I could shout this at you by going all caps, big bold font, and maybe even underline it... but I don't think that would work very well. I'll explain, but first...
I like a good visual. Not everyone's brain works like this, but for many (including me) a clear visual can help to crystallise a concept. It can simplify the complex; bring it home and make it easier to recall and apply in daily life. I hope that's what happens for a few of you here.
The concept here is one that I think most understand and agree with. In fact, most will find the core principle difficult to argue with... but many fail to put it into practice. They leave it by the wayside - especially when emotions come into play, when they care the most, and that's unfortunate. Maybe this will help.
I don't know if it's backed up by any real science, but this is a concept - or a principle - that I firmly believe in. There is a visual in my head (and now below) that I think depicts the way this works. I call it the 'outrage curve'.
Whether it's socio-political issues, sports talk, personal relationships or whatever, everybody seems to be shouting about something. The starting point too often seems to be "THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!" Most of the time it isn't. It's just complex.
Most of the 'outraged' are shouting with the belief that the louder they are, the more people will hear them. That may be true, the volume creates awareness, but they are often missing the fact that very few are actually listening. Those that hear them are not moving toward their point of view.
In fact, when you get really loud or really outraged, most people just think you're a nut job and they run for the hills. Like when my Mom heard me playing Rush (the band, not the radio guy) really loudly she would just close the door and cover her ears without ever realising that the band was actually trying to make some really meaningful social commentary with their music. To be honest, I didn't realise that either when I was 14, I just liked the loud music.
Anyway, the only people cheering on the 'outraged' seem to be those who already agree with the outraged point of view. I think the curve looks something like this:
Now, when I say 'outrage' I'm not just talking about loud anger. Also in this 'outrage bucket' and subject to this curve are things like name-calling, ridicule, fist pounding, eye-bulging, interrupting, and a host of other aggressive, rude or childish communication tactics. These things may help you 'win' the argument and score points with your own crowd, but they actually work against you if you're trying to sell your point of view and bring on board those who aren't yet with you.
I think most people know this when they speak/shout/fume/spit. So then I guess it would be fair to assume that most outraged communicators don't really want to share their reasoned point of view, with hopes of bringing you around to their way of thinking. For some, all they really want to do is tell you how wrong or stupid you are. Fair enough.
Contrasting with this modified definition of outrage are things like humility, respect, and genuine listening. These all lower the outrage quotient... in my humble opinion.
My theory is that if you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, you need to lower the volume, lower the outrage. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion, as you come down the curve, you widen your window of influence. You increase the universe of people who might be willing to listen to what you are saying.
When you communicate at 'high-outrage', only those who already think like you are listening. They may cheer loudly and slap you on your metaphorical back, but you're not really making progress. All you're getting is an addictive dose of dopamine. Good for you, but nobody else.
When drop your outrage to moderate or even a low level, you give yourself a chance to bring others to the table - and potentially around to your perspective. Even if they don't jump on board immediately, they are certainly more likely to view you as a respectable source of opinion... which is often the first step toward persuasion.
Of course, I imagine there is also a level of volume/outrage that is effectively too low. If you drop it all the way down, people may be willing to consider your point of view, but no-one can actually hear you. I'm not sure where it is, but somewhere in between is the sweet spot, and that's where constructive discourse takes place. Let's go there.
So that's the way I think it works. If you agree, that's great - you'll help make the world a better place. If you disagree, I'm happy to listen... unless, of course, you choose to shout at me and call me names. Sticks and stones...
If you like this stuff and want to read more, the best way is on my Substack where you can read all back issues and subscribe so you will be alerted to all future Cook Endeavour blogs. Read on!
留言