PDF Summary:Words That Change Minds, by Shelle Rose Charvet

Are there people in your life you just can’t understand? Talking to them sometimes feels like they’re speaking a different language—and according to communication and influencing language expert Shelle Rose Charvet, in many ways, they are. She contends that each individual makes sense of the world in a unique way. However, if you learn how someone else thinks, you can consciously match their frame of reference and speak in a language they understand. This powerful skill can help you build positive relationships and influence others to help you achieve your goals.

In this guide, you’ll learn 14 kinds of mental habits that explain how people think—and, consequently, why they act the way they do. In our commentary, we’ll help you apply Charvet’s insights into human nature with additional tips for use in the workplace. We’ll also offer counterpoints to some of Charvet’s claims about psychology from books like Surrounded by Idiots and The Extended Mind.

(continued)...

According to Whitmore, this often involves following broad questions about the work with more specific leading questions. For example, if you’re a mentor who asks your mentee a question like “What do you want to accomplish with this project?”, you can then prompt them to take ownership with the more detailed question of “What more do you want to accomplish with this project?”

It makes sense that once an employee feels empowered, they’ll feel capable enough to pursue new ways to solve problems—if they’re a naturally innovative person at work, that is. Or they may be naturally reliable and still choose to solve problems in the same way. Either way, empowering them with decision-making agency will likely help them be themselves in the workplace.

Why Habit #5: Eager for Change or Content With Stability

The fifth Why habit we’ll discuss refers to how often someone wants to upend the status quo: Are they eager for change or content with stability? (Charvet calls this the “Decision Factors” category.) That is, do they want to constantly shake things up in their life or keep things the same for as long as possible?

When thinking about the past, people who are more eager for change will highlight how much things have changed—they might say, “Running a nonprofit is much more fulfilling than my career managing restaurants.” Someone content with stability with the same résumé would focus on the things that stayed the same: “I’ve been a manager for the last 20 years.”

If you want to influence someone eager for change to do something, emphasize how exciting and new it is (“Going to college would be a whole new adventure for you!”). If they’re content with stability, emphasize how it’s similar to things they’ve done in the past (“I think continuing your education would really help you maintain your personal growth”).

(Shortform note: Research shows that people naturally become less eager for change and more content with stability as they age. Experts theorize this is because many older people settle into pursuits that require long-term investment—such as a lifelong career or raising children and grandchildren—and they shy away from change to protect the life they’ve built. Thus, if the language someone uses doesn’t overtly lean toward change or stability, you may be able to use their age to decide whether to influence them with more change- or stability-oriented language—at least until you get to know them better as an individual.)

Why Habit #6: Ideals

The sixth Why habit is a bit different than the other five—instead of existing on a spectrum between two types, people can express this habit in infinite ways. Charvet argues that everyone has a unique set of ideals, specific words that represent the things or attributes that are most important to them. (Charvet calls these ideals “Criteria.”) For instance, if someone says they love their job because they’re working toward a noble mission and get to spend time with a supportive team, “noble mission” and “supportive team” might be two of their ideals.

(Shortform note: In The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, Mark Manson contends that one major way you can improve your life is to intentionally choose your ideals. According to Manson, many people make themselves miserable by choosing to care about ideals that are out of their control, destructive, or untethered from reality—for example, the ideal of being the most well-liked salesperson on the team. He recommends choosing to care more about ideals that are controllable, constructive, and based in reality—for example, the ideal of taking personal responsibility for your life.)

If you refer to one of someone’s ideals using different words, it won’t mean the same thing to them. Charvet contends that a person’s ideals—the words themselves—are tied to myriad emotional memories that give the words their motivating power. Thus, when trying to communicate with or influence someone, only refer to their ideals using their exact words. To return to our example above, you could convince that person to volunteer at your organization by emphasizing the noble mission you and your supportive team are looking to achieve.

(Shortform note: The fact that particular words represent a vast well of emotional memories shapes the way that corporations market their products. In How Brands Grow, Byron Sharp contends that the purpose of advertising is to spread positive emotional memories related to a specific brand. Brand assets, including a brand’s memorable name and slogan, act as symbolic shorthand for all the pleasant experiences you’ve had purchasing from that brand. For this reason, when a brand changes its brand assets, it often backfires—for example, after the soda brand Sierra Mist changed its name to Starry, it severed its connection to the positive memories its customers associated with the specific words “Sierra Mist.”)

The Eight “How” Mental Habits

The final eight mental habits explain how an individual does their best work after they’ve decided to solve a problem. We’ll call these the eight “How” mental habits (“Productivity Patterns,” in Charvet’s words).

