| name | persua - Persuasion Analysis |
| description | Analyze what would actually persuade a specific person or audience — not generic rhetoric but understanding their existing beliefs, values, resistance points, and the specific evidence or framing that would move them. Ethical persuasion through understanding, not manipulation. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
PERSUA - Persuasion Analysis
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Interpretations
Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:
Interpretation 1 — Specific person persuasion: The user needs to persuade a specific person (boss, partner, colleague, client) and wants to understand what would actually move them — not generic persuasion tactics but what would work with THIS person.
Interpretation 2 — Audience persuasion: The user needs to persuade a group or audience (team, board, customers, public) and wants to understand the belief landscape — what they already believe, what they resist, and what framing would land.
Interpretation 3 — Resistance analysis: The user has already tried to persuade someone and failed. They want to understand WHY the person didn't move — what resistance they hit and how to address it.
If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with persuading a specific person, reaching an audience, or understanding why a previous attempt didn't land — which fits?"
If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.
Corruption Pre-Inoculation
Persuasion analysis can become manipulation planning. The line is: persuasion through understanding respects the other person's autonomy and addresses their real concerns. Manipulation bypasses their reasoning to exploit emotions or biases. If the strategy would make the target feel deceived if they saw it, it's manipulation. Flag it.
Full protocol: _shared/corruption-pre-inoculation.md
Core Principles
-
Persuasion is about the audience, not the argument. The best argument in the world fails if it doesn't connect to what the audience already believes, values, and fears. Start with their mind, not your message.
-
People don't resist change — they resist loss. Every change involves giving something up: a belief, a habit, a status, a comfort. Identify what the audience perceives they would LOSE by being persuaded, and address that loss directly.
-
Beliefs exist in networks. No belief stands alone. Changing one belief means changing its connections to other beliefs. If your target belief is deeply connected to identity, group membership, or worldview, changing it threatens the entire network. You must work with the network, not against it.
-
The messenger matters as much as the message. The same argument from different sources produces different results. Credibility, relationship, shared identity, and perceived motives all filter the message before it reaches reasoning.
-
Resistance is information, not an obstacle. When someone pushes back, they are telling you what they care about, what they fear, and what you haven't addressed. Resistance is the map to persuasion — don't fight it, read it.
-
Ethical persuasion survives transparency. If the person you're persuading would feel manipulated upon seeing your strategy, you're manipulating, not persuading. Legitimate persuasion says: "here's why this is actually good for you, given what you care about" — and means it.
Phase 1: AUDIENCE MODEL
Step 1: Define the Persuasion Target
TARGET: [who you need to persuade — specific person or audience description]
GOAL: [what you want them to think, feel, or do after being persuaded]
CONTEXT: [when and how this persuasion will happen — meeting, email, presentation, conversation]
RELATIONSHIP: [your relationship to them — authority, peer, subordinate, stranger, trusted, distrusted]
Step 2: Map Their Current Belief State
BELIEF MAP
==========
CURRENT POSITION: [what they currently believe about this topic]
SUPPORTING BELIEFS (what holds their current position in place):
- [B1] [belief — the reasons they hold their current view]
- [B2] [belief]
- [B3] [belief]
VALUES AT STAKE (what they care about that connects to this topic):
- [V1] [value — and how it connects to their current position]
- [V2] [value]
IDENTITY CONNECTION: [does their position connect to who they are?]
- Identity claim: [e.g., "I'm the kind of person who..."]
- Group membership: [e.g., "People like me believe..."]
- If YES → this is high-difficulty persuasion. Frontal assault will fail.
INFORMATION STATE:
- What they know: [facts they have]
- What they don't know: [facts that would change their view if they had them]
- What they believe that's wrong: [mistaken beliefs — and why they hold them]
EMOTIONAL STATE:
- How they feel about this topic: [engaged, defensive, indifferent, anxious]
- What threatens them about your position: [what they stand to lose]
Step 3: Map Resistance Points
RESISTANCE ANALYSIS
===================
[R1] [resistance point]
Type: [EVIDENTIAL — they dispute the facts / MOTIVATIONAL — they don't want it to be true / IDENTITY — it threatens who they are / SOCIAL — their group disagrees / PRACTICAL — they see costs you don't]
Strength: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
Addressable: [YES — how / PARTIALLY — what remains / NO — must work around]
[R2] [resistance point]
...
[R3] [resistance point]
...
PRIMARY RESISTANCE: [R-number] — this is the one that matters most. If you don't address this, nothing else works.
Phase 2: STRATEGY CONSTRUCTION
Step 4: Find the Persuasion Path
The persuasion path connects what they ALREADY believe to what you want them to believe. It never asks them to abandon their values — it shows how your position serves their values better.
PERSUASION PATH
===============
STARTING POINT: [belief they already hold that you can build on]
↓ connects to
BRIDGE BELIEF: [intermediate belief that follows from the starting point]
↓ connects to
TARGET BELIEF: [what you want them to believe]
WHY THIS PATH WORKS: [it doesn't ask them to change values — it reframes which position serves their values]
ALTERNATIVE PATH (if primary fails):
STARTING POINT: [different existing belief]
↓ connects to
[...]
Step 5: Design the Message
For each resistance point, design a specific response:
MESSAGE ARCHITECTURE
====================
OPENING: [what to lead with — must establish common ground, not your conclusion]
Why this works: [connects to B-number or V-number from their belief map]
RESISTANCE RESPONSE for [R1]:
Acknowledge: [show you understand their concern — must be genuine]
Address: [specific evidence or reframe that handles this resistance]
Bridge: [connect back to shared value or goal]
RESISTANCE RESPONSE for [R2]:
...
