PDF Summary:Doesn't Hurt to Ask, by Trey Gowdy

In Doesn’t Hurt to Ask, Fox News presenter and former prosecutor, District Attorney, and South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy outlines how to effectively persuade others by asking questions, using concrete evidence, and getting to know your conversation partner. Gowdy draws on his experiences in court and on investigative committees in Congress to emphasize the importance of information gathering, open-mindedness, and empathy when seeking to change someone’s way of thinking. He argues that the goal of persuasion shouldn’t just be to promote your own viewpoint, but to meaningfully connect with others and foster collaboration.

In this guide, we’ll provide examples of Gowdy’s tactics, compare his advice to that of other authorities on persuasion, and examine the effectiveness of these techniques in Gowdy’s own career. We’ll also consider other factors in persuasion, such as an audience’s emotional investment and the speaker’s body language.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: In contrast to Gowdy’s focus on knowledge over charisma, Scott Adams argues in Win Bigly that charisma is all that matters. Examining Donald Trump’s rise to power in 2016, Adams notes that Trump’s lack of political experience and frequent factual errors didn’t diminish his popularity, but actually increased it. Trump voters valued the way he made them feel—angry but empowered—over any mistakes or dishonesty. Therefore, it may be more important to charm your audience than to prepare with factual knowledge.)

Specifically, Gowdy advises having a full understanding of the facts of the issue and the arguments your opponent plans to use so that you can emphasize your own knowledge and undermine theirs.

Know the Facts

Gowdy believes that facts provide a stronger basis for an argument than emotion because they’re fixed and can be universally understood, even by people with opposing worldviews. While facts can be attacked on the basis of their credibility (he advises that you always investigate who discovered a fact, how, and under what conditions) and alternative interpretations can be provided (he advises that you consider alternative interpretations, even if only to dismiss them as less logical than your own), they aren’t as easily twisted as appeals to emotion or to shared values.

Facts Versus Fake News

Despite Gowdy’s framing of facts as objective and only sometimes conducive to alternative interpretations, disagreement on how to interpret the same facts is a common source of conflict. To illustrate this, just look at the lack of scientific consensus on issues like what caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs or how the Covid-19 outbreak originated. Additionally, it’s long been observed that people are resistant to facts that contradict their pre-established worldview, however well-supported.

The last few years have seen a rising trend of anti-intellectualism in American culture in particular, with many people actively distrusting experts, buying into conspiracy theories, and dismissing criticism of their leaders as “fake news.” In this landscape, some analysts have concluded that facts are a less effective basis for an argument than appeals to strong emotion or to prejudice.

Gowdy advises that armed with the facts about your topic, you should find ways to make those facts stick in your opponent’s and audience’s minds—namely through constant repetition, organizing your argument in such a way that you begin and end with your strongest pieces of evidence, and delivering them with emotion and sincerity. While he insists that emotion shouldn’t be the basis of an argument, establishing an emotional connection between your listeners and your facts can make a stronger impression than just a dry recitation of facts. For example, emphasizing the tragedy implied by a high drunk driving mortality rate is more memorable than simply providing the statistics without context.

(Shortform note: Again, Gowdy tends to downplay the importance of performance in rhetoric, but many other experts emphasize organization and stage presence, arguing that how you present your information is just as important as what you say. For example, in the public speaking guide Talk Like TED, Carmine Gallo echoes Gowdy’s advice about repetition and speaking with emotion, but he also suggests organizing your argument into a series of compelling “stories” that your audience will find memorable, humorous, or shocking. Other guides focus entirely on how to use non-verbal communication to project confidence and trustworthiness, such as social psychologist Amy Cuddy’s book Presence.)

Know Your Opponents

For Gowdy, knowing your opponents means not just being able to empathize with them, but also fully understanding what their arguments are, what facts they’re relying on, and what it would take to convince them to abandon their position. While much of your argument will be dedicated to articulating and defending your position, you can use your understanding of your opponent’s perspective and facts to gradually undermine them. This manifests in attacks on their credibility, their conclusions, and even their language.

Attacking your opponent’s credibility means questioning the viability of their facts or their ability to interpret them. In the same way that you should question where your own facts came from and how they were discovered, Gowdy suggests questioning where your opponent got their facts, how reliable those sources are, and whether the conclusions drawn come from those sources (for example, from the expert author of a scientific paper) or from the opponent themselves (who may be invested in the topic, but not an expert). Facts that come from a single source whose process can’t be reproduced, such as from a personal experience or eyewitness account, are particularly vulnerable to attack.