According to Charvet, understanding How habits is particularly important for managers who need to assign tasks to team members, as these mental habits reveal individuals’ strengths and weaknesses in the workplace. To maximize productivity, assign team members tasks that require them to think as they’re naturally inclined to think.

(Shortform note: In First, Break All the Rules, Curt Coffman and Marcus Buckingham recommend strategically building teams in which each member’s strengths compensate for the others' weaknesses. This way, teams can collectively accomplish tasks that a single employee can’t do on their own.)

As with Why habits, most How habits lie on a spectrum between two opposites, and verbally mirroring someone’s habit-driven language is one of the best ways to communicate with and influence them.

How Habit #1: Whole-Oriented or Detail-Oriented

The first How habit we’ll discuss describes whether someone is more insightful when looking at the big picture or individual situations: Are they whole-oriented or detail-oriented? (Charvet calls this the “Scope” category.)

Whole-oriented people tend to speak in abstract, sometimes vague terms, writes Charvet. They might say, “We decided to move Brian to the sales team.” In contrast, detail-oriented people tend to describe concrete situations, sometimes in painstaking detail: “Last Friday, Trudy, Mark, and I met in Conference Room B and decided that Brian would be a better fit on the sales team because of how much he’s improved his people skills.”

Make sure to talk in terms of the big picture with whole-oriented people; otherwise, they’ll either get bored or feel overwhelmed. Likewise, speak in comprehensive, concrete terms with detail-oriented people, or they’ll become frustrated with your vague language.

Ideal Communication Is Both Whole-Oriented and Detail-Oriented

Some experts contend that the most effective communication conveys a single “big idea,” yet has enough memorable concrete details to be easy to understand and retain. Arguably, this kind of communication is effective because it appeals to both whole-oriented and detail-oriented listeners: The big idea is broad and important enough to capture the attention of whole-oriented people, while the concrete details help detail-oriented people follow and readily recall the message.

In How Highly Effective People Speak, Peter D. Andrei explains how to communicate in this way: Narrow down your big idea to its simplest form and leave out any details that aren’t necessary for understanding your thesis. This simplification risks alienating your detail-oriented listeners, so add rich sensory imagery that makes your ideas easier to remember and understand without making them any more complicated. For instance, if you’re pitching a new tech product, you could emphasize its elegant concept by detailing how sleek and modern you imagine its hardware and packaging will look.

Weaving your ideas into a story or anecdote is another way to make your ideas rich in detail without obscuring the big picture—for example, you could describe the first reaction someone may have when unboxing your new product.

How Habit #2: Level-Headed or Neurotic

The second How habit is a description of how someone reacts to high-pressure situations: Are they level-headed or neurotic? Do they address intense events with cool, dispassionate logic, or do they frequently become emotionally overwhelmed? (Charvet calls this the “Stress Response” category.)

Charvet clarifies that unlike most of the other mental habits, this one isn’t revealed through the words someone says. You can gauge whether someone is level-headed or neurotic by paying attention to how outwardly emotional they are while speaking, especially when discussing a challenging situation. Level-headed people typically stay low-key and detached in conversation, while neurotic people visibly display emotions with their whole bodies—for instance, slumping their shoulders and collapsing into a chair when describing an exhausting day at work.

(Shortform note: Once you’ve concluded how level-headed or neurotic someone is, you can use this knowledge of their typical emotional affect to gain greater insights into what they’re thinking and feeling. In What Every Body Is Saying, Joe Navarro asserts that after getting an idea of someone’s baseline body language, you can interpret deviations from this baseline as reactions to the current situation. For example, if a neurotic person flashes a subtle smile, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything, since it’s subdued compared to their expressive baseline. However, if a level-headed, typically reserved person smiles, it may indicate that they’re very excited about something, as this is an extreme expression compared to their low-key baseline.)

To influence level-headed people, take care to explain your point of view with airtight logic. To influence neurotic people, speak in emotional language that gets them excited to act.

(Shortform note: Arguably, if your message is emotionally gripping enough, you can get even the most level-headed people to throw logic out the window and act—especially if you’re stirring primal emotions like fear. Author and investor Peter Bevelin explains that the emotional parts of our brains are built to override the logical parts in response to danger. This is because our ancestors who reacted to danger emotionally survived, while those who thought more slowly and methodically were unable to react to danger quickly enough.)