CORE ARGUMENT: [the central case — framed in terms of THEIR values, not yours]
Evidence they'll find credible: [specific — from sources they trust, in forms they accept]
Evidence they'll dismiss: [specific — and why, so you don't waste credibility on it]
WHAT NOT TO SAY: [arguments that are technically valid but will trigger identity defense or feel condescending]
ASK: [specific, concrete request — not "change your mind" but a specific action or agreement]
Step 6: Set Voice and Register
The strategy is useless if the execution sounds wrong. Define HOW to write, not just what to write.
VOICE REQUIREMENTS
==================
REGISTER: [formal / conversational / technical-peer / casual — derived from CONTEXT and TARGET]
SENTENCE LENGTH: [short and declarative / mixed / long-form — derived from medium]
VOCABULARY SOURCE: [use the TARGET's words, not the builder's words]
Builder says → Target says:
- [internal term] → [what the audience actually calls this]
- [internal term] → [what the audience actually calls this]
- [internal term] → [what the audience actually calls this]
ANTI-ANNOUNCEMENT RULE: Never write a sentence that tells the reader the next
sentence is important. No "the core insight is," "what's key here is," "the
important thing to understand is," "what makes this different is." State the
thing. If it's good, the reader knows it's important. If you have to announce
it, it isn't.
ANTI-EXPLAINER RULE: Write as if the reader is already smart and busy. Do not
teach, lecture, or walk them through your reasoning. No "to understand why,"
no "let me explain," no "here's the thing." They get it. Just say it.
AUTHENTICITY CHECK: Read every sentence and ask — would a real person say this
to another real person? Or does it sound like a blog post / pitch deck / press
release? If the latter, rewrite until it sounds human.
Step 7: Check the Ethics
ETHICS CHECK
============
Transparency test: If the target saw this entire analysis, would they feel:
- [ ] Understood and respected → ETHICAL
- [ ] Manipulated or deceived → NOT ETHICAL — revise
Autonomy test: Does the strategy:
- [ ] Present genuine evidence for a genuine benefit → YES
- [ ] Exploit emotions, biases, or social pressure to bypass reasoning → REVISE
Reciprocity test: Would you be comfortable if someone used this strategy on YOU?
- [ ] Yes → proceed
- [ ] No → identify why and revise
FLAGS: [any elements of the strategy that cross toward manipulation — name them explicitly]
Phase 3: SYNTHESIS
Step 8: Compile the Persuasion Plan
PERSUASION ANALYSIS: [goal]
============================
TARGET: [who]
CURRENT STATE: [what they believe now and why]
DESIRED STATE: [what you want them to believe/do]
DIFFICULTY: [LOW — evidence gap / MEDIUM — motivational resistance / HIGH — identity-connected / VERY HIGH — group identity + strong emotions]
PRIMARY RESISTANCE: [R-number — the real barrier]
PERSUASION PATH: [starting belief] → [bridge] → [target belief]
KEY MOVES:
1. [First — establish common ground via V-number]
2. [Second — address R1 with specific evidence/reframe]
3. [Third — present core argument in their value framework]
4. [Fourth — make concrete ask]
WHAT WILL NOT WORK (and why):
- [approach to avoid — with specific reason tied to resistance map]
TIMELINE EXPECTATION: [immediate / requires multiple conversations / requires demonstrated proof over time]
CONTINGENCY: If primary path fails at [specific point], shift to [alternative path]
ETHICAL STATUS: [CLEAN / FLAGS NOTED — list them]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
WEAKEST ASSUMPTION: [what part of this analysis is most likely wrong]
Failure Modes
| Failure | Signal | Fix |
|---|
| Argument-centered thinking | Strategy focuses on logical strength of argument, ignoring audience | Rebuild from audience beliefs outward. The best argument for the wrong audience is worthless. |
| Manipulation drift | Strategy relies on emotional triggers, social pressure, or deception | Apply ethics check. If target would feel deceived seeing the strategy, revise. |
| Identity blindness | Frontal assault on identity-connected belief | Never attack identity directly. Find a path that lets them keep their identity while changing the position. |
| Generic tactics | "Use social proof" or "create urgency" without specificity | What SPECIFIC proof from WHICH source? Generic tactics are not analysis. |
| Messenger mismatch | Right message, wrong messenger | Check: does the user have the credibility and relationship to deliver this? If not, who does? |
| Assuming rationality | Strategy assumes evidence alone will persuade | Evidence works only when resistance is evidential. Check resistance type first. |
Depth Scaling
| Depth | Beliefs Mapped | Resistance Points | Persuasion Paths | Message Elements |
|---|
| 1x | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 2x | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 4x | 8 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| 8x | 12 | 7 | 4 | 12 |
Default: 2x. These are floors.
Pre-Completion Checklist
Integration
- Use from:
/empth (understand the target first), /conflict (when persuasion is part of conflict resolution)
- Routes to:
/empth (if target's perspective is poorly understood), /conflict (if persuasion reveals deeper disagreement), /trust (if credibility is the barrier)
- Differs from:
/stl (writing style vs. persuasion strategy), /pw (producing content vs. designing influence)
- Complementary:
/empth (build the audience model), /conflict (understand if persuasion is the right frame or if negotiation is), /aw (stress-test the persuasion strategy)
