the NRA and web design: constructive criticism

[SaMx]

http://theeditorialadvantage.com/?p=144

an interesting article about web design and making persuasive arguments. I'd like it if people could focus on the second part and ignore the authors opinions in the first part. She makes some good points. particularly I'd like to focus on this section:

It’s the essence of effective persuasion. You see yourself from the other person’s perspective, and you gently bring him or her over to your side.

This is sort of broaches a subject I've been thinking about lately, regarding making effective arguments in general. All to often we simply attack people and points that are incorrect, and I think that strategy isn't necessarily effective in the long term. When arguing or making a point I think it can be beneficial not to behave in an adversarial way, but rather to keep your goal in mind, that is to bring people around to your point of view. The goal should be to make people think, rather than to make them rush to defend their arguments.

 

[Brad Johnson]

What you're talking about is the ABC method. Agree. Buffer. Close.

Agree with the other party. It establishes a common frame of reference and reduces their mental defensiveness.

Buffer the conversation with a segue statement or, preferably, a question that forces the other party to consider your option.

Close by using leading statments or questions that force the other party to justify the option to themselves.

Brad

 

[Robert Hairless]

If your point is that the NRA web sites could be better designed, why not communicate with the NRA directly?