How Habit #3: Team Player or Lone Wolf

The third How habit refers to someone’s preferred level of interaction with other people: Are they a team player or a lone wolf? (Charvet calls this the “Style” category.) Team players do their best work in close collaboration with others—when they’re alone, they may struggle to focus and get things done. In contrast, lone wolves need their own space to do their best work and get distracted if other people are nearby..

To identify whether someone is a team player or a lone wolf, pay attention to how much they mention others when describing their tasks. Team players emphasize the actions of those around them: They might say “We launched our new ad campaign before the deadline we set for ourselves.” Lone wolves emphasize the actions and decisions they make as individuals: “I finished designing the full set of banner ads two months before launch day.”

(Shortform note: In Never Split the Difference, Chris Voss contends that people who use “lone wolf” language are giving away their low status in their organization, while people who use “team player” language are signaling their personal authority and decision-making power. This isn’t because people in power identify more with their team. Rather, they want to avoid prematurely committing themselves to any decisions that may restrict them later, so they imply that they need approval from another stakeholder. For example, a CEO might say to a potential investor, “We’ll strongly consider your offer” to avoid prematurely committing to a business partnership, instead of saying “I’ll definitely consider your offer.”)

If you’re managing a team, Charvet recommends that you make sure that team players have opportunities to collaborate with their coworkers while also making sure lone wolves have the personal time and space they need to do their work alone.

Counterpoint: Balance Collaboration and Privacy

In The Extended Mind, Annie Murphy Paul challenges the idea that some people work best in collaboration while others are most productive alone. Rather, she contends that across the board, people think best when they have both: They regularly spend some time with collaborators and some time alone.

According to Paul, thinking alongside other people activates different parts of the brain than thinking alone, giving you more valuable insights. In particular, friendly debates with other people inspire everyone involved to be more rigorous in their thinking, resulting in more logically sound conclusions.

On the other hand, giving yourself time alone to think allows you to dive into complex, abstract ideas that would be difficult to grapple with in a busy environment. During this time, Paul emphasizes that total privacy is key, as the human brain is easily distracted. Even the smallest stimuli can disrupt your train of thought. With this in mind, Paul advises managers to avoid forcing their employees into permanently distracting open-office plans if they can help it.

How Habit #4: Interpersonally Aware or Self-Preoccupied

The fourth How habit describes someone’s sensitivity to nonverbal signals when interacting with others: They’re either interpersonally aware or self-preoccupied. (Charvet calls this the “Attention Direction” category.) People who are interpersonally aware are constantly monitoring the emotions and thoughts of those around them, while self-preoccupied people are only aware of their own emotions and thoughts.

Charvet contends that you can differentiate interpersonally aware and self-preoccupied people through their body language: Interpersonally aware people will display animated movements and facial expressions, whereas self-preoccupied people will generally display a flat affect.

Because your thoughts and emotions have such an impact on interpersonally aware people, send friendly nonverbal signals to make them more receptive to what you’re trying to say. On the other hand, self-preoccupied people typically won’t pick up on these signals.

(Shortform note: When communicating with someone interpersonally aware, be careful: In The Charisma Myth, Olivia Fox Cabane asserts that nonverbal signals are impossible to fake. The human brain is so proficient at intuiting other people’s true intentions that disingenuous attempts to act friendly will only make them feel uneasy. Thus, the best way to communicate with the interpersonally aware is to cultivate genuine feelings of goodwill toward them.)

Self-Preoccupied People Are Often Misjudged

Some argue that society suffers because self-preoccupied people are scarce and often overlooked. In Talking to Strangers, Malcolm Gladwell describes people who are “mismatched”—whose outward demeanor doesn’t match their true thoughts and feelings. Self-preoccupied people would fall into this category because they don’t convey the animated movements and facial expressions that people expect to see.

Gladwell contends that generally, people overestimate the degree to which humans are emotionally transparent. Consequently, they imagine that they have a much more accurate understanding of the emotions and thoughts of those around them than they truly do.

When someone misjudges another person’s internal world, yet has full confidence in their judgment, it can have devastating consequences. For example, Gladwell recounts the case of Amanda Knox, who was convicted of murdering her roommate largely because other people judged her to be flippant and unsympathetic about the tragic death. However, she was innocent: She was only convicted because she was mismatched and likely self-preoccupied—she was disturbed by the murder, she just didn’t show it outwardly.

How Habit #5: Empathetic or Analytic

The fifth How habit we’ll discuss refers to how much someone believes emotions are a part of their work: Are they empathetic or analytic? (Charvet calls this the “Organization” category.) Empathetic people see all their tasks as primarily emotional endeavors—the whole point of the work they do is to positively impact someone emotionally (clients, co-workers, or anyone else they interact with). Analytic people, on the other hand, choose to focus on completing meaningful tasks without regard for how those around them feel.

