#We ALREADY KNOW who was believed to be influential with Edward as examples make that clear; Shore was very decidedly not one of them

[wonder-worker]

After the exile and attainder of her husband, Henry Holland, duke of Exeter, [Anne of York] acquired the bulk of his inheritance in 1462 with custody over her daughter and heiress, Anne Holland. The decision to make Anne femme sole was legalised in parliament. It was a testament to Edward’s willingness to bend the law for his family as the family ignored the rightful claim of the Holland family descendants such as Ralph, Lord Neville. Although it was enrolled as a royal grant, the original bill suggests it was in fact made at the duchess’s request as it bears the king’s sign manual, a note of the commons’ consent, and the royal response ‘le roy le voet’.

Alexander R. Brondarbit, Power Brockers and the Yorkist State, 1461-1485

[insideanairport]

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam’s Psycho-Nationalism

❍❍❍

Beyond the tremendous amount of media generated around Iran, and aside from Trump's maximum pressure policy, white America’s Muslim ban, and the Coronovirtus pandemic, Iran has been making headlines internationally more than most other nations in the Middle East in 2020. Amid one of the biggest modern pandemics, economists demand Trump to immediately lift the sanctions against Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, so these countries are able to get Medical supplies to their peoples. (1) These are sanctions that some politicians describe as “economic terrorism”. While Iran is one of the major countries hit by COIVD19, the Trump administration seems to be weaponizing the Coronavirus against Iran. (2) 

Similar to every other nation-state on earth, Iran is also not bulletproof against nationalism. Yet, it is not only nationalism that Adib-Moghaddam is interested to talk about in this book, but its the type of state-generated nationalism that he is interested in. He introduces the term “Psycho-nationalism” in order to connect the Iranian identity to its complications in the global context. 

The language of the book is quite academic and neutral. The idea of Psycho-nationalism between the two periods of pre- and post- Islamic Revolution might sound very identical to an external reader not familiar with the culture and history of Iran. The external reader will most likely assume that currently there is an Iranian nationalism “continuing” from the nationalism that existed during the Shah era. However, to a person living in Iran, the comparison of nationalism in pre- and post- revolution Iran might seem like comparing apples and oranges. There is also a mild differentiation between the anti-colonialism of Mohammad Mosaddegh, with that of Ayatollah Khomeini’s. This comparison seems to be oppositional rather than a gradual continuation. 

Ayatollah Khomeini

Adib-Moghaddam emphasizes on the concept of Velayat-e-Faqih (ولایت فقیه) or Supreme Jurisprudence. Reading through the book you might find out that Velayat-e-Faqih is a big deal for the whole concept of Psycho-nationalism. It shows itself the best at the heart of the book in chapter 2 “International Hubris: Kings of Kings and Vicegerents of God”. Adib-Moghaddam has already worked on Khomeini’s intellectual and revolutionary work, on a previous book: A Critical Introduction to Khomeini.

(Page 50)

The trajectory of Iranian postcolonial Nationalism

Maybe It would have been much easier to read and understand the particular nationalism that Adib-Moghaddam is trying to elucidate regarding Iran if he would have articulated it from a subjective point. I would love to read an anti-imperialist work in this area, especially when it comes from a non-majority Persian (فارس) Iranian. Although there have been a few good works on Iranian Nationalism from different positionalities, such as Iranian-Afghanistani, Afro-Iranian, Kurdish-Iranian, transgender Iranian, etc.. However, Adib-Moghaddam’s academic task requires him to talk about the issue in a “universal” academic (objective) way. 

Part of the idea is that Iranian identity continues to exist even without the nation-state or outside of it. Regarding this, at least, by now we should have already learned from the indigenous peoples of the world, that peoples and nations exist even without the nation-state. In future, I would like to read more of his work especially if it analysis Iranian nationalism or “Iranian white supremacy complex” (’Iran = land of Aryans’, and ‘Iranian = Persian/فارس’)

The book seems to be written for the non-Iranian and maybe Western audiences. Exhibiting the notion of Psycho-nationalism before and after the Islamic revolution, Adib-Moghaddam is scratching the surface of nationality and religion from an Iranian perspective. He is also preoccupied with the “meaning of Iran” or “Iranian identity”, which is equivalently associated with the idea of Psycho-nationalism. Yet, from my personal experience of growing up in Iran until the end of my public education, I remember the absence of such questions in Iranian public discourse. It is a type of question, that is desired by numerous Persian-Iranian youths inside Iran. 

On page fifteen, he is talking about the Iranian superiority/racial purity complex common in pre-revolutionary politics, yet he seems to be a bit too pedagogical to bring in Western writers such as Freud and Hobsbawm to connect with his point.

(Page 15)

I am not sure if Adib-Moghaddam is bringing down the Islamic Republic to the level of Shah’s nationalism to disregard its revolutionary aspects, or if he is presenting post-revolution Iran as a new form of nationalist state? Hassan Taghizadeh is a good example here. Taqizadeh was the most influential person in Iran who supported the interests of the German Empire against Russia and Britain between the two World Wars. So he was part of the severe Westernization process that accrued in Iran during the time of Reza Shah. He identified Shahnameh as the source of purified national pride and consciousness. Adib-Moghaddam appoints Taghizadeh as a Psycho-nationalist.

(Iranian nomad women forced to wear Western clothes during the Westernization process under Reza Shah’a Kashf-e hijab, source chamedanmag) 

Adib-Moghaddam is also employing a series of academic vocabularies such as “Politics of Identity”, which doesn’t decenter the dominant canon. However, Adib-Moghaddam knows that talking about nationalism in a universalist (objective) way would result in further conversations about history in an analytic and nationalist way. 

What I have enjoyed the most about the book is the amazing articulations of Adib-Moghaddam regarding theories of sovereignty and what legitimizes a sovereign power. In my view, page 51-55 are the most important part of the book where it focuses on the history of Iranian Westernization during the Pahlavi era, which created a white-supremacist complex in the Iranian psyche and ultimately paved the way for the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This Iranian White Supremacist complex still carries on today in many different oppositional groups such as the monarchists, MEK, and Iranian Renaissance.  

There is another important point in this section, which I believe is central to Adib-Moghaddam’s theory of Psycho-nationalism. On page 51, he argues (in regard to the post-revolution Iran) that in order to legitimize your self-designation claim as the regional/global Islamic power, you need the international recognition through a series of events and campaigns. Current Iranian revolutionaries express solidarity with all anti-imperialist activism around the world. Adib-Moghaddam skillfully brings the example of street names in Tehran. If you live in Tehran, you might come across a few streets that are named after white anti-colonial activists such as Bobby Sands, or Rachel Aliene Corrie.

The only time the book mentions Edward Said is on page 74, where there is a vivid example of Orientalism by the liberal white English politician Thomas Babington Macaulay. Lord Macaulay was a racist academic and educator. There is a quote from Macaulay, in which he argues: “a single shelf of good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabic”.(1)

There is another clever comparison in the book where he compares two Iranian masculine icons: Rustam and Imam Hossein followed by a comparison of Giuseppe Mazzini and Garibaldi. Towards the end of the book, he mentions the right-wing and white supremacist Iranian nationalism, which is to some degree an Orientalist creation. As an example, Adib-Moghaddam uses Arthur de Gobineau and Ernest Renan. They both said at some point that Persians (Iran’s ethnic majority) are racially superior to Arabs and other Semitic people due to their Indo-European heritage. (2)

Shah’s royal family before the 1979 Revolution (Photo: AP, source: ynetnews)

Thomas Babington Macaulay (left) and Arthur de Gobineaut (right)

Bib. 1. Johnson, Jake. Economists Demand Trump Immediately Lift Iran, Cuba, Venezuela Sanctions. truthout. [Online] March 19, 2020. https://truthout.org/articles/economists-demand-trump-immediately-lift-iran-cuba-venezuela-sanctions/. 2. Conley, Julia. 'Literally Weaponizing Coronavirus': Despite One of World's Worst Outbreaks of Deadly Virus, US Hits Iran With 'Brutal' New Sanctions. Common Dreams. [Online] 3 18, 2020. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/18/literally-weaponizing-coronavirus-despite-one-worlds-worst-outbreaks-deadly-virus-us. 3. A minute to acknowledge the day when India was 'educated' by Macaulay. indiatoday.in. [Online] 2 2, 2018. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/a-minute-to-acknowledge-the-day-when-india-was-educated-by-macaulay-1160140-2018-02-02. 4. Renan, Ernest. What Is a Nation? and Other Political Writings. [ed.] M. F. N. Giglioli. s.l. : Columbia University Press, 2018. 9780231547147. 5. Bogen, Amir. 'In a future Iran, Israel will once again be an ally'. ynetnews. [Online] 2 12, 2019. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5462253,00.html.

