One of the more difficult aspects of being a therapist is watching a patient repeatedly harm themself without being able to persuade them to choose better. We don’t give advice, so we rely on our insights to help our patients. For example, I may tell one struggling with perfectionism, “Although your standard of ‘Always do your best’ feels like it makes sense, you only believe you’ve done your best when you achieve a perfect result. So, it seems you really demand perfection of yourself while convinced you don’t.” This sort of insight, however, is only possible in a long-term relationship; you have to really know how your patient tends to deceive themself.
In a way, what we do is indirect persuasion, as a need for change may be inferred from such an insight. And the work of a therapist is often similar to that of a philosopher, especially one whose work constitutes helping an interlocutor think and maybe even feel better. We find such a philosopher in Colin Marshall, whose new book, Just Hear Me Out, addresses the problem of ethical persuasion. Colin turns to the heavyweights Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer, as well as research in social psychology, to teach us that we don’t have to manipulate in order to persuade. This book resonated with me because it feels akin to therapy, where the patient’s needs are placed at the forefront and patience, respect, and compassion are the therapist’s guiding lights.
Marshall’s book is complex, and gives the reader a lot to consider in resolving how to best navigate a dispute. But the part that struck me, and the one I chose to write about, is compassion. Marshall, on civility in persuasion, wrote, “The type of civility I have in mind is taking the other person seriously, as someone you share a world with, someone who deserves respect and compassion.” Compassion can be broken down into both sympathy, feeling sorrow for another’s plight, and empathy, understanding (as much as possible) how they got there. To take someone seriously, in large part, means their struggles deeply matter to you, both emotionally and intellectually. This is missing in much current discourse.
Marshall argued that most of us try to debate and win, rather than to understand and/or persuade civilly. And while respect is certainly missing from many of those arguments, the core issue seems to be a lack of compassion, for if you really understood another, you’d likely be in awe of their ability to survive and maybe even thrive in their circumstances, perhaps even seeing yourself in them, if even broadly. Marshall, recounting philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s conception of human nature, argued that humans mainly focus on their own suffering because that suffering is immediate to their experience, unlike that of another. The implications are that compassion takes immense effort and, depending on your values, may be preferred less to winning, which A) may alleviate your suffering and B) you experience directly. Yet, Schopenhauer, in my reading, was somewhat optimistic on the topic, showing us that a better way is possible.
He, according to Marshall, argued that true compassion (again, a mixture of sympathy and empathy) necessitates reducing the cognitive and emotional barrier between us and the other, meaning their pain has to feel personal to us, to a large extent. He also argued that compassion was the basis of all morality. (The general idea is true, although this isn’t true always.) And while Marshall argued that we can and should be more compassionate while attempting to persuade (from the perspective of the achieved results), he also provided a blueprint of how we can be.
Using it in the context of therapy for example, where I think it would fit well, it would mean patiently attempting to better understand my patient instead of providing them some general truth about their struggle, whether perfectionism or another. Persuasion, even when indirect, works best when the other not only believes you understand them but also that you have their best interests in mind. Providing a keen insight isn’t enough when the other believes you care more about something else, when, essentially, you’re being manipulative. So, if a patient believes I’m showing off, desperately need to feel competent, and/or didn’t seriously consider if they were ready for my insights, I would likely lose them. This is a lesson on how many individuals become figuratively lost in disputes.
When we care more about our tribes and pride, the other feels cast off to the side. In the book, Marshall argued that, for a perspective to resonate with another, we need to strongly consider the context, which includes the other, in our pursuit. Are they tired? Are they bored? Are they anxious? (It’s even possible that a not-so-well put together argument may achieve better results than a great one if one is good at choosing when to best present it.)
When the other feels like a priority to you, they’re more likely to listen. This is often difficult when you feel misunderstood and/or ill-considered by them. But, again, Schopenhauer via Marshall offers a solution. Schopenhauer believed that compassion was always possible, so long as we looked beyond, or set aside, another’s beliefs. He implored us to stare into the heart of their suffering, which may be veiled by all sorts of absurd but protective covers. Undoubtedly, this takes work and patience, but, from a therapist’s perspective, I can only try to persuade you that it usually feels worth it. If a patient is willing to merely consider one of my questions or ideas, I feel like a winner because, many of them often don’t afford others the same respect, meaning I’ve lowered the bar of what it means to “win.” But, I begin by providing that respect, or better yet compassion, first.
Check out our episode with Colin:
1 Comment