Charvet explains that when discussing their work, empathetic people will describe how it made them and those around them feel. Mirror this when communicating with them—you might praise an empathetic person by saying, “I loved your proposal to construct a new branch downtown, and the shareholders are going to love it, too.” On the other hand, when discussing their work, analytic people will simply describe the tasks they completed. You can appeal to them by similarly focusing on the work: “Your proposal is great. It’s very well-researched.”

The Virtue of Reasoned Compassion

In Against Empathy, Paul Bloom argues that the most effective and moral action is both analytic and empathetic—a “reasoned compassion.”

If you solely perform analytic tasks without regard for their impact on others, you risk inadvertently hurting someone. However, Bloom argues that solely focusing on how people feel also causes undue harm. For one, empathy for those around you can cause you to cultivate anger against people who have done them wrong, fueling aggression and even violence.

The solution, according to Bloom, is to use objective, analytical thought to solve problems and help other people. Rationally consider other people’s needs and emotions without fully immersing yourself in their emotional state and getting carried away by irrational feelings.

To encourage the people in your life to practice reasoned compassion, consider talking them into a more balanced approach using the language of their mental habit. For example, you could say to an overly empathetic person, “When you get carried away, it sometimes frightens the people around you. Could you try to express your feelings in a more reasonable way?” Alternatively, you could say to an overly analytical person, “When you don’t think about how your work affects others, it often undermines the purpose of those tasks.”

How Habit #6: Personal Standards

The sixth How habit describes the behavioral standards someone expects themselves and others to meet. (Charvet calls this the “Rule Structure” category.)

According to Charvet, people can have one of four possible types of personal standards: objective, subjective, external, and egocentric. People with objective standards believe that certain behavior is objectively virtuous and desirable, judging everyone’s work (including their own) by the same criteria. In contrast, people with subjective standards believe that what’s good for one individual might not be good for another, and they tend to avoid judging or intervening in the behavior of others.

People with external standards need someone or something to tell them what behavior is appropriate or objectively good. They then apply these rules as objective standards for themselves and others. Finally, people with egocentric standards do whatever they believe is best and completely disregard the behavior of others. They also disregard whatever standards others have for them.

Charvet recommends discerning someone’s personal standards by directly asking them how they would ideally behave at work, then asking how someone else should ideally behave at work. To influence someone, appeal to their personal standards. For example, if someone has subjective standards, you might say, “Attending this leadership conference might not benefit everyone, but I think it would serve you well.”

Comparing Personal Standards to The Four Tendencies

In The Four Tendencies, Gretchen Rubin outlines a similar system, profiling four different ways that people relate to personal standards. Rubin goes into more depth than Charvet on the topic of influencing people based on their personal standards—we’ll explain her strategies for each tendency.

Charvet’s concept of external standards closely aligns with the personality type Rubin calls the “Obliger.” Obligers fulfill the expectations of others but ignore any expectations they have for themselves. Rubin notes that Obligers are prone to burnout—they strive to fulfill so many external expectations that they exhaust themselves and lose the ability to fulfill any expectations. Thus, when you influence an Obliger, be careful not to overload them with too many requests.

Charvet’s egocentric standards and Rubin’s “Rebel” tendency are similar in that it’s extremely difficult for other people to influence their behavior. Rebels defy both internal and external expectations—they do whatever they feel like and resist telling themselves that they “have to” do anything. If you need to influence a Rebel, Rubin recommends convincing them that following your expectation was their idea. To do this, you can present them with the negative consequences of not following your expectations, prompting them to choose to avoid those consequences.

Charvet’s subjective standards align with Rubin’s “Questioner” tendency. Questioners set standards for themselves and challenge any external expectations placed on them. Both types of people resist when others tell them what to do. However, unlike Rebels, Questioners will heed your advice if you convince them logically that your expectations make sense.

Finally, Charvet’s objective standards and Rubin’s “Upholder” tendency are similar in that they prefer to do things the one “right way.” Upholders try to be the best they can be by meeting their own ambitious internal expectations as well as everyone’s external expectations. Because they try to do everything “perfectly,” Upholders sometimes struggle to prioritize the most important expectations. When trying to convince an Upholder, take care to emphasize which of your requests matter the most and they’ll fulfill those gladly.

As with Charvet’s personal standards, Rubin explains that you can identify someone’s tendency by asking them questions. She prefers more indirect questions than Charvet—for example, she says that if you ask someone how they feel about New Year’s Resolutions, their response and corresponding logic will reveal their tendency.

