US gun control as an example
Want to change someone’s mind? You need to understand their narrative first. Ideally, you should understand it BETTER THAN THEY DO. If you just want to pitch them your narrative — you have no chance to persuade anyone.
Let’s use the infamous US school shootings/gun control debate in order to play out this point of mine.
First, let’s turn on Fox News and try to understand the narrative of the second amendment (the right to bear arms) supporter:
”School shootings have become a horrible trend among disturbed young people. What can we do to prevent it? Not much — a young guy sitting in his room planning to kill his schoolmates isn’t on the law enforcement radar. The only way to deal with school shootings is to give the teachers weapons and train them to protect students from such shooters.”
It’s a strong argument, I have to admit. Let’s turn on CNN and listen to the gun-control argument:
“The US isn’t the only country with mass shootings. In Australia, a gunman killed 35 people at a cafe and tourist site in 1996. After this event, Australia banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. This was the last mass shooting event in Australia’s history. It’s clear we should follow Australia”
A strong argument as well, but look at how both these arguments seem to work in a total vacuum, without addressing each other. They can only impact a like-minded audience of people and solidify existing opinions.
If you want to touch and persuade people who don’t have the same belief as yourself, you need to go much deeper:
– Start by respecting and addressing their concerns
– Change the identity of the main enemy from their narrative (reframe the problem)
– Don’t use the terminology of the opposition (they are allergic to it)
– Embrace the tone and the style they like (if they like a militant tone — go for it)
– Surprise them with NEW facts and new angle
– Use metaphors
– Be dramatic!
– Don’t try to change their minds completely at once — a minor change is enough
Allow me to demonstrate how these rules work by crafting a narrative aimed at changing the perspective of pro-gun folks. Be patient — it takes time to unfold perspective-changing narratives:
America probably wouldn’t exist without the right to bear arms. Back in the late 18th century, when the Founding Father and future president John Adams conceived the notion of the right to bear arms, the British government soldiers committed many atrocities and killed many innocent people.
There was no way to prevent the soldiers’ attacks. So, there had to be an armed retaliation, so it became clear that (in the words of the second amendment) “A well-regulated Militia, (is) necessary to the security of a free State”.
Now, let’s fast forward to today, 250 years later: The fears of a tyrannical government are still alive in the hearts of Americans, and it’s probably a good thing in general. But the situation is very much different. The immediate threat isn’t as straightforward as it was before. It hides behind the eyes of seemingly normal kids.
It might be a good idea to follow Adams’s reasoning and to create militias of teachers to walk around schools and address this threat. I don’t have a strong opinion on this topic. BUT the big difference is that today’s America CAN take preventive measures. So why not take them!?
Do you think that if John Adams had a chance to destroy a British ship filled with rifles for the army, he wouldn’t do it? Of course, he would! This is exactly what America needs to do now — to DESTROY all the “ships” that deliver arms to young people. These ships are the current unlimited gun laws and regulations. They should be sunk!
That’s it. Persuasive enough?
Now, how about you, do you understand the narrative that leads your clients? Do you start with their narrative when you craft yours?