We’re busy writing our new book. So far we’ve handed in our first draft and are now working on the second draft. One bit of feedback the publisher gave us: “It will be important to anticipate readers’ objections and head them off.”
So we’ve been building in an “I object” voice to a lot of the text by directly addressing counterarguments that we hear frequently. Of course, we then go and refute those views. But anticipating potential objections is a nice way to show readers you get it.
That way you’re not just bulldozing them, you’re empathizing with them, at least in some small measure. You show that you know what their concerns are and where their fears lie. And you address them head on. Some examples below.
We tell people to just begin. The voice of the opposition:
“It’s just not the right time for me to do that now.” You hear that all the time. But the perfect time never arrives. It always seems like a bad time to start a side business, buy a house, raise a family, or go on a long vacation. You’re too young or old or busy or broke or something else. But if you constantly fret about timing things perfectly, they’ll never happen.
Later on, during a similar point:
“What if the problem is so big that I’m afraid to make a decision?” Then break it into smaller pieces that have less impact.
We advise against business plans. The voice of the opposition:
“Won’t I need a plan to get investors?” First of all, do you even need investors? Remember, this is your company, product, or service. You decide what to build. You decide whether or not you need investors.
We preach the advantages of staying small. The voice of the opposition:
“But I work inside a big company. Does that mean I’ll always miss out on the advantages of staying small?” Not necessarily. Even if you’re not running your own business, you can still seek out a small solution.
Maybe you can start your own department or team and run it as a separate unit. For example, inside big publishing and music conglomerates, there are often editors and artists who have their own imprints.
We explain why you should strive to make money right away. The voice of the opposition:
“But wouldn’t it be nice to not have to worry about making money right away?” Only if you like living in a fantasy world.
Revenues and profits are the basic building blocks of your business. Worrying about them immediately is the best thing you can do for your business. When babies are born the most important thing for them to do is take their first breath. When your business is born the most important thing to do is take your first dollar.
When you really believe in your point of view, there’s no reason to be intimidated by opposing views. Let those views in and you come off as someone who has true faith and confidence in your own beliefs. Give it a try next time you’re writing something controversial.
Bob Martens
on 06 Mar 09In college, my Speech professor (and in High School to, but I was too busy reading other things to pay attention then) called this an “internal dialog,” especially when we were speaking about persuasive speaking (which is essentially what you are doing with your book).
Truthfully, it is what sets apart the close-winded, long-winded, blow-hards from someone actually trying to persuade you to believe in something or to buy something. Even when something seems trivial to those using it or believing in it, you still need to address things in order to say “yes, we understand what you are trying to say … but this is why we think what we think will work for you.”
Thanks for the post.
Daniel
on 06 Mar 09Looking forward to reading it!
And yes, trying to anticipate the reader’s objections is definitely a good thing to do when writing. However, be careful you don’t construct to many straw-men in doing so. That can make a text seem more arrogant than stright-up controversial, or more pedantic than challenging.
For creative processes, you have argued (successfully, in my opinion) against using things which aren’t real, so be mindful of the fact, that constructing the dissenting opinion yourself can come dangerously close to, well, premature optimization of a sort.
But, but, I can tell from the excerpts above, that you probably don’t have anything to worry about on that score. Still, I thought I’d mention it.
There’s of course another way of writing, where you literally write the dialogue, using that to build and defend your own arguments on the page. It worked for Plato and Socrates, but the temptation of building and fighting straw-men is even greater, as do the dangers. When executed well, however, it’s a pleasure to read, and often very enlightening.
Devan
on 06 Mar 09Great post. I teach my composition students about this strategy semester after semester. You’ve really captured the point of doing this kind of thing.
You’ve also found a particularly direct way of answering objections, one that doesn’t work for all genres of writing. Others (some better than others, again depending on genre):
“You might think that”/”One might argue that [statement of objection].” “Still/On the other hand/At the same time, [statement of objection]” “OBJECTION: [statement of objection]” “What about/Why/other question word or phrase?”
(There are many, many more, of course.)
Devan
on 06 Mar 09Sorry; formatting came out funny.
Sean
on 06 Mar 09I prefer the brash, direct message of Getting Real better. I find it a much better read to be nearly insulted into motivation. I realize the new book needs to appeal to a wider audience, but I’d rather it maintain the same tone and attitude as the old book. I suspect it’ll be a best seller either way. Looking forward to it guys.
JF
on 06 Mar 09constructing the dissenting opinion yourself can come dangerously close to, well, premature optimization of a sort.
I totally agree with this. We’re being very careful. I will be keeping my eye on this. If we’re making up fake enemies to make our point then we need to make our point differently.
alsomike
on 06 Mar 09Empathizing is a good idea, too bad your examples don’t do that. People are afraid of going it alone, but your responses to those fears are basically a nicer version of “Your fear is irrational. Get over it.” Real empathy is not “I know what your problem is”, it is “I know what it feels like to be you”.
nickd
on 06 Mar 09JF: Maybe buttressing that with anecdotal evidence would help, saying something like “X person asked this one time. It’s a valid point, but we disagree because…”
Wolf
on 06 Mar 09It is, of course, always interesting to start a section with a question, which brings a little bit of dialog and rhythm in the writing.
The danger of playing devil’s advocate, from what I can gather from the excerpts here, is that arguments are presented rather weakly (in the form of a short question); then to be countered by a bold [much longer] paragraph with your opinion(s).
The assumption that a reader will disagree with what you are saying is a dangerous one in my opinion. You’re defending your decisions instead of merely explaining them. This style might be the result of a lot of objections about [you] run a company in the past. I don’t think you’re writing a book for people who think you’re doing it wrong, rather for people who are interested in 37signals’ approach to work and business.
JF
on 06 Mar 09Wolf, I’m with you (mostly). We’re still having an internal dialog about how best to address devil’s advocate. Softly? Not at all? Sometimes?
My personal feeling is that we shouldn’t make excuses or soften the message by responding to assumed questions. We should confidently share what we know and lay it all out there.
Anyway, healthy debate going on inside 37s about this. Thanks for your thoughts.
Kent Beck
on 06 Mar 09I do this habitually. Then my editor takes out the “but what about…?” sentences. Then we fix up the paragraph so it stands on its own and hooks to the preceding and following paragraphs.
I find the result works better than leaving the original objections in. If the reader really is thinking, “Hey, but what about…” they don’t need to be told to think that. If they aren’t thinking, “Hey, but what about…” they resent being told to think that.
I’ve tried to pay attention to my mental state when I write these kind of sentences. I’m usually imagining myself in a public lecture. Someone has heard what I’ve said so far. Then they stand up and say, “Hey, but what about…” I’m generally then feeling defensive, which isn’t an effective mindset for writing. When I can catch myself, I remind myself that it’s my job to present my point of view, not to change someone else’s mind. That’s their job (or not).
Blake
on 07 Mar 09I remember Tim Keller, a Christian apologist, saying in an interview that when he goes into a debate he tries to explain the opposing side’s views better than they can. People who understand both sides of an issue and can empathize with where others are at are much more convincing than those who blindly defend a position because it’s all they know.
JP
on 09 Mar 09I loved “Getting Real”, so I can’t wait to read this one!
This discussion is closed.