Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How to extract vital Information | Hourglass Method | Chase Hughes

Disclamer: All the concepts discussed here are to be credited to CHase Hughes.

THE HOURGLASS METHOD

  1. start by discussing topics loosely related to the information you need to gather from someone.
  2. narrow down the focus to the desired information you’re seeking.
  3. After eliciting the desired information, you can simply walk the conversation back to general topics about other things.

This method relies on two psychological principles that describe how we remember things:

  1. The Primacy Effect—our tendency to remember the beginning of things such as numbers, conversations, and events with greater clarity than the middle.
  2. The Recency Effect—our tendency to remember the ending (the most recent happenings) of things such as numbers, conversations, and events with greater clarity than the middle.

The hourglass method uses these two principles by ensuring the sensitive information we need is couched within the middle of conversations.

I haven't had the opportunity to use it in real life, What do you guys think of this technique?

He further sugfessts Elicitation techniques to be used within this method.

  1. PROVOCATIVE STATEMENTS

Example :

Client: “I’ve been traveling most of the month.”

You: “You’ve got to be exhausted.”

Client: “You wouldn’t believe it; three of my flights got delayed, and I was stuck in airports for almost a forty-eight-hour period. I had to miss Danielle’s birthday,and we missed a major contract with a pharmaceutical company in Boston because of it.

In this example, the simple statement you made caused an outpouring of information. The client has given you a lot of information. All you did here was make a short, concise statement.

2. INFORMATIONAL ALTRUISM

We have a human tendency to feel compelled to do something for someone if they do something for us. When someone shares something sensitive with us, it’s a little bit awkward if we don’t reciprocate with something similar.

3. FLATTERY

When someone dismisses a compliment or explains away something with self-effacement, they will reveal a deeper level of information with each flattery / compliment statement we make.

Example:

You: “That was a great job. It was easy to tell who led this whole thing.”

Them: “Well, thanks, but it wasn’t all me. We had a good team.”

You: “No doubt, but I’m sure they realized who really brought it all together.”

Them: “They were the ones who did most of the work. We had a lot of setbacks too that most people don’t even see or hear about.

4. NAÏVETÉ

Example

Client: “...Yeah, I’ve been a videographer for most of my life now.

I’ve got several films under my belt.”

You: “How incredible! I have always wanted to know how that all works. It’s so interesting to me. I can barely make a movie on my phone!”

 

selffriend has reacted to this post.
selffriend

Hi AR,

I have a couple of thoughts on these concepts.

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on April 3, 2021, 1:49 pm

THE HOURGLASS METHOD

  1. start by discussing topics loosely related to the information you need to gather from someone.
  2. narrow down the focus to the desired information you’re seeking.
  3. After eliciting the desired information, you can simply walk the conversation back to general topics about other things.

This method relies on two psychological principles that describe how we remember things:

  1. The Primacy Effect—our tendency to remember the beginning of things such as numbers, conversations, and events with greater clarity than the middle.
  2. The Recency Effect—our tendency to remember the ending (the most recent happenings) of things such as numbers, conversations, and events with greater clarity than the middle.

The hourglass method uses these two principles by ensuring the sensitive information we need is couched within the middle of conversations.

I haven't had the opportunity to use it in real life, What do you guys think of this technique?

I've heard of this method being used to make better arguments.

Nick Kolenda refers to it as the "properly sequence your arguments" approach in his "optimize your message" strategy.

This was the idea:

  1. Give your most compelling argument: they will remember it most due to the primacy effect
  2. Give a small amount of negative information: it will make your message seem more complete and persuasive because it won't look like you're purposely leaving out negative information
  3. Give your other most compelling argument: they will remember it most due to the recency effect

Here's the thing though, this "hourglass method" is applying this approach to extracting sensitive information. And, my question is why?

Applying this approach to presenting information can enhance the presentation. But, applying this approach to getting "desired information" feels like a run-around and an unnecessary game. Why not simply ask?

Maybe an example would help me understand this better.

But, I think that a great way to get sensitive information while still being assertive, open, and honest would be to use the "O" in the DESOE framework. Let them know their honesty will bring benefit to your relationship.

Or, in a corporate setting, help them understand that their honesty will bring benefit to the company and/or their own personal goals within the company.

Either way, to play this game while your counterpart doesn't know feels like a competitive frame. I think an approach that would foster a healthier relationship would involve doing more to work with your counterpart to reach the truth together.

*Note: I also think this depends on the type of relationship we're talking about. But, as a general rule, I think it's better to be open and honest first in order to build and maintain a relationship that's built on a foundation of openness and honesty. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on April 3, 2021, 1:49 pm
  1. PROVOCATIVE STATEMENTS

Example :

Client: “I’ve been traveling most of the month.”

You: “You’ve got to be exhausted.”

Client: “You wouldn’t believe it; three of my flights got delayed, and I was stuck in airports for almost a forty-eight-hour period. I had to miss Danielle’s birthday,and we missed a major contract with a pharmaceutical company in Boston because of it.

In this example, the simple statement you made caused an outpouring of information. The client has given you a lot of information. All you did here was make a short, concise statement.

That sounds less like a persuasion technique and more like basic social skills. And, as with any social interaction, the results also depend on the other person.

So, this might work with a client you have a rapport with who's comfortable in conversations with you, but I can't imagine this being a reliable method for "outpouring information" all of the time.

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on April 3, 2021, 1:49 pm

2. INFORMATIONAL ALTRUISM

We have a human tendency to feel compelled to do something for someone if they do something for us. When someone shares something sensitive with us, it’s a little bit awkward if we don’t reciprocate with something similar.

