Statistics? *Yawn*

One of the primary difficulties in being persuasive and making a lasting impression on your audience (especially among experienced professionals) is not being viewed as credible.  To counteract this drawback, you can boost your perceived credibility by referencing statistics.  Unfortunately, people's eyes glaze over and they stop paying attention as soon as you start reciting rows of numbers.  Think of the last time you were reading an article, a study, or a book and you came upon a page full of charts, graphs, tables, or numbers.  Even though I have taken statistics courses, I unfortunately find myself skipping over these sections so I can get to the conclusions and interpretations section.  Is a part of this my fault for being lazy and not wanting to think hard?  Yes, it is.  But, I believe another major aspect of the issue is how statistics are actually presented.

There is a proper way of presenting statistics that has a much higher chance of connecting with your audience and making a lasting impression.  To do this, you must present statistics in a more "human" way and place the numbers in contexts that non-statisticians would be familiar with.  You must use everyday examples that people are familiar with and utilize their intuition by incorporating scales and relationships that they will understand and be able to relate with.

As I've discussed in previous entries, analogies and concrete examples are effective tools for connecting with your audience and tapping into their intuitive visual abilities.  These strategies are especially  important when dealing with numbers because most of us don't get much practice with interpreting quantitative data.  During the rare times that we do find ourselves in such a situation, we are often too stubborn or embarrassed to admit our numerical illiteracy.

To drive these points home, consider a recent commercial by Toyota for the Camry:

                        Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxIHC2sM5P0

Here is the relevant quote from the actor in the ad:
Actor: "The reinvented 2012 Camry Hybrid is rated at 43 miles on the gallon. That's the length of two football fields that are each 21 and a half miles long.  Just to put that in perspective for you."

The actor then grabs hold of a gallon of milk and starts drinking it.  This tactic is meant to emphasize the original statistic even more and allow people to visualize how much a gallon actually is.  The ad connects that small amount of milk to the length of two football fields.  It's attempting to use scales and visuals that most people will hopefully be familiar with.

This ad is a simple example but I believe it effectively showcases what I initially discussed.  Numbers must be placed in a familiar perspective or else your audience isn't going to make the effort to truly understand their meaning and scale.

Environmentalists can also apply these lessons to properly communicate environmental problems such as the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  Often times, when this issue is discussed, the authors describe the size of the plastic debris by comparing it to the size of Texas or some other incredibly large area that people can't effectively visualize.


Case in point:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm

"The Eastern Garbage Patch floats between Hawaii and California; scientists estimate its size as two times bigger than Texas."


To remedy this, other units of measurements can be used.  For instance, football fields and skyscrapers are objects that most people would be more familiar with and can more effectively visualize.  The size of the garbage pile can be discussed in these terms instead.  Large objects such as these are still not as human-friendly as smaller objects such as houses, cars, and tennis balls but using these is still an improvement over what is currently done.


Having said all this, you must keep in mind who your audience is.  If you are dealing with technical and quantitative experts who live and breathe numbers every day then your attempts at making statistics more relateable and human-friendly are going to be a waste of time.  Your efforts might even backfire because these experts might think you are questioning their competence and level of quantitative expertise.  The strategies covered here are more relevant when dealing with individuals outside the quantitative fields.  These tactics can be effective with people who don't consistently deal with numbers in a thorough and meaningful manner.

Awakening our passions

I believe all of us have the capacity to be passionate and fight towards a cause we believe in. However, unlocking these energies inside us requires direct experiences.


I know this sounds philosophic and a bit religious so far, but let me explain.  Consider these examples:


1) You are presented with a documentary about starving children in a third world country.  The film presents statistics, descriptions, and difficult-to-look-at imagery.  I believe most of us will be moved by being exposed to such content. But, this phase will most likely pass within a week or so and there won't be a lasting impact on our behavior or passions.