How Habit #7: Persuasion Style

The seventh How habit refers to the kind of evidence people need to encounter before changing their mind about something. We’ll call someone’s preference for one form of evidence their persuasion style. (Charvet calls this the “Convincer Channel” category.)

Charvet asserts that everybody has one of four persuasion styles: They find visual evidence, auditory evidence, written evidence, or experiential evidence the most persuasive. You can discern which persuasion style someone has by asking them how they came to a certain conclusion; for instance, you could ask how they determined that their current job was right for them. The evidence they used to reach their answer will correspond with one of the four persuasion styles.

To get someone to come to a certain conclusion after you’ve discerned their persuasion style, present them with their preferred form of evidence. For example, if you want to persuade someone that your restaurant is successful so they give you a loan for expansion, you can show them charts of your profits as visual evidence, practice a compelling business pitch as auditory evidence, show them customer reviews as written evidence, or let them taste your food as experiential evidence.

Counterpoint: Are Persuasion Styles a Myth?

The idea that different people optimally absorb information in one of four different ways is also popular in the field of education. Since 1992, many educators have been taught to tailor their curricula for students with all four learning styles: visual learners, auditory learners, reading and writing learners, and kinesthetic learners (learning through direct experience). This set of four styles is known as the “VARK model.”

However, recent research indicates that presenting students with information matching their learning style doesn’t help them understand the information any better. Although students often prefer one form of learning over another, this preference doesn’t improve their learning results. Since people have to learn about and understand the evidence you give them to be convinced, it’s possible that Charvet’s model of four persuasion styles is equally invalid.

Instead of spending the effort identifying and catering to someone’s persuasion style, you may be better off relying on tried-and-true persuasion methods that work for everyone. For example, the “foot-in-the-door” tactic takes advantage of a universal weakness of human psychology: the drive to behave consistently. If you can influence someone to make a small commitment, they’re significantly more likely to make a larger commitment later on to keep their decision-making logic consistent. For instance, getting someone to post on social media about your nonprofit makes them more likely to make a donation in the future.

How Habit #8: Persuasion Requirements

The final How habit also has to do with persuasion, describing how much evidence someone needs before they change their mind. We’ll call this baseline of evidence their persuasion requirements. (Charvet calls this the “Convincer Mode” category.)

According to Charvet, people have one of four kinds of persuasion requirements: If someone needs to see evidence a specific number of times before believing it, they have quantity-based requirements. If someone believes evidence only after a certain amount of time has passed, they have time-based requirements.

If someone believes everything after encountering just one piece of evidence—or no evidence—they have minimal requirements. If someone never fully believes anything, no matter how much evidence they see, they have strict requirements. (You can still persuade them to act a certain way, but they’ll never fully adopt your way of thinking. You’ll need to re-argue your point every time you want them to do something.)

You can identify someone’s persuasion requirements by posing a hypothetical situation and directly asking them how many times they would need to encounter evidence before coming to a conclusion about that situation. For instance, you could say, “If you were looking to partner with a marketing agency, how many times would you have to meet with them before making a deal?” Even if they don’t give an exact number, their answer will reveal their persuasion requirements.

To influence someone, fulfill their persuasion requirements—give them the amount of evidence or time they need to change their mind. For example, if the person giving your restaurant a loan has strict persuasion requirements, you can convince them to give you a loan by repeating the main points of your business pitch every time you meet with them.

Counterpoint: Persuasion Requirements Are Flexible

Some psychology research suggests that persuasion requirements are less dependent on an individual’s personality than on the way evidence is presented. For instance, the well-documented confirmation bias indicates that people generally have minimal requirements for conclusions that seem to align with what they already believe or want to be true, and they have strict requirements for conclusions that contradict their beliefs or identities.

Similarly, research shows that everyone may have both quantity-based requirements and time-based requirements, as long as you present evidence enough times over a long enough timeframe. The illusory truth effect describes how any evidence becomes more convincing if you encounter it enough times. This is because evidence we encounter multiple times is easier to recall, and our brains falsely conclude that ideas that are easy to recall are more likely to be true. We’re also susceptible to the spacing effect: Information is easier to recall if we learn it over a longer timeframe. This means that all evidence becomes more convincing if you present it over time.

Thus, rather than investing effort in identifying and fulfilling someone’s persuasion requirements, you may find more success by fulfilling all persuasion requirements as much as possible. Frame your evidence so it aligns with your target’s existing beliefs as much as possible, and be persistent in presenting as much evidence as you can over as long a timeframe as possible.