I'd say be careful with this one.

What Hughes seems to call "informational altruism" MacLeod calls reciprocated self-disclosure.

And, going off of this short snippet you shared (I could be wrong), it looks like Hughes is recommending the fake self-disclosure technique.

Hughes might be recommending one executes it a little better than what was done by the neighbor in that example, but it's still a pretty low-quality way to go about getting information, in my opinion.

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on April 3, 2021, 1:49 pm

3. FLATTERY

When someone dismisses a compliment or explains away something with self-effacement, they will reveal a deeper level of information with each flattery / compliment statement we make.

Example:

You: “That was a great job. It was easy to tell who led this whole thing.”

Them: “Well, thanks, but it wasn’t all me. We had a good team.”

You: “No doubt, but I’m sure they realized who really brought it all together.”

Them: “They were the ones who did most of the work. We had a lot of setbacks too that most people don’t even see or hear about.

Flattery is listed as a form of manipulation in Power University. But, whether or not it's actually manipulative varies from context to context.

In this case, it could be ethical persuasion because it could be flattery in the pursuit of a true, win-win situation. But, I think the flattery in this example is executed poorly.

Imagine, for example, that you're a brand new rookie talking to a senior executive who just wrapped up their presentation for a team project:

You: “That was a great job. It was easy to tell who led this whole thing.”

Them: (thinking) What? Who is this guy to assess my work?

Them: “Cheers man, but it wasn’t all me. We have a great team here.”

You: “No doubt, but I’m sure they realized who really brought it all together.”

Them: (thinking) What is this guy talking about? Why is he saying that? What, does he want something?

The first compliment came from a judge role and, unless you're their superior, it can be out of place.

The second compliment felt a little too gamey, in my opinion. The "but" negates the agreement and focuses everything on him again by saying "you stood out to me, and I'm sure your team would agree that you did most of the work".

And, the immediate question he might be thinking is, "Why are you saying that?" And, given that it's a statement clearly aimed at stroking his ego, he might think, "OK, does this guy want something?"

Plus, there's a chance that the second compliment there could come across as a type of "you're different" judge role.

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on April 3, 2021, 1:49 pm

4. NAÏVETÉ

Example

Client: “...Yeah, I’ve been a videographer for most of my life now.

I’ve got several films under my belt.”

You: “How incredible! I have always wanted to know how that all works. It’s so interesting to me. I can barely make a movie on my phone!”

In my case, I'd be curious to know what they've already done to learn about videography on their own since, in this example, we both seem very interested in it. Their enthusiasm and high interest would make me feel like they've surely already done some research on it.

But, this strategy seems to rely on denying you know anything and letting them tell you everything they know.

So, if I would've asked this person what they've already tried in order to learn videography, they'd probably have to say that they've learned basically nothing in order to maintain their naivete (as the approach recommends).

And, that sends off some yellow/orange flags in my head:

  • You find videography incredible
  • You've always wanted to know about it
  • And, you're so interested, in fact, that you've even always wanted to know how all of it works
  • And yet, for some reason, you know virtually nothing about it

Now I'm thinking, well, how long have you been interested, since yesterday? The story doesn't add up.

Incongruencies in their story aside, the main issue here would be the law of social exchange. Extracting information by playing dumb and giving back nothing doesn't work with high-quality people.

Here's an example of someone else using a similar "naivete approach" and how I responded.


AR, I'll be straightforward, I think you should prioritize high-quality social strategies over dark psychology for right now.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree, but I've read some of your prior posts and I admire your drive. It seems like you've done more research into psychology than most others might and I think if you apply that same drive to growing your power-awareness and quality, you could get more out of life than you might with these "dark psychology techniques".

If you want to share your thoughts, feel free.

Lucio Buffalmano and Astronomically Revolutionised have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoAstronomically Revolutionised

@aliscarlett

Hey Bro!! Thanks for the valuable words.

I think you should prioritize high-quality social strategies over dark psychology

that is absolutely correct. I agree with you 100%.

Before I immersed myself into the Power University content, I was all and only about Dark Psychology and Cognitive Tricks. I had no understanding of any other way of interacting. I thought I could get my way only by mentally tricking people into doing stuff using certain behaviors. But it's not the same anymore

My eyes are now wide open, and I think beyond these tricks, etc.

Now that I reflect back on those days, it kinda feels embarrassing and uncomfortable.

I assure you that , I do not focus on tricks and stuff at all anymore.

On a scale of -100 to 100 where -100 are The Tricks and 100 is complete power awareness, I would say I am at a positive 5.

I have a lot of learning to do to get where I want, but I think now I am in the right direction.

I thank you once again.

By the way, are you planning any new launches soon? Your writing, Insights, and perspectives are amazing!!

 

 

Lucio Buffalmano and Ali Scarlett have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoAli Scarlett
Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on October 2, 2021, 10:01 pm

My eyes are now wide open, and I think beyond these tricks, etc.

(...)

I have a lot of learning to do to get where I want, but I think now I am in the right direction.

I thank you once again.

Great to hear that, AR, and thanks for taking my feedback well :).

Quote from Astronomically Revolutionised on October 2, 2021, 10:01 pm

By the way, are you planning any new launches soon? Your writing, Insights, and perspectives are amazing!!

Yeah, actually, I'm working on a project I'd be happy to share with this community for free.

But, for right now, I'm keeping quiet about it until progress on that project is closer to where we want it to be.

So, stay tuned :).

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Processing...