Now, consider actually visiting this country personally and seeing all the suffering, pain, and death firsthand. Imagine seeing these children dying, suffering, and starving in your very presence.  In contrast, this experience will be magnitudes more powerful and you are much more likely to be deeply affected by what you see and feel. A direct experience like this could move someone to act and start fighting towards decreasing such suffering.


2) You read a series of articles or a book on the most heavily polluted areas in the world.  You are presented with information on Chinese and Indian cities, various third world countries, and even neighborhoods in the U.S.  Let's also assume you see imagery and videos of the effects of the pollution on the environment and the people that live in these cities.


Now, let's transport you to a heavily polluted city in China where you are coughing incessantly, your eyes are burning, and you have to wear a breathing mask to be able to actually get through the day.  At the end of the day, you feel nauseous, exhausted, and overall very sick.  Let's assume you live through such conditions for at least a week to get a small taste of how your life would be in such a location.  Compare the difference between simply reading about an issue and actually living through it.  Direct experiences are much more likely to affect you at a deep level and move you to act.


3) This one is a real example.  Consider the case of Roger Boisjoly. He was a NASA engineer that worked on the launch of the space shuttle Challenger.  Boisjoly " found disturbing the data he reviewed about the booster rockets that would lift Challenger into space. Six months before the Challenger explosion, he predicted "a catastrophe of the highest order" involving "loss of human life" in a memo to managers at Thiokol."  Boisjoly was quoted saying "I fought like Hell to stop that launch. I'm so torn up inside I can hardly talk about it, even now." 

Roger Boisjoly
Source: http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/02/06/ap910901091_custom.jpg?t=1328572100&s=3

As a result of this experience, "Boisjoly traveled to engineering schools around the world, speaking about ethical decision-making and sticking with data. "This is what I was meant to do," he told Roberta, "to have impact on young people's lives."  For his whole life, he fought to promote a cause he believed in.  What if Boisjoly was a NASA engineer that wasn't directly involved with this launch but had read about the events that took place.  What if he had read about other engineers that had tried to stop the launch but had failed, would he still have fought for the cause he did?  Perhaps.  But, I believe his powerful experience and direct involvement are what pushed him towards fighting for what he believed in.  His experience had a life-long effect on who he was and what he wanted to do.


I know that I probably stated the obvious in this post but I believe we (people living in prosperous countries) often forget how truly disconnected and sheltered we are from a lot of terrible problems.  We don't directly experience situations that have the potential to move us and awaken our passions.  We generally lack experiences that make us want to truly and fully fight for something we believe in.  It's fortunate that we can live in such favorable conditions and not suffer.  However, it's also unfortunate because we are truly disconnected from many of the world's problems.


Quote source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/06/146490064/remembering-roger-boisjoly-he-tried-to-stop-shuttle-challenger-launch?sc=fb&cc=fp

Hidden complexity

Over the years, I have slowly started to realize that rarely anything is as simple as it initially seems.  Once you start digging into a specific topic, you realize how complex it actually becomes and how many moving parts there are.

Today, I read a study about the "Million Trees LA" (MTLA) project. The paper is titled "Implementing Municipal Tree Planting: Los Angeles Million-Tree Initiative" and it's authored by Dr. Stephanie Pincetl of UCLA.  Before I started reading the paper, I thought to myself "How hard can it be to plant trees?  It must be a straightforward process."  Well, I was quite wrong and reading the paper was an excellent reminder (and a lesson) on why you shouldn't automatically assume an issue is simple and easy to understand.  You shouldn't allow your pre-existing assumptions and notions about an issue to skew your understanding of a topic.

