Is Your Persuasion Talent Worthless?

Dear Persuader,

What if a person went into a courthouse and told the judge that he was an attorney and should be allowed to practice in that court? Only one catch — the person telling the judge this has no knowledge of the law.

Would that person be admitted to practice before the court? Hopefully not, I’m sure you’d agree.

But what if that person argued that they have natural talent, or great intelligence, or a knack for legal things? Would that persuade you that they should defend you if you had to go before that court? If you’re like me, it probably would not be enough. You’d probably insist that they had an honest-to-goodness foundation in the law if you were to entrust your life to their care.

It makes sense, on the other hand, that if a person had a law degree and 30+ years of experience in front of that court, they would be easily capable of protecting their clients rights. And I imagine, all things being equal, you’d be thrilled having them represent you.

What if all this was a metaphor that enabled you to predict how well you or others would be able to wield the power of persuasion?

I just saw such a metaphor — and you can too. I watched a short video clip of a 91-year-old man who gives a secret for success in life. (This is a secret that I’ve used to create what some are calling the most powerful persuasion materials available — anywhere.)

This video is so good that I want you to go and see it right away. This modern day Da Vinci has an incredibly powerful message. And watching the video will explain why I used the subject line I did.

Just follow this link: http://www.MAXpersuasion.com/MythOfTalent/

And for those of you with a bit more advanced skill, he launches right into a persuasion strategy that is extremely covert. Can you recognize it? Here’s a hint — he keeps it up the whole way through.

Post a comment to the blog and let me know what you think it is that he’s doing. Do your best to figure it out and tell me what you think.

Until next time,

Kenrick E. Cleveland

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 10 comments
Aaron K - November 19, 2007

What strikes me right away is that he talks about laws and yet gives no immediate details, but simply refers to them time and again.

Jay S - November 19, 2007

He used several different techniques…or at least I hallucinated them.

He presupposed multiple times that YOU already draw.
He inserted his intentions clearly and transfered them to YOU multiple times.
He also future paced a lot.

I’m not sure if he did all of this truly intentionally or if it was just natural but either way it seemed very effective.


Kenrick E. Cleveland; Affluent Activator - November 19, 2007

Those are all good – but not the one I am thinking of. The one I’m thinking of, he does on and on the whole time.

He is VERY effective. As is all of Mark Joyner’s material. I love Simpleology. And I think my son will love the drawing information.

The guy in the video is REALLY good. And I doubt it is because he has studied persuasion. Ninety some odd years will give a student of human nature some real skills though, and he sure has ’em.

Watch it again if need be.

Hugo - November 19, 2007

He was speaking rythmically as he future paced in assupumtive sentences .

Maria - November 19, 2007

He teaches us, to start with the basic, put in action, keep learning more, e always alwyas put that in action.

And he also give a lot of testimonials and examples, and that establish him ( or us, because we have to take action ) as an authority!

Kenrick E. Cleveland; Affluent Activator - November 20, 2007

All very good replies.

However, Hugo, you got it.

He launched into a rhythm and kept at it the whole way through.

Great job, Hugo.

Brad.S - November 20, 2007

Unfortunatly I am On dial up at the moment So I could not watch the vid.
I see mentions of rhythm here.
I watched some 2 or 3 Rich Bandler videos and found that the kind of rhythm he uses puts you to sleep as intended. I woke up and saw the people he was talking to in the audience on the video were also asleep.

I thought this happened just because I was tired. But after a third time watching.. I realized this guy was a genius.

I reflect on times where Priest’s used rhythm without breaking the rhythm at all. Although this eventually drew away audiences due to people’s lasting memories of being board. (You can just imagine the body’s of the crowd swaying, yawing and breathing shallow) Now they seem to use a more modern approach with less of the old school. I love this stuff..

What I want to know is what other people think here..
How many people who do this would we think are totally aware and fully planed in doing this type of talk. Compared to how many just do it without being totally clued on to what is taking place in the audience’s mind’s.

Kenrick E. Cleveland; Affluent Activator - November 20, 2007

Unless a person is trained to do this, they would not be aware of it – for the most part. There are any number of answers as to how they “learned” it. A natural predisposition for rhythm, or perhaps an upbringing in a church environment where the preacher used this style. Lots of ways a person could get to this point.

People who have studied my work will absolutely be aware of this. In the first month of the Persuasion Factor we get into that topic.

Persuasion is most powerful when you combine a number of different strategies into what you are doing.

Remember too that if a person is themselves untrained in these skills and does something “naturally” they will most likely have highs and lows. Meaning when they are “on” and doing things at the top of their game, things are good. But when they veer away from it because they weren’t aware of why what they were doing was working, their results drop.

Study helps to level out the yo yo effect. (not to mention raising your income) 🙂

Brad.S - November 21, 2007

Its good to hear what you said Kenrick. It kind of answers what I see in many people.
It’s kinda bothersome at times.

ann h. clark - November 22, 2007

He is as good as I have ever heard. Honestly, though, I did not conclude “rhythmic”, even tho I listened intently 3 times. After reading your analysis, I realized that he also continued to establish his credibility and did nothing to detract from his words by movements, clothing, etc. It was like listening to a Bach 2-part invention–the phrasing, the flow, the interweaving of his persuasive points.


Happy Thanksgiving.


Leave a Reply: