The Practice Corner: An Introduction to Cognitive Science
by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com
As a trial lawyer, I am rather perpetually concerned with not only the message I am trying to convey to my audience, but also the manner in which I am attempting to convey this message. I have studied communications theory for years and years now, long before I ever attended law school, but only recently have I been focusing my study on cognitive sciences, or what some may refer to as “Neuro-linguistic Programming” or “NLP.” The value of NLP application, or at the very least an understanding of its interaction and influence upon how we as advocates communicate with clients, judges, courts, and colleagues, cannot be overstated. It is far more than simple pointers as to how to woo someone with an award-winning toastmaster speech.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines NLP as “a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour.”
This definition merely scratches the surface of the complicated factors at work in NLP. There are elements of hypnosis to NLP, as well as sociological and psychological components that address some of the filters that our audiences have to prevent our optimal communication with them. For this reason, I actually prefer to refer to the study of cognitive sciences, which I think better incorporates motivations, filters, entropy, and process that takes place in each of us differently when we are subject to various messages.
My research and analysis of cognitive science is in its infancy. I am far from an expert, but I have seen first-hand how effective mastery of certain techniques can influence the end result. In fact, every single one of us has seen these same phenomena, whether or not we recognized it at the time. When we observe an attorney that we think is at the top of his or her game, when we hear a politician speak as though no rational person could possibly have an opposing view, or when we find ourselves changing our minds as to matters we never thought possible, we have almost certainly seen some of the elements of NLP at work.
Cognitive sciences do not just pertain to the spoken message, but the interaction of our speech patterns and our body language, from the most subtle to the most obvious. By this, I am not speaking of hand gestures or movement, but about what Paul Ekman and other psychologists often call “microexpressions.” These are easily overlooked reactions that we all have to different stimuli. Ekman’s analysis revealed that the patterns that emerge can divulge whether or not our words betray us. In more simple terms, Ekman is the world’s foremost expert on lie detection. We may not even be attempting to deceive someone, but our microexpressions are involuntary and will ultimately show a trained observer how we are inclined to react to various ideas or facts. For those of you who are not familiar, Ekman’s work is the foundation for the Fox television show “Lie to Me,” with Tim Roth.
The more I understand and appreciate cognitive science, the more clearly I can see that my effectiveness as an advocate is not just how well I tailor my message from a rhetorical standpoint, but how well I frame it to address the prejudices and preloads that my audience brings in before I enter the room. By prejudices, I do not mean bigotry or unsavory beliefs, but things that members of my audience hold as truths because of their background, life experience, and particular perspective. Of course, I may not believe them to be true, but even in the event I was somehow able to prove their beliefs “wrong,” I will likely have failed to persuade them I am right.
For instance, there is a fantastic book called I’m Right. You’re Wrong. Now What? Break the Impasse and Get What You Need, by Xavier Amador. This book examines how achieving your goal in communication has little or nothing to do with being right. The book describes a series of different encounters ranging from the professional to the personal and everywhere in-between. Consider a situation involving a husband and wife who are arguing over whether or not a note with a phone number was left on the kitchen counter, if the dispute carries on over the course of dinner at a restaurant, if the wife gets home and the note is not where her husband said it was, what are the chances the husband says, “I stand corrected. I was so certain, but I am wrong. Can you forgive me?”
We have all had encounters like this in our personal and professional lives. When we are right, we feel vindicated, yet find our victories short-lived and hollow by the reaction of those whom we have proven wrong. Amador’s book forces us to ask ourselves what our ultimate goal is and to find ways to reach it without taking the approach that is so ingrained in most of us. Think about a time when some bureaucrat, just doing his job, has told you that policy dictates that he cannot do something. You might become aware of your frustration and feel the situation is hopeless when you come into contact with these individuals. Have you ever been able to persuade such an individual to give you what you want? People do, on occasion, achieve that very goal, do they not? Yet, most of us are inclined to get frustrated and give up when we meet this type of opposition. Amador teaches with tools that are available and easily engaged, and which are based in cognitive science.
I do not know if you have already begun to notice that this NLP seems like manipulation. Skeptics might see cognitive science as “salesmanship” or mere manipulation. However, to disregard this study or even to impose moral qualifiers is to obscure the intrinsic value that this study can have for all of us. Do not dismiss this science too quickly. NLP is not about trickery or voodoo, but about acknowledging how we ourselves and those around us make decisions. It is about breaking down what is similar and what is different about the ways in which we make those decisions and what patterns are revealed so that we may better convey our message in light of those differences.
As I have mentioned, my research into cognitive science is just beginning, but it has opened up a new world of possibilities for me. I find that I am no longer frustrated when I meet someone who initially seems determined to disagree with anything I might ever have to say. Such encounters provide opportunities for me to engage the person, to listen and to learn, so that I might better communicate, grow, and perhaps even change my own mind about a particular subject. I have known for a long time that getting my message across is more about listening than talking, but with every voir dire, I feel like I should write it down on the insides of my eyelids.
Cognitive science is not only valuable to attorneys, but to anyone who regularly must communicate and work with other people. It is uniquely valuable for us as attorneys in that we can benefit from it not just daily, but perhaps even hourly as we consult with clients, colleagues, judges, and a host of others who do not come to the table with the same world view, politics, values, or background that we may have. It feels as though I am light years away from being able to effectively employ many of the tools that cognitive science offers for communication, but I have already noticed radical improvements in some areas of my work. I can only wonder what sorts of discovery await me as I continue my research.