is so, or especially, to change my mind on the matter.

The real reason this was so interesting to me, is that I've found it works wonders on the effect of presenting persuasive arguments. Let's say, for instance, you're trying to get a woman to come home with you. You pull out all the stops: you've worked hard to establish rapport and comfort, seeded an activity or thing for her to see at your place, used a yes-ladder when you asked her back to your place (and so on and so forth).... but she still says no.

Unless you're able to make a compelling argument here, she has no reason to change her mind. I'd imagine most guys would simply say "Oh, come on. Live a little. Let's go..." or something like that which not only doesn't pinpoint any pros or cons for her, but also doesn't really even address the alternative (her not coming home with you and possibly never seeing you again). So that's about as weak of an argument as you can make.

Some guys might go with something like "Oh, come on. You said you're having a good time and it's too early for this end. Let's go..." which is a little better because it addresses the alternative, but it still doesn't sell it as well because you're not including any reasons why it's such a good idea and the alternative is not such a good idea.

If you can present her with something like this: "Oh, come on. We're having a great time and it's too early for this to end. If you come with me for just a little while, we'll get to have some more fun [doing this activity] together. But, if you don't come with me, we'll part ways and then life and schedules get busy and we might never see each other again. Come with me, it'll be fun, I promise!"

With something like that, it triggers her brain to actually spend more than a nanosecond weighing the options in front of her. Her mind was already made up before, and unless you give the person a fighting chance to re-evaluate the decision, the previous choice that she'd already locked herself into is not going to change at all. It's something that takes a little more mental effort, and is often easily overlooked, but the affect is well worth it.



J.J.

 

[Ross]

Great post JJ.

Comparative language is what I typically use to differentiate between something worth reading and something not worth reading. Anything that doesn't use it comes off as awfully dogmatic. But, if it is used, you can clearly see both sides and understand that the writer is giving you a full view of things.

 

[R.A.D.]

I agree with you. Related to that, as a second step to the comparative argument, in the event you perceive she really wants to but there is still some resistance. There is also the possibility of ruling out the objection, to relate.your argument to the.subject and make her see that what you propose and what she says are not mutually exclusive.

So after the comparative argument you established above she now is convinced she wants to but thinks about the consequences

No..I want to... But.....

Hey I know you must be worried, I realize for what you said you usually dont do this, but lets get there first and see what happens, you can leave at any time you want ( Reasure her your way establishing she has full control of the situation)

In the above She takes just the right ammount of risk at a time so she feels adventurous but in control but actually she is giving you control because you are leading her

Or hey I know its late and you are worried about tomorrow, but I promise you will feel much better doing (temting argument) just give me x ammount of time and you will be sleeping before x hour

She gets the fun and the sleep, sleep sometimes being more about what she is used to do, her safe rutine, than actually sleeping.

Of course more adventure and more fun depends on how good things go.

Well just something that ive tried and came to mind as a good complement.

 

[Oskar]

Yeah, this is one thing that makes his writing stand out above the rest. However, I think you're looking at tactics when my guess is that the master focused more on strategy to get where he is.

That is to say, I don't think Chase is creating this linguistic construct through a conscious writing technique or tactic -- I think it has more to do with his skill/training at rational thought and inquiry, coupled with the breadth of his goals in writing (which are then actualized through mountains of relevant rhetorical experience from a young age). Instead of just seeking to explain an issue, he seems to aspire for three other things in his articles, which really distinguish his writing from most other writers in similar niches: comprehensiveness, for the articles to be easy to understand, and for them to be emotionally rewarding. Coupling these goals with his years of experience and hard-work as a rhetorician and seducer (which are intimately related fields as it is), how could one not write at such a high level?

-Oskar

 

[Drck]

.... you've worked hard to establish rapport and comfort, seeded an activity or thing for her to see at your place, used a yes-ladder when you asked her back to your place (and so on and so forth).... but she still says no.

Unless you're able to make a compelling argument here, she has no reason to change her mind. I'd imagine most guys would simply say "Oh, come on. Live a little. Let's go..." or something like that which not only doesn't pinpoint any pros or cons for her, but also doesn't really even address the alternative (her not coming home with you and possibly never seeing you again). So that's about as weak of an argument as you can make.

>>>>>

When you talk arguments you talk logic. Logic is actually quite repulsive as far as seduction, and unless she knows you really well most likely you won't be able to change her mind. You will have hard time to find reason why she should go with you and potentialy sleep with you (she is not stupid), and once she says NO any further arguing will only make the NO stronger.

Focus on her emotions instead, there should be good vibes. Get her into emotional state of relaxation, pleasure, perhaps even lust. You need to be touching her, perhaps be already intimate.

Neverthelless, it is allways relative. When she meets a guy she may be open to it, or not. If she is open to it is relatively easy. She makes it easy because she wants it that day. If she is not, she will most likely reject you no matter what you do or how attractive you are. You can be touching a lot, be quite intimate (I'm talking about kissing her while having fingers in her wet pussy), but she may still refuse to go with you. The thing is, she may not go today or tomorrow with you, but if she sees you as an attractive guy who wants sex, she may eventually cave in, assuming that your frame is strong enough and you are pushing hard. It may take several dates for her to change her mind, but again, it all depends...

 

[NarrowJ]

Ross,

Great post JJ.

Comparative language is what I typically use to differentiate between something worth reading and something not worth reading. Anything that doesn't use it comes off as awfully dogmatic. But, if it is used, you can clearly see both sides and understand that the writer is giving you a full view of things.

Thanks, man. And, it's definitely one of the reasons I enjoy reading him as much as I do. He explains everything so clearly and concisely. When I first started reading articles here, I thought: "Wow, this Chase fellow sure is long-winded in his explanations and examples of things", but then as I read more and more it started to sink in that there was value to actually spending more time discussing each point, even if it is a small one.



R.A.D.,

So after the comparative argument you established above she now is convinced she wants to but thinks about the consequences

No..I want to... But.....

Hey I know you must be worried, I realize for what you said you usually dont do this, but lets get there first and see what happens, you can leave at any time you want ( Reasure her your way establishing she has full control of the situation)

In the above She takes just the right ammount of risk at a time so she feels adventurous but in control but actually she is giving you control because you are leading her

Definitely. Logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. Yes, your reasoning in these instances is logical by definition, but the main focus with this type of persistence is affecting her emotions in a positive way. Good call there.



Oskar,

That is to say, I don't think Chase is creating this linguistic construct through a conscious writing technique or tactic -- I think it has more to do with his skill/training at rational thought and inquiry, coupled with the breadth of his goals in writing (which are then actualized through mountains of relevant rhetorical experience from a young age). Instead of just seeking to explain an issue, he seems to aspire for three other things in his articles, which really distinguish his writing from most other writers in similar niches: comprehensiveness, for the articles to be easy to understand, and for them to be emotionally rewarding. Coupling these goals with his years of experience and hard-work as a rhetorician and seducer (which are intimately related fields as it is), how could one not write at such a high level?

Whether it is intended or not, it gets the job done! I wish I could write like that... =)



J.J.

 

[Chase]

Haha, neat.

Hmm, well my tendency to use comparative language primarily stems from a half decade of rap. In rap - which is essentially poetry set to music - your ability to use analogies effectively adds a lot of color and personality to your lyrics, and forces listeners to attention. Since it's difficult to branch into too many new topics and most songs are essentially about the same themes again and again ("Don't mess with me or I'll destroy you" or "Look at how successful I am" or "I get all the women" or other forms of braggadocio, or the occasional thoughtful/philosophical point, but too many of these latter and your music won't take off - as Jay-Z tellingly noted, he dumbed down his lyrics and his album sales tripled), colorful analogies and comparison are musts.

They serve the purpose of both a.) snapping the listener out of autopilot, and b.) making your music memorable and unique. If you keep saying "I'm rich and have money" you bore fast, but if you say "My stack of cash is taller than the Empire State" or "I've got more digits in my bank than on both of my hands" it's still interesting - the listener is forced to think, consider the angle you're using, and the message still gets in there.

