Last night, while my Copy Riddles promo was still going on, I sent an email about a troll who chimed in to say Copy Riddles isn’t good enough for him.
He started by accusing me of name-dropping.
He ended by telling me to “go read some stuff from Settle, Tony Shepherd and Andre Chaperon.”
So I did. And I used what this guy wrote to illustrate Ben Settle’s idea that Internet trolls always project.
But no.
It turns out Ben and I are wrong about that. Or least that’s what my troll claims, in a message he sent me today:
Kind of sad when you think someone being critical of your emails is ‘a troll picking a fight’ with you. Most people would see that as an opportunity to examine, review and possibly improve. You get defensive and start making (bad) assumptions about someone you know NOTHING about.
1. I’m NOT the one dropping names, 2. I’m doing very well with my own sites and 3. I’m not interested in the new ‘shiny’ objects.
Why would you make assumptions like that?
You’ve written a book that may be the best copywriting book ever – but based on the way you’ve responded to me I doubt it.
PS: I’ve read ALL of Settle’s books. Copy Trolls is easily the worst. Read the Infotainment Book, there’s ideas in there you can use.
I’ve done enough unpaid promotion of Ben Settle’s ideas, so I won’t talk about infotainment today.
Instead, let me get back to what I really love to do. And that’s finding illustrations for deep persuasion, influence, and psychology ideas that I can share with you.
Today’s idea comes from neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran.
At one point, Ramachandran studied people people who had suffered a stroke and were paralyzed in one arm. And yet, these people stubbornly refused to admit they were paralyzed.
This wasn’t just a brave face they were putting on in public.
They truly could not accept that their arm was hanging limp by their side, not responding to any command they gave it.
Ramachandran performed clever experiments to try to elicit whether these patients actually believed they were 100% fine.
The answer was yes. They themselves were convinced their arm was not paralyzed, in spite of the very obvious evidence otherwise.
So is this just a strange corner case in the medical literature… or something for the archives of Internet trolldom?
Ramachandran thinks it’s more than that.
He claims this is a dramatic and concrete illustration of the kind of thing we all engage in, all the time.
Denial, Ramachandran says, is a fundamental human activity. It’s how we manage to live in a complex and often nasty and brutish world, and still maintain an illusion of a coherent, in-control self.
I personally find this idea both terrifying and fascinating. Which of the things I know to be true are a flat-out denial of reality?
Or maybe, not even a flat-out denial, but something more complex?
Because flat-out denial (“I’m NOT the one dropping names”) was just one of the mechanisms Ramachandran came across in his paralyzed-but-no patients.
There were five other types as well. You can see a few more of these denial strategies in my troll’s response above.
But if you can’t spot them, don’t worry.
I’ll spell out the other five types of denial in my emails over the coming days. You can sign up here if you want to read that.
Like I said, I find this stuff personally fascinating. But it can be valuable, too.
It can help you understand other people better, whether those are your friends… family… customers… prospects… or trolls.
And of course, it can help you understand yourself better. And who knows. Maybe, one day, it can even be an opportunity to examine, review, and possibly improve.