How to Be a Knowbody

You see, in a way we are all role players on a stage. The script we follow is either written by ourselves or by someone else, sometimes a combination of both. Nearly every person in our own environment attempts to influence our script. Parents do, teachers do, Church leaders do, friends do, and even society itself does.

This dominance takes the form of specific acts, personal characteristics, or life-styles. It deals with what the person should do, what kind of person he should be, what he should think and believe, what habits, attitudes, perceptions, and even expectations he should have.

Politicians want you to vote a certain way; the athlete-turned-T.V. salesman wants you to eat a specific cereal; your parents want you to behave their way; philosophy instructors attempt to influence your beliefs one way and Church leaders another; your peers expect you to dress as they do—the list is endless. You must constantly make thoughtful decisions.

When the pressure of this psychological cement is applied to conform your thinking and behavior to that of others, you may find it helpful to consult the flow chart in figure 1. It is a simple but convenient way to illustrate the process by which the expectations of others are communicated to you.

The first clue to our accepting or rejecting an influence is found in “C.” This is a vital step in decision-making many of us neglect. And that is simply to ask, “What is it that (she, he, they) really want me to do, say, or think? Who is it who wants me to do it?”

Consider Bill, a nineteen-year-old student who had a difficult time deciding whether to go on a mission or continue his studies. Bill’s parents were pressuring him to go, he said, but his best friend, a nonmember, was testily pulling for him to stay and continue to room with him at school. “Look,” said Bill’s Sunday School teacher, “do you know exactly what your role as a missionary would be and what the result of either your going or not going might be?”

After closer examination it became clear that Bill’s perception of missionary life was largely inaccurate. He thought that the drudgery of tracting and the door-slamming he might encounter would far outweigh the genuine experiences he would have, the joy he would see, and the friends he would make. And Bill’s decision to go or not to go would have eternal consequences. (See “D.”) Rewards or punishment result from any decision, regardless of how small it may seem. That is, the hypothesis that we “become what we do” is true. But in a sense, we also unbecome what we don’t do.

Bill had never thought of his mission call this way. Furthermore, he was asked if the motivation of his parents was selfish. He answered, “No, probably not.” Then Bill saw that the motivation of his roommate was selfish. The roommate simply didn’t understand what this could mean for Bill, let alone what Bill could do for others.

Asking Bill these specific questions—what is the role you are assuming, who wants you to do it, and, furthermore, what are the consequences if you comply or don’t comply—made the cobwebs disappear. He was then in a position to decide what he wanted to do.

Thus, Bill became a self-motivator, because he understood his own attitudes about what he should or should not do. He also knew which choice would help him to fulfill his responsibilities and accomplish his objectives.

Bill acquired a new set of values and expectations about his own behavior and abilities, about the nature of the Church, and about the prerequisites for an enlarging role in it. He began to develop a self identity that included the acceptance of legitimate authority and compliance with it. For others this could easily appear to be unreasonable, even silly or naive. Bill’s roommate did not understand.

Use your own experience and insight to help you make decisions. Once you begin to conform to social pressures, you begin to surrender the ability to function as a feeling and thinking being.

Most people agree that independence is preferable to conformity. Indeed, social scientists have found that peer conformity and achievement motivation are inversely related. For example, the successful student with above average intellectual ability and a high degree of desire for achievement tends to associate with persons outside the peer culture—teachers, parents, Church leaders, and older acquaintances—all relationships in which he can have a high degree of trust. Then, when influence comes from these sources, there is a great satisfaction in combining or meshing our own efforts with those of people we trust and in meeting their expectations. You have probably realized yourself that praise and blame have entirely different meanings when they come from trusted sources and when they come from untrusted sources. The sources you genuinely trust would not likely attempt to influence you to perform roles that are incompatible with your personality, roles that cunningly violate your needs, values, or capacities.

Furthermore, if you comply under pressure, even partially, you can expect more pressure the next time. Example: You are on a date with an impressive young man. On the way home the fellow parks and you don’t say anything, even though you know you should. Because of your silence his expectations will be reinforced on subsequent dates and so will the pressure.

If, on the other hand, there is a rigid, definite, and firm no (with a smile), he will not expect to park on the next date. It’s that simple. And believe it or not, you will most likely have won his respect. Just ask a source you trust.

Have you seen in books or magazines a hidden picture within a picture? Once you’ve seen it, it stands out like a sore thumb, as if it had been there all along (which of course it had). We just can’t put our fingers on it to begin with.

So it is with truth. Sometimes it is so well disguised we need to peel off the superficial layers before we get to the core of the issue. Our tool for that is asking questions, questions, and more questions—not only to get to the point, but also to be on the affirmative or even aggressive side, if you will. You slip out of your defensive or submissive role by asking challenging questions.