[albertcaldwellne]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[seanmalatesta]

Words That Changed History

Why Lincoln, Henry, and Sojourner Truth Stood Out

People have delivered countless speeches in history. But even speeches delivered by the most prominent people, on the most auspicious occasions, routinely make little difference. Think of presidential speeches, like inaugural or State of the Union addresses. How many of them had any lasting impact? Just a few, like John F. Kennedy’s 1961 exhortation to “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

What makes great historic orations so powerful? Typically, they combine well-crafted words, clarity of thought, moral passion, and an uncanny sense of historical timing. Many of the greatest speeches of history were not destined to become great. Often the speaker was not the most famous person in the room, or was not giving the keynote address. Sometimes the oration was so unexpected that we don’t even have the text of the original speech. But that combination of apt, passionate words, delivered at the right moment, sometimes changes the course of history.

“ Apt, passionate words, delivered at the right moment, sometimes changes the course of history.

—THOMAS KIDD

Three examples will illustrate my point. The first and third of these speeches you probably know; the second speech, you might not.

Liberty or bust

The first speech is Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” oration in 1775 in Virginia, on the eve of the American Revolution. This was the most influential speech in inspiring the war of independence against Britain. Henry was already known as a brilliant, fiery orator in 1775. Some said that he spoke like the revivalists of the Great Awakening, whose meetings he had attended as a boy in the mid-1700s.

The Patriots at the Virginia Convention, meeting at St. John’s Church in Richmond, were divided between those who wanted to keep seeking reconciliation with Britain, and those like Henry who saw war as the inevitable outcome of their struggle over taxes and British power in America. Henry called on his fellow colonists to muster the courage to fight. “I know not what course others may take,” Henry thundered, “but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Part of the moral urgency of the short speech came from its repeated invocations of the Bible, especially the prophet Jeremiah. As was Henry’s style, “Liberty or Death” was part sermon, part speech.

“Liberty or Death” was also the most famous oration in American history for which we do not have the original text. Whether Henry failed to write down the speech or did not save a copy, we don’t know. The text we have was patched together forty years later, by an admiring historian. But Americans had already adopted the slogan “Liberty or Death” as a battle cry in 1776. Slaves knew the phrase, too, and made their own use of it. The slave rebel Gabriel in 1800 in Richmond reportedly intended to lead his collaborators marching under a banner reading “Death or Liberty.”

Woman speaks up

The author of our second speech, Sojourner Truth, was herself a former slave in New York. She delivered her 1851 oration “Arn’t I a Woman?” at a women’s rights convention in Akron, Ohio. Even more than Henry’s Liberty or Death speech, “Arn’t I a Woman?” took on a life of its own afterwards, becoming one of the most commonly cited historical addresses by an African American woman. The illiterate Truth (born Isabella Baumfree, but changed her name in 1843) boldly addressed those who said women should have no political rights. “I can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?” she asked.

Sojourner Truth Monument – Battle Creek CVB

Twelve years later, a friend of Truth’s recalled that she also declared, “And arn’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen them most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And arn’t I a woman?” As with Henry’s “Liberty or Death,” we don’t have the original text of Truth’s speech. But she spoke with unprecedented power and passion about the struggles of a woman and a slave in pre-Civil War America.

Forgetting Everett

Finally, there’s Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, given in 1863 at the dedication of the Union cemetery at the Gettysburg battlefield. This has become one of the most famous speeches in American history. It is so brilliantly brief that countless American schoolchildren have memorized it. But Lincoln was not even the featured speaker at Gettysburg that day. That role fell to Edward Everett, a former congressman and Harvard president who was probably the nation’s most celebrated orator in 1863. Everett gave a two-hour long speech which was probably well received at the moment, but which is now almost totally ignored.

No one expected Lincoln’s two-minute remarks to change the meaning of the war and of American history. Before the Gettysburg Address, many white Americans – including northerners – did not wish to extend the blessings of liberty to African Americans. But Lincoln insisted that the Declaration of Independence had founded a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Under God,” he proclaimed, America would have “a new birth of freedom.” His audience would have instantly understood what Lincoln meant. Because of the Civil War, America itself could be “born again,” as the Gospel of John puts it, into a new life of freedom: freedom for slaves. Moreover, he believed that the Union army’s victory would ensure that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Unexpected orations

These examples show that the greatest speeches are not always easy to anticipate beforehand. Many critics did not believe that Sojourner Truth, as a black woman, should even be speaking in public in 1851. Lincoln and Henry were far more prominent and accepted figures, of course, but Lincoln was not the main speaker at Gettysburg, and no one bothered to write down and save Henry’s speech. Yet all three, under differing circumstances, combined the right timing, clarity, and moral power to craft history-changing speeches.

from Michael Hyatt, Your Virtual Mentor https://ift.tt/2GZIW6I via IFTTT

[talabib]

Leadership Journey: John Law

In the 1980s, yuppies began to flood the streets of New York and financial centers across the globe. They flashed their cash, wore designer clothes, showed off mobile phones and drove around in Italian sports cars.

That era remains the archetype of excess in modern eyes. Since then, economic bubbles, greedy bankers and a reckless banking industry have become a part of the public consciousness, with the most recent financial crisis standing as a fresh reminder.

As you’ll learn from this post, such cycles are nothing new. In the early eighteenth century, France witnessed a similar economic bubble that introduced the world to several aspects of modern finance. This important development was all thanks to one man: the gambler-turned-money-spinner John Law.

Although Law’s empire of wealth would eventually come tumbling down, several of his notions regarding economics and growth stimulation remain with us to this day. This is the story of Law’s rise from young dueling dandy to economic oracle.

The central principles that guide the world of banking have been around for a long time.

Can you imagine a world without banking or credit? While it might seem impossible to conceive of, the fact is that the banking system as we know it, one with credit and borrowing at its heart, is a relatively new configuration.

Ancient Babylon had a form of banking, we know that paper money circulated in China in the seventh century BC and that there were stalls and counters in the Greco-Roman world where money could be lent and exchanged. But the foundations of modern banking really began to develop in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

This shift is associated with Italian cities, and with the Republic of Genoa in particular. In fact, it's from the Italian language that we get the word “bank,” since the “banco” was the table where transactions took place. But as trade expanded, as new lands were colonized and as monarchs’ lifestyles grew ever more extravagant, the old banking system simply stopped working.

This new world of commerce, however, was not built with material money and precious metals, but was instead formed by a complex system of credit.

Credit can be a wonderful thing, but, as we know from the recent banking crisis, credit only works when there is trust. In the seventeenth century, this trust was created by banks having money in their vaults as collateral.

Once these physical reserves were established, the idea of paper money took off. Banknotes could circulate while a limited amount of gold coins with real value could be kept in reserve.

In theory, you could take your paper money to the bank and exchange it for real currency. But such a financial system inherently depends on trust and political stability; it simply would not sustain the rush on the banks that would occur if everyone demanded to exchange their bills.

It was in this changing world that a figure emerged who would bring fresh ideas to the field of economics: John Law.

The Law family were dealt a poor hand, but John eventually came up trumps.

John Law came from a Scottish clerical family. They were a liberal family unsuited to rural living and eventually moved to Edinburgh, which at that time was a poor city.