Vetting the Evidence

In Bad Science, doctor and science journalist Ben Goldacre discusses how to vet scientific studies by examining their methodology and the connection (or lack thereof) between data and claims. For example, studies without proper experimental controls can’t actually prove that the thing being tested created the change observed. Studies commissioned by drug companies seeking to promote a new product may also push “surrogate outcomes”— concluding that the drug may work even when the data provides no clear evidence either way. Without further testing, that claim isn’t conclusive.

When it comes to questioning personal accounts, studies have shown that human memory is incredibly fallible and subject to change over time. While eyewitness accounts are given a lot of weight in criminal investigations, the famous 1974 Loftus and Palmer experiment showed that the wording of the questions investigators ask can cause people to misremember key details only minutes later. This is true even for dramatic, seemingly unforgettable events.

If the facts aren’t easily undermined, or if you or your opponent are working from the same facts, Gowdy suggests targeting the conclusions they draw instead. Wherever your opponent makes a logical leap—for example, by suggesting that high crime rates are caused by a weak police response—you can introduce doubt by providing alternative explanations for the same evidence; for example, that high crime rates are actually caused by a surge in unemployment. Gowdy also advises targeting hyperbolic language, such as “never,” “always,” “everybody,” and so on.

(Shortform note: One way to target your opponent’s conclusions is to identify logical fallacies in their thinking, such as the fallacy of the single cause, association bias, or hindsight bias. Entrepreneur Rolf Dobelli’s The Art of Thinking Clearly argues that people are fundamentally irrational and socially driven, leading them to accept false claims because they seem simpler, fit their pre-established worldview, or promise acceptance within a larger group. By pointing out the irrational motivations behind your opponent’s beliefs, you can reframe their entire argument as being irrational.)

Finally, says Gowdy, you can cast doubt on your opponent’s conclusions by suggesting bias on their part—for example, questioning a coal mining CEO’s ability to objectively evaluate the industry’s environmental impact. However, Gowdy warns that this kind of direct attack on your opponent may come off as overly personal and thus backfire, undermining your own claims to objectivity.

(Shortform note: In politics, an attack intended to damage the other person’s reputation or discredit their authority is known as “mudslinging” or (when the campaign is seen as inappropriately personal and unfounded) a “smear campaign.” While some such attempts at such “negative campaigning” have proven successful, others have backfired—particularly when the claims couldn’t be proven, were ultimately viewed as being irrelevant to the political issues at hand or not indicative of bias, or violated the target’s civil rights.)

Ask Questions

According to Gowdy, the most effective tool of persuasion isn’t any particular way of making an argument, but asking questions. Asking questions serves three main functions: It endears you to your opponent or audience by showing that you’re an active and engaged listener; it allows you to learn about your opponent’s beliefs, evidence, and reasoning; and it allows you to guide the flow of the conversation without appearing to do so—by asking leading questions rather than making declarative statements. Gowdy claims that as a prosecutor and chair of Congressional committees, he spent more time asking questions than constructing a narrative from those answers.

(Shortform note: Gowdy’s emphasis on asking questions makes sense given his background—while lawyers are given the opportunity to make speeches in US courtrooms, namely during their opening and closing arguments, much of their time is spent questioning witnesses and posing rhetorical questions to the jury. Similarly, Congressional investigative committees like the one Gowdy chaired spend most of their time conducting interviews and collecting testimony before finally releasing a report of their findings to the public. Because both settings require the final outcome to be based solely on evidence introduced in the course of the investigation, asking questions is the only way to build a compelling case.)

According to Gowdy, there are three types of questions: leading, non-leading, and “why” questions. Leading questions can be used to direct the conversation, while non-leading and “why” questions can be used for information gathering. All three types can be used to demonstrate the speaker’s willingness to listen and consider alternative points of view. Gowdy argues that most people prefer to talk rather than to listen, and so listening to your opponent’s perspective—even if you ultimately disagree with it—makes them feel respected and treated fairly. Eliciting such positive feelings brings you and your opponent closer together and makes cooperation between you more viable.

(Shortform note: Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, one of the best-selling self-help books of all time, famously argued that the key to connecting with people is simply to listen to them. Like Gowdy, Carnegie believed that treating people with respect and genuinely considering their point of view was essential to resolving disagreements peacefully and to your mutual benefit. While he doesn’t distinguish between types of questions as Gowdy does, he advises asking questions that your opponent will enjoy answering, namely questions about themselves, their interests, and their beliefs.)

Gowdy discusses the advantages and disadvantages of leading versus information-gathering questions, and ultimately advises using both at different points in a debate.

Lead With Questions

Leading questions suggest their own answer in the way the question is asked. For example, beginning a question with “Wouldn’t you agree that…” or “Isn’t it true that…” invites the person to adopt your reasoning on an issue rather than to express their own. Even less directly leading questions can subtly push the person toward agreeing with you, with phrasing like “Is there any way you’d consider…” or at least toward subjects that better serve your position, such as “Why don’t we think about…” Gowdy argues that these types of questions, in inviting the other person to speak and suggesting collaboration in their phrasing, are more convincing and less inflammatory than simple “I believe” or “I disagree” statements.

Strategic Use of Leading Questions

While Gowdy encourages the use of leading questions based on his experiences as a prosecutor, in American courtrooms they’re only permitted under specific circumstances. Lawyers are allowed to ask leading questions when cross-examining a witness introduced by their opponent, but not during direct examination of their own witnesses. The thinking is that while direct examination provides testimony, during which a lawyer shouldn’t try to speak for a witness, cross-examination allows for testimony to be questioned and clarified, so a lawyer can use leading questions to point out inconsistencies or flaws in the evidence.

In this same way, while you may not be able to force your opponent into accepting your point of view outright (for example, the question “Shouldn’t I refuse to lend you money when you never pay me back?” is unlikely to be received well), you can lead them into making certain concessions based on evidence that they themselves introduced (“You said I lent you $50 last month. Isn’t it true you haven’t paid me back yet, even though you said you would?”).

Gowdy says that leading questions also allow you to direct the flow of the conversation and keep things on topic. Even if your opponent introduces subjects or facts you don’t want discussed, you can ignore or steer the conversation away from them with your next question. Gowdy also suggests reframing things they say in a way that’s more favorable to you, for example, with phrases like “Surely you aren’t arguing that…” or “Couldn’t that also mean…” However, he stresses that you should genuinely listen to your opponent’s answers rather than simply waiting for your turn to speak. If your questions appear sincere, your opponent will be more engaged, and you’re more likely to end the conversation positively, if not in agreement.

(Shortform note: While it’s implied from this piece of advice, Gowdy doesn’t discuss the potential downsides of leading questions—namely that if you aren’t strategic about it, you can seem manipulative, and your opponent may accuse you of “twisting” their words. On his blog, leadership expert Matt Norman distinguishes between leading and “guiding” questions: While the latter still steer the conversation toward a particular answer, they’re more open-ended and encourage your opponent to speak at length, making them feel engaged and in control. Following Norman’s advice, the leading “Wouldn’t a mall be good for the neighborhood?” could be rephrased to the guiding “What changes or business opportunities would you like to see?”)

Information Gathering

While Gowdy encourages gathering as much information as possible about the topic and your opponent before attempting to persuade them, asking questions can be a useful tool of information gathering in the moment. Non-leading questions seek basic facts and information—what happened, where it happened, who was involved, and so on. Unlike leading questions, they don’t suggest a possible answer in the asking of the question, but Gowdy argues that they can still be used strategically. For example, asking a coroner to provide graphic details of a body’s condition in a murder case can elicit sympathy from the jury, even if the witness doesn’t themselves call for the accused person to be prosecuted.

(Shortform note: Outside of a courtroom setting, seeking facts about the subject of disagreement can still give you ammunition or elicit sympathy from bystanders. For example, if you and a roommate are arguing over kitchen cleanup duties, asking them to name each time they’ve cleaned up after themselves—with specific examples—may reveal the disparity in how often the job has fallen to you instead, as well as the fact that it’s an ongoing problem rather than a one-time issue.)

“Why” questions, on the other hand, give your opponent a chance to articulate what they believe and the reasoning they followed to reach their conclusions. While Gowdy warns that the questioner can lose control of the conversation if they allow their opponent to speak for too long, generally asking questions breaks up the flow of your opponent’s argument and allows you to deconstruct it one claim at a time. You can put them at a disadvantage by asking about holes or weak points in their argument that they would likely have otherwise ignored, and even manipulate their emotional state by asking “soft,” easily answered questions or “hard,” more challenging questions at different times.

Playing Hardball

The terms Gowdy uses, “soft” and “hard,” come from American sports. While baseball or “hardball” is highly competitive and the speed at which a ball is thrown can make or break a game, softball uses a larger ball thrown underhand and is generally played by children or students rather than professionally. Softball questions are thus easy questions designed to make the interviewee look good (such as “To what do you owe your success?”), while hardball questions are more challenging and even accusatory.

One place you may have encountered these kinds of questions is in a job interview. A softball question like “What are your strengths?” gives you an opportunity to praise yourself, while the more challenging “Why should we hire you?” forces you to compare yourself to other potential candidates. “Why” questions tend to be harder by default, but the same question can be reframed to be soft or hard depending on your goals—consider the difference in tone between “Why do you like this candidate?” and “Why should we vote for this candidate again when he’s failed to keep his campaign promises?”