In a university psychology class I once attended the professor made the statement: “It’s unscientific to believe in God.” Questions about religion sprang up. As a result, the class decided that organized religion was bunk.

I began to boil inside, but since my army experience still lingered vividly in my mind, I didn’t challenge the turn of the discussion. But a student in the back of the classroom began to ask some piercing and penetrating questions: “Exactly why do you feel that organized religion is not desirable?” The professor listed all the standard reasons: religious wars, inquisitions, wealth of church, poverty of members in many countries. “I understand how you feel, Professor X, but considering the fact that there are over twelve hundred different Christian forms of organized religion, won’t you concede the possibility that there are at least a few with meaningful programs?” The professor had to admit that was a possibility. He did not have even a casual knowledge of so many different religions.

Then the shock question came: “What is your religious background, Professor X, and what religious education have you had?” The answer became obvious. The professor hadn’t had much. “Then you are not an expert in the field of religion like you are in psychology?” Several of the students gasped loudly, including me. The professor unwillingly confessed that he was not an expert but that his position was one of personal feeling. The discussion rapidly drifted back into psychology.

The point had been made; the professor knew it, and we students knew it. Furthermore, the professor knew that we knew. I felt like shouting, “Whoopee!”

It doesn’t follow that you should disagree vocally with all of your teachers or professors who may not agree with you. But don’t be afraid to dissent if you are informed and honest.

The point is, we cannot become immune to all the complex tricks of persuasion or even know them all, but we can attempt to learn the most common. The professor’s stand was based on a combination of the five most common errors in clear thinking.

1. False Assumptions

The professor, like countless others you come in contact with, had illogically made the deduction that religion is not compatible with its historical deeds, with wars, unrighteous leaders, or unscrupulous businessmen who go to church on Sunday.

All the religions he knows about are organized, and they have these ingredients. Therefore, all organized religion is bad.

You have probably used the same kind of reasoning yourself. All of us do at times.

The position was, of course, derived from the professor’s experience. This experience laid the foundation for certain premises, but it is a fallacy to confuse premises with truth. People are often convinced of the truth of a proposition because it follows from certain unchallenged premises. They fail to see that the premises are not necessarily true.

This type of reasoning also comes to the forefront during political campaigns. We see it in the selling of both products and ideas: Liquor is legal. Marijuana is not any worse than liquor. Therefore, marijuana should be legal. Or: Marijuana isn’t any worse than cigarettes. Most people smoke cigarettes. Therefore I should be able to smoke marijuana.

2. Inaccurate or Incomplete Information

We could conceivably have asked the professor, “Is your information accurate? Can it be confirmed? Is the information current? Maybe conditions have changed. Is the information complete? Or does it present or describe only part of the picture?”

We can ask these questions in any discussion on nearly any subject. Inaccurate or incomplete information often makes us form hasty generalizations.

A bishop I know is fond of illustrating this by showing two news clippings he has saved. On August 10, 1966, a New York Times headline read, “Admiral Richauer Critical of Vietnam Policy.” On the same day, August 10, 1966, the Washington Post’s headline read, “Richauer Backs U.S. Vietnam Policy.”

3. Is He (She) an Expert

Our professor was an expert in psychology, but what about religion? An expert should have special training, knowledge, and experience in the subject matter discussed. He should be honest and accurate. Unbiased, too. To be guilty of bias is to cease operating as an expert. And don’t fall for the journalistic device of “A leading expert says. …” To be an expert, he should be clearly identified. Furthermore, in an exact field such as chemistry or nuclear mechanics, expert testimony is necessary.

But where the issue is a matter of an inexact subject, such as religion, moral judgment, taste, and love, such testimony merely becomes opinion. That’s why we need authorities in the Church. They are our extraordinary spiritual experts. Without them, history has proved, much of the truth is more difficult, if not impossible, to find. And, best of all, we can securely trust their motives for influencing us.

4. Tradition

John, a Danish convert to the Church, recently returned to his native country for the first time since he left for Zion twenty years ago. Hoping to speak to his family about the gospel, he was met everywhere with the same argument. “Min Barnetro (the faith of my fathers) is good enough for me.” And that was the end of that.

Not only individuals, but also many Christian churches propagate the gospel according to the interpretation of hundreds of years ago. Some of our brothers in other churches have even canonized tradition as a basis of some gospel beliefs. A good example is celibacy. Some theologians do not even claim scriptural reference for their practices; they merely cite tradition.

Our professor, too, was guilty of indirectly using tradition in his position that all organized religion is unimportant.

There are, of course, old principles we should fight to preserve, and some we should wish to discard. But tradition is often a monstrous mental handcuff that people use to ward off new but true ideas.