Having struggled through a life of poverty, John Law's grandfather encouraged his sons to learn a trade and become goldsmiths. John’s father, William, heeded his own father’s advice and became a successful smith; his marriage to the daughter of a prosperous merchant only expanded his wealth and horizons. William would eventually come to purchase his own castle near the Firth of Forth.

At a time when everything looked rosy, tragedy struck. William was diagnosed with bladder stones and died in 1688 during a medical procedure. John inherited a considerable fortune, and already well-schooled, he chose to take part in big city life and moved to London rather than attend university.

London, the largest city in Europe, had plenty of attractions to offer him – women and gambling among them. London played an important role in shaping Law’s personality and ideas. He lived off the winnings from his gambling, and his mathematical talents became an especially valuable asset. In turn, gambling became his entry ticket into society.

Law was a not life without risks. Although he was generally successful, he did occasionally run into trouble. For example, in 1692, before he had even turned 21, he was faced with the prospect of incarceration for outstanding debts. But he got lucky – he was able to recoup the necessary funds by selling the family estate, which he had inherited after his father’s death, to his mother.

This incident was a watershed. While he didn’t give up gambling, from that point on he only did so when applying his considerable mathematical talents. Guided by his understanding of probability and its role in card games, Law only played when he was sure he could win.

It was in febrile dandified dens that Law honed his skills, and the knock-on effects weren’t only to his immediate financial advantage; these exploits soon piqued his interest in the new science of economics.

Young John Law lived fast, treading a fine line between success and failure.

The hustle and bustle of seventeenth-century London was not without its dangers – it was a world of fops and dandies challenging each other to duels. In 1694, Law found himself in this very situation with Edward Wilson, an infamous dandy, for reasons we still don't know.

Wilson was killed and his influential family pressed for a murder charge, even though Law, who was attacked first, should technically only have been charged with manslaughter at most. He was nonetheless found guilty of murder, sentenced to death and imprisoned in Newgate prison to await execution. At a second attempt, Law managed to escape to Amsterdam.

Law’s London life had brought him to within a hair’s breadth of death. But now, on the continent, it became clear that this experience had prepared him well.

He was able to stay afloat by gambling as he made his way across Europe. While living in France, he also met his eventual partner, Katherine, who at the time was the wife of a French nobleman. Katherine stayed with Law for the rest of his life.

Law’s interest in economics did not subside. He immersed himself in its study and began to refine his ideas. Law believed that the countries of Europe had become far too dependent on the exploitation of raw materials for generating wealth. He was convinced that the introduction of paper money would stabilize these economies.

Law laid out his ideas in a 120-page pamphlet in 1705, but it met with a lukewarm reception. In 1704, after ten years on the continent, Law beseeched the new Queen of Great Britain, Queen Anne, for a pardon so that he could return to his homeland; he wanted more than anything to test out his theories on the Scottish economy. But, since his plea was unsuccessful, he turned elsewhere: France.

In France, John Law found an ideal context to put his economic theories into practice.

The year was 1705 and Law had set his sights on France as a suitable country upon which to test his ideas. There was just one problem: Britain was at war with France, and Law, stuck in Holland, could not reach Paris.

Undeterred, Law sent his ideas to Nicolas Desmarets, the King’s finance minister. Law had chosen France for good reason; the country was in an extraordinary amount of debt, about 2 billion livres – that’s roughly $11.7 billion in today’s money.

Law saw increasing the supply of money as a potential solution. By doing so, he thought, the economy could be stimulated. More taxes could be collected, the debt could be reduced and investment increased.

Law’s confidence in paper money would come to play a key role; there simply wasn’t enough gold and silver in France to manage the debt.

The plan was truly revolutionary and France would become the first economy to run on paper money. In 1715, Law’s plans fell into place. Philippe, Duke of Orleans and regent to the new king, Louis XV, was receptive to Law’s ideas. Law acted quickly, but was met with some resistance, including from the Duke of Noailles, President of the Finance Council.

Law’s response was seen as outrageous at the time: in 1716 he founded a private bank, the Banque Générale. At the same time, the Duke of Noailles took his own radical measures. He reduced the amount of precious metal in the national coinage and cut interest rates. Panic spread quickly and the real value of salaries started to shrink.

Law’s bank offered a solution, but he was treated with suspicion because of his gambling history. Even so, traders started to warm to paper money. It had a fixed value and could be exchanged for its face value in gold at any time.

In short, this new paper money came to be trusted, and the French economy began to grow on the back of this innovative concept.

John Law set about making France the economic powerhouse of Europe.

The introduction of paper money to France was an unmitigated success, but Law wanted to push his economic ideas further. In particular, he looked to France's possession in North America, Louisiana, a district which stretched from the mouth of the Mississippi River deep into modern-day Canada.

All of France’s costly overseas endeavors had met with little success. Law identified the root of this problem as persistent underinvestment, and began formulating a plan to generate funds. Law set about transforming his private bank into a state bank, the Banque Royale, and obtained funds by issuing billets, a type of state bond. The money rolled in and, soon enough, Law had enough funds to invest across the Atlantic.

Law’s plan hinged on reinvesting this money. In 1717, he bought the Mississippi Company with the money he had acquired through the Banque Royale's bond-issuing scheme.

His aim was simple: he wanted to monopolize trade. Consequently, the Mississippi Company bought out the rival Company of the East Indies and Company of China, and also began to muscle in on the tobacco trade from Senegal.

To say Law’s ideas were a success would be an understatement; the value of shares in the Mississippi Company rose sharply and, by July 1719, Law was able to buy the Royal Mint. By autumn of that year, his position was unassailable. He offered to take over the state debt of 1.2 billion livres at an interest rate of three percent, and paid a further 53 million livres for tax collection rights.

Law’s expenditure financed the issuing of more shares in the Mississippi Company. Their value, in turn, skyrocketed. It was a phenomenal economic boom that seemed unstoppable. What’s more, it had all been made possible by Law’s insistence on the value and potential of paper money.

John Law's success enriched many and was seen as an economic miracle.

By 1719, Law had created in the Mississippi Company what seemed like an unstoppable wealth-creating machine. He was a celebrated figure and stories of successful investors abounded, many of whom became celebrities in their own right. But paired with this success was a certain amount of speculation, and prices ballooned. For example, at the time in France, just one chick could cost as much as half the average monthly salary of a craftsman.

In the midst of this madness, the term “millionaire” was first coined to describe those who had enriched themselves through the Mississippi Company. Law then started to branch out and encourage foreign investment. This was particularly important, as the system of paper money needed to be supported by real coinage kept in banks. More foreign coinage would mean more French banknotes could be printed. However, this strategy was heavily criticized: it led to ever-increasing amounts of credit being issued.

By the second half of 1719, the results were plain to see: a bubble had formed and the share prices of the Mississippi Company had risen twentyfold.

Law’s star was in the ascendancy. People came from all over to speak with him, and he became a true celebrity. He was also awarded honorary membership to the Academy of Sciences. Despite all this attention and newfound celebrity, Law kept his feet on the ground; he invested carefully, especially in property, and devoted himself to streamlining the tax system, an especially weak point in France’s bureaucratic structure.

The year 1719 had been one of tremendous accomplishments for Law, and it was capped off by his appointment as Controller-General of Finances in 1720. But just as his star was shining brightest, the clouds began to gather.

The vulnerabilities in John Law's economic system became more and more obvious.

At the start of 1720, Law was on top of the world and the prospect of further enrichment through the Mississippi Company’s success seemed assured.

Investors had flocked to invest in the company’s putative accruement of wealth in Louisiana – but the scheme turned out to be no more than snake oil. The expected rich seams of gold and silver ores were never found, the land was infertile and the indigenous peoples remained resistant.

Before long, the share prices of the Mississippi Company leveled off. Unfortunately, the fate of France’s entire economic system, now based on trust in paper money, was by this point inextricably tied to the company’s success.

Any dip in the fortunes of the Mississippi Company would potentially spread, and from the end of 1719 onwards, the company’s major shareholders began to drop out. People also began to take coinage out of the country, fearing the increasing likelihood that others would start trying to exchange their worthless paper money for hard currency.

Law was in a bind and set about imposing desperate measures. He banned the export of coins, and when people tried to exchange them for other valuables, including diamonds, Law forbade the wearing of diamonds.

It was a race to the bottom that Law could never win. By the time Law had banned every other form of currency except banknotes, he had suffered a breakdown. Yet more notes were printed until the amount in circulation between January and May 1720 doubled to 2.6 billion livres, or about $15.2 billion in modern-day funds.

By December, Law was denounced as a charlatan as he cast aside the fundamental tenet of his economic system: he unilaterally devalued paper money by half.

The angry mobs swelled and seethed, and Law’s decisions were quickly revoked. Soon thereafter, he was ignominiously removed from his post as Controller-General of Finances and placed under house arrest.

John Law’s economic ideas were eventually condemned and he died in poverty.

Within a matter of months, John Law’s life had been turned upside down – but his house arrest did not last long. Upon his release, he formulated a fresh plan to stabilize the economy and was reinstated as Controller-General of Finances. But it was too late. Confidence in the local economy had been lost and people were rushing to the banks to exchange paper money for coins. There was nothing Law could do to salvage the situation.

By October 1720, the writing was on the wall; the next month, the system of paper money that Law had established would cease to exist. It was also the end of the Mississippi Company. Already close to bankruptcy, when the sea trade stalled because of an outbreak of the plague, it was clear that the company’s days were numbered.

Enough was enough, and Law wanted out. He made his way with his son to Holland and Italy, but his wife and daughter were not granted permission to leave France. He was penniless and there was nothing that could be done.

Although he was eventually allowed to return to Great Britain, this was of little recompense. Katherine was still unable to leave France and the powers there had no interest in helping them or letting Law return.

After all, the scale of the consequences of Law’s economic planning had by this point become quite clear, with half a million people claiming losses from shares and banknotes. It was an undignified end for Law himself, who fell ill and died, never to be reunited with his wife.

Even so, Law’s ideas did not die with him. France may not have circulated paper money for the next hundred years, but it is now a core aspect of modern economies. Likewise, his approach to raising investment through the issuing of shares remains a cornerstone of modern finance.

Law’s ambitious plans may have failed in his lifetime, but the dreams of this crafty gambler and creative economic strategist live on in every corner of the world.

The use of paper money as a cornerstone of modern economic systems has its roots in ideas first put forth by John Law. Law’s life story shows not only the downsides of modern economic systems based on paper money, but also its inherent value. While paper money can trigger economic booms, rapid downturns and economic chaos, modern economies would not run nearly as smoothly without it.

[alexandrawarden-blog]

The Mathematics Of Persuasive Communication.

Given that 1997, the Creative Thinking World Champion has actually been operated by Mind Sports Olympiad. If you have just about any queries regarding wherever and tips on how to work with yellow pages ni - simply click the up coming post,, you'll be able to call us in our web site. However, assuming away from the box," in my viewpoint is actually CERTAINLY NOT an upside-down to look at. I believe merely it is actually even more helpful to presume that there is a box in purchase to get from our convenience zones to remove our dirt, this functions as a trigger, fictional talking. Random Input is actually making use of cement substantives from unassociated fields for hooking up one believing design to one more. Rather than resting in your home as well as watching flicks or even participating in games on a laptop or personal computer, they can currently do all the same things with a tablet or even cell phone. A creative presuming firm (). Just before & After collaborate with companies, professional organizations as well as individuals. Attribute tends to influence if you enable that to, which results in being much more artistic. Design items like paint with moist coatings, catching certain pictures and making a collage etc may draw out the creative brilliant in these children while maintaining all of them occupied. I minimized my writing as a commodity, certainly not as an innovative channel for me, which defeated all purpose from why I determined to write in the top place. Goleman, Daniel, Paul Kaufman as well as Michael Ray (1991) The Innovative Feeling, New York: Penguin, pp. 46-51. Free Brainstorming Training coming from Infinite Innovations Ltd - Know basic and also sophisticated strategies for conceptualizing. This is going to interest find if such strategy games may nurture key and imaginative reasoning in the same way that teambuilding activities were expected to strengthen staff job. Like highly creative atmospheres at Facebook and also Google, the much more inspirational the group structure occasions remain in your office, the much easier this is to break the creative thinking block as well as uncover originalities. A particular noted concerning creative people that costs stating is actually persistence. We in the USA live at a physical drawback to the majority of the world, as our team are actually separated through several miles and also have actually built presumptions concerning the world which oftentimes are improper or even flawed, due partially to our absence of crucial thinking as well as to big degree as a result of our bodily, emotional and also intellectual separation coming from the rest of the world's population. You could engage in creativity by resolving teasers, through becoming aware of and letting go of your beliefs, as well as by means of play-- anything unregulated and also relaxing. With continuously that has to be dedicated to these areas, there is actually a lot less chance to think of the importance from nurturing youngsters's imaginative potentials. After convincing the others, as well as therefore increasing the tips worth, the artistic specific 'markets high' by leaving the suggestion with the other individuals, and also relocates onto creating another idea. This 'breath of fresh air' may re-energize you as well as completely change your reasoning procedure. Nevertheless, while being empirical in science might suggest a design from meticulous fidelity to a suggested procedure from understudying phenomena, in creativity, this describes because whatever globe you generate through your writings must be actually comparable with human adventure sufficient to stimulate preferred psychological reaction in a dimension that everyone who has had a comparable adventure would certainly have the capacity to understand the personalities as well as social circumstance developed in your works. Other critical factors from ingenuity, for example, creative expression, innovative endeavour and also innovative partnership, are actually featured in various other discovering abilities as well as locations. Instances from essential believing capabilities are actually deciphering, analyzing, evaluating, explaining, sequencing, thinking, contrasting, questioning, presuming, hypothesising, assessing, screening as well as generalising. With yard architect training you will definitely be actually learning a skill-set that is exciting to perform as a residing that permits you to become creative while simultaneously letting you be physical. The capacity and also this interaction to connect to as well as collaborate with other people aids trainees to create skills that will be valuable in numerous parts from their adult life, featuring their future works. Routine reasoning benefits every day activities, because you perform the duty without hiring your mind as well as losing electricity on the assuming procedure. That is actually, stargazing and also incubation are very most successful on a venture you have actually presently committed a ton of imaginative attempt in to. This two-day plan pays attention to ways to construct a competitive advantage through cultivating an artistic culture that stimulates collaboration, ideas, and innovation. The concept and create task should as a result be actually a stimulant that delights the detects and gets the creative juices from pupils moving in abundance. Flexible or socratic inquiries are a fantastic way in order to get youngsters's innovative juices flowing. This is indisputably glaring therefore, that to remain above the floods as well as hold guide in his/her industry, every person must, in these opportunities, have to always obtain abilities in self-expression. In an attempt to find a solution to this question I turned to one of the trailblazers of thinking, Edward de Bono, and located that his influential service the Six Assuming Hats ® uses completely to the art and also craft of creating. The road to negative idea is actually effortless to take as well as that often shuts the door to creativity thinking. Aim to have less opportunity restraints for tasks so that children's imaginative juices could move unconfined by a class time clock. If you do not get the programs lingo, after that you can at the very least play games and also discover any type of possible pests that may be taken care of. Content production involves lots of imagination however sometimes our innovation tends to have a short-term sabbatical. The whole-brain thinking style could be made use of for creative thinking and also innovation, mounting troubles and also options, decision-making and also preparation. Like picking which sort of amusement park to visit (e.g. a water or even a zoo playground), these areas connect to the places through which an individual could be innovative (e.g. poems). With technique, on-going creative thinking (the continual investigation, examining and also evaluation that establishes with self-awareness, education and also training) takes place continuously. This system will definitely give your staff members the Whole Human brain ® devices, skill-sets as well as approaches to result in your company's innovative result, whatever their functionality or even role is actually, and also get buy-in for different and brand-new ideas. Amazing and also stunning adolescent gals like Baggage, Chloe, Sasha as well as Yasmin are actually amongst the Bratz that will definitely follow you in the Bratz makeover activities. Creative procedures may be made use of in a strong technique through people operating entirely by themselves. Some people are actually normally even more imaginative compared to others, yet imagination could be reinforced along with strategy. Disruptive thinking has to do with switching things on their scalp, shuffling them approximately, as well as seeing exactly what comes out. This 'sideways' approach from reasoning is much better known as association of ideas, developed by Edward De Bono over 40 years ago. Every person in the world could be imaginative in their personal method, in their own lives. We live in an innovative lifestyle, and even science asks for a continual stream of originalities. Any person geared up with a couple of creative thinking procedures can produce a number of new kinds of office chairs in a married couple hrs. Another main ingredient of the box is the chains from series in our thinking that have ended up being reflexive they have been joined all together for such a long time. Increased finding out offers means to open a fantastic collection of intellectual skill-sets. If you use these calculated methods throughout advanced brainstorming sessions after that you also will be actually extra innovative. While this technique assists our team work in society, that injures creativity due to the fact that real-life concerns are uncertain. Nevertheless, this resistance may typically faint through practices including thruming, breathing physical exercises, and also psychophysiological feedback approaches. With imagination, you can easily think about the best ways to improvise on already existing points.

[photoforumpasquart]

Hester Keijser – A few notes on Bank of America, posthuman embodiment and the curious absence of the viewer in the mind of the contemporary photography critic

A rather baffling article in the British newspaper “The Independent” informed its readers on Wednesday 14 September 2016, that “analysts at Bank of America have reportedly suggested there is a 20 to 50 per cent chance our world is a Matrix-style virtual reality and everything we experience is just a simulation.” What is baffling, is not the suggestion that the entire universe might, in a sense, be said not to exist as such, might be immaterial, might be someone else’s dream. Philosophers and scientists have been postulating this for centuries. What is baffling, is that this is communicated by a big commercial bank seated in one of the most powerful nations in the world. What reason can a bank have for sharing this ‘news’ with their clients? What kind of vital implications do they expect this to have for their and their clients’ business activities? Is virtuality something they will now start to calculate with in their own computational models of future risks, strategies and opportunities?

The ramifications of this step are not to be underestimated. It’s as if a rogue theory about the ontological foundation of our tangible reality has escaped from the confines of the lab, where until now it was contained by a handful of scientists. Set free into the wild, this new cosmogony will wreak havoc in the minds of ordinary citizens, who are wholly unprepared to entertain this notion as anything more than something from a science fiction movie. And now we are supposed to seriously engage with it? Just wow. Isn't there enough anxiety and paranoia in today’s world already? Neither is it very reassuring to be told that, even if we were to be simulated life forms, we would never know about it. Except they just told us so. I had half expected the article to conclude with helpline information for readers who were upset or distressed by the story.

The headline would probably not have caught my eye, had I not just been exposed to Katherine Hayles’ book “How we became posthuman. Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics”, published back in 1999 (1). Hayles writes:

“The emergence of the posthuman as an informational-material entity is paralleled and reinforced by a corresponding reinterpretation of the deep structures of the physical world. Some theorists, notably Edward Fredkin and Stephen Wolfram, claim that reality is a program run on a cosmic computer. [...] living in a condition of virtuality implies we participate in the cultural perception that information and materiality are conceptually distinct and that information is in some sense more essential, more important, and more fundamental than materiality. The preamble to ‘A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age’, a document coauthored by Alvin Tofler at the behest of Newt Gingrich, concisely sums up the matter by proclaiming, ‘the central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter.’”

With her words on my mind, the communication of the central bank of America felt like the final act of this event. Matter has officially lost out against code, computations and information, which, as we have come to believe, are essentially bodiless. For Haynes, the central question is: “what happens to the embodied lifeworld of humans in this paradigm, [in which] embodiment has been systematically downplayed or erased in the cybernetic construction of the posthuman?”

Even though embodiment is widely discussed in cybernetic theories, it is not a topic that regularly crops up in the now – so – popular publications on the how, what and where of photography in the digital age. My own interest in the matter developed through my correspondences with Urs Stahel (2), published on the blog platform of Foto Colectania (3). After having participated for several years in various conversations on contemporary photography, the realization had crept up on me that the body (and in particular that of the viewer) is conspicuously absent in our readings of photographic work. “Embodiment, as I searched to explain to Urs Stahel rather clumsily, “is the word I use for the way an image doesn’t speak to the eyes only, but calls on our other senses like smell, hearing and touch, affects our breathing, our posture and our vestibular sense, which helps us orient ourselves in space, and ultimately addresses and transforms our way of being in the world.”

As is often the case, once you figure out what questions want asking, doors open, and you’ll soon happen upon others grappling with the same issue. I discovered that ‘embodiment’ is also a ‘thing’ in contemporary photography theory, even if efforts are still mainly concentrated in academic circles (4). For instance, Ellen Esrock’s research traces the neglect for the body as the primacy locus for the experience of art to the onset of modernism. While it was in line with scientific developments in the late nineteenth century for “humanists and scientists [to theorize] that spectators respond to art and architecture through their bodies, projecting themselves into material objects and animating them with their own bodily life”, this had become less acceptable just a few decades later.

Esrock: “...the influential art critic Wilhelm Worringer (1908) identified two fundamental principles of creative impulse: empathy and abstraction, arguing that ‘the urge to empathy’ was not an appropriate response to the emerging abstract art of the time. Influenced by Worringer’s ambitious argument, other artists and critics of the early twentieth century came to regard empathy as a comfortable, multisensory response to naturalistic depictions and to associate empathy with passive, feminine, imitative forms of art making (Koss 2006). Abstraction, on the other hand, was understood to be a sheerly optical response appropriate to avant-garde abstract art and was associated with experiences of estrangement and discomfort and with active, masculine modes of authentic creativity. Characterized in this way, empathy had little to offer proponents of the burgeoning modernism, with its abstractions and its ethos of alienation.”

In other words, the conspicuous absence of the embodied viewer that I had registered in the existing writing on photography was perhaps not accidental, but directly related to the history of artistic discourse, which had set limits on what can and cannot be talked about. Not surprisingly, these limits were set in a time when talking about the body and how one is aware of its inner sensations - our interoceptive sense - was frowned up. And still today, there is a lingering embarrassment and a sense of shame in talking about own’s own body, especially in public when strangers are present. We are encouraged to control and even to police our bodies, which we possess like masters possess a slave, to be punished at will, to be exploited in hard labor, to be worked out in exercise, or to be given a brief respite in spare time. What we know much less, is how to be a body, let alone having the language to express ourselves adequately when prompted to describe inner sensations (5).

Esrock’s arguments are more nuanced and far richer than I can convey within the short span of this article. At present it should suffice to point in the direction of her research, and also that of Katherine Hayles (6), or of people like Sarah Kember (7) and Ariella Azoulay (8). In their work lies a potential to break down and lay bare the conventions that rule our aesthetic and political appreciation of photographic images, and to explore what this absence of the body and the erasure of embodiment tells us about ourselves, our societies and our wicked dreams of escaping the material world by convincing ourselves that we are nothing but weightless, bodiless and potentially immortal data and code.

Finally, I want to Bank of America for reminding us once again that many of the boundaries and limits we struggle with or feel defined by, are wholly arbitrary, and can safely be suspended in wild acts of imagination.

—————————–

(1) Excerpts of her book can be accessed via: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Hayles-Posthuman-excerpts.pdf

(2) Urs Stahel was the co-founder of the Winterthur Fotomuseum, which he has been managing for the past 20 years. Since 2013, he has been the curator for the platform Paris Photo (2014), the new Institute for Industrial Culture (MAST) in Bologna, and the Mannheim-Ludwigshafen-Heidelberg Photo Festival (2015). He also works as an author, a consultant and a lecturer (at the Zurich University of the Arts, the University of Zurich, the Sammlung Bank Vontobel). He is the writer and editor of numerous books, for example, books about Paul Graham, Roni Horn, Rineke Dijkstra, Anders Petersen, Amar Kanwar, Ai Weiwei, Shirana Shahbazi, Boris Mikhailov as well as books on themes such as “Industriebild” (‘Pictures of Industry’), “Trade”, “Im Rausch der Dinge” (‘The Ecstasy of Things’) and “Darkside I + II”.

