Speak with Less Conviction Speaking with conviction inhibits learning

Speak with less conviction: Persuading others is not easy. It is generally believed that we convince others by speaking with conviction. Is this effective? No, it isn’t. We shouldn’t speak with too much conviction if we want to persuade people.

In this blog post by Nancy Dixon, Bringing the Flow of Knowledge to a Standstill by Speaking with Conviction, Nancy says:

One way of talking that inhibits the exchange of knowledge is speaking with conviction.

That may seem contrary to what we’ve all learned in communication and leadership workshops, where one of the lessons often taught is to speak with confidence- “sound like you mean it”.

Yet, as I examine conversations in the work setting, stating an idea with conviction tends to send a signal to others that the speaker is closed to new ideas.

When speaking with conviction, people sound as though no other idea is possible, as though the answer is, or should be, obvious.

Credit: Bringing the Flow of Knowledge to a Standstill by Speaking with Conviction by Nancy Dixon

I agree with Nancy. Even when we are convinced that what we believe is true, it serves no useful purpose to say it with great conviction other than to annoy people. If you wish to convince someone, you need to be open to being shown to be wrong or discovering that you are talking at cross-purposes.

Over the years, several people have told me that when they see someone doing or saying something wrong, they have to point it out to them in no uncertain terms — that they “have to learn.”

This might make them feel good, but in my experience and from what I can see from behavioral research, it does not work. It only serves to harden their opinions and increase their dislike of you. If you wish to convince someone, you have to be open to a two-way conversation of equals.

Nancy’s post also reminds me of the work of Ellen Langer and her book The Power of Mindful Learning. Ellen is a professor of psychology at Harvard University, and her behavioral research challenges many myths about learning.

One of the pervading views in education is that in order to learn a skill one must practice until the action takes place without thought. Performing a skill over and over again so that it becomes second nature may lead to thoughtless or mindless interaction with the skill or concept. Mindlessness is a hindrance to discovery. Discovery often occurs because of a variance of the “basics”.

Teaching in a conditional manner allows the learner to recognize that there may be varying situations that require a varied response. Teachers often eliminate factors that would lead students away from the “correct” outcome. We come to learn that events occur in a predictable manner and lose sight of some of the factors that contribute to the outcome. For example, physics students are instructed to neglect friction for most of the situations they deal with. This produces a discrepancy between actual and theoretical results and may dampen a students ability to see distinctions.

Research has shown that information presented conditionally versus in absolute form enhances the creativity of the students. In a study done by Alison Piper, groups of students were given information on a set of objects conditionally and in absolute form. The students that were given the information conditionally had a tendency to be more creative than the students that had the information presented in absolute form.

The standard approach to teaching new skills rely on either lecturing to instruct students or using direct experience to instruct students. Ellen Langer proposes a third approach which she calls “sideways learning”. Sideways learning involves maintaining a mindful state that is characterized by openness to novelty, alertness to distinction, sensitivity to different contexts, awareness of multiple perspectives, and orientation in the present. The standard approach involves breaking down a task into discrete parts which may stifle novelty and alertness to distinction. Sideways learning makes it possible to create unlimited categories and distinctions. The distinctions are essential to mindfulness.

Langer asks and answers the question, “Can a text teach mindfully?” She gives examples of obscure tax code and the ability of students to apply the code to a variety of situations. Students that read the section of tax code in its original language had a more difficult time adjusting to situations that weren’t spelled out in the code. The group of the students that studied the code that was slightly altered with “could be” and “possibly” instead of “is” were more successful in application.

Credit: The Power of Mindful Learning: Chapter One – When Practice Makes Imperfect summarized by Scott Allen

So her research shows that writing with conviction also hinders learning.

Contrary to popular belief, do not speak or write with too much conviction if you wish people to learn from you! It’s OK to have convictions – but not to communicate them in a seemingly arrogant manner. 

Tweet This

• Don’t speak (or write) with conviction – speaking with conviction inhibits learning.

Things Todo

• Habit: Listen to yourself when you are talking. How strongly are you coming across? If too strong, then tone things down a little. Don’t speak with too much conviction.

Resources

• Blog Post: Bringing the Flow of Knowledge to a Standstill by Speaking with Conviction by Nancy Dixon

Posts that link to this post

•  Should We Speak with Authority and Conviction? May be not
•  The Simple Power of Complex Stories Thaler Pekar | TEDxTralee Ireland

POST NAVIGATION

CHAPTER NAVIGATION

SEARCH