Persuasion Design
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: Identify the Audience and Their Current Position
Before designing persuasion, understand who you’re persuading and where they stand.
- Who is the audience? (specific person, group, archetype)
- What do they currently believe about this topic?
- How strongly do they hold that belief? (casual opinion / considered position / core identity)
- What do they care about? (values, priorities, fears, desires)
- What is their relationship to you? (trust level, authority dynamic)
- What has been tried before? (previous arguments that failed or succeeded)
AUDIENCE: [who]
CURRENT POSITION: [what they believe now]
BELIEF STRENGTH: [casual / considered / identity-level]
KEY VALUES: [what they care about most]
TRUST LEVEL: [high / moderate / low / adversarial]IMPORTANT: If belief strength is “identity-level,” direct argumentation will likely backfire. Shift strategy to indirect approaches (shared goals, narrative, identity-compatible reframing).
Step 2: Define the Desired Shift
Specify exactly what change you want.
- What should they believe, feel, or do after your communication?
- How far is this from their current position?
- Is a full shift realistic, or should you aim for a partial shift?
DESIRED OUTCOME: [specific belief/action change]
SHIFT DISTANCE: [small / moderate / large]
REALISTIC TARGET: [what you can actually achieve in one communication]Rule of thumb: Large shifts rarely happen in one interaction. If the distance is large, design for incremental movement — move them one step, not the whole way.
Step 3: Choose Persuasion Approach
Select primary and secondary approaches based on audience analysis:
| Approach | Best When | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Logical argument | Audience values rationality, low emotion | Evidence, reasoning, proof |
| Emotional appeal | Decision is personal, stakes feel abstract | Story, vivid imagery, felt consequences |
| Credibility/authority | Audience trusts expertise, you have credentials | Expert testimony, track record, social proof |
| Social proof | Audience is uncertain, peers matter | Others have done this, consensus, trends |
| Reciprocity | You can offer something first | Give before asking |
| Narrative | Audience resists direct argument | Story that leads to the conclusion naturally |
PRIMARY APPROACH: [approach] — because [reasoning]
SECONDARY APPROACH: [approach] — because [reasoning]Step 4: Structure the Argument
Build the communication using the chosen approach:
- Opening: Meet them where they are. Acknowledge their current position with genuine respect. Never strawman.
- Bridge: Connect their values/concerns to your position. The bridge answers: “Given what YOU care about, here’s why this matters.”
- Core argument: Present your strongest 2-3 points. More points dilute impact.
- Evidence: Support each point with the type of evidence the audience finds credible (data for analysts, stories for empathizers, examples for pragmatists).
- Call to action: Specific, achievable next step. Not “change your mind” but “try X” or “consider Y.”
STRUCTURE:
1. OPEN: [how you meet them where they are]
2. BRIDGE: [how you connect their values to your position]
3. POINT 1: [argument] + [evidence]
4. POINT 2: [argument] + [evidence]
5. POINT 3: [argument] + [evidence] (if needed)
6. ACTION: [specific ask]Step 5: Anticipate and Address Objections
For each likely objection:
- State the objection in the STRONGEST form the audience would use (steelman it)
- Acknowledge its validity where honest
- Provide your response
- Decide: address proactively in the argument, or hold in reserve?
OBJECTIONS:
1. "[objection]" — Response: [response] — Handle: [proactive / reserve]
2. "[objection]" — Response: [response] — Handle: [proactive / reserve]
...Proactively address objections that most of the audience will think of. Hold in reserve those that only some will raise.
Step 6: Ethical Soundness Check
Before delivering, verify ethical integrity:
| Check | Pass? |
|---|---|
| Is the core claim true to the best of your knowledge? | [yes/no] |
| Are you presenting evidence honestly (no cherry-picking)? | [yes/no] |
| Would you be comfortable if the audience saw your full reasoning? | [yes/no] |
| Are you respecting the audience’s autonomy to disagree? | [yes/no] |
| Is the desired outcome genuinely good for the audience (not just you)? | [yes/no] |
| Are you using emotional appeal to illuminate truth, not to obscure it? | [yes/no] |
If ANY check fails: revise the argument. Persuasion that relies on deception or manipulation is not persuasion — it is coercion. The goal is to help someone see something true, not to trick them into compliance.
ETHICS: [PASS / FAIL — if fail, what needs revision]Persuasion Failure Check
| Failure | Test | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Cached takes | Is any argument the default position on this topic — something said in 10,000 other pitches? | Find the argument that’s true of THIS specific situation, not the category. |
| Relativistic hedging | Does the argument say “some argue X, others Y, truth is somewhere in between”? | That’s not persuasion. Take a position. If you’re hedging, you haven’t found your actual argument yet. |
| Pre-baked thesis | Would someone who had never read commentary on this topic reach the same conclusion from the evidence alone? If not, you’re recycling consensus, not persuading. | Rebuild the argument from THIS evidence, not from the standard position. |
| Aspiration as conclusion | Does the closing say “the future holds great promise” or equivalent? | Delete the last paragraph. If the piece is better without it, the conclusion was filler. End on your strongest concrete point. |
Integration
Use with:
/sp-> Sharpen the persuasive prompt before designing the argument/pw-> Draft the actual communication after designing the argument/pinf-> Analyze influence dynamics before attempting persuasion/aex-> Check your own assumptions about the audience