For those not familiar with the MTLA project, it basically involved the Mayor of LA promising to plant a million trees in Los Angeles by the end of his first term.  Essentially, the goal was to plant 1 million trees in 4 years.  Easy enough right? Wrong.  The program has run into numerous problems:

• The deadline for planting so many trees was unrealistic from the very beginning.  It will actually take 8-10 years to successfully plant so many trees.
• The initiative requires the coordination and cooperation of multiple groups and several government agencies with their own decision-making mechanisms and priorities.  Even private property owners have to be brought along since they hold control of the space needed to plant the trees.
• Funding is difficult due to revenue-raising restrictions from tax revenue and other sources.  For instance, a very similar project in New York had over $400 million in funding.  The LA project didn't even break the $10 million mark.
• The trees simply couldn't be planted and forgotten. There are additional financial and labor costs related to weekly maintenance.
• The permit process required to plant a tree involves 8 different steps and the approval of several city agencies.
• An unintended consequence of more trees is providing cover for criminals to escape under.  The LAPD is concerned about the increased crime potential if there are more trees to hide under to escape the sight of helicopters.

There are obviously more issues with MTLA implementation but I believe the takeaway lesson should be clear at this point.  Even something as straightforward as planting trees can be a very complicated process with numerous moving parts and key players.  When all of these problems are combined, significant implementation barriers can be created.  These barriers are much less likely to be spotted and dealt with if the observer assumes simplicity.

When trying to understand a problem, don't be arrogant (or lazy) and assume you know more than you actually do.  Reality is often a lot more complicated and you should have the humility to acknowledge the gaps in your knowledge.  A proper understanding of most topics often involves thorough research and investigation.  Unfortunately, most individuals are too proud to admit their ignorance. Don't be one of these people.

Can they visualize it?

Well, can they?

"They" in this case is your audience.  "It" is your idea or message.  In previous entries I discussed the importance of using metaphors and pre-existing ideas that your audience is familiar with.  Today, we take this a step further and add an additional layer.  We need to make sure that the metaphors and the audience-familiar concepts that we use are CONCRETE examples.

What does "concrete" mean?  Concrete examples have several important characteristics:

• They are NOT abstract ideas.
• They are generally interpreted and understood the same way by different people.
• They are more likely to bring everyone to the same conclusion.
• They can be examined with your senses and easily visualized.
• You've most likely had previous experience with them.

Having said that, here are some examples of concreteness:

• A juicy apple.
• A bicycle.
• Luscious lips.
• A bloody knife.

As you can see, all of these concepts are easily visualized and you have no trouble interpreting what you are reading.  Now, consider abstract ideas such as these:

• Truth.
• Justice.
• Efficiency Optimization. 
• Stakeholder Strategy.
• Resource Utilization.

The above ideas are NOT easily visualized or interpreted in the same way by different people.  Our senses can't easily guide us in these instances.  Using such abstract examples are going to muddle your message and degrade its clarity.  These abstract concepts will cause your audience to have a diverse set of interpretations on what you are trying to communicate.  As a result, they aren't going to be on the same page when it comes to understanding your ideas.

Easily understandable examples are useful because they can be used as stepping stones for understanding new concepts.  By jumping off of such stable starting points, you are much more likely to have an audience that is following you along your chain of thought because they have a strong foundation for their understanding.  The audience can relate to your examples because they are based off of existing knowledge and connect with their visceral senses.

Let's consider a hypothetical example in the context of air pollution.  An environmental justice group is trying to get attention for the awful air quality in their neighborhoods.  How can they effectively portray their struggles and communicate their community's suffering in concrete terms?  One potential way of doing this is to use the image of a person suffering or adapting to poor air quality.  A child or an elderly person would be effective.  

Here is an example of a picture that can be used:

Image source: http://scipeeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/reducing-air-pollution.jpg

On the side of the image, a message could be added:  "Where we live, this is the norm."

By using such imagery, your audience isn't asked to conceptualize a term such as "air pollution."  Different people will have different interpretations of what that means.  Some people might think of the awful air conditions in Chinese cities and others might consider the stereotypical smoggy haze over LA.  By providing your audience with a clear-cut example and a simple message, they are all on the same page and the problem of air pollution is channeled through this simple and specific example.  Everyone looking at your message is much more likely to be on the same page and your message is much more likely to be easily understood and be memorable.  

If you want your audience to be on the same page and easily relate to your ideas, start from what is likely to be universally understandable and consistently interpreted. 

