The Art of Influence

8Dec/0910

The Art of Influence

Apply this to any situation you like - whether man-driven global climate change, health care reform, Sarah Palin, Tiger Woods, or actuarial credentialing [this last one is actually what I'm dealing with] - I want to ask about a particular tactic and how effective this is in influencing opinion.

Let's say there is an official position "A" being put out there, and then strong opposing position "B". The "A"-supporting guys are the "leaders", in position due to elections or appointments, and "A" has been put forth multiple times previously and every time rejected. But this time, they think, they'll be able to get it through as they outnumber the "B" people overwhelmingly amongst the official leaders.

But what do the onlookers think about the situation? And how to influence them?

The A-side people cast aspersions on the intelligence and the intentions of of the B-siders. Is this effective in influencing the opinion of onlookers? When the B-siders are attacking the specific qualities of A as opposed to the characteristics of A-supporters themselves...

What do you think?

[linked to via my livejournal]

Meep

Meep is a member of the Irish Catholic mafia, having a suspiciously high number of green-eyed, red-haired friends. While she doesn’t have red hair herself [except when she goes into the sun (rare for any vampire)], she does have green eyes. She’s a raving Papist and is a life actuary on the side [i.e., she counts dead people]. An amateur pain-in-the-ass [willing to go pro!], she likes covering retirement, mortality, math, and education issues.

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (10) Trackbacks (1) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Denny Lewis
December 8th, 2009 - 20:01

You need to be more specific in what it is that’s chaffing your butt cheeks. If it’s simplified to the extreme two penny politics that you’re attempting to cloak with actuarial jingoism then, trust me, yours is a easily seen-through partisan vaudeville act.

Smack!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Meep
  December 9th, 2009 - 04:38
  
  You’re more than welcome to join the fooforaw over at the Actuarial Outpost. I post there as campbell.
  
  For the last [at least] forty years, various people have been trying to get the professional actuarial credentials in the US and Canada to be based on college degrees [i.e., you've got to have a degree in actuarial science from particular universities] – this is how it’s done in some other countries, such as France. The current credentialing system [as it has been for decades] gives no special treatment for those who major in the topic. You’ve got to pass the exams [about nine] just like anybody else.
  
  Most of the action has been going on here:
  http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=35
  
  The proposed program is called FEM, so anything with FEM in the title will be about the topic, though almost all the threads in that particular subforum are about that topic.
  
  That is the particular little internecine battle I’m involved in, but I’ve noticed the same tactics being used in all the listed topics above.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Denny Lewis
    December 9th, 2009 - 09:32
    
    Of actuarial degrees and accreditation debates one can only assume you’ve madly mistaken my level of concern, but I’m never one to doubt the French or their timeless and proven methods, Meep.
    
    You see, Meep, beginning somewhere around the 16th century the French created a method of curing their country of mental illness. Certifiably disturbed mariners were located and then entrusted with a cargo of loonies because, as had been discovered, the seas, folly and madness had a deadly affinity for each other. Seaside towns and harbors all throughout Europe enjoyed the comical sideshow of a pathetic loony-filled boat trying to anchor and come to shore. The Ship of Fools, as the actual boat was called, sailed to and fro with little success in the way of survival in its cargo hold. Schizophrenic women to catatonic men, arguing actuaries would’a fit nicely between those two extremes and I trust the French would have dealt with you babbling actuaries accordingly.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Pablo
      December 9th, 2009 - 11:29
      
      With neither knowledge nor concern, perhaps you should STFU.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Denny Lewis
      December 9th, 2009 - 15:30
      
      Silence, bean queefer.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Dan Collins
December 8th, 2009 - 21:23

I think that it might be more that onlookers think side A and side B are both fucked up, and want them to do as little as possible.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
agile_dog
December 8th, 2009 - 21:57

It really depends on what the “onlookers” think about the leaders – do they have any record of bringing home the bacon for the onlookers before? Many (if not most) people tend to base their decision about an issue on their sympathies/history with the person presenting the issue to them. If they see them favorably, they’ll likely take any reasoning from that person on faith, and not critically examine it for their own self-interest. If you don’t like that person, you’ll cast a critical eye on their reasons/logic.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Meep
  December 9th, 2009 - 04:48
  
  In my particular fight, there are bacon-bringers on both sides. The A-siders were not elected on the issue of A…. onlookers had no idea that A was even in the works until very recently.
  
  Also, most onlookers don’t even know who these people are, other than they’re on the board of directors.
  
  The “B supporters are a bunch of poopyheads!” of course has been trotted out only after the tide of opinion has been shown to be extremely strong against A. Rough estimate: 80-90% of the actuarial membership [at least in the US] are against A. I have tried to explain the futility to the A-siders of trying to go forward with their plans, and some continue with the poopyhead talk. [not all. Some have decided to lay low for now, and next time ... next time we say! ... they'll be sure to win. Just like forty years ago, and twenty years ago, and now.]
  
  It’s highly annoying. I’m not particularly worried that A will ever pass, actually – I’ve pointed out to the A-siders why they are unlikely to ever win [not going into it here]. I’m just embarrassed by the poopyhead talk and wondering why these supposedly rational people think it will work on a bunch of actuaries. Maybe it will. Maybe I think too highly of my fellow professionals.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
K
December 9th, 2009 - 02:18

The “A” guys are rediculing the “B” guys because it keeps their base, the people who agree with them and who elected them in the first place, from getting any inconvenient ideas or actual concepts from the “B” guys. Naturally the “B” guys are doing the same thing.

As for the onlookers, who are neither “A” or “B” folks, the percentage that gets goodies from the “A” guys program will vote for the “A” guys and the people who get to pay for the goodies will vote for the “B” guys.

All the rest is just so much entertainment.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Shane Shoptaw
October 23rd, 2010 - 12:05

If you’re still on the fence: grab your favored earphones, head down to a Very best Purchase and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds much better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you’ll know which is appropriate for you.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )