transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:09] Hey, everybody, this is Chuck Marohn. Welcome back to The Strong Towns Podcast. My guest today is Joshua Bandoch. And Josh, did I say your last name right? Bandoch, is that how you'd say it?
Speaker 2:
[00:19] Yes, correct, yeah, Bandoch, that's me.
Speaker 1:
[00:21] All right, he is a new author. The book is How to Get What You Want, Mastering the Art of Science and Persuasion. I asked Josh to come on the podcast and chat with us about it. Josh, welcome to The Strong Towns Podcast.
Speaker 2:
[00:33] Chuck, it is a pleasure to be here, and thank you for all the great work that you're doing. So thank you.
Speaker 1:
[00:37] Thank you, friend. And I feel like at Strong Towns, we make a lot of rational arguments about how the world should work. And I particularly go back to like the early days of Strong Towns. You know, this would be like 2008, 2009. I see an angry young engineer mad because the world like does not make sense. And you know, I went through a frustration phase too, where like people were getting it, but then we're getting the same outcomes. And even in cities where people would say, you know, oh, we follow Strong Towns and we think this is really great, they do the same dumb things over and over and over again. Here's the question I want to start us with. Why don't good arguments actually change people's minds?
Speaker 2:
[01:20] Good arguments alone don't change people's mind because that approach does not align with our cognitive wiring. And I hate, hate, hate what I'm about to tell you. And this is what all the neuroscience and all the psychology says. And a lot of your listeners are gonna click at us episode real fast, but bear with me for a second, guys.
Speaker 1:
[01:40] No, hang on, guys. Hang on, hang on.
Speaker 2:
[01:43] All right. So this is how all 8 billion of our brains are wired. We feel first, then reason. Sometimes it's feel, but reason? Sometimes it's feel, then reason? Sometimes it's feel, and we never get to reasoning. We've all been there. Chuck, I have. So here's the problem. That we think that persuasion, which is what the book's about, which is what Strong Towns is trying to do, and it's advocates trying to persuade people to do things. We think that persuasion is primarily or purely a logical endeavor, and we're wired to feel first. So people's approach is, hey, let me launch my logic at you, and then eventually, if I launch it enough, maybe launch a logic tsunami, that's going to somehow make you change your mind, which, I mean, that works against you all the time, right? In fact, though, persuasion starts with feelings. And I know this is really aversive to math-oriented people, engineers, and things like that. I can't all be so logical. It turns out that people who suffer brain damage and whose ability to emote is impaired, their reasoning is impaired. They can't reason properly. So emotions even actually enhance our reasoning. So what does this all mean? This all means that the logic-first approach to persuasion is illogical, and you have to start with feelings. But when we start with data, you're missing the first step in everybody's cognitive process.
Speaker 1:
[03:02] So I want to paint this scene because it's a scene I've witnessed over and over and over again. You have an advocate, Strong Towns advocate. They've got all the studies and the data and the charts. They show up to the meeting. They're going to illuminate the crowd because they have special data, special insight that is not part of the dialogue. And maybe they even go through their PowerPoint or they hand out their notes. And they make what in their mind is a really compelling argument, but they don't get any... It goes nowhere. What I've long told people is don't bring data to an emotions fight.
Speaker 2:
[03:44] 100%.
Speaker 1:
[03:45] You gotta bring data at some point, but how would you say approach that setting, the public meeting where you really care about something deeply, how would you approach that setting if you want to be heard, if you want people to actually understand what you're saying?
Speaker 2:
[04:06] With maximum emotional intelligence. Because IQ alone can never win the day. The smartest people in the world, if they don't have emotional intelligence, they don't get what they want. Or maybe they get a little bit of it sometimes, not nearly as much and not nearly as often. Okay, so what does it look like to approach your advocacy with emotional intelligence? Start with feelings, which means that is simply how we're wired. Okay, how do you do that? Well, you have to understand how your audience feels about something. And here's actually one really stealthy tactic that I encourage everybody just to try like today. Once you listen to this, the really stealthy tactic to figure out how somebody is feeling. You ready for it?
Speaker 1:
[04:52] Yeah, yeah, go for it. Ask them.
Speaker 2:
[04:55] Ask them how they feel. And this is kind of the first place that we start to err. We ask somebody what they think about something. Suppose you're talking to a councilman, a mayor, whoever, about policy, and you say, Mayor, what do you think about this? No, no, no. Ask them, Mayor, how do you feel about this? It triggers a totally different track in the brain. And they offer a quick, intuitive, much more honest answer. You have to know how somebody feels about something. You say, Mayor, you know, how do you feel about, you know, trying to have more density, like doing these sorts of things that Song Chant advocates for. And he can say, well, you know, I'm just, I'm concerned about X. He'll tell you that. Whereas if you say, Mayor, what do you think about this? He has to pause. Well, I just need to look at the data. The feeling answer, boom. Okay, so then you know how he feels. Okay, then the next step is, well, you have to generate persuasive feelings. And what feelings are persuasive? Well, everyone knows the answer is super obvious. Negative feelings, right? Well, let's take a look around, duh. When I was writing this chapter, I went on Fox News and MSNBC. You have about 200 home page stories. One was positive. So that aligns with our wiring. So we're wired with something called negativity bias. We are more attentive to negative information because it helps us survive. Here's the problem. What feelings are persuasive? Positive feelings. Doubtful. Who are some of the most persuasive people in America over the last 100 years? Who are some of the people that come to mind for you?
Speaker 1:
[06:26] Wow, that's a really good question. I'm 52. So in my life, I feel like Ronald Reagan was very positive in terms of his emotions about the country and his way of expressing things. I actually think to a degree, Bill Clinton was a great communicator for much the same reason. My kids take in astrophysics and her and I do these deep dives into it. And I feel like Neil deGrasse Tyson has been kind of like the pop culture physicist, but he is that way because he talks about these things in such a human, like a personal optimistic way. Yeah, that's a good sampling.
Speaker 2:
[07:04] Hundred percent. I'll add two if you don't mind. Tell me if you disagree.
Speaker 1:
[07:08] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[07:09] JFK, he said, ask not. No one ever says Walter Mondale. Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream. No one ever says Malcolm X. Ronald Reagan saw America as a shining city. No one ever says Barry Goldwater. Bill Clinton said, I feel your pain, while George HW. Bush was looking at his watch. Barack Obama, change, right?
Speaker 1:
[07:31] Yeah, Barack Obama, yeah.
Speaker 2:
[07:32] Really powerful. His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, it's an absolute masterpiece. So positive things are persuasive. What does that mean in your advocacy for your strong talent advocates? You have to be for something. Let's say probably one of the hot topics for your audience, the NIMBY-YIMBY debate. I think that's actually really divisive. So I was talking to somebody else who works in this space, expert at a national think tank. He now talks about FIMBY, families in my backyard. You're actually for something there. I think the NIMBY-YIMBY distinction is like, no, you don't want this. And yes, like we, it's divisive. So be for families, be for strong towns, right? You are for something. You're not anti, you know, whatever. You're not anti-suburbanization. You're for strong towns. So you have to be for something in your advocacy. So I can pause there. So these are the first two things. Start with feelings and generate persuasive feelings.
Speaker 1:
[08:24] So let me put some nuance on that, because everybody who's listening that's been to a public meeting has been when someone shows up and they have too much emotion. You hedged it by saying high emotional intelligence or something along those lines. But I want to make sure that we distinguish between that and just raw emotion, because raw emotion at a city council meeting actually is one of the least effective ways to... I would rather you had just spreadsheets than raw emotion unbridled. Can you talk about the difference? Because I don't want to give license to people to just go in and be like, think of the children, what are we doing? Because it's so ineffective, right?
Speaker 2:
[09:06] Yeah. Emotional intelligence is totally different from just raw emotions. I mean, raw emotions have their place. Just elation, right? Oh my God, it's amazing. Or if somebody really offends you, okay, fine. And having that be your brain of advocacy, not so effective because most people find it aversive. And just imagine the person like, especially it's usually negative emotions. You usually don't have people that are up there being overly positive. That's unusual. Emotional intelligence, by contrast, is trying to really understand the contours of a situation, the people, what they're feeling, the emotions that they're dealing with, taking those emotions seriously, and navigating those emotions carefully and authentically in an effort to actually accomplish something. So you approach a situation with emotional intelligence, say a city council meeting, because you want to bring the message that's gonna resonate with the people that you need it to resonate with. Maybe there are just even two or three people on city council, they're the swing votes. So maybe your emotional intelligence focuses on them and what their concerns are. And instead of dismissing somebody's concerns, not emotionally intelligent, you take them seriously and you address them.
Speaker 1:
[10:21] How is this different than empathy?
Speaker 2:
[10:24] Well, they're related.
Speaker 1:
[10:25] I think they are. Actually, one of the most controversial things that I have said, and this is gonna sound bizarre to you, but I've called for us to have empathy for car drivers, for walkers, for- I've had said, we should have empathy for NIMBYs. I think people think that I'm saying we should sympathize with them and try to compromise. And I'm just saying, empathy is about understanding, right? 100%.
Speaker 2:
[10:54] Sympathy is not empathy. You don't have to sympathize with somebody's concerns to understand them. So if you go, I actually did this, I was on a panel a couple of years ago on housing affordability. And I went to Wikipedia and I put in NIMBY, NIMBYism, which everyone was, and brings up like 15 or 20 concerns. And if you look at those concerns and you think, all of these are categorically stupid, well, you might be the one that actually, you know, isn't approaching things so effectively. So empathy is taking somebody's concerns seriously, and then understanding them, and then trying to address them, right? So we can go through any of the, quote unquote, NIMBY concerns, you know, it's like, okay, well, I get it. You're coming from a reasonable place, and there are competing values, or better yet, let me try to show you how what I'm proposing is actually a better way to express your values than this other thing here.
Speaker 1:
[11:55] What do we do when someone's incentives are broken? You talk about, you know, shifting from me first to them first. And I want to give you a scenario. Oftentimes, what I think Strong Towns advocates find is that the city engineer or the public works director is just a huge obstacle. They have tradition and manuals that tell them what to do, funding streams, and they just don't want to listen. And we can provide all the data and all the sources, and we have a hard time reaching them. I look often at their incentive structure and say their incentive structure is almost built for them not to listen. In a sense, their job kind of depends on them sticking, adhering to the old way of doing things. How do you have them first, someone in that kind of a situation?
Speaker 2:
[12:52] Do not underestimate the remarkable power of putting them first and approaching them with maximum emotional intelligence. First of all, consider the alternative that you don't do those things, and you get frustrated with them. Maybe even tell them, you're taking way too long, this is obvious, right? Come on, we have to do this. Do you think that's gonna increase the chances that they listen to you? So what would it mean to approach maybe this difficult inspector or city official, regulator, whatever, with maximum emotional intelligence? Be likable, for one thing. Think of all the times that somebody has said something, and if anybody else had said it, you would have agreed with them. But because this person said it, you actually step back from it.
Speaker 1:
[13:38] I'm going to confess something. I was reading the other day something that someone had written, and I'm like, wow, I really agree with this. And then when it got to the name, I'm like, wait a sec, I don't agree with this person.
Speaker 2:
[13:54] Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1:
[13:55] So there was a reaction that I had that was, I mean, I had to question myself, like, what am I being honest with myself if who said it has more effect than what they said. So, I mean, that's a very real human thing, right?
Speaker 2:
[14:10] 100%. And so that is reality, that we attach meaning to something in part based on who says it. So same words coming out of Chuck's mouth versus somebody else's mouth. You like Chuck, you're more inclined to agree with it. And if you dislike Chuck, you're more inclined to disagree with it. So what does that mean? Be as likable as possible, because likability greases the wheels of shared action, which is what I think persuasion is. So being nice to people. I mean, all the time, I call customer service agents and they get battered all day long. People calling saying, it is your fault that my service is out for my phone, for example. So when I call Verizon, I acknowledge that I said, you know, here I am, I'm another customer who wants something from you. I have problems, they're not your fault, but I want you to solve them anyway. So like, sorry. And then I am like overly nice to them. And time after time, this has happened actually twice recently, like in the last month, we get to the end of a 15 minute call and they say, you know, is there anything else I can do for you? And I'm like, I don't know what you got for me. And I've been super nice the whole call. And then they're like, well, let me look and see if there are any deals in your account. So in the span of three days, I had to call Verizon, just about minor issues. And at the end of both calls, two different people said the same thing, hey, well, let me look. I know just where to look for deals in the system. So within the span of three days, I got my iPhone 13 upgraded to an iPhone 17 at no charge. And then my wife had iPhone 15, it's a dinosaur, right? She got a free iPhone 17 as well, just because I was nice to these people. It works. So the first thing, be likable and be nice. The second thing, understand how they're feeling. Because if they're feeling great, that could be the perfect time to engage on something. If they're having a terrible day and it may not be your fault, you say, look, how are you feeling today? And they say, this is just the most miserable day in the world. My boss was such a jerk, he just laid into me. Well, that sucks, pardon my French, but that sucks. Show some empathy and demonstrate some understanding of how they're feeling. And then third thing, identify barriers to them moving forward. Because we think persuasion is all about getting somebody to do something, one of the biggest things that I've learned is that persuasion is much more about identifying what's stopping somebody from doing something and removing that barrier. So literally ask these people who appear to be difficult, what would stop you from say, approving this permit? What would stop you from voting for this policy? And when you ask them that way, instead of saying, why aren't you doing this? Just say, what would stop you? They give remarkably quick, intuitive, unguarded answers. And then authentically, instead of saying, that's stupid. Like, why do you think that? You say, okay, that's a real concern. Let me see if I understand it. And this is the putting them first thing, because when somebody authentically demonstrates understanding of your position, you feel heard. And simply feeling heard is powerful. And then if they can say, look, I totally get it. And they understand why. And then they say, well, you know, here are some other considerations. And if those considerations resonate with their values, so the next thing I would say, I guess number five is, appeal to their values, so far as you can understand them or what their priorities are. So maybe as a bureaucrat, he just has certain priorities. Well, see if some of what you want actually aligns with his priorities. He's like, you know, I'm in a tough spot here. I got to do my job, but I'm also under pressure to get more houses built. You're like, okay, well, I'm trying to get more houses built, I'm trying to get more density. So this is an opening. But until you go to this process and you understand what he's dealing with and where your opening is and where that overlap is, you don't know how to proceed, but now you do, boom, press on that, again, authentically with the emotional intelligence.
Speaker 1:
[17:59] We've spent a lot of time here at Strong Towns internally talking about storytelling as a mechanism to, in a sense, break through to a larger audience. But you talk about it in terms of one-on-one, how to get what you want. I want to give you an opportunity to talk a little bit about the value of storytelling. But I also want to put some guide rules on it, because I feel like a lot of times when I hear people talk about this, they'll put it up as something that is a substitute for thinking. And it's really not a substitute for thinking if it's done well. Can you talk about storytelling and then talk about why, what makes a good story and where do you cross that line where it becomes a bad story or an unhelpful story?
Speaker 2:
[18:45] Yeah, so let me start by telling a story that I think will be applicable to Strong Towns. One of the things that I've advocated for is making it easier to build accessory dwelling units in Chicago. And that's a pro community thing, that's a pro density thing, it's pro like low income people who otherwise can't afford housing, all these things. Okay. So turns out there's a great story to tell in Chicago, which, you know, as you know, is a left-leaning city. So I tell a story about a Chicagoan who had the opportunity to grow up in an ADU in her parents' attic, essentially, which it would be illegal to build that ADU today. And that afforded her family an affordable place to live. And if it weren't for the opportunity to grow up in that ADU in a way that her family could afford, it's possible that Michelle Robinson may never have become Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1:
[19:35] Sure. Yeah, it's a great story. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2:
[19:37] Oh, Michelle Obama grew up in ADU.
Speaker 1:
[19:40] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[19:40] That's amazing, right? So start with that. So then, feel first, then reason. We are story processors before we are logic process. So in both those cases, logic is still important. So I would still need data to show that ADUs are good policy. And I start with the story. You're absolutely right. Some people make storytelling a stand-in for analysis. That's a problem because the logic is important, right? For all you engineers out there, you don't want to build a bridge that collapses. Oh my God, like what a tragedy. So the bridge needs to be built on a super rock hard foundation. And then you think about, well, how to present these things. So I think there's great data to advocate for making it way easier to build ADUs in Chicago and all across the country. Cool. And start with stories. So you start there, but you don't end there. We are story processors, so you got to tell stories. What kinds of stories? And I think this is one of the innovations of my book. You got to have some new ideas out there. I think that the most, because we're not told typically what kinds of stories to tell. Here's the answer. You have to tell morally motivating, emotionally intelligent stories. Think about an awful story, right? Bob went to the corner and he stood there. The end. Or story after, right?
Speaker 1:
[20:57] Who cares?
Speaker 2:
[20:58] Who cares, exactly. So morally motivating, emotionally intelligent stories. The stories have to make people feel something. So hopefully, the story about Michelle Robinson made people feel something. Whoa, okay, cool. Got it. It was like a 15-second story, 30-second story. So and how do you do that? Well, you have to have stories appeal to your audience's values. So you can add this layer. We can either expand on that or not, but you have to tell stories that made people feel something and that appeal to their values.
Speaker 1:
[21:29] So the Michelle Obama story is really good. Because I'm particularly putting myself in Chicago, because a Chicago resident is going to identify with that success story automatically. You just have to say, Michelle Obama, and immediately you have this whole kind of backstory of success. You also have someone with very high, in a sense, high approval, but high approval locally too, like extra high. And so now, in a 15-second story, you've attached opportunity to success, and the opportunity is, in a sense, anchored on the policy thing that you want to see happen. That's actually a very brilliant bridge. I had not heard that story. I don't know if you researched that one for this podcast or not, but that is a really good bridge.
Speaker 2:
[22:22] I researched that for my ADU advocacy, and it happens to be applicable here, because when I go to city council and testify, I gotta have stories that resonate with them. So when I've testified in favor of expanding ADUs, I start with that because it's really powerful.
Speaker 1:
[22:36] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[22:37] And it's true. It's a true story.
Speaker 1:
[22:39] It's a true story.
Speaker 2:
[22:40] Then I go into the data about, for example, how Chicago's policy is still inequitable. And there are data for that. And it's gotten better, but there's way more progress to make. So there are data to support claims, the ADUs increase opportunity. I'm happy to cite that data. And you start with a story whenever possible, start with a story.
Speaker 1:
[23:01] So let me ask you this, and I'm going off script here too, because you've kind of nudged my brain in different ways. I have found when I go and speak, I have this one story that I tell about Taco John's, and I've told it in a lot of places. It basically compares one block to another block. They're the same size. One is like this old rundown block, and one, we ripped down the old block and we built a Taco John's, which is a drive-through, it's like a Taco Bell kind of restaurant, but I call it Norwegian Mexican food. It's kind of like Midwestern taco stuff. Anyway-
Speaker 2:
[23:37] Tacos of herring, right?
Speaker 1:
[23:38] Yeah, some days, some days. They do red and green nachos at Christmas time, so that gives you- The interesting thing is that the taco block is worth substantially less than that old junkie block that was there. And so the compelling thing is that we tore down this to get something that is worth far less. That story works everywhere. There's one place it doesn't work. It doesn't work here. I've told it in my hometown, like where the literal thing is, and it doesn't work. People are offended by it. They can't see it. They have like a million reasons why my analysis is wrong. I can literally go 30 miles up the road, and I can tell the same exact story. They're like, oh my gosh, that's so compelling. We've done something similar over here, that you're really showing us something important. When I tell that story here.
Speaker 2:
[24:37] Here in Brainer?
Speaker 1:
[24:38] Yes, here in my hometown, where the Taco John's actually is, the reaction I get is anger and defensiveness. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[24:47] This goes back to putting them first. So I think that in every single interaction, personal and professional, throughout every single day, we are faced with a foundational decision. It's a choice. Do I want to be right? Or do I want to make a difference? Being right is super easy, right? To be right, you would just keep telling that same story, and you would upset people, but whatever. Being right is easy, right? I bet, podcast, blog, Twitter, X, whatever it is, all that stuff, right? That's easy. Making a difference. Ooh, that's hard. And that starts with putting them first. So if you know that in this particular place, your story, 99 times out of 100, it's a home run, but in this case, it's like a triple play, like three outs all in one, right?
Speaker 1:
[25:33] It's kryptonite, baby. Yeah, it doesn't work.
Speaker 2:
[25:35] Exactly. So then you just put it in a box, and you don't bring it, and that's okay. And that's actually extremely respectful of your audience. So think about this way, would you force feed a vegetarian veal?
Speaker 1:
[25:48] Yeah, no, exactly.
Speaker 2:
[25:51] Would you force somebody who keeps kosher to eat bacon?
Speaker 1:
[25:54] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[25:55] That's like deeply offensive. It's deeply offensive. So why would you force feed stories, logic, values, whatever it is to people when you know it's gonna offend them? It's just that we're stuck in our own minds, and we see things from our perspective, and we tend to think that we're generally are always right, and it's like, well, there's only one person who thinks like you. And I don't even agree with everything that I did yesterday. So if I can't even agree with myself all the time, how can I possibly agree with you or anybody else all the time? I can't. So put them first.
Speaker 1:
[26:27] Let me ask you a tension that I see a lot. I'll say this as someone who struggles, like has a high desire to be right. Maybe I'll critique myself in that way to the point of kind of sometimes getting caught up in nuance. I will watch advocates tell compelling stories that I know are substantively wrong, but actually have policy success doing it. It frustrates me. There's a few that I picked on over the years. I'll pick on one year just for the sake of the discussion. There's a concept called Vision Zero. Vision Zero is the idea that we should be able to get to zero traffic deaths in a neighborhood, in a city, in a country, in a state, whatever. And it's a really compelling story. And they have all the kind of collateral to go with it, Vision Zero. And for a large part, they will get people to adopt Vision Zero policies, Vision Zero resolutions. And it doesn't lead to anything substantive. I mean, that's my core critique, is that you're not actually accomplishing anything with this, because rarely is there an actual reduction in harm. But the story's so good. I often wonder, are we, Strong Towns, as a movement, anchoring too much on, no, we have to have like real meaningful policy and discounting the story side of this. And I asked that question, and I want you to answer that. But the next one I want to ask you is, how we bridge that gap? Because I feel like, you know, you're not saying, hey, compromise your policy, just get the story right. You're saying do both. And I'm saying, all right, I see the one being like easy and compelling, the other one being hard, doing them both together seems like a, you're like hitting that policy home run. How do you line those things up?
Speaker 2:
[28:32] Yeah, I mean, what do you do when somebody who has a different perspective than you may be pushing for something that you think is undesirable, bad, harmful, when they have really powerful stories? Like, how do you dislodge that? And how do you make sure that you still stay wedded to the data? Look, maybe I should have started with this. The reason why I hate the feel first, then reason stuff is because I'm a trained academic. I did that PhD thing, so isn't it all about peer view and like whatever, whatever? And so it goes against all my training. It just happens to be illogical. So I get the desire to like write white papers. I do that. To be data first, I fight that tendency now. So I totally get it. Okay, so what do you do? Well, a couple of things. The first is that you need a counter narrative, a counter story to at least compete with their story. So right, there's a story about this thing. You have to offer another story that resonates as much as or more than their story with the audience. That's why putting them first, understanding them. What are they feeling? What do you want them to feel before something? Appeal to their values, all those things. Okay, so you have to have a counter narrative that's also compelling. You also have to dislodge their narrative. When I say that we feel first, then reason, first story processors, then logic processors, there's still logic, there's still reason there. So when you have to criticize somebody, this is gonna generate a negative reaction, both in the person who holds that belief and even in people observing. So you have to approach that with emotional intelligence. That's necessary, but not sufficient to dislodge a belief. So one thing you have to do is you just have to call out the negative feelings. So instead of just getting up there in testimony and saying that is so wrong, it's completely stupid, all the data show to the contrary. I'm not just saying you were showing down to this, but we know people do this.
Speaker 1:
[30:26] I've used the word stupid way too many times in my public advocacy personally.
Speaker 2:
[30:31] And look, I mean, I've said things are stupid too, and it's always counterproductive. So instead of saying that, which is kind of like what we're thinking, and I think that at times, oh my God, right? My better angels don't always get the better of me. And it's okay, well, be right to make a difference. So just call out how they're going to feel. Look, I'm sorry. It's going to seem like I'm criticizing some of the most important things you have to say. You're going to think that I just completely disagree with you, that I'm being really unfair. Just take what you think the most negative reactions are going to be from them, amplify them, and then call out those negative emotions, because they are going to generate negative emotions. I'm sorry, you're going to think I'm just laying into everything you just said. You might be doing that, but at least call it out. And then when you do that, be gentle. It's like, I have a toddler, he's three. So instead of me logically criticizing Thomas, I have to be gentle. And being gentle is always, always much better. Remember the legibility stuff. When you're not gentle, people experience reactants. Even when they agree with you, they recoil from it. So don't be a jerk, right? Be super nice in how you criticize things. Offer competing values and then gently chip away at some of the things that they're saying. Look, I totally get the concerns over, say, disrupting the character of the community, to go back to the housing stuff. I totally get it. You're concerned that allowing more density is going to disrupt the character of the community. I think actually the best way to preserve the character of the community is to keep that community together by offering more housing that's affordable. When housing becomes unaffordable, like it is in way too many places, the community falls apart because people have to leave. They can't stay in that community. So I totally get the concern. And I think the best pro-community thing to do, the best way to have strong towns, right, is to keep those towns together. So you don't have to tell them that they're wrong or stupid or whatever. You just have to even appeal to their own values. And you're kind of like a better scion for the values than they are.
Speaker 1:
[32:37] Sure, sure. A lot of our dialogue today, sometimes it occurs at a council meeting, but that's really like the end of a long chain of cultural dialogue. So much of it occurs on social media and online in other social media-like spaces. And those are places almost designed to...
Speaker 2:
[33:00] Not almost, they are, but go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 1:
[33:01] Yeah, they are designed to appeal to our negative emotions, and to, in a sense, trigger us in a certain way. I've watched, part of this is AI, I think, understanding there's a feedback loop between social media and AI, where you now see more stories being told in certain formats and the algorithms rewarding some of those. How should we think about interacting with social media as advocates? What are some of the strengths and what are some of the pitfalls that we need to avoid? And how do we break through to people who might not automatically empathize or identify with the changes that we want to see happen in the world?
Speaker 2:
[33:49] Social media increasingly is crafted to bring out the worst in us in many ways. So, negativity bias on super steroids. TikTok, for example, the only thing it's there to do is to keep you on the platform and go video after video after video. And the way to do that is to A, be super negative. I mean, yes, there are influences too, but we're talking about the policy and political space. Be negative and to sort of like get people really fired up. The question, do you want to be right or do you want to make a difference? You want to follow JFK or Walter Mondale? You want to follow Martin Luther King or Malcolm X? You want to follow Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater? The former in each of those built a movement, a powerful, positive, long-term movement. Okay, so what do you do on social media? Well, first, fight the impulse. It's an impulse to just have knee-jerk negative reactions because here's the thing, the two things actually. First of all, human beings have this thing called a memory and I mean, certainly you've never been in a situation where 10 or 20 years later, you know, you don't remember somebody said something that really upset you. No, no, we've all been there. So like just that one little tweet, that one little reel or whatever it is, people don't forget that stuff. So don't human beings have long memories.
