Here's something most leadership training gets backwards: they teach you how to influence individuals, then assume you can just scale that up to groups.
Doesn't work that way.
Groups have their own psychology. Their own decision-making patterns. Their own resistance mechanisms. What works beautifully in one-on-one conversations often backfires spectacularly when you try it with a group.
I've spent decades watching influence dynamics play out in boardrooms, sales presentations, town halls, and team meetings. The patterns are consistent. Individual influence and group influence operate on completely different psychological principles.
Master individual influence and you can change one mind at a time. Master social influence and you can shift entire organizations, movements, or markets simultaneously.
That's the difference we're exploring here.
Why Groups Think Differently Than Individuals
Put five smart people in a room. Each one individually would make a reasonable decision. Together? They might make a terrible one.
Or the opposite happens. Five people individually stuck in conventional thinking suddenly generate breakthrough insights when they work together.
Same people. Different outcomes. Why?
Because group dynamics activate psychological mechanisms that don't exist when people think alone. Conformity pressure. Social comparison. Diffusion of responsibility. Groupthink. Collective intelligence. Mob mentality.
These aren't flaws in how groups work. They're features. Evolutionary adaptations that helped human groups survive. Our ancestors lived in tribes where conforming to group norms kept you alive and social exclusion meant death. That wiring is still active every time you walk into a meeting.
Understanding these mechanisms is what separates people who occasionally influence groups from those who consistently shape group thinking.
Let's break down how social influence actually operates.
The Conformity Engine: Why People Follow the Group
Solomon Asch ran one of the most revealing experiments in social psychology back in 1951. Simple setup: show people two cards. One has a line on it. The other has three lines of different lengths. Which line matches the first one?
Easy question. Obvious answer. Except Asch planted confederates in the room who all deliberately gave the wrong answer.
What happened? About 75% of participants went along with the obviously wrong answer at least once. They could see the correct answer with their own eyes but they conformed to the group.
That's conformity pressure. It's powerful, unconscious, and constantly operating in every group you're part of.
Public vs private conformity matters. Some people genuinely change their opinion to match the group. Others keep their real opinion private but express agreement publicly to avoid standing out. Both types of conformity influence group decisions, but they're driven by different mechanisms.
Group size affects conformity up to a point. Conformity pressure increases as group size grows from one to four people. After that, adding more people doesn't increase pressure much. Three confederates in Asch's experiment were almost as effective as fifteen.
Unanimity is the key. If everyone agrees, conformity pressure is maximum. But if just one person breaks the unanimous front, conformity pressure drops dramatically. That's why dissenting voices matter so much in groups, even if they're not the majority view.
Here's how this plays out in business contexts.
You're in a leadership meeting. The first three people who speak all support an initiative. By the time it gets to you, there's social pressure to agree even if you have concerns. That pressure isn't malicious. It's just how group psychology works.
If you understand this mechanism, you can work with it or against it depending on your goals.
To increase conformity (when you want group alignment): establish early consensus, make positions public, emphasize group identity, highlight unanimity.
To decrease conformity (when you want independent thinking): encourage diverse early opinions, allow anonymous input, legitimize dissent, break into smaller groups.
The mechanism is the same. You're just leveraging it in different directions.
Social Proof: The Bandwagon Effect in Group Settings
Humans use others' behavior as information about correct action. When we're uncertain, we look around to see what everyone else is doing, then do that.
This makes evolutionary sense. If everyone's running, you should probably run too. Figure out why later. In ancestral environments, following the group kept you alive.
That same mechanism operates in conference rooms, sales meetings, and team discussions.
The psychology of "everyone's doing it" is powerful. When people believe a behavior, belief, or decision is common, they become more likely to adopt it themselves. Not because they've evaluated it independently. Because prevalence signals correctness.
Ambiguity amplifies social proof. The less clear the correct answer is, the more people rely on what others are doing. In situations with clear right answers, social proof has less influence. In ambiguous strategic decisions? Social proof dominates.
Similarity matters tremendously. We're more influenced by people we perceive as similar to us. A group of peers has more influence than a group of experts from different domains. That's why testimonials from "people like you" work better than celebrity endorsements in many contexts.
Watch how this plays out in team meetings.