5. All or Nothing

Had we asked our professor about the use of absolutes in our thinking and speaking, he would immediately have told us that using terms such as always, all, never, certainly, and obviously and generalizations such as all salesmen, all people, all labor leaders, and (let’s not forget) all religions, would label us as tense and defensive people. The same holds true for the either-or, all-or-nothing, and good-or-bad argument.

Although absolute truth is a matter of black and white, as we learn in the gospel, it often ranges through the whole color scheme. The all-or-nothing statements many times assume an immature simplification that simply isn’t valid. By accepting the position that there is no middle ground on an issue, you are forced into a black or white corner. That was the position the German people found themselves in after Hitler used this kind of reasoning. The all-or-nothing fallacy is an important tool for politicians. Your friends use it, too, just as your fellow students will. Labels are heedlessly attached to almost anything or anybody. Learn to think in terms of degrees.

Okay. Let’s sum up. By asking who wants you to do what, and what are the consequences if you do or do not comply, you will keep out of hot water and will reach what you want to achieve. The five points we’ve just discussed will help you to hold your own when you have decided on a meaningful course. Once you learn to quickly identify them, your power questions will come automatically, and they will be devastating.

Vicky, a recent convert and a student at UCLA, was kidded by a couple of her classmates about her stand on morality. Wisely, instead of saying that it was part of her religious belief, she adroitly popped the question: “You both speak as if you are sadly reluctant to deal with any kind of moral values. Are you?” Baffled, both girls mumbled an incoherent answer at the unexpected, sudden turn-around. “Look,” she prevailed, “while you may have lost your belief in any moral dimension, I, and many others I know, are finding new meanings in some terrific principles I have recently learned about. Let me tell you …”

A power question takes the thrust of the other person’s question, turns it around, and aims it back at the interrogator. Vicky’s response did just that. Here is another example: Ted, a priest and Explorer, was chatting with a nonmember student at school. The name of a mutual friend came up and the nonmember said amusingly, “Yeah, I know him. He’s a Jack Mormon, right?” Ted cooly shot back: “Exactly how would you define a Jack Mormon? Every definition of that term I have heard so far has been a shot in the dark!” The power question got Ted off the defensive.

Another good technique to use, particularly when the conversation is about a gospel principle, is to ask: “Do you really want to know, or are you just curious?” Somehow it usually puts the conversation in the proper perspective for you.

When in doubt of what to say, use your common sense. Above all, the fact that you honestly don’t know shouldn’t depress you. It is often preferable to the various forms of semantic nonsense that pass for answers. When you don’t know, ask someone you trust. If your friends, parents, or bishop don’t know the answer, your Heavenly Father does. Why not get in the habit of asking his approval of your choices or decisions.

There are also some rules of good conversation and discussion you should know. Shun the argumentative approach. Do not raise your voice. Those who do lower their effectiveness. Disagree with a person’s position only after you have been able to state it to his satisfaction. Smile; show your good feelings in the way you say things. Be tactful; think before you speak, not afterwards. Don’t be dogmatic and don’t be condescending. If you have an attitude of being superior, you will soon be talking to yourself. Don’t aim to be the life of the party by using gags to spice up what might otherwise be a dull script. Don’t mumble; speak clearly, and speak up. And finally, ask questions again and again. When you are asked questions you can often answer by forming a question. Most importantly, read all you can. If you don’t, you will never be a knowbody.

In addition to your regular study of the standard works, you may want to add this list of books and pamphlets. More than any others I know, they have helped lots of people gain an advantageous insight into many issues of our time. In them you will find truth that will, indeed, make you a knowbody.

Church Publications

• Brown, Hugh B., “An Eternal Quest, Freedom of the Mind,” BYU Speeches, May 13, 1969. 25¢.

• Hanks, Marion D., “Four Things a Man Must Learn to Do,” BYU Summer Devotional, August 1, 1967. 30¢.

• Lind, Don, Ph.D., “A Testimony is Intellectually Acceptable,” BYU Fireside Address, May 7, 1967. 30¢.

• Madsen, Truman G., “Four Essays On Love,” BYU Extension Division. $1.00.
  (All of the above can be obtained by writing to Extension Publications, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.)

• Madsen, Truman G., Eternal Man, Deseret Book, 1966. $2.00.

• Maxwell, Neal A., A More Excellent Way, Deseret Book, 1967. $3.25.

Secular Publications

• Fearnside, W. W. and Wm. B. Holther, Fallacy, the Counterfeit of Argument, Spectrum Paperback, 1959. $2.45.

• Gardner, John W., Self Renewal, Harper Paperbacks, 1963. $1.50.

• Keyes, Kenneth S., Jr., How to Develop Your Thinking Ability, McGraw-Hill Paperback, 1963. $2.25.