Why you must worry about context

In a previous entry, I discussed the importance of using pre-existing schemas, themes, and ideas that your audience might be familiar with as a way of connecting with them and getting them to care about your message. Today, we add another concept to that list, establishing context.

Establishing context accomplishes a very important goal, it provides a backstory for the ideas you are trying to get across.  Providing context is especially important when your audience is not familiar with the topic and doesn't even realize why they should care about it.  By filling in key contextual details, you can give them reasons to feel invested and more involved.  Without a proper context, your audience is unable to situate themselves and gain perspective.  As a result, it's going to be difficult for them to care or feel connected with the issue.

Yesterday, I attended a conference on water issues in Southern California.  One of the speakers presented her organization's strategy for making their message relevant for their audience.  The organization was called "Surfrider" and their goal was (is) to get people to care about pollution in the ocean and our coastlines.  Initially, they tried to convey their message through statistics and descriptions on how pollutants end up in the ocean.  However, this did not work.  Their next strategy involved making an animated film and following the path of water from the users, towards its ultimate disposal:

Following a drop of our water from its origin, through its use to its disposal reveals an expensive and often wasteful journey and makes it clear we could be using water more wisely.

 Surfrider also simplified their message and titled it "Know Your H20."  As discussed in a previous entry, this message is simple and gets to the core.  It is prioritized and the less important details are cut out.  Surfrider is trying to educate its users on where their water goes after its used, how it gets there, and what happens to it both along the way and at the end of its journey.  The simple message "Know Your H20" perfectly connects with this objective.  However, in addition to utilizing simplicity, the campaign establishes context.  It situates the typical water user in a complicated system and makes him realize that he is part of that system and his actions DO matter.  Here is the link to the video: http://surfrider.org/programs/entry/know-your-h2o

The new communication campaign ended up being much more effective than before and Surfrider even won awards for their film.  I believe this is a perfect "real world" example of how effective communication strategies and concepts can and DO work.

Show weird names some love

Over the years, I have often been frustrated, annoyed, and downright embarrassed with my name.  "Vahagn" is a difficult name to pronounce for nearly everyone I have met in a variety of settings.  Even fellow Armenians have had difficulty pronouncing my name.  Individuals from other cultures have an even harder time with it and I often have to correct them a few times before they get it right.  But, even after they get it right initially, they sometimes mess it up yet again if they have to pronounce it again at a later time.  As a result of such experiences, I often use alternate names such as "Victor" or "David" (or my personal favorite, Dante) when I am speaking to people over the phone or giving my name at restaurants.  I had also developed some bitterness against my mother for giving me this name and making my social interactions somewhat difficult.

BUT, all this is in the past and I have finally learned to love my name for one very simple reason: it's memorable.  In the past, I had never realized the importance of being remembered because I wasn't actively looking for work or attempting to network.  I would LIKE to think that people remember me because I come off as intelligent and charismatic but let's face it, I can't deny the fact that a lot of times people have remembered me because they have struggled with my name.  This phenomena is actually related to a previous post I made about eliciting an emotional response (such as surprise or confusion or mental struggling) from your audience as a method for being persuasive and having your ideas be memorable.

Consider the perspective of the people you meet when you have a difficult name.  You are clearly breaking a pattern when you give your name to a person who is used to "easy" and more common names such as John, Brian, Kate, David, and so on.  By breaking a pattern, you are introducing an unexpected element into their day and as a result, you are creating a memorable experience.  I could certainly be reading too deeply into this but I've often had people remember me simply because they struggled with my name or we had a humorous exchange where I had to correct them several times when they pronounced my name incorrectly.  Not only did I break a pattern but I also elicited laughter, which is an additional emotional response.

Here are examples of some comments people have made when I contacted them after my initial interaction: "Oh yes! I remember you now, I had trouble with your name!", "I apologize for messing up your name," and "Yes, I remember meeting you. As I recall, I was having difficulties pronouncing your name."  These people actually admitted the reason for remembering me.  I imagine that others might have remembered me for similar reasons as well but never admitted it.