Someone proposes an idea. The first few reactions are positive. More people pile on with supporting comments. Within minutes, what started as one person's suggestion has become "what the team thinks." Not through debate or analysis. Through social proof creating bandwagon momentum.
If you're trying to build support for an initiative, you want to trigger this bandwagon effect. If you're trying to ensure thorough evaluation, you need to counteract it.
To leverage social proof: demonstrate that others (especially similar others) have already adopted this position. "Five of the seven regional teams have already implemented this approach." Show momentum and growing adoption.
To counteract social proof: slow down the rush to consensus. Ask questions that require individual analysis before group discussion. "Before we discuss, everyone write down your top two concerns." Break the automatic tendency to follow early consensus.
Status Hierarchies: Who Influences Whom in Groups
Not all group members have equal influence. Some people's opinions carry more weight. Others get ignored even when they're right.
This isn't fair. But it is reality. Every group develops informal status hierarchies, and those hierarchies shape influence patterns.
Formal authority matters, but informal status matters more. The person with the fanciest title doesn't always have the most influence. Status comes from perceived competence, past success, personality dominance, social connections, or simply tenure in the group.
Status creates self-fulfilling dynamics. High-status people talk more, get listened to more, and have their ideas adopted more readily. That success reinforces their status. Low-status people talk less, get interrupted more, and have their ideas dismissed more easily. That failure reinforces their low status.
The Matthew Effect in groups is real. High-status members get credit for group successes even when they contributed less. Low-status members get blamed for failures even when they weren't responsible. "To those who have, more will be given."
Here's where this gets strategically interesting: if you understand status dynamics, you can either work within them or deliberately disrupt them depending on your goals.
To work within status hierarchies: align your ideas with high-status members, get their endorsement before broader discussion, frame your suggestions as building on their thinking.
To disrupt status hierarchies: use structured decision processes that give equal voice to all members, make ideas anonymous during initial evaluation, explicitly invite input from lower-status members first.
I watched this play out in a tech company's product planning meeting. The VP of Engineering had high informal status. Whatever direction he suggested early in discussion became the default. Other team members would unconsciously gravitate toward his perspective.
The product manager learned to get the VP's input privately before meetings, then frame discussions to build on rather than contradict his thinking. Massively increased her influence by working with status dynamics rather than fighting them.
Alternatively, some teams deliberately structure meetings to surface ideas before anyone knows who suggested them. Equalizes status effects, which can lead to better decisions when the goal is diverse thinking.
Neither approach is universally right. It depends on whether you want hierarchical efficiency or democratic input.
Groupthink: When Cohesion Becomes Dangerous
Cohesive groups feel good. Everyone gets along. Discussions are harmonious. Decisions are reached quickly through consensus.
That cohesion can also lead to catastrophically bad decisions.
Irving Janis studied this phenomenon in the 1970s after analyzing major policy disasters like the Bay of Pigs invasion. He found that highly cohesive groups under pressure often made terrible decisions because group harmony became more important than rigorous analysis.
Symptoms of groupthink include:
Illusion of invulnerability. The group becomes overconfident and takes excessive risks because they can't imagine failure.
Collective rationalization. The group dismisses warnings or negative feedback that challenges their preferred course of action.
Belief in inherent morality. The group assumes their decisions are ethically correct by default, which shuts down ethical evaluation.
Stereotyping outsiders. The group views opponents or critics as too weak, evil, or stupid to be worth considering seriously.
Pressure on dissenters. Members who raise concerns are pushed to suppress doubts and maintain harmony.
Self-censorship. Members avoid raising concerns even if they have them because they don't want to disrupt group cohesion.
Illusion of unanimity. Silence is interpreted as agreement. Since dissent is suppressed, the group believes everyone agrees.
Mindguards. Some members appoint themselves to protect the group from information that might challenge their consensus.
Sound familiar? You've probably been in groups exhibiting these patterns. Most people have.
Groupthink is most dangerous when: the group is highly cohesive, insulated from outside input, led by a directive leader who signals their preferred outcome, under stress or time pressure, and facing a complex decision without clear procedures.
That's a recipe for smart people making terrible decisions together.
Preventing groupthink requires deliberate counter-measures. Assign someone to play devil's advocate. Bring in outside perspectives. Break the group into subgroups that develop independent analyses. Have leaders withhold their opinions until after discussion. Create explicit norms that dissent is valued.
The key insight: group cohesion is valuable but dangerous. You need enough cohesion for effective collaboration but not so much that it shuts down critical thinking.
The Spiral of Silence: How Minorities Stay Silent
Here's a pattern you've definitely seen: a group discussion where most people privately disagree with the emerging consensus but nobody speaks up. The silence reinforces itself. Each person thinks they're the only dissenter, so they stay quiet, which makes the next person think they're alone too.
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called this the "spiral of silence."
The mechanism is straightforward but powerful. People constantly monitor the opinion climate. When they perceive their view as minority opinion, they become less likely to express it. When others see that opinion isn't being expressed, they perceive it as even more marginal. The spiral continues until the minority view becomes completely silenced.
Fear of isolation drives this. Humans are tribal. We're wired to fear social exclusion. When we think our opinion might isolate us from the group, we suppress it. That fear is often unconscious but it powerfully shapes what we're willing to say.
Perceived momentum matters more than actual distribution. It's not about how many people actually hold each view. It's about which view seems to be gaining momentum. If people think a view is becoming dominant, they're more likely to express it even if it's not actually majority opinion yet.
This creates fascinating dynamics in organizational change.
A new strategy gets announced. Leadership is enthusiastic. Early adopters publicly support it. The skeptics look around, see the apparent consensus, and stay silent. Their silence makes the consensus look stronger. More skeptics stay silent. Six months later the strategy fails and everyone says "We all had concerns but nobody spoke up."
The spiral of silence prevented the organization from having the debate it needed.
Breaking the spiral requires legitimate safety for minority views. Not performative "we value all opinions" but actual demonstrated safety. When someone raises concerns and is thanked rather than dismissed, others become willing to speak. When dissent is punished even subtly, the spiral strengthens.
Leaders who want honest input need to work against the spiral of silence deliberately. Explicitly invite contrarian views. Reward people who raise concerns early. Make it clear that silent agreement is less valuable than voiced disagreement.
Pluralistic Ignorance: When Everyone's Fooled by Appearances
Here's a weird one: situations where everyone privately rejects a norm but believes everyone else accepts it, so the norm persists.
Classic example from college research: most students overestimate how comfortable their peers are with heavy drinking. Each student is privately uncomfortable but believes everyone else is fine with it. So they go along with drinking culture they privately dislike because they think they're the only one uncomfortable.
Same dynamic happens in professional settings constantly.
Everyone in the meeting thinks the strategy is flawed but believes everyone else supports it. So nobody speaks up. The flawed strategy proceeds.
Everyone on the team is working unsustainable hours. Each person thinks everyone else is handling it fine. Nobody admits they're struggling. The unsustainable pace continues.
Everyone finds the meeting structure ineffective but believes everyone else finds it valuable. The ineffective meetings continue.
Pluralistic ignorance persists because of two factors:
First, we rely on behavioral cues to infer others' attitudes. But behavior is often poor signal for attitudes. People conform behaviorally while disagreeing internally.
Second, we have pluralistic ignorance about pluralistic ignorance. We don't realize that others might also be conforming to something they privately reject.
Breaking pluralistic ignorance requires someone to publicly state their private view. Once one person admits the emperor has no clothes, others realize they're not alone. The illusion collapses rapidly.
I saw this happen in a leadership team stuck in pluralistic ignorance about their weekly strategy meeting. Everyone thought it was ineffective but believed others found it valuable. One person finally said "Can I be honest? I don't think these meetings are working." Turned out everyone agreed. They restructured immediately.
That's the power of breaking pluralistic ignorance. The norm shifts as soon as the illusion is punctured.
Social Loafing: Why Individuals Slack in Groups
Put someone on a task alone and measure their effort. Now put them on the same task as part of a group and measure again. Effort decreases.
This isn't laziness. It's a predictable pattern called social loafing. When people work in groups, individual effort often declines.
Multiple mechanisms drive this:
Diffusion of responsibility. When outcomes depend on group effort, individuals feel less personally responsible. "Someone else will pick up the slack."
Reduced identifiability. When individual contributions can't be clearly measured, people put in less effort. Your specific input gets lost in group output.
Equity concerns. People adjust their effort to match what they perceive others contributing. If you think others are slacking, you slack too to maintain fairness.
Social loafing is worse when: tasks are additive rather than multiplicative (effort combines rather than synergizes), group size is large, individual contributions can't be identified, the task is boring or meaningless, group cohesion is low.
This creates real problems for team performance. A seven-person team might produce less than five people working individually because social loafing taxes away the advantage of additional members.
Counteracting social loafing requires specific interventions:
Make individual contributions identifiable. When people know their specific input will be evaluated, social loafing decreases dramatically.
Keep groups small. Three-person groups experience less loafing than seven-person groups. Below five members if possible.
Make tasks meaningful. When people care about outcomes, they loaf less regardless of group size or identifiability.
Create interdependence. When each person's contribution is necessary for group success (multiplicative tasks), loafing decreases. Everyone's unique input matters.
Build group cohesion. When people identify with the group and care about other members, they maintain effort even when individual contributions aren't identifiable.
I've seen companies structure their team projects completely differently once they understand social loafing. Smaller teams. Clear individual accountability even within group projects. Meaningful goals that people care about. The result: same number of people, dramatically better output per person.
Deindividuation: When Groups Amplify Behavior
Sometimes being in a group doesn't make people slack off. It makes them do things they'd never do individually.
Deindividuation is the psychological state where people lose individual self-awareness and accountability in group contexts. They become more impulsive, less inhibited, and more likely to engage in extreme behavior.
Anonymity is the primary trigger. When people feel anonymous in a crowd, normal self-regulation breaks down. They're not thinking about personal consequences or personal identity. They're absorbed in the group experience.
Arousal amplifies the effect. High emotion combined with anonymity creates particularly strong deindividuation. That's why riots happen, why online mobs form, why stadium crowds behave differently than individuals.
Group identity replaces personal identity. People start thinking in terms of "we" rather than "I." Group norms become more influential than personal values. Actions get rationalized as "what we do" rather than "what I personally choose."
This has dark applications in mob behavior, but it also explains positive collective action. Social movements. Team achievements. Moments of collective courage.
The same mechanism that leads to mob violence also leads to ordinary people taking heroic action during disasters when group identity overrides personal fear.
For leaders, deindividuation creates both opportunity and danger. You can activate it to build strong team identity and collective effort. But you need to be careful that the group identity you're building aligns with values and doesn't excuse behavior that individuals would recognize as problematic.
Maintaining accountability in groups requires keeping personal identity active. Use people's names. Make individual contributions visible. Encourage personal reflection alongside group process. Make sure people are thinking "I am doing this" not just "we are doing this."
Minority Influence: How Small Groups Change Larger Ones
Everything we've discussed so far might make it sound like majorities always dominate. They usually do. But not always.
Small minorities can influence larger groups under specific conditions. Understanding those conditions is crucial if you're trying to shift group thinking from a minority position.
Consistency is essential. Minorities that maintain a consistent position over time eventually gain influence. Not by being loud or aggressive. By being unwaveringly consistent. The majority notices that consistency and starts wondering if maybe the minority knows something they don't.
Confidence matters tremendously. Minorities that express their position confidently create more doubt in the majority than minorities that seem uncertain. Confidence signals conviction based on information or insight the majority might lack.
Behavioral style shapes influence. Minorities that are firm but not rigid, confident but not arrogant, consistent but willing to discuss create more influence than those who are dogmatic or dismissive.
Timing affects everything. Minorities often lose votes but win arguments. The influence happens gradually, not immediately. People publicly conform to majority positions but privately reconsider after exposure to consistent minority views.
Validation from even one other person matters enormously. A lone dissenter is dismissed as an outlier. Two dissenters start looking like a legitimate alternative perspective. The social proof dynamic that usually works against minorities starts working for them once they have critical mass.
I've watched this play out repeatedly in strategic planning sessions. One person raises concerns about a popular strategy. They're outnumbered. But they're consistent, confident, and articulate about their reasoning. Over weeks, others start privately questioning the majority view. Eventually the minority position becomes the new consensus, but it happens gradually through accumulated influence rather than sudden conversion.
If you're in the minority: be consistently firm but not defensive, present evidence and logic, maintain confidence, find allies who share your concerns, be patient with the influence process.
If you're in the majority facing persistent minority objection: take the minority seriously, examine whether their consistency signals information you're missing, avoid dismissing them as just being difficult.
Minority influence is slow. But it's how groups often arrive at better decisions when initial consensus was based on incomplete thinking.
Group Polarization: Why Groups Become More Extreme
Here's something counterintuitive: when like-minded people discuss an issue, they don't stay at their initial position. They move toward a more extreme version of that position.
Take a group of people who are moderately supportive of an initiative. Have them discuss it. They'll emerge more enthusiastically supportive than they started.
Take a group that's moderately skeptical. After discussion, they'll be more strongly opposed.
Same mechanism, different directions. This is group polarization.
Two processes drive this:
Social comparison. People want to be perceived favorably within their group. When they realize their position is less extreme than others', they shift to be more aligned with the group norm.
Persuasive arguments. Discussion exposes people to new reasons supporting their initial inclination. They hear more arguments for their side than against it because everyone in the group leans that direction. The accumulated arguments strengthen their position.
Polarization is stronger when: group members are similar to each other, discussion is lengthy, the group has strong identity, members care about the issue.
This creates interesting dynamics in organizations.
Homogeneous teams become more extreme in their thinking over time. That can be good if they're moving in the right direction. It's problematic if they're amplifying biases or blind spots.
Echo chambers aren't just information bubbles. They're polarization engines. Groups consuming the same information become more extreme in their interpretation over time.
Managing polarization requires deliberate intervention:
Include diverse perspectives in groups. Heterogeneous groups polarize less because people encounter genuine counter-arguments.
Assign devil's advocates explicitly. Someone needs to present the opposing view even if they don't personally hold it.
Expose the group to opposing views from credible sources. External perspectives interrupt the polarization spiral.
Break large groups into diverse subgroups that report back. This prevents uniform polarization across the entire group.
I've seen leadership teams become dramatically more risk-tolerant or risk-averse through group polarization. Whatever their initial inclination, discussion among like-minded executives amplified it. Sometimes that's appropriate. Sometimes it leads them away from balanced decision-making.
Being aware of polarization lets you decide when to encourage it (building team commitment) and when to counteract it (ensuring balanced evaluation).
Collective Intelligence: When Groups Are Smarter Than Individuals
So far we've covered many ways groups make worse decisions than individuals. But under the right conditions, groups actually make better decisions than even their smartest members.
This is collective intelligence. The emergent capability of groups to solve problems that individuals couldn't solve alone.
Diversity of perspective is the key ingredient. Groups with diverse knowledge, experience, and thinking styles outperform groups of similar high-expertise individuals. The diversity creates better problem-solving than pure expertise.
Independence of initial thinking matters. When people form opinions independently before group discussion, the group makes better decisions. When people influence each other from the start, collective intelligence decreases.
Aggregation mechanisms affect everything. How the group combines individual inputs determines whether collective intelligence emerges. Simple averaging often works better than group discussion for certain types of problems.
Task characteristics matter tremendously. Collective intelligence works best for problems with verifiable answers, where diverse information needs to be integrated. It works poorly for taste-based decisions or ideological questions.
The classic demonstration is the "wisdom of crowds" research. Ask a large group to estimate something measurable (weight of an object, number of jellybeans in a jar). The average of individual guesses is often more accurate than any single individual, even experts.
But that only works if individual guesses are independent. If people influence each other first, the aggregation advantage disappears.
Building collective intelligence requires specific conditions:
Ensure genuine diversity in the group. Not just demographic diversity. Diversity of expertise, thinking style, and information sources.
Have people form initial opinions independently before group discussion. Otherwise early speakers bias everyone else.
Use structured processes that surface all perspectives. Unstructured discussion often defaults to groupthink.
Create psychological safety so people share honest views rather than conforming.
Choose aggregation methods appropriate to the task. Sometimes you want consensus-building discussion. Sometimes you want independent inputs combined mathematically.
I've seen product teams dramatically improve their forecasting by using prediction markets where individuals make independent estimates that get aggregated. Much more accurate than their traditional group discussion approach where loud voices dominated.
The key insight: groups have the potential for both collective intelligence and collective stupidity. Which one you get depends entirely on how the group process is structured.
Practical Application: Leading Group Influence Strategically
Understanding these mechanisms is valuable. Applying them strategically is where influence mastery lives.
Let's translate theory into practice.
When you want alignment and quick decision-making:
- Leverage conformity pressure by establishing early consensus through high-status early adopters
- Use social proof to show momentum and widespread adoption
- Work within status hierarchies rather than fighting them
- Keep the group cohesive and time-pressured
- Make dissent costly through subtle social cues
When you want rigorous evaluation and independent thinking:
- Counteract conformity by explicitly legitimizing dissent and divergent views
- Break groups into smaller, diverse subgroups
- Have people develop positions independently before group discussion
- Structure decision processes to give equal voice regardless of status
- Extend timelines to reduce pressure for premature consensus
When you're in the minority trying to shift group thinking:
- Be consistently firm in your position without being rigid or defensive
- Present your reasoning with confidence based on evidence
- Find allies who share your concerns, even if they're quiet
- Be patient—minority influence accumulates over time
- Frame your position as aligned with group values while questioning specific strategies
When you're building team identity and commitment:
- Leverage deindividuation carefully to build strong "we" identity
- Allow some group polarization toward commitment and enthusiasm
- Use high cohesion to drive motivation and effort
- Create shared experiences that build collective identity
- Balance group identity with individual accountability
When you want genuine collective intelligence:
- Maximize diversity of perspective in the group
- Structure independent thinking before group discussion
- Use facilitation that surfaces all views
- Choose aggregation methods appropriate to the decision type
- Create psychological safety for honest input
The sophisticated move is recognizing which outcome you need in each situation, then structuring group dynamics to produce that outcome.
The Integration: Becoming a Group Influence Master
Individual influence and social influence require different skills. You need both.
With individuals, you're working with personal psychology. Motivations, beliefs, decision-making patterns, communication preferences. It's intimate, customized, relationship-based.
With groups, you're working with social psychology. Conformity, social proof, status hierarchies, collective dynamics. It's systemic, pattern-based, structure-dependent.
The most effective leaders I've worked with have mastered both domains. They know when to have one-on-one conversations and when to leverage group dynamics. They know when to build consensus and when to ensure independent thinking. They know when to accelerate group decision-making and when to slow it down for more rigorous evaluation.
That flexibility comes from understanding the psychological mechanisms at play in different contexts.
Start by observing groups you're part of. Notice conformity pressure. Watch status hierarchies in action. Identify groupthink when it's happening. Recognize when social loafing is reducing team performance. See group polarization amplifying positions.
Once you can identify these patterns, you can work with them strategically.
Then practice deliberate intervention. When you want different group dynamics, structure the situation to produce them. Test your understanding by predicting how groups will behave under different conditions.
Over time, group influence becomes intuitive. You don't consciously think "I need to counteract conformity pressure here." You just structure the discussion appropriately because you've internalized how group psychology works.
That's mastery. Unconscious competence with group dynamics that lets you shape collective thinking as naturally as you breathe.
For deeper understanding of how these group dynamics connect to broader influence psychology, explore Persuasion Psychology: The Science of Changing Minds and The 6 Principles of Persuasion. Apply these principles with Communication Mastery and Ethical Persuasion: Influence Without Manipulation.
Master individual influence and you change minds one at a time. Master social influence and you shape how entire groups think, decide, and act. Both matter. Learn both.
The Bottom Line
Groups don't think like individuals. They conform, polarize, silence minorities, amplify extremes, loaf, and occasionally achieve collective intelligence that surpasses any individual capability.
Understanding these dynamics isn't about manipulation. It's about working effectively with how human social psychology actually functions.
When you understand group dynamics, you can structure situations to produce the outcomes you need. Rigorous evaluation when that matters. Quick alignment when speed is essential. Genuine collective intelligence when the problem demands it. Strong team identity when cohesion matters.
That's social influence mastery. Not controlling people. Structuring environments that activate the group psychology appropriate to your goals.
Start observing. Start experimenting. Start becoming the person who shapes how groups think rather than just participating in whatever dynamics emerge naturally.
Your influence expands exponentially when you master group psychology.
"Kenrick E. Cleveland embodies the most powerful, effective, and masterful techniques of persuasion and influence that have ever been taught."
"Kenrick tops my shortlist of people I'll reach out to when I need advice on persuading others to take a desired action. His arsenal of skills and strategies has increased my bank account by millions of dollars. If you have the chance to work with Kenrick, jump on it."
"Anyone whose living depends in any way on persuading others – and that includes almost all of us – should learn and master what Kenrick has to teach about the art and science of persuasion."