(3) Foto Colectania is a private non-profit organization created in Barcelona in 2002 with the objective of disseminating photography in the social, artistic and educational spheres. http://correspondencias.fotocolectania.org/en/

(4) This is not a bad thing, even if many photographers profess to have a dislike for discursive writing. I would argue that, in fact, many academics are currently more avant garde and future forward in their thinking than most of us who are writing on photography.

(5) For example, who hasn’t sat at the doctor’s office at a loss for words to describe what ails us?

(6) Hayle’s profile and a selection of her writing is available at: http://nkhayles.com/index.html

(7) See Sarah Kember’s profile at Goldsmith University London, where she is Professor of New Technologies of Communication https://goldsmiths.academia.edu/SKember.

(8) Ariella Azoulay is Professor of Comparative Literature and Modern Culture and Media, Brown University Independent curator and film maker. http://cargocollective.com/AriellaAzoulay

[joshuabradleyn]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[ruthellisneda]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[johnclapperne]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[neilmillerne]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[almajonesnjna]

The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards

No one personifies the dark arts of influence and persuasion like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.

Since my moniker is to bring the dark arts of influence into the light,  I’m going to explain his most influential techniques in order for you to start using them in your own life. So, if you’d like more people to bend to your will — in a positive, ethical way — you’re in the right place.

You might notice that most of these examples come from seasons 1-3 (I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but no promises.) and there’s a reason for this. As Frank rises to power throughout the series, he uses fewer skills of conversational influence and begins to default towards straight-up coercion.

I’ve chosen specific principles and techniques that you can (and should) use in your every day life. Frank uses these tools for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the tools themselves are evil. A hammer can kill, but it can also build a shelter. The hammer is neither good nor bad: the intention with which the hammer is used is, and the same is true of each of these techniques.

1. Influence the Influencer

In the first episode, Frank shares a poignant piece of influential advice.

FRANK: When it comes to the White House, you not only need the keys in your back pocket, you need the gatekeeper. (referring to the President’s Chief of Staff)

When you need to influence someone, you need to know who already influences that person. Whose opinion do they heed. Sometimes the best route to influencing your mark (the person you want to influence) is to actually build rapport with the person who already has influence over them and get them to do the convincing.

This comes up again later in the series when Frank says,

FRANK: The president is like a tree, bending whichever way the wind blows. And Raymond Tusk’s wind blows a little too strongly for my taste.

Frank knows that he has a strong opponent to either win over or remove from the equation. He is always aware of who holds sway over the person he wants to influence.

2. Communicate with a Goal

As a viewer, we have no idea of what Frank is up to, nor the scope of his schemes. But, it is clear that from day one, Frank and Claire have their plan.

The Underwoods exhibit a critical persuasive principle: influence is communication with a goal.

In episode one, Claire hints to their massive plans when she says, “This is going to be a big year for us.”

That quote also highlights another influential principle that most people struggle with…

3. Know Your Influential Timelines

People often associate the term influence with a single conversation. They believe that you are influential in one moment, but the best influencers know that influence requires time and strategy.

Influence is actually a 3-step process: 1. Observe, 2. Connect, 3. Influence.

If you try to jump to the 3rd step (influence) without learning (observe) your mark’s influential drivers and without building rapport (connect), then you might bungle the whole deal.

For example, CIA agents will plan on a year or more for turning an asset.

Every step counts. Don’t skip them.

Frank highlights his awareness of the time it takes and these necessary steps when he says, “”You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”

This is a particularly difficult lesson for our era of instant gratification. Most people aren’t wired for long term planning – especially when we really want to land a big business deal.

Just remember that the bigger the opportunity, the longer your influential timeline might need to be.

4. Suspend Your Ego

Frank Underwood seems to be pure ego, but he also knows the importance of suspending his ego when it’ll serve his greater purpose.

When he finds out that he won’t be named Secretary of State, even though he was promised the position, he is at an impasse. He could tell them all to go to hell, but instead he makes the smarter move. He doesn’t burn bridges.

He responds, “Whatever the President needs.” He knows it’s more important to be perceived as a team player than to be ousted from the group. By suspending his ego, he is able to adjust his plans and continue to influence from the inside.

And, of course, his ego is only suspended. When he gets a moment to himself, he let his anger and frustration out by smashing his cabinet at home.

Which is more important: your ego or the mission? That’s a question you must answer in many influential endeavors.

5. The Familiarity Principle

We watch Frank’s climb to power by how close he is to the President during press events. At first, he’s barely in the shot, then he’s only one or two people removed from the President, and then he is standing right behind him during the State of the Union.

In his words…

FRANK: Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

A related influential lesson is the familiarity principle. This basically states that people tend to build a preference for things simply because they have been exposed to them often enough. This is also called the mere-exposure effect. It’s the reason why companies spend so much in advertising and product placement. They want you to become familiar with their brand so that you develop a preference towards it.

There is a personal application for this principle as well. If you want to influence someone, plan out how they can regularly be exposed to you. Attend events that they will be at, communicate periodically, and include video conversations in your plan because you want them to see and hear you. Video is much more influential than email.

6. Quid Pro Quo

Everything about House of Cards is give and take — with the emphasis on take. Even though Frank’s angle is always to someone’s detriment, there is a lesson to be learned here: the Law of Reciprocity.

In general, the Law of Reciprocity goes like this: someone is more likely to do you a favor if you have done something or given them something first.

The interesting thing about the Law of Reciprocity is that you can likely get a return on value that well exceeds the value that you initially gave. Frank is aware of this when he helps Edward Meechum get back on his security detail.

FRANK: It requires very little of me and will mean the world to him. It’s a very inexpensive investment.

Simple favors can have a significant ROI. And Frank is right because that one favor earned him a highly loyal servant.

Frank also twists reciprocity into something much more diabolical when he says, “Generosity is its own form of power.”

7. Appeal to the Higher Self

There is only one glimmer of positive influence from Frank Underwood in the series. It is when he convinces Congressman Russo to get sober and not have a drink for a month so that he can run for Governor. A month goes by and Russo accomplishes the task. He returns to Frank saying that he’s prepared and ready to run.

When they conclude the meeting, Frank says, “Peter, I feel like I just met you for the first time right now” — implying he’s a changed man now that he’s sober. Frank is positively reinforcing Russo’s behavior. With this, he is appealing to Russo’s higher self.

Everyone has a vision for themselves—the person they know they can become. One of the best positive ways to influence someone is to show them how your idea will help them attain their higher self.

Of course, in House of Cards, this positive technique is overshadowed by Frank’s bigger plans.

8. Strategic Confession

Frank (almost) gets caught in one of his schemes when the President’s Chief of Staff directly asks him if he helped her son get into Stanford in hopes that she would help him get appointed to a high-level position. She clearly has figured it out and she puts him on the spot.

Most people would panic, but not Frank.

He knows how to leverage the moment to actually make himself seem even more trustworthy. He uses the opportunity to make a strategic confession. He confirms all of her suspicions. And because she feels like she finally has the whole story (which she really doesn’t), she feels comfortable enough to move forward with their plan.

Making concessions or sharing your flaws can actually be highly influential. I outline this specific technique in more detail in this article.

9. Use Their Words, Not Yours

Once again Frank takes a blow when he finds out that the President wants to nominate someone else to a job instead of Frank.

And once again, Frank is faced with the need to suspend his ego so that he can serve his bigger mission.

When the President asks Frank what he thinks about the idea, Frank responds,

FRANK: I think that Raymond Tusk is an exciting, bold idea.

Clearly, Frank doesn’t share what he actually thinks. He did something even smarter.

Frank chose those words — “exciting” and “bold”— specifically because he was told prior to the meeting that that’s how the President felt about the decision. Frank used the President’s words instead of his own, which made the President feel good and validated.

