Let’s face it, we’ve been raised with the idea that “more” is better, and if you really want to see this concept play out in all its glory, watch someone try to persuade another. What takes place is fairly predictable. I’m a huge fan of questions, but at some point in the discussion the conversation will shift, and it will be your turn to make your case. Maybe the case you’ll be making is why your product is the perfect solution for a potential client. Maybe the case you’ll be making is why you are the perfect person to fill a particular job. Maybe the case you’ll be making is why the movie or restaurant you are suggesting is the perfect fit for your evening.
So, how do you make your case? If you’re like most you can’t wait to provide whomever you are persuading a powerful reason that will make your case! But then something happens. A thought emerges: If one powerful reason is good, two is even better. Why stop at two? Three solid reasons must be better, and four will knock the cover off this conversation! And therein lies the problem.
For example, think about a time when you were making a point with your children. As a parent you sat down after dinner and told your child he or she was not acting in a responsible manner because homework was not being turned in on time. A note from the teacher turned this into a pretty cut and dry conversation… but you couldn’t leave it alone. You were on a roll and so to strengthen your case about responsibility you decided to throw in, “you’re not practicing your trumpet, you’re not putting your things away, and you’re not completing your chores.” “More” might seem better until you hear; “I just finished washing the dishes two hour ago!” As you sputter along with a nervous, “Uh, well, you see, that’s not really what we were talking about…” do you still think “more” is better?
We are drawn to the idea that ‘more” is better, when the reality is “more” is anything but better. For instance:
- “More” can actually dilute your own argument. Remember, there is usually a very compelling case that you are putting forth. “More” reasons to support your original argument really means “less important reasons” and those less important reasons could very well be the undoing of your original argument.
- “More” can actually make you vulnerable to your own argument. As you pile less important ideas into the case you are making, it’s not uncommon to wind up with an idea that’s not only not important to you, it’s not important to the person you are talking to. Want to witness an awkward moment? Watch someone who just brought up a reason to support an idea, be challenged on that particular unimportant point, then work to un-bring it up trapped by his or her own words.
- “More” can actually reduce your credibility. We live in an environment that covets quick communication. The longer it takes to prove a point, the more suspect that point becomes, and “more” is not your friend here.
Once again it becomes a case of instinct versus logic. Instinctively it feels right on many levels to provide as many reasons as possible to win an argument, prove a point, or make a case. “More” may feel better, but the problem is, it just isn’t logical. That “more” you’ve been so proud to stuff into your argument may ultimately be the cause of your undoing. When you let logic rule the day you’ll find that your most compelling argument is far easier to state and defend, then a series of less important clutter.
Well said, Rob. I’m guilty as charged, but will remember this next time I find myself on a roll!
If we locked you up for your admission to guilt we’d run out of space in a hurry. Most of us… even the author of this BLArticle® are occasionally guilty of this offense. “A roll” should be defined as a compelling list of questions rather than a compelling list of information. Thanks so much for posting Jon!
Keep sending MORE!!
Keep reading – keep posting – and you can bet I’ll keep BLArticle®-ing! You Roger, who represent the legal profession must find a difficult dilemma trying to communicate with less, but having legal exposure without more. Nice hearing from you Roger!
Nicely stated, Rob. As you may know, I practice this in my own life vis a vis possessions. So good to see this applied to human interaction / communication. I wonder if one might lead to the other?
Looking forward to catching up at the B-K retreat.
That’s a great question Jacquie; does the concept of more with less regarding human interaction lead to communication interaction? My guess, and once again, this is my guess, would be that it does. No, not for everyone, but I would not be surprised to see a simple connection between the two. We’ll just have to talk this over when I see you at the B-K retreat. Thanks for making us think a little deeper about this topic. Great post Jacquie.
Great advice. I have a golden opportunity to work with a producer from a major television network who is interested in developing a concept for a TV show about cave exploration. Five years ago I pitched a similar concept to several production companies with no luck. Now the one of the top production companies in the world is asking for my help to develop the same type of show. My natural tendency is to provide them with a ton of relevant information, but I need to keep Rob’s advice in mind and not overwhelm them with too much information. They want to entertain and enlighten their audience, so too many technical details would dilute the message and could be a turnoff. If I have more than one major point to communicate, I often send separate messages for each.
BLArticle® Nation is pulling for your success and this TV show so keep us informed. You know I’ve never been a fan of the word, “pitch” because it makes me think of someone with too much information, who is going to blast through that information until someone stops them. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with the “conversation” you will be having with this other production company. Thanks for sharing that story with us Bruce!
Well put Rob, I believe I have lived some examples of this “More is Worse” tendency.
Haven’t we all! As I said, you’re in good company. But it’s never too late to change, or at least work to reduce the tendency to forget this valuable lesson. Thanks so much for posting Kent!
So true! I get on a roll all the time. Whether it is from nerves or not being sure of my main point, it is deadly to most arguments. If you find a friend getting on a roll arguing against you, its gracious to help guide them back to their main point. Better to concede a point to a friend than try to beat them up to win the argument.
I like the way you pivoted on this topic Peter. Sometimes when I’m with friends, or family and I start hearing, “Here are my three reasons why blah, blah, blah…” I interrupt and say, “So you know in advance, I’m going to disagree with the weakest of the three, and force you to defend it for the rest of the conversation. I’d suggest you pick the best of the three and leave the other two behind.” That’s not always met with a courteous response, (my kids 🙂 but like you, I know I’m helping them. Working on a new BLArticle® about disagreement which should dovetail to your comment about beating someone up in an argument. Outstanding post Peter; thanks!
Makes good sense. I am afraid that I have been guilty of your point here. I shall try to keep it in mind. Thanks.
Again, you’re in good company here Victor. Your BLArticle® buddy has to watch it, and I just wrote about it. But being aware is the first step. Just pick your strongest point of view and leave the others behind. Thanks a million for posting Victor!
What a pearl of wisdom! 3 points of ‘Why” are well said. Thanks!
Well thank you. Let’s hope my three points weren’t too many! This is something we are all capable of, but it requires a quiet discipline, and confidence that the quality of our point-of-view is more powerful than the quantity of our point-of-view. Thanks for posting Hui!
Sometimes it seems like when I am on a “roll” I should just keep talking….in a previous BLArticle you talk about the importance of the ‘pause.’ Whenever I feel like I am on a “roll” I start pumping the mental brakes, take a pause and ask a question. More is certainly not better when it comes to selling. Listening works far better. Thanks for the great post Rob. I am overdue for a Jolles check-in for sure. xo
Ah, the “on a roll” syndrome. Fools gold we’ve all fallen for my friend. Keep pumping those mental breaks and your comment about pausing to ask a question is a great way to get back in control. Isn’t it ironic that we gain control by NOT getting on a verbal roll, but asking questions and listening? Nice to hear from you Doug!
Hmmm. I’m going to have a little chew on this one. Gotta tell you the taste is a little unusual. The whole “more is better” idea is relatively unexamined. Thank you for beginning the conversation.
Well chew away and let me know how it tastes! It’s little like working on those “ums” you try to eliminate at a Toastmasters meeting. It’s a whole easier when someone is counting, and you know they are counting. We just need to be more consciously aware and we can do this! Thanks so much for taking part in the conversation Edia.
Thanks Ron,
Human short term memory can hold four new pieces of knowledge, maximum. That’s assuming a human is both able and willing to tender it to you. Two pieces might be a realistic limit…
Well, well; Mark is back in the BLArticle® house! I trust you are feeling better my friend. Mark is a subject matter expert on much of this and I value his opinion. If Mark says, “two” I’m on board. Let’s just make sure both points are powerful That said, I’m still waiting to hear from the first analytical person I come in contact with who can hold his or her point of view to two. So glad to hear from you Mark. Thanks for posting.
Great post, Rob. If I may, I have a suggestion that has worked for me, outside the “high risk zone” of actual conversation. Watch a TV character in a sitcom or drama, or a politician in the current round of debates, trying to convince the audience, and pick a place where you yell at the television, “Stop there! Pause! Piling on more words will not make it stronger!” Or, if the person makes a crisp, concise point, yell your congratulations: “Great! You know just when to stop!” It refines your own sense of when to shut up. I still work too hard at layering arguments, but I’m hearing my own coaching voice more and more.
Ah, the Power of the Pause comes into play again! You mentioned the debates. Which politician was the most on point, and provided the shortest and most direct responses? Carly Fiorina. I’m neither a fan, nor not a fan, but by all accounts she overwhelmingly won the debate and skyrocketed in the polls. She far more… with less information. Point made! Thanks so much for posting Nancy.