Home - John Henderson

In my blog I uncover the thinking, actions and habits it takes to get the results you want in business and life. No fluff, just facts.

There is a power in coming together to break through a barrier. This is intense, high-quality help from someone who has been there.

My books have been used to help businesses and people gain more influence, build better businesses and get what they want our of life.

Don't hire an old athlete or a 20 year old millionaire to speak. Choose someone who has built multi million dollar businesses.

NUMMI changed the way management is done in the US. SWAY; The Link Between Autism and Influence explains how.

In 1982 General Motors was forced to shut down the Fremont California plant. It was widely accepted that Fremont was the worst auto factory in the world. Commenting on the employees at Fremont, Bruce Lee, not the martial artist but the manger for the western region for United Auto said, “It was considered the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States.”

NUMMI

But, on Dec. 10th, 1984, Toyota had renamed the plant New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. or NUMMI, and began making Chevy Novas. But many were skeptical about the success of the new plant. Most of that skepticism came from part of the agreement GM had made with UAW. The part in question was that NUMMI had to hire 80% of laid off employees from the original plant. These were the same people who were, “the worst workforce in the automobile industry.” NUUMI

Rumors of on the job antics including prostitutions, drinking, drug use and purposeful sabotage of the vehicles at the Fremont plant were admitted by many of those who performed the acts themselves. Prior to the 1982 shut down, the plant resembled more of a brothel/bar combination than a workplace. But, GM had one rule that was always obeyed. That rule was, the line doesn’t stop. As chassis rolled into workers areas on the never stopping line, workers had to assemble it as it went. Henry Ford had pioneered the assembly line and GM wasn’t about to stop the process that had been working for almost a century.

The Price of Stopping

The rumor was that it costs $15,000/minute to stop the line. So the culture of Fremont was one of, drinking on the job, prostitution in the parking lot, drug use at work, but never, ever stop the line. If an employee had a problem installing their given piece of the car, that employee would mark the car and let it continue down the line. Often the repair would not be made until the car was fully assembled.

Toyota’s Idea

This was the mindset and culture of the workers Toyota had agreed to re-hire. The question on everyones mind was how could they turn this around? The answer was with kindness, in the from of fixture in Toyota plants called andon chords, and a completely different management style.

In the book Smarter Faster Better, Charles Duhigg tells story of Rick Madrid, an employee of Fremont and NUMMI who had travelled to Japan to see what Toyota manufacturing looked like. He watched a worker struggle with a bolt. Rather than continue, the worker pulled an andon cord. The entire line stopped at the end of the station. As it did, the mans direct leaders took orders from him, handing him tools and assisting him with the bolt. Once the bolt was fixed the man pulled the cord and work resumed.

Rick Madrid

Madrid said of the event, “I just couldn’t believe it. Back home I had watched a guy fall in the pit, and they didn’t stop the line.” In Jan 1985, a month after the opening of the plant, Tetsuro Toyota, the newly appointed president of the plant, was observing the assembly lines. Duhigg explains that Toyota watched an employee struggle with a particular tail light installation. As the man struggled Toyota approached him, read the name on his uniform and said, “Joe, please pull the cord.”

“I can fix this sir.” Joe said. Toyota repeated himself, “Joe, please pull the cord.” Eventually Toyota guided Joe’s hand to the andon cord and they pulled it together, stopping the line. Joe, overcoming his fear, fixed the tail light. Toyota bowed to Joe afterwards and said, “Joe, please forgive me. I have done a poor job of instructing your managers of the importance of helping you pull the cord when there is a problem. You are the most important part of this plant. Only you can make every car great. I promise I will do everything in my power to never fail you again.”

From Last to First

This simple cord and kind gesture from Toyota instantly put the management and the workers at NUMMI on the same side rather than at each others throats. by 1986 their productivity was higher than any other GM plant and double what it had done when it was GM Fremont. It happened with essentially the same work force and in about one year. The main difference was that workers were not judged for stopping the line, and management was kind enough to help.

This is the opposite of how people like Democritus, Rick Barry, and Harry Markopolos tried to influence society. They were missing the kindness and generosity they needed to make the type of change NUMMI made to the American workforce landscape.

To understand how autism and influence are tied together, click here.

You will completely change your influence, once you understand heuristics. They are a large topic covered in SWAY; The Link Between Autism and Influence.

Heuristics

A huge portion of potential influencers spend mountains of time finessing their message, campaign or product, and less time developing the personality of the influencer or messenger. This is a huge mistake. That the message, campaign or product has to be high-quality and good for the audience should be a given. But focusing on small details around the product or message is a mistake if the messenger doesn’t resonate with the audience because of little known psychological quirks called heuristics.

In the incredible book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, he unequivocally proved that the personality of the messenger is not only pivotal, but actually has more to do with influence than the messages themselves.Gladwell described the real reasons doctors are sued for medical malpractice. And it has much less to do with medical malpractice than we think.

Lawsuits

Gladwell writes, “The overwhelming number of people who suffer an injury due to the negligence of a doctor never file a malpractice suit at all. Patients don’t file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care. Patients file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care – and something else happens to them.”

He continues,

-Recently the medical researcher Wendy Levinson recorded hundreds of conversations between a group of physicians and their patients. Roughly half of the doctors had never been sued. The other half had been sued at least twice, and Levinson found that just on the basis of those conversations, she could find clear differences between the two groups.

Medicine or Bedside Manner?

The surgeons who had never been sued spent more than three minutes longer with each patient than those who had been sued did (18.3 minutes versus 15 minutes). They were more likely to make “orienting” comments, such as “First I’ll examine you, and then we will talk the problem over” or “I will leave time for your questions” – which help patients get a sense of what the visit is supposed to accomplish and when they ought to ask questions. They were more likely to engage in active listening, saying things such as “Go on, tell me more about that,” and they were far more likely to laugh and be funny during the visit.”

Interestingly, there was no difference in the amount or quality of information they gave their patients; they didn’t provide more details about medication or the patient’s condition. The difference was entirely in how they talked to their patients.-

In a nutshell, the personality of the doctors determined if the patient would sue them for medical malpractice, not the quality of care. Gladwell goes on to explain situations where patients wanted to sue because they felt they were given inadequate care. But when they realized the suit would hurt the people in the office whom they liked, they chose not to continue.

Personality

This is the power of personality. It is a measuring stick by which most of us gauge the degree of influence we allow someone to have in our lives. We do not accurately evaluate every decision, purchase or vote and come up with rational choices. The personality of the influencer is what researchers call a heuristic, in the context of influence. Heuristics are gauges, or rules of thumb that we have gathered to make processing information easier, and often they are very often wrong.

In Richard Thaler’s book Misbehaving, he explains some of these mistakes in practical, real life, economical examples. He explains that a man who suffers from hay fever mows his own lawn. When asked why he doesn’t hire a kid from the neighborhood to mow the lawn for $10 the man says it isn’t worth it. In other words he would rather save $10 by mowing a lawn and suffering through the hay fever.

Loss Aversion

So, in logical, analog terms, hay fever is worth $10 to that man. But when he is asked if he would mow a different lawn of roughly the same size for $20 the man says absolutely not. This thinking is irrational. If hay fever is worth $10 to the man then it should definitely be worth $20.

But the man is reacting to a heuristic that behavioral analysts call loss aversion. As a rule we over-value what we already have to very inaccurate results. The man with hay fever is valuing the $10 he is saving more than the $20 he would earn mowing the other lawn.

Loss aversion is an example of an irrational heuristic that influences most people. But these heuristics, irrational or not, are usually the guardrails of our decisions. They offer us the ability to make decisions in multiple contexts.

Two Cord Puzzle

In 1931 a psychologist named Norman Maier found one heuristic during a very simple experiment. Maier was interested in understanding how people solve problems. He devised a puzzle that has since become known as the “two cord puzzle”. Maier hung two cords from the ceiling of his lab. The cords were far enough apart that people could not grab each at the same time. Then he asked people to come up with ways to tie the two ends of the cords together.

A Solution

Most participants came up with solutions that involved using the items in the lab to reach one cord while holding the other. Extension cords were tied to the end of the ropes, poles were used to hook the end and pull the two cords together and other miscellaneous solutions were created. But Maier had another solution in mind. He wanted to see how long it took people to come up with his solution. So he continued asking the participants to come up with new ways to solve the puzzle, until they ran out of ideas.

The Right Solution

Maier was looking for the participants to swing one rope in a pendulum fashion. Then they could grab the other rope and catch the swinging rope when it came towards them. Very few participants worked out this solution, until they were given a seemingly accidental clue.

During the experiment, Maier would walk around the lab until, when people had run out of ideas, he would brush against one of the ropes and set it swinging motion. Most people would arrive at Maiers solution, after seeing the swinging rope.This experiment showed how easily we can be nudged with a solution to a problem without realizing it.

But that wasn’t the interesting part.

The fascinating part came after the experiment ended.

My Solution

Only one-third of the participants realized they’d been given a clue when Maier bumped the rope. The other two-thirds explained they arrived at the solution themselves. They fully believed they solved the puzzle, without help, even though they didn’t.

The majority of participants were easily persuaded to solve the puzzle Maiers way, with Maiers help, the whole time thinking it was their idea.

It happened through a psychological concept called priming.

Priming

Imagine I show you pictures of delicious food for 30 seconds. Then I blindfold you and expose you to the smells of those same great dishes. Then I quickly remove the blindfold and in front of you is a whiteboard with the letters S-O-_-P. I ask you to fill in the missing letter. You will most likely spell the word soup. In fact you probably thought that was the answer before I explained it.

But, with a little priming I can change the answer. Heuristics

Imagine now that I showed you images of dishes being cleaned, brooms and clean laundry. Then I blindfold you and expose you to the smell of lemony cleaners and bleach and pull off your blindfold to the same puzzle.

S-O-_-P now becomes soap.

Priming is another example of a heuristic, like loss aversion. Our thinking, decision making and even memory is affected by the context of the situation.

M-I-L-K

Remember, heuristics are shortcuts or rules of thumb that our brain uses to speed up our decision making process. They are, for the most part a good thing. But they can be very easily manipulated and with them, so can you. The priming heuristic is one of the most commonly manipulated heuristics.

Here is an example of the priming heuristic in action.

Finally Ray tells Tom to spell what cows drink as fast as possible. Tom thinks he’s being tricked into spelling white again. So he smugly spells m-i-l-k. Ray laughs and explains to his very primed little brother that cows drink w-a-t-e-r.

A Tool

Priming is a very powerful, psychological tool. It can be used to help people get in the right mindset before a talk, help people with diets and even improve marriages. But manipulators can use this tool to influence their victims into thinking that poor choices were their idea. They corrupt the mind of the innocent with thoughts that lead others to the actions they are trying to illicit.

Priming is just one example of a heuristic that effects our decision making. Other examples include:

Consistency heuristic

a heuristic where a person responds to a situation in a way that allows them to remain consistent.

Absurdity heuristic

is an approach to a situation that is very atypical and unlikely – in other words, a situation that is absurd. This particular heuristic is applied when a claim or a belief seems silly, or seems to defy common sense.

Common sense

a heuristic that is applied to a problem based on an individual’s observation of a situation. It is a practical and prudent approach that is applied to a decision where the right and wrong answers seems relatively clear cut.

Contagion heuristic

causes an individual to avoid something that is thought to be bad or contaminated. For example, when eggs are recalled due to a salmonella outbreak, someone might apply this simple solution and decide to avoid eggs altogether to prevent sickness.

Availability heuristic

allows a person to judge a situation on the basis of the examples of similar situations that come to mind, allowing a person to extrapolate to the situation in which they find themselves.

Working backward

causes a person to solve a problem by assuming that they have already solved it, and working backward in their minds to see how such a solution might have been reached.

Familiarity heuristic

allows someone to approach an issue or problem based on the fact that the situation is one with which the individual is familiar, and so one should act the same way they acted in the same situation before.

Scarcity heuristic

is used when a particular object becomes rare or scarce. This approach suggests that if something is scarce, then it is more desirable to obtain.

Rule of thumb

applies a broad approach to problem solving. It is a simple heuristic that allows an individual to make an approximation without having to do exhaustive research.

Affect heuristic

is when an individual makes a snap judgment based on a quick impression. This heuristic views a situation quickly and decides without further research whether a thing is good or bad. Naturally, this heuristic can be both helpful and hurtful when applied in the wrong situation.

Authority heuristic

occurs when someone believes the opinion of a person of authority on a subject just because the individual is an authority figure. People apply this heuristic often in matters such as science, politics, and education.

List referenced from http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-heuristics.html

Final Thoughts

Heuristics can become very powerful tools. But they are something that can be manipulated into unethical and even illegal actions. Psychopaths use heuristics, often to control their victims. ABC used heuristics to a very unfortunate end. Jonathan Freedman taught us about psychological reactance using heuristics in young boys. It’s important to use heuristics to help people, not to manipulate them. It is said that the difference between a good influencer and a bad one is as follows. The good one gets people to do something the people want. The bad influencer gets people to do something the influencers wants.

Which one are you?

To learn more click here.

In SWAY; The Link Between Autism and Influence, the case of Deleese Williams is pivotal.

In the craze of the “extreme makeovers,” televisions shows were making over everything from antique vehicles to people. One of those people was Deleese Williams. She knew her looks were not equivalent to those of her friends or family. It was not that she had an awkward haircut, wore odd clothes or didn’t know how to apply makeup. Her differences were structural. From the shape of her eyes to the size of her jawbone, Deleese looked different.

Family

But Deleese had one thing that she could count on. Her family had, by most accounts, always supported her. It was, in a way, her lifeboat in a rough ocean. The support of her family had kept her going. But then, the cliched dream of a little girl turned princess became a possibility.

When the producers of the ABC show Extreme Makeover choose Deleese as an episode of their show, most of the family looked past the process of the transformation to the end result. The idea that Deleese would have the opportunity to stand amongst society without standing out would be a dream come true. But there was a critical part of the process that would have lasting repercussions which no one saw coming.

The Ugly Duckling

During the pre-operation consultations and scheduling process, the producers of Extreme Makeover created the ugly duckling segment of the show. This included the background, photos and interview with friends and family of the soon-to-be transformed subject. The producers knew interviews about what a wonderful person the subject was would only go so far. They needed those closest to the future princess to say just how ugly she really was prior to the transformation. deleese williams

This proved difficult in the case of Deleese. Her family was so supportive and loved her so deeply, that the producers had to coach them into admitting she was ugly. They had spent her entire life supporting Deleese, loving her, and telling her just how beautiful she was. But eventually family members broke. Her mother-in-law admitted that, “I never believed my son would marry such an ugly woman.” Kelly McGee, Deleese’s sister, who had always been a huge source of support, was coached and coerced by the producers to admit difficulties about their childhood because of how Deleese looked. They put words in her mouth to help her describe her ugly sister.

“The Truth”

Painful words, that were coached and pulled from the family members, hurt Deleese. But this was what the producers wanted. They had Deleese watch as the family said the disparaging things the producers leveraged out of them. The goal was to catch the pain Deleese felt when she heard “the truth.” Deleese secretly listened in from an adjacent room as they recorded her hearing just how ugly her family actually thought she was. The producers had successfully captured the hurt and pain they were looking for. But it would all be okay once the process was over. Deleese was hearing about the old version of herself, not the new, elegant, beautiful version that was yet to come.

Bad News

Deleese was alone in her hotel room in Los Angeles, reading her pre-op instructions when a producer showed up with bad news. The dental surgeon had just informed the show that the recovery time for Deleese would not fit into the shows schedule. It was going to be a much longer wait than they had anticipated and so, as the lawsuit against ABC states, the producer said to Deleese, “You will not be getting an extreme makeover after all…It doesn’t fit in our time frame. You will have to go back to Texas tomorrow.”

Deleese broke down. She said, “How can I go back as ugly as I left? I was supposed to come home pretty.”

Kelly

But, Deleese did go home, exactly as she had left, only she was crushed. And the hurtful things the producers of the show had coached out of her family could not be unsaid. The pain of those admissions proved too much for her sister Kelly, and on May 25, 2004 she overdosed, leaving behind two children.

This heartbreaking story has so many variables that it has been included in many national and international newspapers and was a huge part of Jon Ronson’s book, The Psychopath Test.

Debt

It is hard to over-state the crushing blow that a momentary lapse in judgment had between Deleese and Kelly. Certainly the pain and hurt of the few harsh sentences hung between them in the four months before Kelly’s suicide. Kelly, even though she was prodded into hurting Deleese, had hurt her. She had an emotional debt towards her sister that she couldn’t pay. Kelly couldn’t unsay what she had been manipulated into saying. There was no way to even the score.

Balanced Reciprocity

Balanced reciprocity, or the even exchange of emotion, explains how decades of kindness between sisters can be washed away by moments of callous.

In 1965, an anthropologist named Marshall Sahlins studied reciprocity in humans around the world. By 1965 he claimed that there are three distinct types of reciprocity–generalized, negative and balanced or symmetrical. The following are examples of each.

Generalized reciprocity is an open-ended offering. For instance, if you help a stranger change a flat tire, you don’t finish the transaction with a contract binding that person to help you pull weeds next weekend. We help because we are part of society. If that stranger never returns the favor, it won’t stop you from being generous next time. This is a completely altruistic exchange.

Negative reciprocity is the attempt to get something for nothing. It is the act of taking from society without adding any value in exchange. This is not the person in the above example who is the beneficiary of a kind act. Think Bernie Madoff and other con-men. They are the vacuums of society sucking goodness and trust from the world.

Balanced or symmetrical reciprocity is tit for tat. Perhaps the best example of balanced reciprocity is a gift exchange, in which each gift must be purchased for a certain dollar amount. Not a spending limit, but a situation where each gift cost the same as the others. This is the perfect example of balanced reciprocity. It is the even exchange of actions, gifts or emotions.

Reciprocity

We get what we give.

Deleese, even if only for a moment, was judged by the comments pulled from her sister by the producers of a fleeting television show. Once we understand the power of balanced or symmetrical reciprocity, it’s easy to see how someone who is not critical of others would hold more influence than those who are. We can understand how psychopaths manipulate us, how con-men are successful, but also how we can be honest and gain more influence at the same time.

To learn more about the link between autism and influence, click here.

Psychopathy and autism have a very curious link. Both offer a peek into the mind of natural influencers, but there is a startling difference.

Would you admit to a crime you didn’t commit?

What if you thought you were guilty?

In 1985, Helen Wilson was brutally raped and murdered in Beatrice Nebraska. In 1989 Ada JoAnn Taylor confessed to the murder. Today she says that sometimes she can still feel the fabric from the throw pillow in her hands as she suffocated the life out of the sixty-eight year old grandmother.

Taylor’s life was anything but average in 1985. She was the product of years of abuse, a failed foster care system. JoAnn suffered with drug and alcohol abuse and was diagnosed by Dr. Wayne Price with borderline personality disorder. She had given up her parental rights to the daughter she had at a very young age at the request of Dr. Price. But with the help of a young, gay, pornographic film star named Joseph White, she was attempting to get her rights back.

During the same time, a hog farmer named Burdette Searcey made a promise to the daughter of Helen Wilson. He promised to solve her mothers murder. Burdette felt the need to be involved and perhaps needed a reason to get off of the pig farm. In two short years, Searcey was deputized in Gage County and took on the case full time.

The department was working from two perspectives.

1. The authorities at the time decided the murderer was a homosexual, because of the details of the rape.

2. They had also determined, from sample taken at the scene, the culprit had type B blood.

In March of 1989 Secrecy had an arrest warrant issued for Taylor and her gay friend Joseph White. The warrant was issued on the basis that White was a homosexual. Also, they had the testimony of a seventeen year old whom the Beatrice Police Department described as “a maybe retard,” who said the friends had talked about committing the murder.

White was arrested. During his interrogation he said the idea that he had committed a murder was, “pure, deep bull****.” The next day Taylor was arrested. During her interview she explained that she, “blocks a lot of bad things out,” and that, “there’s a lot in my childhood I can’t remember.”

It was at this point that her old counselor, Dr. Wayne Price was brought in. He explained to the duo that their recollection of the murder might come to them segmented, a piece here and a piece there. Or that it might occur in dreams. This shift in the conversation is subtle and was a psychological trick to turn the conversation from “did you do it” to “how did you do it.” Taylor said, “In my head and in my heart, I know I wasn’t there.”

But that didn’t persuade Dr. Price or Searecy.

Admission

Finally Taylor broke. She admitted to the murder. But there were flaws in her admission. For example, she explained how the event happened in a house. Her description of the house resembled one where she had been abused as a child. Only after it was revealed to Beatrice Six; Psychopathy her that the murder had taken place in an apartment did she “remember” it that way.

Unfortunately for Searcey neither Taylor nor White had type B blood. After some prodding, Taylor admitted that she thought her childhood friend, Tom Winslow may have been involved. He was also believed to be homosexual. After his arrest, questioning and some unconventional memory recollection, he admitted he may have been involved.

But Winslow had the wrong blood type as well.

Helen Wilsons niece, Debra Sheldon was brought in for questioning. She was acquainted with Taylor and White during the time of the murder. After unconventional interrogations White admitted that she also may have played a role in the murder.

Her blood wasn’t type B either.

An Entire Gang

And so the slippery slope was slid, with one person being coached into a confession. Then the evidence would not line up. So the confessor points to another possible culprit. This pattern was repeated until, all told, 6 people were implicated in the murder and rape of Helen Wilson. They were Ada JoAnn Taylor, Thomas Winslow, Joseph White, Kathy Gonzalez, James Dean and Debra Shelden. 5 of the six admitting to their involvement. Only White proclaimed his innocence throughout the ordeal.

Wrongfully Imprisoned; Psychopathy The group was called the Beatrice six. They were sentenced to decades in prison. Joseph White was the only one to go to trial because he was the only one that wouldn’t confess. Three of the other five testified against him as part of a plea bargain to reduce their sentences.

Problems

James Dean admitted that he was there during the rape and murder. He offered testimony that was very descriptive of the event. His story was that White and Winslow committed the rape. He said that Taylor held a pillow over the face of Wilson which ultimately lead to her death. Shelden admitted she was there, but tried to intervene. In her description, White struck her and she didn’t remember much after that point. Almost all of the descriptions came from very unconventional tactics with, as James Dean said in a 1989 deposition, 70-90% of his recollection coming from dreams.

But those admissions weren’t the only problems with the case.

The jury that convicted the group was not informed that the fingerprints from the scene did not match any of the alleged participants in the crime or the victim Helen Wilson.

