Susan Boyle has brought the issue of appearance to the fore.  Bottom line?  It’s hard to make it in this world without good looks and good clothes.

One thing you can control is your hair. 

I have  many female clients who don’t know what to do with their hair,  so they fiddle with it while speaking to groups.    Not good.

Your hair should not be drawing attention to itself when you’re presenting your ideas for consideration.  If your hair wants attention, let it get all prettied up at night when you go out.    When you’re presenting, you want your intelligence and your character to get attention, not your hair.

Therefore, fix your hair so that it does not shimmer, wiggle, wave, or otherwise transfix the average dude.  Make it a non-issue.  Hillary used a hairband.  Now she’s got her “do” lacquered down with ValSpar.

I remind you that being in business in akin to being in the military.  We all wear quasi-uniforms, we all take orders from the boss, and we all need to march together.  There’s not a lot of leeway for tucking your hair behind your ear 6 times a minute.

I like the bumper sticker philosophy that you see on pick-up trucks:  “Git ‘er done!”  Gals, git yer do “done” and then git up there and show us what yer made of:  good sense and guts!

I am still holding my ground against Ford Harding.  We have been debating the relative merits of raising FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in persuasive arguments, or GOG (greed, opportunity, and glory.)

For previous exchanges, please click on Fud, Gog, Ethics and Rhetoric and Fud in Public Speaking and Persuasion

Ford seems to think that GOG is better than FUD.  I think they work together, and that one is not better than the other.

I follow what the ancient Greeks taught.  Aristotle taught that speakers need to make three types of arguments in order to be persuasive.

The first is the ethical appeal:  you argue that you are a trustworthy source of information.  You do this by casually referencing your experience or expertise, and perhaps with some self-effacing humor.

The second is the intellectual appeal.  You argue by stating your point and then proving it with reasoning and facts, or you present your facts and reasoning and then conclude with your point.

The third type of argument is the emotional appeal.  You try, through stories, or humor, to arouse an emotion in your listeners.

Cicero, the great Roman statesman, thought the emotional appeal was the most important.  He said, “…tickling and soothing anxieties is the test of a speaker’s impact and technique.”

Ford, please note that he said, “… tickling AND soothing anxieties,” and Cicero was no slouch as a speaker.  He knew what he was talking about.  He seems to be saying that whenever we propose to an audience that they make a decision, we should bring up the pros and cons.

For instance, you might say that if the listeners don’t do what you recommend, A, B, C and D are the negative consequences they might expect.  However, if they decide to do what you suggest, you would argue that they could enjoy X, Y, and Z.

I’m sure I don’t have to remind you, or anyone, that your reasoning should be fair and balanced.  Using FUD or GOG is ethically neutral.  One is not more virtuous or ethical than the other.  It is not our technique that makes us unethical, but our intention.

And by the way, most speeches, articles, plays, novels, and movies are structured in the same way.  They single out a problem, consider its implications, and explore solutions.

Humans like problems because problems resemble puzzles, and we love puzzles.  We derive great pleasure from solving them, and grow as a result.

FUD gets our attention on the problem.  GOG drives us toward a solution.

They are the one-two punch of human growth and accomplishment.