How to Use Data in a Way That’s Actually Effective

This is the second part of a two-part series dealing with the impact of data. In my last article, I discussed how not be manipulated by it, and in this one you’ll find advice on how to use it effectively.

I've discussed how, in today's world, the idea of "data" often gets fetishized and held aloft like some object of magical power. I also described numerous ways to cultivate data literacy, or the ability to protect yourself from getting manipulated by data and those who wield it in bad faith.

In this sense, data literacy could be considered a "defensive" skill. Let's explore the "offensive" skill of what I call data eloquence or the skill of using data in a compelling and persuasive way. I don't mean" offensive" in the sense of attacking someone or doing harm to them.

Instead, I mean it in the sense of ethically but also effectively using data to do all the things this post is about to persuade, sell, negotiate, or in certain situations, such as in an intellectual debate, to at least get the other party to open their minds and consider different viewpoints.

First, Do No Harm With Bad Data

Since the idea is to use data ethically and effectively, you have to always start by doing your due diligence to ensure that any data you want to use for persuasive purposes is sound. This topic deserves in-depth discussion, so it's beyond the scope of this post to go into great detail. But, generally speaking, there are some valuable principles to keep in mind.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I used to be a trial lawyer. We lawyers use data all the time, except we call it evidence. But evidence often requires knowledge and expertise from a wide variety of fields, such as medicine, forensic science, computer science, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, and the list goes on. And so, to correctly understand evidence (i.e., data) and its implications, attorneys often tap into the expertise of people who specialize in those areas.

When seeking to persuade, if you want to use data from an industry or field you're not knowledgeable in, you should first run it by someone who is. Rest assured that if you don't, someone who knows what they're talking about will be more than happy to publicly point out the gaping flaws in your data, causing you to lose credibility.

Another principle you can learn from what good lawyers do is to research the data that others believe contradicts the point you're trying to make. Ideally, you want to know their data or even better than they do. Does their data undermine your data and argument, or does yours refute theirs?

This might not always be possible or pragmatic in every situation, and it's something you'd probably want to reserve for situations where there's a lot at stake (which is why you want to remember the S.O.S. principle). But the general idea here is to subject your data to the same scrutiny that your opponents or targets of persuasion might subject it to.

Good Data Isn't Enough on Its Own

Let's say you've done your due diligence and are confident that you have good, solid data. Unfortunately, that isn't enough. And far too many people are under the erroneous impression that it is.

I saw this frequently in the courtroom in my years as a trial attorney, and I see it today in the classroom with many of my bright and talented students who do good research but then present their data without a messaging strategy as if the data alone will convince people of their viewpoint. You can also find plenty of daily examples of this on social media.

So, if good data isn't enough, what must you do to persuade people? Well, in a word, you need data storytelling, the ability to use stories to make data persuasive. But there's a necessary clarification that we need to make.

"Storytelling" is often associated with fictional stories, which is one type of storytelling. It's fine for entertaining, but if you're trying to persuade and influence people, then making up fictional stories to support your data would be unethical and manipulative, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid.

No, the type of storytelling I'm talking about is using true stories. Certainly, you can borrow techniques from fictional storytelling, such as having a clear beginning, middle, and ending or "show don't tell." Still, they must be grounded in reality and real experiences. The occasional use of fiction—like using a fictional parable to illustrate a point—can be effective and fairly common.

Still, you do need to be transparent about it. For example, you could start the story by saying, "There's this old folk tale about a fisherman who lived in a village…" or whatever it might be, immediately clarifying that you're about to tell a fictional story.

Apart from learning storytelling techniques, everything I have systematically covered throughout these posts can also be utilized.

• You need to use the S.O.S. principle because the best way to convey your data will depend on the specific situation and audience.
• You must use active listening to gauge the narratives motivating that audience.
• You need to employ adaptive persuasion, and the U.R.U. principle so people feel understood and respected, including (or especially) the ones who disagree with you.
• And you need to understand and use key principles of persuasion, such as the need for consistency.

I'll give you an example of the latter regarding data eloquence. In a nod to the late Norman Lear, imagine two people named Archie and Edith. Archie thinks there's rampant fraud in social welfare programs, a common perception even though the data shows genuine fraud is rare.

Due to confirmation bias, since Archie is already convinced there's a lot of fraud, no matter what statistic Edith throws at him, he will think it's too high. So, Edith does the smart thing. She asks,

“OK, Archie, since completely getting rid of all fraud is unlikely, what would you say is an acceptably low percentage of fraud?”

Archie thinks for a moment and says that 3 percent seems like an acceptably low amount. Only then does Edith inform Archie that the actual percentage of fraud is just 1.54%. Because of the principle of consistency and the argument that's most persuasive to Archie (i.e., his own), he has little choice but to recognize that the actual incidence of fraud is low by his standard.

If he refuses to agree that 1.54 percent is low (as, yes, he still might), he'd clearly contradict himself, lose credibility, and trigger cognitive dissonance—a steep price to pay.

Why Data Eloquence Matters

Why is it so vital that we grasp the importance of data eloquence?

Well, if you're unable to grasp it, plenty of others are out there who do. Sadly, not all of them have the best intentions. If you want to be a positive counterforce to that, you must become as good at data eloquence as they are. It's a similar principle to one I discussed previously, where just because psychopaths are charismatic doesn't mean you should renounce charisma. In fact, unless you want to let psychopaths have their easy pickings, you need to get as good at their game as they are.

Like many of you, I wish good data could be enough, too. In an ideal world, it would be. But we don't live in a perfect world where human behavior is dictated by logic; we live in a world where, at the end of the day, it's determined by feelings.

And, like it or not, we have to work with reality, not against it. So, I'll leave you with one last bit of data. According to research by Stanford organizational psychology professor Chip Heath, stories are about 12 times more likely to be remembered than facts.

So, while you may or may not remember this precise statistic, you'll surely remember the story about Archie and Edith and how she effectively proved to him that welfare program fraud was much lower than he thought.