Speaker 1:
[35:03] I have found myself running into people that were friends, but they said something really kind of mean and nasty on social media. And having like in real life, negative reaction to them. There was a basis of something they said eight years ago. Really?
Speaker 2:
[35:21] Yeah. We have long memories. But again, this is a survival mechanism. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:
[35:25] I'm not proud of that, but I know that that's there, right?
Speaker 2:
[35:29] Yeah, look, I mean, it makes sense when somebody really comes after us. Even if that was five or 10 years later, we don't forget that. So we have long memories. That's the first thing. So don't forget that. And social media makes it really easy to put those things into the world and then it's really hard to delete those things. So fight that tendency. Where's the opportunity in social media? The opportunity is that you can reach millions of people, sometimes tens of millions of people, like that. Really quickly. So what should you reach them with? Videos, stories, it's a great way. Those 15 to 30 second positive, powerful stories. Those are the ones that people will remember and will motivate them, not just in the short term to be upset, but in the long term to actually do something. So use it as an opportunity to do the right kind of advocacy and reach more people. That's exciting. I think that's an opportunity. That's I think the biggest opportunity social media presents. And yet, there are all the pitfalls you have to avoid.
Speaker 1:
[36:25] How do you use it? I will tell you, every time I log on to Facebook, for example, the top story is a Trump story. It just always is. And it doesn't matter if it's like a pro Trump or anti Trump, it's always a Trump story. And I will always mute the person for 30 days. And I would say, I've been doing that for months, and I've gotten to the point where half the time now, I get a Trump story. They're weaning me off of them. I feel progress, right? I feel like I'm getting progress. I don't know if you have a trick like that, or something that you do, to reach the people you want to reach.
Speaker 2:
[37:05] Well, so here's my dirty secret, which isn't that much secret. You Google me, you're gonna think I'm a leadite. I just don't use social media.
Speaker 1:
[37:13] You don't use social media. That's cool.
Speaker 2:
[37:15] I don't have an X account. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't have an Instagram account. In fact, I've never had an X or an Instagram account, and I had a Facebook account for like a day when I was in college. Dude, you look happy.
Speaker 1:
[37:27] Is that why you look young and spry and happy?
Speaker 2:
[37:30] You know?
Speaker 1:
[37:32] You're actually 60 years old, but you look 20.
Speaker 2:
[37:35] 62 actually, right?
Speaker 1:
[37:36] I'm kidding.
Speaker 2:
[37:37] I know. I am older than I look. So I just think you get sucked into that stuff, and nothing good ever comes from it. So I don't use it. There's a guy out there, he's your thought lead on this, but his name is Cal Newport. He's, I think, one of the most powerful voices for being really cautious about social media. And it's a place, you know, I use LinkedIn, that's the social media, and a little bit professional. I use that to share some things. Got to be really careful. If your Facebook is used to connect with your friends from high school, great, please, you know, Godspeed, that's amazing. If your social media is just to be a platform to tell everyone how right you are and how, how, how stupid everyone else who doesn't think like you is, that, look, that is never going to get you what you want. To the contrary, it's going to make people find you aversive, because people who already think like you, right? But like anybody doesn't think like you, they're just going to think you're a jerk. So I don't know, just don't do it. Or use it as a force for good. That's how it happens.
Speaker 1:
[38:38] I feel like that is, that's what we try to do. I will say some platforms respond to that. Some, like I've ran a couple tests where myself and like a different person with less reach and less ran, in a sense, like the same kind of thing. One, mine was like a positive, and the other one was a negative, and X just like gives that 50 times more reach than the positive stuff. Like it just, it is so wired to be negative. It really is hard to exist in those spaces.
Speaker 2:
[39:14] So, a lot of the book, as you know, is about our cognitive wiring. Lots of neuroscience, lots of psychology. And it's like, well, how do we change our wiring? And part of it is just to flip your perspective and think, well, how would I feel if I were on the receiving end of these things? In this case, just like the radical negativity that somebody might post on X. Ah, hmm, well, if that were directed against me, I'd feel pretty bad. Maybe I shouldn't do this. So, it's just flipping your perspective. It's like, well, why put them first? Because you don't like being on the receiving end of somebody who's me, me, me, me, me. It's like, why before something? Because you don't like it when somebody's only a negative antsy. Why appeal to somebody else's values? Because you don't like it when somebody offends your values. So, you know, just put yourself in their shoes and then think about what you're trying to accomplish.
