In Think Like a Freak, the authors define someone who is “heavily invested” in their opinion as an individual whose mind is hard to change. In other words, the commitments of this individual depend on his or her opinion to such an extent that to change this opinion takes a tremendous amount of effort and may even be an unrealizable goal. However, the authors also take a counter-intuitive position on the apparent opposite of “heavily invested” opinions: those who do not have strong opinions. For the authors, it is also difficult to change the mind of these individuals, since everyone essentially has presuppositions and prejudices which they carry and are arduous to change.
Accordingly, the chapter is constructed around techniques of persuasion. Firstly, the authors identify the value of incentives: people respond to getting something in return. Hence, I needed a text proofread and promised my partner I would buy her a television if she helped me. Another technique is shifting frameworks and changing the contexts of persuasion. Hence, a charity, as the authors note, may ask for money in a traditional way, but understanding and developing non-traditional frameworks can change this goal. I can take a family relationship, for example, and change my perspective on this relationship, making it more impersonal, so as to get a goal: for example, not forgiving someone in the family for living up to his or her promises to me, and then making demands in a different context, such as a business type of model. Another key point is that people’s opinions are largely based on ideology.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Chapter 8 Think Like a Freak".
They have not thought through issues but accept default opinions. I recall discussing with a friend about politics and noticed that he just repeated the same political mantra as his family. Understanding that this is not an autonomous opinion can help transform it, for example, by using rational arguments. Another technique is ultimately realizing one’s own opinions may be fallible: this creates sincerity and openness in a relationship, instead of authoritarianism. I find this is often the case when I debate politics with friends: we have much more fruitful conversations if I adopt this stance.
This closely ties into another crucial point: do not reject the opponent’s argument, but sincerely value it. This creates a level playing field of respect and can allow for certain changes of opinion. Lastly, the authors suggest “creating a story”: frame an opinion in terms of a narrative, that relies upon key data. This legitimizes a logical structure that is formed. For example, when I argued against the War in Iraq with a friend, I used numerous evidence from, for example, independent organizations as well as creating a narrative about why the U.S. might wish to Iraq for other reasons than publically stated.