Until very recently, I had never realized the obvious: my name isn't a hindrance and it shouldn't be a source of frustration, it's a blessing in disguise.

Why you must always strive for objectivity

You can NEVER put too much importance on objectivity and professionalism. To me, these values promote honesty, accountability, and transparency. They also ward off sloppy work, manipulation, and let's face it, straight up lying. If the leader of a research group or an organization stresses objectivity and solid work at all costs, he is setting the right tone for his staff and I believe this research group/organization WILL get respect and become a trusted source of information. 

When you gain a reputation for being unbiased and objective, people listen to you. Even people that would normally disagree with your conclusions. These people will listen to you as well because they know you have a reputation for carrying out non-biased work and only go where the facts/stats/evidence take you. You don't cherry-pick your results and you don't skew or manipulate the data that you DO find. I believe this also applies to news organizations that report the facts and do their homework. They don't try to persuade you in one direction or another. They present the info in the most responsible and honest manner possible.

Having said all that, you ABSOLUTELY must acknowledge the fact that those outside the organization or research group ARE biased, subjective, have agendas, are emotional, and will use underhanded and manipulative methods to push their agenda. But I don't think this should stop you from continuing doing your work and striving for objectivity and the proper interpretation of the facts. You simply need to realize the context you are working in and be on your guard at all times. You have to constantly fact check and call people out whenever they are being manipulative or trying to lie. You can't control the underhanded methods and strategies of everyone else but you can certainly bring attention to them whenever you can and continue making yourself more credible in the process.

Of course all of this is the ideal version of how things should happen and there are gray areas EVERYWHERE. For instance, do I have an agenda because I think we should live in an environmentally sustainable and conscious manner? Am I biased for supporting environmentally safe decisions and environmental regulations at the expense of businesses and deregulation? Perhaps, BUT, if you gave me a case and told me to analyze and research it properly, I would NOT let my biases cloud my work.

For instance, I am a proponent of increasing the amount of energy we get from solar. My boss gives me the task of analyzing how expensive it would be for a project to get its energy from solar instead of traditional sources like natural gas or coal. He then asks me to compare the costs and present the info. I would NEVER try to "massage" the numbers or use favorable statistical parameters that push MY agenda on the matter. If solar comes way behind in terms of cost, I wouldn't go back to try to manipulate the numbers and "bend" the truth in any way. I would present my analysis and be as professional and objective as possible. 

Of course I would still add some commentary in there on how the negative environmental effects of coal and natural gas are NOT factored in because we haven't placed a price tag on them. I would point out that this skews the calculation and that natural gas/coal COULD be more expensive if you put a price tag on pollution. But, my original analysis will remain intact and I wouldn't pull "pollution cost" estimates out of thin air and put huge price tags on them. If such estimates exist, I would try to find data on them and incorporate them in the calculation.

Here is an example of an analysis gone wrong. Consider a criticism of the California High Speed Rail Authority. In one of their reports, they heavily overestimated their numbers of ridership projection for the train. The data was slim on how many people would ride the high speed rail and they basically cherry-picked outliers that supported high speed rail. I believe this is an example of irresponsible analysis. Transportation experts called them out on their mistake and in the process the High Speed Rail staff lost respect and tainted their reputation for doing irresponsible work. They now have to redo the numbers to gain back credibility and respect. If you think about it, did the staff "lie" in this situation? I don't think they did. But, they were certainly being dishonest and manipulative because as any statistician knows, you CANNOT use outliers to make major conclusions. You are using the exception and making broad generalizations. This is not proper work.

Either way, I think ultimately you CAN have policy preferences and "agendas" such as supporting green buildings, public transportation, and renewable energy. But, as I outlined in my example above, you must ALWAYS be as objective and professional as possible or else people will quickly label you as biased, having an agenda, and presenting untrustworthy info. If this happens, you have basically shot yourself in the foot and you will have limited success in creating change in areas you care about.