Speaker 1:
[40:04] Well, sometimes the best way to lose weight is not to have junk food in the house. Sometimes the best, I think the best way to be happy and centered and do good advocacy is to not be in spaces that are the opposite, right?
Speaker 2:
[40:17] 100%. And it's like, you know, then when you engage in those things, curating the right mindset and the right content. So like, even if you want to push for a policy, there are two ways you can do it. You can say, you know, people who support this policy are, you know, racist or whatever. It's terrible. Or you could say, look, the best way to promote equity or the best way to expand freedom and opportunity or to empower people, right? Be for those things. Okay, we have a policy that is gonna do X and you're for that thing. That's powerful.
Speaker 1:
[40:52] Yeah. Let me ask you a last question, Josh. The book is How To Get What You Want. I read the book. It's a positive book. And I think that there are so many helpful things in there. If I haven't read it, I'm just looking at the title. How is this not manipulation? What's the difference between getting what you want and bringing about the positive worldview that you want?
Speaker 2:
[41:17] It's an excellent question. And I mean, God, I think back when I was still writing the book, a friend of mine, she just kept saying, isn't this manipulation? Isn't this manipulation? It's a totally fair question. So a couple of things here. The first is that, take a knife, a super sharp, special instrument. In the hands of one of the world's best chefs with all those fancy Michelin stars, he can make you one of the most beautiful meals available to a human being. Wow, that knife could also do you a lot of harm, right? So how do you use these things? Star Wars, light side, dark side. You want to be Yoda Lutz or Luke Skywalker? Or you gonna be Darth Vader and the Emperor? I don't know, like you pick. And so there are missionary and mercenary reasons to not manipulate people. The missionary reason is that it's wrong. Do you like being manipulated? No, nobody does. The mercenary reason is that it comes back to bite you. People find out usually pretty quickly, they don't want to work with you, and then they tell their people. So, what's the difference between persuasion and manipulation? Well, persuasion, maybe two things that it's not. Persuasion is not, these are like the two most common exceptions. It's not about winning, because Chuck, when I went against you, what does that make you?
Speaker 1:
[42:33] Loser. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[42:34] Loser. Do you want to work with somebody who makes you feel like a loser?
Speaker 1:
[42:38] Not a second time. No.
Speaker 2:
[42:40] No. And if you find out in that first time, you're going to try and stop, you're going to drag your heels. And then we also think, and this maybe gets back to like the whole data logic thing. We think that persuasion is about convincing someone to think like us. The trouble is that the Latin root of the word convince actually means to vanquish or to conquer, and conquest is barbaric. So what's persuasion? Persuasion is shared action. It's shared because it's something that we voluntarily do with others and it's actions. It's about getting things done. So that is the opposite of persuasion. You are voluntarily time after time working with other people to get what you want, which in part requires them to get what they want. You're after not just one deal, but deal after deal after deal. You get what you want by putting them first, understanding their needs, tending to them, and finding out where that overlaps with yours, rinse and repeat. And there's way more overlap if you look for it.
Speaker 1:
[43:35] The book is How to Get What You Want, Mastering the Art and Science of Persuasion, Joshua Bandoch. Josh, if people want to follow you, get ahold of you, you're the Luddite, not on Facebook or Instagram. But what's the best place people can get your book anywhere their books are sold, right? Where can they get your book, get ahold of you, follow up?
Speaker 2:
[43:56] The book is available, amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, anywhere the books are sold. You can learn more about me if you go to joshuabandock.com. You can find me on LinkedIn. And if your readers want a snippet of the book, if it's 45 or so minutes worth their attention, they can check out my TEDx talk that dives more deeply into the psychology of persuasion. That's some of the stuff that's, I think, the most fun, but it's a little bit hard to digest. So that would be a good start. That's a great place to start.
Speaker 1:
[44:25] Josh, we'll put the TEDx talk in the show notes. So if you're down a little bit somewhere, you should be able to click on that and get the TEDx talk. Josh, thanks for coming on. So nice to talk to you. Congratulations on the book. I'm excited to see how it goes, and I'm excited to see what comes next for you.
Speaker 2:
[44:42] Thank you, a real pleasure to be here, and thank you for all the awesome work y'all are doing at Strong Towns.
Speaker 1:
[44:46] Hey, thanks, and thanks everybody for listening. Keep doing what you can to build a strong town.
Speaker 2:
[44:50] Take care.
Speaker 3:
[44:53] This episode was produced by Strong Towns, a non-profit movement for building financially resilient communities. If what you heard today matters to you, deepen your connection by becoming a Strong Towns member at strongtowns.org/membership.