The jury also never learned that the DNA samples taken from the crime scene were possible matches for Gonzales and Winslow, but that one man who was a perfect match had been ruled out by Joyce Gilchrist.

Black Magic

Gilchrist was nicknamed “Black Magic” for her ability to make DNA connections that other forensic examiners couldn’t. She was able to make those connections because they were repeatedly wrong. Michael Blair was sentenced to death for murder based on Gilchrist’s testimony that his hair matched hair found at the scene. This turned out to be false. Curtis McCarty spent 20 years on death row after Gilchrist mishandled his evidence. He was released in 2007 but has not received any compensation. Jeffery Pierce was convicted of rape based on Gilchrist’s evidence despite having an airtight alibi. Peirce was released in 2001 after 15 years in prison when the DNA evidence was re-examined and found to be inaccurate.

If manipulating the truth at the expense of human life is a sign of psychopathy, Gilchrist fits the bill.

Her testimony or evidence led to the execution of 11 people. But in this case, she ruled out a man named Bruce Allan Smith, a name that will become extremely important.

Sentences

Ultimately White was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Winslow plead no contest as part of a plea bargain and received 50 years in prison. Gonzalez, Dean and Shelden all received 10 year sentences and Taylor received 10-40 years after each plead guilty to their part in the crime.

Sheldon, Gonzales and Dean were released after four and a half years. White and Winslow appealed over and over. They were repeatedly denied until 2007. During that appeal DNA testing proved the murderer to be Bruce Allan Smith, who had been dead for 15 years at the time of the appeal. Gage County eventually was ordered to pay $28 million to the Beatrice six who had almost unanimously admitted to the crime. The group collectively spent over 70 years imprisoned for a crime in which they had no involvement, but admitted to committing.

How is it that not just one, but multiple people remember committing a murder that none of them had commited?

Priming

In 1931 a psychologist named Norman Maier may have found the answer with a very simple experiment.

Maier was interested in understanding how people solve problems. He devised a puzzle which has since become known as the “two cord puzzle”.

Maier hung two cords from the ceiling of his lab. The cords were far enough apart that people could not grab each at the same time. Then he asked people to come up with ways to tie the two ends of the cords together.

Most participants came up with solutions that involved using the items in the lab to reach one cord while holding the other. Extension cords were tied to the end of the ropes, poles were used to hook the end and pull the two cords together and other miscellaneous solutions were created. But Maier had another solution in mind. He wanted to see how long in took people to come up with his solution. So he continued asking the participants to come up with new ways to solve the puzzle, until they ran out of ideas.

The Right Solution

The solution Maier was looking for was to swing one rope in a pendulum fashion. Then participants could grab the other rope and catch the swinging rope when it came towards them. Very few participants worked out this solution, until they were given a seemingly accidental clue.

Maier would walk around the lab during the experiment until, when people had run out of ideas, he would brush against one of the ropes and set it swinging. Within a minute of this seemingly careless clue, most people would arrive at Maiers solution.

This experiment showed how easily we can be nudged with a solution to a problem without realizing it. But that wasn’t the interesting part. The fascinating part came after the experiment ended.

Whose Idea?

Only one-third of participants in Maier’s experiment realized they’d been given a clue when Maier bumped the rope. The other two-thirds explained that they arrived at the solution themselves. They fully believed they had solved the puzzle, without help, even though their own thinking did not instigate the solution to the problem.

The majority of participants were easily persuaded to solve the puzzle Maiers way, with Maiers help. But, in the end, the whole time they thought the solution was their idea.

It happened through a psychological concept called priming.

S-O-_-P

Imagine I show you pictures of delicious food for 30 seconds. Then blindfold you and expose you to the smells of those same great dishes. Then I quickly remove the blindfold and in front of you is a whiteboard with the letters S-O-_-P. I ask you to fill in the missing letter. Instinctively you will most likely spell the word soup. In fact you probably thought that was the answer before I explained it.

