Doesn't Hurt to Ask

02Identifying Your Actual Goal and Audience

Before you utter a single word in an attempt to persuade someone, you must pause and answer two incredibly important questions: What exactly are you trying to achieve, and who exactly is the person that can give it to you? It sounds remarkably simple, but the failure to clearly define these two parameters is the primary reason most arguments spiral out of control and accomplish absolutely nothing. Trey Gowdy draws heavily on his legal background here, introducing two foundational concepts that every successful communicator must master: the burden of proof and the identity of the jury. If you do not know what your burden of proof is, you will not know when you have won. If you do not know who your jury is, you will be talking to the wrong person entirely. Let us break down the concept of the burden of proof. In a legal setting, the burden of proof is the standard that a party must meet to establish a fact or win a case. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a massively heavy burden. In a civil trial, the standard is usually a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it is more likely than not that something happened. In everyday life, your burden of proof changes wildly depending on the situation and what you are asking the other person to do. You cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach to persuasion because the stakes are always changing. For example, trying to convince your spouse to try out a new Italian restaurant for dinner on a Friday night carries a very low burden of proof. You are not asking them to fundamentally alter their worldview; you are just asking for a minor behavioral change that lasts a couple of hours. A few good reviews and the promise of a nice dessert might be all it takes. Conversely, trying to convince a deeply entrenched family member to change their political affiliation carries an astronomically high burden of proof. You are asking them to abandon a core part of their identity and adopt a new one. If you approach the political argument with the same casual, low-effort tactics you used for the restaurant suggestion, you are going to fail spectacularly. You must calibrate your effort, your patience, and your strategy to match the weight of the request. Often, we fail to persuade because we try to achieve a massive behavioral shift in a single conversation, rather than recognizing that a heavy burden of proof requires a long-term strategy of planting seeds and asking gradual questions. Equally important is the concept of the jury. In a courtroom, the lawyers are not trying to persuade each other. The prosecutor knows they will never convince the defense attorney that the defendant is guilty, and the defense attorney knows they will never convince the prosecutor of innocence. They are both performing for the jury—the actual decision-makers. In our daily lives, we frequently forget to identify our jury, leading to immense frustration. We waste our energy arguing with people who have absolutely no power to give us what we want, or we fail to realize that the person we are arguing with is not the real target of our persuasion. Take the phenomenon of arguing on social media. When you engage in a fierce debate in the comment section of a polarizing post, who is your jury? Are you really trying to persuade the anonymous troll who insulted you? That person’s mind is completely closed. They are the opposing counsel, not the jury. Your actual jury consists of the dozens or hundreds of silent readers who are scrolling through the comments, observing the exchange. If you lose your temper, hurl insults, and abandon logic to attack the troll, you might feel a temporary rush of vindication, but you have fundamentally lost the jury. The silent observers will view you as unhinged and unreasonable, entirely rejecting your underlying point. However, if you remain calm, ask piercing questions, and maintain your dignity, the silent jury will recognize your credibility and the weakness of your opponent's position. This principle applies just as strongly in the workplace. Suppose you want to implement a new project management software for your team. You might spend hours arguing with a skeptical coworker about the benefits of the software, trying desperately to win them over. But does that coworker actually have the purchasing authority? If they do not, they are not the jury. The department manager is the jury. Your coworker might be an important witness, but your entire persuasive strategy needs to be tailored to the manager's priorities, which might be budget and efficiency, rather than the user interface features you were arguing about with your peer. Knowing your audience also means understanding their deeply held values, fears, and motivations. You cannot accurately aim a persuasive argument if you do not understand the internal landscape of the person you are speaking to. A successful communicator spends time studying their jury before they ever begin to make their case. They listen carefully to discover what the other person cares about most. When you clearly define your burden of proof and accurately identify your jury, you stop wasting energy on unwinnable battles and start focusing your efforts precisely where they can make the biggest impact. You transform your communication from a scattergun approach into a highly targeted, strategic endeavor.

Continue reading with LeapAhead app

Full summary is waiting for you in the app

Continue reading