In rhetoric, I find I'm frequently arguing against people's deeply engrained beliefs, often against things that they've never questioned and that everyone around them believes as much as they do (probably because there's not much need for me to argue things they already believe... belief's a given in those cases). So they're extremely closed to even considering any alternative way of thinking than what they already know. To get around this, when arguing in person, I'd get frustrated, and fall back on analogy: "Okay, look - it's like this:" which I already knew how to come up with on the fly pretty easily from years of ad-libbing rap lyrics. Eventually that just became my default means of teaching - don't bother with getting too abstract without sufficient comparative language, because it's just too hard to process; the brain works more easily with examples it's familiar with than trying to place abstract new concepts without examples onto existing mental framework that presently supports a different mental model. While your mind might be closed to thinking about an idea one way, when you examine a related concept that you ARE familiar with, and then see how the two concepts tie together, it opens up your mind to considering that they might actually be the same in important ways.

People just can't think about things very accurately without a point of reference. I can hold up a blade of grass and ask, "Is this tall or is this small?" and you'll say something, but not have much of an answer (or much of an emotional response). If I slide that blade of grass under a microscope and throw a grain of sand in there, and ask the same question, the blade of grass looks like a skyscraper. On the other hand, if I put the blade of grass right next to a planet, it's so tiny it's invisible. Because we live in a universe where everything is more or less relative, if you want people to think about things with any measure of clarity you need a point of reference to balance those things against.

The downside of this is that you need to be pretty responsible, because it's easy to use comparisons / analogies that seem accurate on a superficial level but are completely misleading. So when I use these, I try to explore any caveats or holes in the analogy, both for accuracy and for credibility (too many people poking holes in your otherwise nice-sounding arguments that you missed sinks your credibility fast - just ask the intelligent design folks). If you start telling someone that "a person is like a flower, because every spring they both blossom and bloom" or something, you'd better be prepared to note that while people do seem to get a lot friskier in spring time, in fact they are sexually receptive year-round, quite unlike most flowering plants. Also, people generally aren't hermaphrodites, while the vast majority of flowering plants are...!

The name of the orator escapes me right now, but there was a great orator who went before either the Athenian or the Roman senate (I think it was the Romans) and presented a great argument in favor of government subsidies for the poor (I think was the argument, or something along those lines), and gave a rousing cry at the end in support of this. By the end of it, the senate was totally convinced. The next day, he came back and argued against government subsidies for the poor, gave another rousing call at the end, and again, by the end of it, the senate was totally convinced. He then said see, this is why you must be cautious with rhetoric, because it's very easy to make whatever point you want to make if you simply know how to make it (though the Roman senate was less impressed by him trying to make THIS point - they didn't care about that, they just wanted to know if the government should subsidize the poor).

I had a similar experience on the debate team in school; you need to be able to argue both sides of the argument and win. So if the other guy argued that eminent domain was wrong, I could prove his position was indefensible and in fact eminent domain was right; and if the other guy argued that eminent domain was right, I could prove his position was indefensible and in fact eminent domain was wrong. Much of that even is about perception; I'd set little logical traps for the opponent, and when he'd fall into this and say, "You said this, which is a weak argument and totally unsupportable. How can you even say this is true?" I could spring on him and say, "I'm glad you asked that question! You see, the REASON why eminent domain is so important to sound education is..." and everyone would be even more convinced that I knew exactly what I was talking about, was operating on a higher logical plain than my opponent, and of course my position must be right. Despite the fact that that was the case no matter what my position was...

That's another reason why I encourage everyone to test, and why I try to only speak on things I have sufficient firsthand experience with, and try to avoid having strong opinions on anything I do not. It's far too easy to lead people into constructing entire belief systems around things you tell them that you could very well have pulled right out of your ass if you're good at rhetoric and don't respect this mandate... and in fact, this is what many religious/cult leaders and politicians and popular pundits and talk show hosts on television do every day... you should be very wary of anyone with a strong opinion on something he doesn't have piles of actual firsthand experience with doing himself.

Chase