over 5 years ago
Read in
February 2012
This book gives good insight to compliance strategies and main reasons we are persuaded - however I was unimpressed by a few of the examples Cialdini used and the main conclusion he made at the end of the book.
Example 1: After claiming to have been a bigger socialite than he really is to impress a young attractive saleswoman, Cialdini became particularly pugnacious about her "strategy of tricking him into exaggerating his habits" where as this was his fault, not the saleswoman's. When she offered a package that saves him money - since he claimed to go out so often - she was actually offering a favour; the fact that he was bragging - because she was young and good looking - was not her fault at all. He makes this out to be a malevolent trick used by the saleswoman when in fact it was him trapping himself. He could have easily just not lied, despite her being young and attractive, instead of going into a big argument in the end about her "wrong-headed strategy to persuade him to exaggerate his social habits"
Example 2: His friend Sara, who after being offered to be married to her boyfriend (Lets call him Candidate 2) chose to go back to her old boyfriend, Tim, despite him unwilling to marry her: Cialdini says she has been tricked by Tim into going back as he had offered to marry her while she was courted by Candidate Nr. 2 but disregarded of the marriage after she chose him. I don't see this example as a properly researched one - the reasons we chose mates is a lot more complicated than who is willing to marry us. Just because Candidate Nr. 2 was willing, does not necessarily make him a more attractive potential partner. There are a lot of other things to consider. What's more Cialdini said she was genuinely happier in the end - so was this not a good deal? He had also not considered she may have only had Candidate Nr. 2 around to put Tim into a competitive situation and to profit from the scarcity rule... Tim, who is obviously for some reason or another - clearly unknown to Cialdini - much more valuable to her than Candidate Nr. 2. I also did not like his conclusion that she must chose before her time is up and all her alternatives to Tim disappear.
Finally, I was not particularly impressed with the conclusion of the book: "We should be willing to use boycott, threat, confrontation, censure, tirade, nearly anything to retaliate" to those exploiting our natural triggers to "short cut" the massive amounts of information presented to us: for example dismissing any show that uses fake laughter, not giving any tips to bartenders who "salt" their tip jar and the like....recognising these exploits of triggers and short cuts is one thing, but going to war with them and arguing with every salesperson as he does in various examples of the book would be far more energy and time consuming than it is worth.
Example 1: After claiming to have been a bigger socialite than he really is to impress a young attractive saleswoman, Cialdini became particularly pugnacious about her "strategy of tricking him into exaggerating his habits" where as this was his fault, not the saleswoman's. When she offered a package that saves him money - since he claimed to go out so often - she was actually offering a favour; the fact that he was bragging - because she was young and good looking - was not her fault at all. He makes this out to be a malevolent trick used by the saleswoman when in fact it was him trapping himself. He could have easily just not lied, despite her being young and attractive, instead of going into a big argument in the end about her "wrong-headed strategy to persuade him to exaggerate his social habits"
Example 2: His friend Sara, who after being offered to be married to her boyfriend (Lets call him Candidate 2) chose to go back to her old boyfriend, Tim, despite him unwilling to marry her: Cialdini says she has been tricked by Tim into going back as he had offered to marry her while she was courted by Candidate Nr. 2 but disregarded of the marriage after she chose him. I don't see this example as a properly researched one - the reasons we chose mates is a lot more complicated than who is willing to marry us. Just because Candidate Nr. 2 was willing, does not necessarily make him a more attractive potential partner. There are a lot of other things to consider. What's more Cialdini said she was genuinely happier in the end - so was this not a good deal? He had also not considered she may have only had Candidate Nr. 2 around to put Tim into a competitive situation and to profit from the scarcity rule... Tim, who is obviously for some reason or another - clearly unknown to Cialdini - much more valuable to her than Candidate Nr. 2. I also did not like his conclusion that she must chose before her time is up and all her alternatives to Tim disappear.
Finally, I was not particularly impressed with the conclusion of the book: "We should be willing to use boycott, threat, confrontation, censure, tirade, nearly anything to retaliate" to those exploiting our natural triggers to "short cut" the massive amounts of information presented to us: for example dismissing any show that uses fake laughter, not giving any tips to bartenders who "salt" their tip jar and the like....recognising these exploits of triggers and short cuts is one thing, but going to war with them and arguing with every salesperson as he does in various examples of the book would be far more energy and time consuming than it is worth.