Be aware of the specific words your mark uses to describe a person, situation, thing, or their feelings. When the opportunity presents itself, use those keywords in conversation and you’ll get the same effect that Frank did.

They will feel heard and validated, like you get them.

10. The Door in the Face Technique

Sometimes the most influential thing you can do is NOT get what you want.

This is known as the “door in the face” technique, when you purposefully ask for something that you know the other person is likely to say no to. The theory is that if they have said no to you for one thing, they are more likely to comply to the next…or the next. When done well, you trigger the person’s desire to be polite and helpful, and they are more likely to work with you because they did, after all, already shut you down on one thing.

Or, in Frank’s words:

FRANK: The only thing more satisfying than convincing someone to do what I want is failing to persuade them on purpose. It’s like a do not enter sign. It just begs you to walk in the door.

11. A Partner in Persuasion

Here’s the it’s-so-obvious-that-you-probably-missed-it influential lesson of House of Cards. Frank isn’t working alone; he has Claire with him. They create their plan together. They adjust to the unexpected together. They role play through critical conversations together.

This is directly reflected with the world’s best influencers as well. Field agents have their handlers to plan with. Some of the biggest cons are done with a team. Trial attorneys role play with fellow attorneys within the firm. Hostage negotiators will have a team of other law enforcement officers feeding them information.

Business professionals need the same amount of influential support as anyone else. You need someone to bounce ideas off of. You need another pair of eyes on marketing materials before a launch. You need to role-play a negotiation for a massive deal. You need someone to build a cohesive strategy that leads you to your goal.

Find your partner in persuasion.  

I’d be honored to be your partner in persuasion. Sign up for my newsletter and never miss another influential technique that can help you achieve your personal and professional goals.

The post The Art of Influence: 11 Techniques to Steal from House of Cards appeared first on Roman Fitness Systems.

http://ift.tt/2rCrGwM

[acorntops]

Interview with Conor Walsh, Author of Little Glass Men

Back in July we interviewed Conor Walsh about his book Little Glass Men. We are excited to be working with him in our upcoming bookstore!

