Scott Adams was hilarious back when nobody was making fun of corporate culture yet and I was working at Eli Lilly, but when he tries to be funny about international politics, somehow that just doesn't work for me.
The "ridiculous reason" scheme works, and Cialdini would probably agree, because people are always looking for the easiest route to a decision. If there's a situation in which they can legitimately turn their brain off because they can defer to a pre-established rule or convention, they'll do so.
A non-human analogy given by Cialdini (see http://www.bainvestor.com/Influence.html) is the mother turkey who simply responds to the cheep-cheep of its young to determine what nearby moving objects needs to be taken care of. The turkey, of course, can be tricked (by human researchers, usually) into responding the same way to an inappropriate animate object by spoofing the sound.
BUT - and this is where Scott Adams's analogy goes awry - in humans, this automatic response to "because X" generally only applies to inconsequential situations.
The marked contrast between the situations he compares (restaurant conundrums and territorial conflicts) is what gives away the flaw in his argument. If the outcome of a bad decision is just a cold bowl of soup, you can risk making a thoughtless choice. If the risk is continued territorial angst and loss of life, a decision is likely to demand a little more scrutiny.
He's either making a poor attempt at humor (which is very possible, since he probably feels compelled to try to write something at least mildly funny every day), or he's not aware that he's coming across as very disingenuous.
I am still trying to figure out why people dislike affiliate links like these(if you were to put one in) It costs the person buying the book nothing and the person providing the link did some work to find the product and link to it thereby making my life easier. I am all for free and making my life easier.
The only reason that I can think of is that it detracts from the strength of the recommendation because of monetary concerns but since this is not the original person recommending it that should not matter.
If you consider all of the non-affiliate links to Amazon and all of the affiliate links to Amazon, I would hypothesize that more of the former are "genuinely useful" for their audience than the latter.
I agree with that. But the real question is if there were no affiliate links, would there be more or fewer useful links overall? It may be that money is an incentive to dig up useful links that nobody would provide otherwise.
that bears a striking thematic relationship
to Scott Adams posting on "ridiculous reasons".
When an experimenter gave a "ridiculous" (aka "placebo") reason for butting in line at the Xerox machine, "because I need to make copies", the person already at the machine would often let the experimenter in front to copy a "few pages", but would often refuse a request for "many pages".
So giving a ridiculous reason can smooth out socially awkward situations, whether butting in line or paying for dinner, ... but when Scott Adams tries to generalize this very minor behaviour to solve problems on a world scale, such as nations being occupied by invaders, ... he is being truly ridiculous. What he may have intended as humour, just comes off as being naive and deeply offensive to people around the world who have been brutally oppressed for decades.
... and there is experimentaly data to show that his "ridiculous reasons work" hypothesis clearly falls apart as soon as the request becomes non-trivial.
i think there are other factors involved also. e.g. in the first example, if he were to say "you should pay because..." instead of "I should pay because..."
or in the second example, if he were to say the exact same thing but to a table full of his teenage son's friends at a birthday party vs saying it to a table full of professional acquaintances at a high profile event.
Very good point - in the dinner examples, if the parties involved agree with the proposal, everyone involved "wins" in some form or another:
The person paying builds up "you'll owe me later" points; the rest of the table saves money, at least in the short term.
The people who've already been served get to eat immediately, which they probably want to do anyway; the others who haven't received their food yet can stop feeling guilty for stopping the others from eating.
Overall, a whole lot of uncomfortableness is avoided by agreeing to the ridiculous reason.
Compare that to the the territorial conflict example, in which one of the two parties wins nothing, and instead, loses something very important to them.
This article is a good example of the use of Ridiculous Reasoning: "We should decide that occupation becomes automatically legitimate after 50 years because that is how I resolve awkward moments at dinner parties."
"Another situation in which the ridiculous reason works is when a large dinner group is being served and only half of the people have their dishes. Everyone sits there staring at their food as it cools, trying to be polite."
Thank goodness we never really honored such pointless rules in my family. Unfortunately when we receive guests it's sometimes the case that we'll have to choose (or should I say guess) between doing as usual and risk appearing rude or doing the waiting just in case.
That's just as arbitrary (and even worse, inconsistent).
Consider the following:
xxxxxxxxxo
0123456789
Where 'x' represents a person who has been served, and 'o' represents someone who hasn't. Your rule suggests the person at position 8 can't start eating but the person at position 7 can, correct?
I suppose the theory is that the person at position 8 shouldn't start eating out of deference to the person at position 9, but in that case the person at 8 effectively doesn't have food (they have it but can't eat, which is equivalent to not having food). So, if 8 should defer because of 9, shouldn't 7 defer because of 8?
It is ridiculous to draw a connection between (a) giving a ridiculous reason to persuade my close friend to accept my offer to pay for his dinner, and (b) compelling an oppressed population in an occupied territory to accept their fate of continued suffering because, you know, it's been 50 years. My father killed your father, and we've managed to dominate you for half a century, so, you know, give it up. We won.
I reject your "out of hand" rejection of this idea.
If not 50 years, than how many years is the proper number? If the people fighting the conflict were not even born when it started, what exactly are they clinging to?
I assume that you would say 200 years is too long for something like this to go on. Pick a number, however ridiculously huge, that you would be comfortable with. Make it 200 years, I don't care. At that point, we can begin a logical discussion of your number. Perhaps after that occurred, I could get you down to 100 years, and you would feel vindicated. Yes?
He's picking 50 years. Don't like it? Would you agree to a compromise between 50 and 100? 75 years is rapidly approaching.
Scott Adams write his blog from the perspective of a person in a position of power and influence. Notice that in his anecdote he is the person paying for dinner. Also, he is the person persuading the subjugated to accept their horrible fate ... for an admittedly "ridiculous" reason.
Accepting a free dinner is easy to do. Accepting a lifetime of domination from an oppressor is "not the same thing".
I wonder if Scott Adams would be so willing to accept a ridiculous justification if he was the one being tormented every day of his life.
