Why Emotion Will Usually Outweigh Logic In The Audience's Brains

Many people like to think that business is all about logic, and that customers behave having rationally analysed all available data, considered the various pros and cons of different courses of action and come to a logical conclusion.
Although it's very difficult for very logical people to understand (e.g. accountants, engineers, IT professionals), this could not be further from the truth, as the quote above from Buck Rogers of IBM demonstrates (and he was talking about mainframe computers!).
The reality is that a high percentage of the time people make decisions based purely on emotion. They may well rationalise that decision afterwards by using logic, but the decision itself is made on emotion. Logic plays only a secondary role.
We don't realise this is happening, because rarely think about how our emotions. We just feel them.
You can give a well-prepared, logical presentation backed with a plethora of data, facts, market research, customer focus group results, graphs, pie charts and statistics all pointing to one course of action, only to have your audience say, 'That's all very well, but my gut tells me to do this instead ..." If that has ever happened to you, you know how frustrating it is.
But if it happens, it's your fault.
Why? Because you've only engaged the part of their brains called the neocortex, whilst they have made the decision with their limbic system. Let me explain.
Our brains have two main parts: the Limbic System (or Core) and the Neocortex. The Core is tucked away in the centre of the brain and is primeval. It is where most of the basic functions reside - our sense of survival, fear, anger, hunger, sex drive, etc. It makes decisions very quickly and in a black and white manner.
The Neocortex is a much more recent development, in evolutionary terms. It is much bigger in humans than in other animals and is the part that makes us intelligent. If the Core tells us to be afraid because we hear a loud bang, the Cortex will analyse the situation and decide whether we should run away or if the source of the noise is harmless.
In everyday life, an emotional stimulus is normally routed via the Cortex, which analyses it before sending the appropriate response to the Amygdala.
However, a lot of the time this route ‘short circuits’ and emotions are triggered automatically, with the Cortex being left out. The result is a very fast response.
This happens in all brains, but more frequently in some people than others. It's what happens regularly in people we would consider to be ‘over emotional’, and occasionally in all of us when we are stressed. Who hasn’t exploded over something trivial we would usually have laughed at or ignored, at the end of a bad day?
This is also what happens with phobias, where the brain is incapable of rational thought, e.g. ‘That spider cannot hurt me. It isn't poisonous and I'm 1,000 times bigger than it. Therfore it isn't a threat and I don't need to be afraid.’
This serves a very important function – evolutionarily speaking, sometimes acting on impulse without stopping to think it has helped keep us alive! A being like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, totally devoid of emotion and relying purely on logic, would probably never have survived in the real world. While he was cooly and calmy analysing the percentage chances of being eaten by that sabre-toothed tiger attacking him, he'd already have been lunch!
It's also why logical argument seems to have no effect on some people. If a person is emotionally committed to a point of view, purely using logic to convince them of something else is not very effective. The fact that their views are 'under attack' short-circuits the route via the cortex and instantly creates defensive behaviour. Just think how most people react when their religious views are questioned.
In fact, there have been several studies done which show that even when people are confronted with rock solid proof that their view is wrong, they somehow blank out the new evidence and dig in even deeper to avoid admitting that they were wrong.
How can you all use this to your advantage? Well, you can't prevent your audience from having emotional reactions. You just can't. It's going to happen whether you want it to or not. Your audience themselves can't prevent it, never mind you. So accept it.
Now that you realise your audience will constantly be reacting emotionally to what you say and do, you need to deliberately create and manipulate those emotions which will help you achieve your objective.
How do you do this? By using metaphors/similes, humour, stories, painting visual images and introducing 'human interest'.
Even his opponents would grant that President Obama is a master of stirring people's emotions, and deliberately did so in most of his pesidential campaign speeches. It was one of the reasons so many people were captivated by his speeches.
For example, instead of simply saying, “We need to end the war in Iraq,” he used human interest by saying:
“I was in New Hampshire the other week when a woman told me that her nephew was leaving for Iraq. And as she started telling me how much she’d miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry  ...... And she said to me, “I can’t breathe. I want to know, when am I going to be able to breathe again?”...... It is time to let this woman know she can breathe again. It is time to put an end this war.” Which is the more powerful?

Instead of simply saying, “We need to invest in education,” he creaed a compelling visual image by saying, “We believe that when she goes to school for the first time, it should be in a place where the rats don't outnumber the computer.” Which of the two is more memorable?

He could have just said, “The world is watching this election.” Instead he said, “There is a young man on my campaign whose grandfather lives in Uganda. He is 81 years old and has never experienced true democracy in his lifetime. During the reign of Idi Amin, he was literally hunted and the only reason he escaped was thanks to the kindness of others and a few good-sized trunks. And on the night of the Iowa caucuses, that 81-year-old man stayed up until five in the morning, huddled in front of his television, waiting for the results.” Again – which has more effect?

Now I am not suggesting that you ditch logic and data and substitute them with nothing but stories and jokes. The deliberate manipulation of emotion should complement logic, not replace it. It is by using both that you will have the greatest effect. Because remember - people still like to believe that they have behaved logically. They like to rationalise their emotions decisions after the event by using logic.

Someone who has bought a $1,000 painting because it somewhow 'struck a chord' within her and reminded her of her childhood, will rationalise spending that much by saying something like, "Actually, when you think about it, buying that painting was really an investment. The girl in the gallery said that the artist's paintings have increased in value by almost 40% 0ver the last two years."

So manipulate their emotions to get them to agree with you, then give them the logical reasons why they should do so. But do it in that order. Emotions first, then logic. It doesn't work as well the other way around.

Next week I'll give you some tips on story telling, and how you can inject these into your presentations to create some emotion.

New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way.

Fact Impact

New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way.

When a committed Christian says he believes in the Second Coming of Christ, he believes it the way he believes that Michael Jordan was a basketball player. When an avowed atheist says there is no such thing as God, she knows it the way that she knows that Elvis was a rock star. According to new research—published yesterday in the online science journal PLoS One—by Sam Harris (the neuroscientist and atheist author of The End of Faith) and colleagues, "belief is belief is belief," as Harris puts it. "We seem to be doing the same thing when we accept a proposition about God or the virgin birth as we do about astronomy."

What Harris, his fellow researcher Jonas Kaplan, and the other authors of the study want to address is the idea, which has been floating around in both scientific and religious circles, that our brains are doing something special when we believe in God—that religious belief is, neurologically speaking, an entirely different process from believing in things that are empirically and verifiably true (things that Harris endearingly refers to as "tables and chairs"). He says his results "cut against the quite prevalent notion that there's something else entirely going on in the case of religious belief." Our believing brains make no qualitative distinctions between the kinds of things you learn in a math textbook and the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school. Though the existence of God will never be proved—or disproved—by an fMRI scan, science can study a thing or two about the neurological mechanisms of belief. What Harris's study shows is that when a conservative Christian says he believes in the Second Coming as an undeniable fact, he isn't lying or exaggerating or employing any other rhetorical maneuver. If a believer's brain regards the Second Coming the way it does every other fact, then debates about the veracity of faith would seem—to the committed believer, at least—to be rather pointless.

Harris, Kaplan, et al. put 30 people in fMRI machines. Half of them were committed Christian believers, the kind of Christians who would immediately agree with the statement "Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father." Half were committed atheists, the kind who would agree with the statement "The belief that Jesus ascended to heaven is clearly false." Up on a screen before them, participants would read declarative statements. Some were statements of religious belief, some of religious disbelief. Some were statements about more ordinary facts. Participants had to push buttons—indicating true or false—as the researchers watched their brains light up. Belief in God, disbelief in God, and belief in simple empirically verifiable facts all lit up the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that governs your sense of self. We are, in some sense, what we believe.

The bigger picture, from Harris's point of view, is that science urgently needs to get involved in the biggest questions of human existence—good, evil, morality, ethics, and what he calls "human well-being"—and not cede these to the religious sphere. "It is generally imagined," he wrote to me in an e-mail, "that scientific facts and human values represent distinct and incommensurable ways of speaking about the world. Consequently, most people assume that science will never be in a position to resolve ethical questions or to determine how human beings ought to live." Questions of gay marriage, the subjugation of women under the Taliban, a community's responsibility to its children: all these have been relegated to the realm of religion or "values." But, says Harris, the more we know, through science, about how people live—and how they think, and what makes them happy—the more real information we'll have about how best to live together on this planet. The fMRI experiments do not pertain to these largest questions, of course. But they do show (again) what neuroscientists already know. "Intuition" and "reason" are not two separate activities. They're interconnected. From the brain's point of view, religious belief and empirical data are the same

.

Does Your Personality Influence Who You Vote For?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 2, 2008) — 

Does your personality influence who you vote for? The short answer is yes, according to John Mayer, professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire. As Americans go to the polls in record numbers to vote for the next U.S. president, some voters will crave social stability and others will crave social change. Liberals and conservatives divide according to these personality preferences.

Our votes are an expression not only of which candidates are best – the Republicans, Democrats, or those candidates of another party – but also of our own way of perceiving and thinking about the world and what is good or bad about it. Our personal perceptions and thoughts in this area (and others) have been shaped over time within our personalities,” Mayer says.

Personality is interior and private, with no direct access to the outside world (everything is filtered through the senses: one’s eyes, ears, touch, etc.). For that reason, each person creates a mental world that represents the real one to a greater or lesser degree. Mental models guide each person and how he or she perceives the world, including those social features he or she they prefers or abhors.

Certain personality characteristics generally influence whether a person is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberals:

• View social inequities and preferred groups as unjust and requiring reform.
• Prefer atheists, tattoos, foreign films and poetry.
• Endorse gay unions, welfare, universal health care, feminism and environmentalism.
• Exhibit creativity, which entails the capacity to see solutions to problems, and empathy toward others.
• Tolerate complexity and ambiguity.
• Are influenced by their work as judges, social workers, professors and other careers for which an appreciation of opposing points of view is required.

Conservatives:

• Willing to defend current social inequities and preferred groups as justifiable or necessary.
• Prefer prayer, religious people and SUVs.
• Endorse the U.S. government, the military, the state they live in, big corporations and most Americans.
• Are more likely to be a first-born, who identify more with their parents, predisposing them to a greater investment in authority and a preference for conservatism.
• Have a fear of death, reflecting an enhanced need for security.
• Are conscientious – the ability to exert personal self-control to the effect of meeting one’s own and others’ demands, and maintaining personal coherence.
• Need simplicity, clarity and certainty.

Mayer has published more than 100 articles, chapters, books and psychological tests, including his most recent book, “Personality: A Systems Approach.” In 1990, Mayer and Peter Salovey of Yale University coined the term Emotional Intelligence and provided the first scientific research on the topic.

Editor's Note: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031161623