This is what will happen if you don’t listen to me

The “extreme consequences” technique is a devastatingly effective method of argumentation that is used in all forms of influence and debate, not just large scale social engineering.

Kids use it with their parents, teachers with their students, political pundits with their audiences.

The technique is also referred to as the “slippery slope” technique. It basically plays on an audiences’ worst fears, tapping into the raw emotions that come with uncontrolled destruction and ties that dread into whatever current issue is at hand.

This technique is based on deeply powerful psychological data that is used by influence professionals all over the culture war space.

Stated most simply — fear inspires action.

It is a bizarre fact of life that the average person has trouble seeing consequences. It takes a bit of specialized intelligence to be able to look at a specific viewpoints or set of actions and determine what will happen in the future because of those viewpoints or actions.

Because of this gap in awareness, social engineers are left an opening in which they can infiltrate the minds of their target audience.

Have you ever seen an argument where each side heavily demonizes the other side, with overly exaggerated anecdotes and hypotheticals that aren’t exactly true but paint a vivid and emotionally impactful picture in your mind?

This video by College Humor illustrates this perfectly.

It’s a humorous take on “what would happen” should the “other side” win the political battle in the U.S. Each side envisions a particular dystopian world based on the furthest extrapolations of the opposition party’s policies.

Such a dystopian world is not likely to materialize in the near future, no matter what party is in control. But politicians like to use hyperbolic rhetoric to move audiences on an emotional level, in hopes that it will be impactful enough to spur positive action in their party’s direction.

The desperate screeches of the opposition party

Audiences do generally understand that the extreme negative picture that these politicians are espousing is not something that will happen immediately, but something that could develop down the road. Or perhaps it is being framed as an unintentional and partially hidden consequence of an otherwise carefully thought out policy.

Take for example the hotly debated topic of climate change. Those calling for a restriction on carbon emissions spout out the estimated figure of “what will happen” if the issue is not addressed in time. Billions of dollars lost due to coastal flooding, animal species dying off, natural ecosystems destroyed, farming disrupted. There will be no more glaciers! I remember watching Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” when I was in grade school. Regardless of the accuracy of his data, that was sure a convincing piece. Lots of graphs, lots of numbers, and lots of detailed consequences as to what would happen if things didn’t change.

Glaciers melting from climate change

The other side, those rebelling against government reform designed to combat climate change, do the same thing. They talk about the economic effects of limiting carbon emissions, and how the U.S. isn’t the only one contributing to the problem. If the U.S. places these tough restrictions on its own production companies, and China, for example, does not, then we could lose our lead in the world economy! Or so the pitch goes.

This is a common strategy. Blow the enemy’s line up to such proportions that the consequences seem to be something that the audience would be totally unwilling to live with.

Now this is generally how the argument starts — but you can’t just leave it like that, with this big, detrimental yet distant consequence looming in the distance. You now need to “walk it in”. So you illustrate the eventuality, and then bring it in to the more immediate effects — to make it relatable.

“Climate change deniers are willing to see every penguin species on the planet go extinct just to satisfy their greed!” That’s the opener. Attention grabbing, impactful.

The follow-up: “Enacting such and such bill will increase industrial carbon emissions by 33% over 10 years.” (with a picture of the cutest baby penguin you ever saw in the background)

Cute penguin that has magical powers of persuasion

Then perhaps an example of what exactly is going on right now that is directly contributing to the problem at hand.

“Over the last hour, a million of tons of waste was dumped into the Atlantic.”

“By not recycling, you are contributing to this waste. If every single person drank from a reusable mug instead of using plastic cups, we could cut down the rate of garbage disposal into our oceans by 40%.”

It’s a transition from the macro to the micro. Its long term to short term. Global to personal. That’s how you walk it in.

Present a big emotional impact in the macroscopic view, then zoom in and explain the more immediate causes.

It’s the global effects that worry people. The widespread issues. Natural disasters, terrorism, crime, disease. Accidents. New laws that could disrupt a long standing way of life. War. Poverty.

These are the things that scare people. Working to prevent these things then becomes popular.

All that is necessary to control a population is to show them the things that scare them or excite them and then “walk it in” towards the ideas that you wish to demonize or promote.

This technique is much more commonly used with negative ideas, as fear tends to inspire action more than love, unfortunately.

But it can be done in either direction.