But if I show you images of dishes being cleaned, brooms and clean laundry, then blindfold you and expose you to the smell of lemony cleaners and bleach, then pull off your blindfold to the same puzzle, you will probably spell soap.

It is an example of a heuristic. The context and situations we are in affects our thinking, decision making and even memory. Remeber, heuristics are shortcuts or rules of thumb that our brain uses to speed up our decision making process. They are, for the most part a good thing. But they can be very easily manipulated.

Here is another example of the priming heuristic.

Cows

Ray is an eighth grader who wants to play a joke on his little brother Tom. He tells Tom to spell the word white, which Tom does. Then he asks what color paper plates are. Tom says they are white. So far he’s two for two. Ray then tells Tom to spell the color of snow, which of course is w-h-i-t-e. Finally Rays tell Tom to spell what cows drink as fast as possible. Tom thinks he’s being tricked into spelling white again and smugly spells m-i-l-k. Ray laughs and explains to his very primed little brother that cows drink w-a-t-e-r.

I even used it in an earlier chapter of my next book. I wanted the reader to link Hindenburg the man with the Hindenburg blimp tragedy. So I wrote the following.

Hindenburg had a burning dislike for Communism, which drove many of his actions. He was chosen to lead his people often in battle and politics, and his name has gone down in history. His actions sparked a famous, worldwide event and qualified him for the second chapter of this book, but probably not for the reason you think.

Timing, Priming and Psychopathy

Priming is a very powerful, psychological tool. It’s a tool that manipulators can use to influence their victims into thinking that poor choices were their idea. Psychopathy can cause a person to manipulate others with priming. They corrupt the mind of the innocent with thoughts that lead to the actions they are trying to illicit. In a junior high school joke it can be funny. In a book it can bring out the feelings or memories the author wants.

But when lives, prison or even money is on the line it is purely manipulation.

The Interview

Ada JoAnn Taylor’s black hair is streaked with grey and cut short during her interview. She looks haggard and exhausted. It seems like she has spent years missing sleep. There is one moment during the three minute interview when she appears to twist her face into the closest representation of a smile that she can seem to muster. It happens when she uncovers a ridiculous truth about the investigation. Price, her one time mental therapist, was also a part-time sheriff’s deputy who aided in the interrogations.

The same man whom she had trusted to give her advice about her mental health years earlier was now advising her. “We know you did this,” she quotes Price, “we know you suffocated her. If you’ll just concentrate on your dreams your memories will come back. You’ve just repressed your memories.”

The cord had been set in motion.

Then the interviewer says, “but the suggestion that you may have done it was enough to get you to admit.” Right on cue, Ada JoAnn Taylor begins repeating, verbatim what the interviewer is saying, immediately after she says it. It is almost as if the interviewer is now doing the priming.

Taylor says of Price that being privy to her background and psychological state gave him access into how best to manipulate her. She says that he knew, “if we tell her something hard enough she’s going to listen to it. She’s gonna accept it.” Price helped wrongly convict 6 people of murder.

Psychopathy; Manipulating Others to the Outcome You Want.

She says that Searecy would tell her the police knew she had suffocated Wilson with a pillow. It is the tormenting false memory that still runs rampant in Taylors mind. She says she can still visualize herself holding the couch pillow that choked the life from Helen Wilson.

Unfortunately that false memory is more false than we think. Wilson was not suffocated with a couch pillow. She was wrapped in a blanket that cut off the air around her. But in Taylors mind, that’s not how it happened. Because during the priming from the Gage County sheriffs department, that isn’t what they told her. They told her it was a pillow.

The video ends with Taylor saying, “Wow, they got me to say I did (it). How screwed up was I?”

Manipulating someone using priming is a sign of psychopathy. But reacting to priming isn’t screwed up. It’s normal, even when the person reacting isn’t.