Scott Adams, the brilliant creator of Dilbert, has written a lot about persuasion. One of the concepts he talks about quite a bit is that two different people can watch the exact same thing at the same time and draw opposite conclusions. Two movies on one screen.
We see this in politics during every single election cycle – not just for the presidential race, but every political race. Two people can walk into a polling booth and read a list of facts. Indisputable facts. And from that list, one voter is positive team blue is the best candidate while the other voter is positive team red is the best candidate.
Objective data will not persuade people.
It’s well known that the vast majority of Americans vote for their political party no matter what. When voters look at data, they make it fit their pre-made agenda. One team looks at a bad economy and says it needs an increase in tax revenue to thrive. The other team looks at a bad economy and says people need relief from taxes in order to thrive.
This is important to remember when you’re writing anything that’s designed to persuade. One story will be received and interpreted very differently by various groups of people. Realizing that will save you needless anxiety.
The 1-screen-2-movies phenomenon is true with trivial issues and life-and-death issues. Humans are funny that way.
Take traffic safety as an example. Some facts:
- 30-40,000 Americans die every year in traffic crashes. It’s the equivalent of a 9/11 every single month. It’s also the #1 killer of children in America.
- Government agencies operate and maintain the streets that are full of traffic violence.
- Taxpayers pay for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of transportation networks.
Those are indisputable facts. Now here are 2 points of view.
First interpretation: data clearly shows the solution to traffic safety is increased education among drivers so that they will behave better behind the wheel. Lower speed limits, better signage, and a strong advertising campaign against dangerous driving.
Second interpretation: data clearly shows the negligence of government agencies. If a transportation network operated by Walmart or Amazon had a death toll of 9/11 every single month, there’d be massive boycotts and protests. They’d be put out of business.
Two movies playing on one screen.
You might be tempted to hear that and think there’s no use in telling any stories at all if you can’t control the response. That’s not what I’m suggesting.
You must learn to tell stories that persuade, but you also must understand not everyone will buy what you’re selling. You have to be okay with that. Humans are generally irrational when making specific decisions. But we’re at least irrational in patterns.
You can use this type of pattern recognition when you’re creating your stories about infrastructure.
- You know the board of education has an agenda to provide safe and accessible schools.
- The chamber of commerce has an agenda to promote a vibrant business district.
- The average person wants to get to their destination as quickly as possible.
Think of ways you can write your stories as multiple movies playing simultaneously. It’s not easy, but it’s so powerful when you pull it off.