What do you want reader to take away from Little Glass Men? The hope is that the story would spawn more interest in, if not World War I itself, then at least the stories that spawned from it. I find the era fascinating, but feel it's been highly neglected by most forms of media, for the most part. World War I doesn't have the "allure" that the second World War does - that of a distinct good-and-evil struggle, though of course it was more complex than that. The first World War was a meaningless war, for the most part, and one that everyone lost. So the men who fought and died in it can't even say "Well, at least I beat the bad guys." It's always had a sort of poetic merit to me - a war with no point, but one that men still fought and died in. History doesn't really give them a fair shake. ​ In Little Glass Men you explore a diverse group of characters. Was there a particular perspective that was most difficult to explore? What made you choose these particular characters to explore? Garrett's perspective was the most difficult to tackle, I'd say, mainly because I had a vision behind his character that got somewhat "lost in the shuffle". The idea behind his character is that he'd never really had a childhood or adolescence; that adulthood was forced on him, so to speak. I find him the most interesting, for what that's worth, as he's even more alone than the other people in the hospital. Racism was rampant in the era Little Glass Men takes place; he's half-black. He has no family. His only "friends" are years above his age, and all with their own score of problems. As for the cast of characters, I felt each personified a certain outlook in reference to the war and what it took. Lombardi's angry and bitter, O'Brien is secretly wistful and longs for his life before the war, Garrett is a victim of circumstance more than anyone else, Norman's unable to handle the horrors that he's seen. They've been trodden on by life and by the people close to them, and I feel that makes the way they get through each day all the more intriguing. How do they keep going? A fragment of hope on the edge of the horizon, or a deep-seeded will to survive? Do you have a favorite quote or character from your book? If I were any good at talking about myself I'd say something like "There are just so many great ones, I can't pick!" In reality I'd just like to skirt around them a bit. Avery has a few good lines when she's berating Lombardi - as she should - and I like the end of chapter six in general, though I don't know if I can go into more detail than that for fear of spoiling. As for favorite characters, there I will say it's a bit tougher to pick a favorite. I feel like the struggles of Emerson, O'Brien, and Norman are the most poignant, but I don't know that that necessarily makes them my favorite. I do like Avery, though, she's a firebrand. The sanitarium is called Saint Foresters. Is there a meaning behind it's name? To be perfectly honest I don't believe there is. I'm afraid it's just a name I liked. On Goodreads you listed Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, and Edward Carey as influences. How have they influenced you? Why do you find them so influential? And what are some of your favorite works that they've written? Ray Bradbury is the first hard sci-fi I read, I think. Though sci-fi's one of my favorite genres, the main reason I like him is because of his style. You can read something by Bradbury and recognize it as his by the style alone, which is a skill I hope to one day come close to. Asimov has remarkable - stamina, I guess you could call it. In my head I could see him being very methodical in the way he planned his stories out. He's an excellent storyteller - rarely do his works get caught up on unnecessary details or overly philosophical points. Moreover, I first read his stuff without actually expecting to like it, but the more I read the more I wanted to read. His stories sink their teeth into you, rather than the other way around, and putting down one of his works becomes difficult, to say the least. I'm sorry to say I've only read one book by Edward Carey - Observatory Mansions - but conversely I'm pleased to say that it's one of my favorite novels, if not my favorite hands-down. The way he writes is stylistically interesting, the characters are bizarre in a score of ways but remain interesting and sympathetic, and seemingly-strange or otherwise random points brought up always have a reason attached. A lot of writers seem to enjoy being weird to be weird, without any particular reason - it just lends itself to the style. But Carey's characters are something else. You mentioned that you could see Asimov being very methodical in the way he planned his stories out. When you write, do you tend to plan out your story or fly by the seat of your pants? It's almost always the latter. Little Glass Men wasn't planned at all when I began it, though I did start to separate and organize more as it went on. Recently I've been trying the more methodical approach, but I have yet to tell exactly how effective that's been. I definitely prefer to make it up as I go along, but I've written myself into a corner more times than I'd care to admit. So I suppose it's still a bit of a touch-and-go thing. You said scifi  is one of your favorite genres. Have you written anything scifi or are you planning to? What do you enjoy about scifi? I've written some sci-fi short stories, but none recently. I've had some ideas for sci-fi books, but they've all fallen through. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that even though I am a big fan of the genre, writing it has proved a bit of a challenge. The excuse that springs to mind is that the projects I'm currently working on just happen to not be sci-fi, but in truth I think I'd need to settle for a smaller scope than a swashbuckling, galaxy-spanning space quest. Though dystopian wastelands have eluded me too. I'll write something of substance with a sci-fi genre someday, but right now my brain doesn't want to, for some reason. I'm not sure why I like the genre as much as I do. Maybe because it's so all-encompassing. Most think sci-fi and get images of spaceships and laser fights and aliens, but that's only a small snippet of the genre. Dystopian fiction is typically sci-fi, and the sub-genres (steampunk, cyberpunk) can turn already-interesting concepts on their heads. I've always felt like the genre allows a greater creative scope, not limiting writers to what has been discovered so far - or what even might actually work according to the laws of nature. I remember reading an essay by Asimov - the robots in his stories worked because of "Positrons". If I remember correctly, he said in the essay that he never explained them because he didn't need to - doing so would be long, possibly boring (though Asimov could have kept it interesting), and would prevent the reader from using his or her imagination. By never going into detail and working off suspension of disbelief, he was able to tell excellent stories about fantastic things without being bogged down by details. Is that part of the experimenting you've been doing with your writing on Deviant Art? The works I put up on Deviant Art are typically more experimental, yes. I'm mainly working there to hone my short-story writing ability. Currently I don't believe they're up to the level of quality I want, and that particular site gives me an opportunity to get feedback on what worked and what didn't from those I don't personally know. The only reason I don't use a more literature-focused site to post my stories is because I find  Deviant Art's posting process a lot easier to use than that of any other site, despite its reputation for having no strong literature-focused community. Did you always want to write? What drove you to first put words on a page? I started writing when I was in eighth grade - prior to that point I'd enjoyed making things, but hadn't quite pinned it down to creative writing. I fiddled with some narrative-related stuff, but when I was super-young I was more interested in building things than making stories. Exactly how I got it into my head I couldn't quite tell you, but that year I decided I wanted to write something substantial. I brought it up to my English teacher at the time - his name was Mr. Muelmester. Everybody liked him, including me, and I wanted to see if he had any advice. And he did. "Try short stories first," was the gist of it. Smart man - if I hadn't heeded what he said I probably wouldn't have thought of writing short stories, would have tried and failed miserably to write a novel, and would have chalked it up as something I couldn't do. Possibly. Whatever the possible alternative cases, I'm glad things worked out the way they did. Speaking of advice, on Goodreads one piece of advice you offered to aspiring writers was to pay attention and that the strangest things can spawn ideas. Has anything like this happened to you? Can you give an example? Off the top of my head, it's a little tough to come up with a more recent example. Not because it doesn't happen, but because a single story can be sort-of coalesced from a very wide variety of different bits of media. You might decide you like a certain character type from a movie, book, or game - or you might decide that you'd like a character who acts exactly the opposite. To more adequately answer your question, I believe I've had a few dreams that have been clear and normal enough (rare occurrences, both of them) to be worked into stories. To give yet another example, when I was early in my writing career I saw a woman dressed in army fatigues walking through an airport by herself. Peeking out of the top of her army satchel was a stuffed teddy bear. I recall writing a story inspired by that singular interaction. Now, that was when I was very young, and I'm sure the story isn't exactly a literary masterpiece. But, even though that's probably the case, that's the kind of thing I mean. Surprise ideas popping up in unexpected places. On Deviant Art, you mentioned in a forum the troubles that come with self-marketing, especially for self-published authors. Have you found any techniques to help since May or do you have any advice to give in this area? I don't think I do at all, I'm afraid. It's a bit of a stumbling block for me. I can repeat some of what I've been told, though. Do your best to work it tactfully into conversations, get a social media presence, find a way to get people interested and keep them interested. But I'm afraid that much as I might try to give advice, it's a facet of the writing process (if you can qualify it as such) that just doesn't come naturally to me, and I have yet to find a unique strategy that works. One of the things young authors run into is the questioning of supposed lack of experience to write content that could have  any real impact on or wisdom for readers. What is your response? Having the discipline to write at an early age, I believe, displays some maturity. Someone with discipline to sit down and write some five-thousand words with characters interacting and a cohesive plot must have something going for them, even if their work isn't interesting or powerful. So there's that. There's also the fact that there's a wealth of information out there, on the internet, in television and movies, and of course in other books. I actually believe that a perspective on certain scenarios that one hasn't taken part in - even ones as mundane as filing taxes or living in a city - can paint a drastically different picture than might be immediately apparent for someone regularly experiencing such tasks. Give them a fresh, non-jaded outlook. Furthermore, I'd motion to suggest that that criticism is illogical if applied automatically. To explain: I don't see a scenario where a reader could finish an entire work by anyone, and only after finishing it question how invested they were in the book. It's either interesting or it isn't. If it is engrossing or insightful in some way, and the author is young, then despite his or her lack of experience the reader has been impacted or given a new outlook. Now, I could understand part of the effect being lost because of a lack of intimate knowledge with certain subjects, but I feel there isn't much out there - in regards to writing, at least - that can't be learned through practice, research, and consumption of other media. You had such an amazing debut novel. Where are you planning to go from here? I suppose I'm still trying to get the word out there with the first book - self-marketing's a bit of a doozy, as I mentioned. I'm glad to hear the first book was decent, though. ​(As a side note from the interviewer's perspective, decent does not begin to describe how amazing this book is.) Currently I'm working on another novel, which should be finished at some point before the heat death of the universe. In all seriousness, I hope to have it done before the end of this year (though I have no idea how long the editing and other processes will take). The next novel's actually a bit of a departure from what I've tried thus far - the genre is dark fantasy. The plot centers around the stereotypical "hero" of a fantasy story, one whose parents were murdered by a "mustache-twirling" villain when he was too young to defend them or himself. He then goes on to train to fight said villain - the cliche this time is your corrupt king with an iron-fist - and defeats him in the last part of the story. Or, at least, he would. But my novel intends to pick up at exactly the last point - moments after the protagonist has already defeated his foe. As the novel goes on, the protagonist will come to terms with the fact that he's essentially never had a chance to grow, or experience the world around him, and that the King who he once thought to be evil incarnate might have had a reason - a real, constructive reason - for all of his "evil" measures. You cover a lot of history in Little Glass Men. You have the struggle of the Irish against the British, when Heroin was discovered to be dangerously addictive, the KKK, Prohibition, the Russo-Japanese War, just to name a few. How much research went into the making of Little Glass Men? You know, it sounds funny, but I always paid a lot of attention in history classes, and I think more than a good deal of that fed into the information I was able to put on the page. Most of what I wrote about I wouldn't be aware of if I hadn't paid attention to what I was taught. That said, there are exceptions - mainly about specific dates. The internet was very helpful at aiding me in making sure that everything fit together, so that certain events could transpire without upsetting the continuity of the story or the actual events of the period. I think the hardest part was researching how hospitals functioned in the 1920s, because I didn't learn anything specific about that in high school and needed to know as much as I could while writing the book. Do you have any resources you could recommend to people who are interested in learning more about some of the history you mention? My first response to your question is, of course, the internet. My second response would be books - other historical fiction novels, accounts of the first World War, and so on and so forth. Donald Kagan's On the Origins of War was one I read - it compared the ancient wars between the Athens and Sparta and Rome and Carthage (respectively) to the first and second world wars. The discourse is detail-heavy, but more in macro-details, so to speak - that is to say, it tells more of the reasons as to why war broke out, as well as the actions taken in each war by the respective armies. In regards to the portion my book tackles -  namely, society immediately after the first World War came to a close - I don't have any specific books to recommend, I'm afraid. Steinbeck's Cannery Row, perhaps, but that's more Depression-era than my book. I recommend it anyway, though, as it's an excellent book. What advice do you have for writers who are writing historical fiction? Research, foremost, but don't destroy yourself. You need to be as accurate to the period as you can be, but if you feel like bending the truth a little, do it. For me I largely ignored the country-to-country hatred - the chances of as many nationalities as are in Little Glass Men getting along without copious amounts of violence is almost a certain impossibility. I played that aspect of history down quite a bit. I also found the vernacular of the period a bit difficult to emulate, and believed that if I tried it would come off sounding wooden and unnatural. So I did a bit, but not for the most part. So try to pay attention to what the people of the period looked like, and what had been invented, lest you mention something that didn't exist. Try to be aware of the societal views at the time, and the way people should act in the situations that come up throughout the book that they might not in the present day. But don't let it constrict you - move with the confines granted by the time period, and write freely. What are you currently reading? Currently am working on Kinder Than Solitude by Yiyun Li. It's a quasi-drama-thriller what-have-you about three childhood friends who drifted apart after a friend of theirs was poisoned, and the struggles they're having with coping with their adult lives because of the incident. So far I haven't made much headway, but I've noticed that the author is excellent at streamlining her prose. There is not much in the way of unnecessary words, and the writing's much better for it. More than that I can't quite say, because more than that I haven't quite read, but I'm optimistic. ​Is there anything else you would like to add about Little Glass Men, your writing, or being a writer? There are a lot of hurdles standing between me and success, enough to be intimidating. But I think I picked the right passion - or maybe it picked me. If you're a writer and aren't getting a lot of notice, and are feeling discouraged, try to take a step back and ask yourself if you enjoy what you're doing. Success isn't an easy thing to acquire - some, maybe many, never will. But if writing makes you happy, then you should do it as long as you can. And hey! Maybe if you do it long enough without expecting success, it'll be a pleasant surprise when it falls into your lap. Don't let the world discourage you, because it's sure going to try. Follow Conor Walsh on: Twitter Deviant Art Goodreads