The Most Sober, Yet Controversial Writing Advice You'll Read in Your Life
Leandre Larouche
Book & Content Coach + Ghostwriter for Coaches, Experts, and Leaders | ?? Author | Writing Architect ??? | Writing Can Be Hard. I Make it Easy with The Architecture of Writing.
Praescriptum: If you haven't signed up for it yet, don't forget to register for my next nonfiction writing live seminar on the three key ingredients for a great nonfiction book. You'll learn, apply, and have the opportunity to ask questions!
This is for you if you’re interested in writing a nonfiction book to grow your brand, business, or legacy. We’ll cover these three ingredients in depth, we’ll discuss how to apply them, and I’ll open the floor for Q&A.
It took me over 5 years to figure this out.?
More specifically, it took me:
Of all things I can share, this is by far one of the most powerful, high-level writing and communication insights.
And it's not obvious—even though it should be.
Why This Writing Advice Is So Rare to Find
We don’t learn this in school because schools train followers, not leaders. And schools have certain sets of ideas they seek to promote.
Truth is, we don’t learn this anywhere because most people either don’t know about it or don’t want other people to know (because they can use it for manipulative purposes).
If you understand this, however, you can effectively persuade anyone.
You can:
But first, you must realize this: People want roughly the same things. They share similar goals, similar desires, and similar conceptions of right and wrong.
Where they differ is in their philosophical and political values.
People Speak Different “Languages”
Despite their common ground, people view the world through their backgrounds and experiences. Where they come from, how they were raised, and what they experienced determine their worldview.
And with a worldview comes a language: a vocabulary that speaks to these values and ways of looking at the world. Yes, because of their philosophical and political values, people speak different languages.
(Here's a great, free book on this topic.)
People within the same society view the world differently—the same way the French, the Italians, and the Americans view the world differently.?
Here’s why it matters.
The Same Argument Can Be Written in Different “Languages”
You can effectively take any message and push it to any audience as long as you use the right language for that audience. The same argument, or the same topic, can be covered differently based on the audience's worldview.
Let me give you a powerful example: antitrust law—or the power of the government to break monopolies.
Well, you can make the argument that governments should break monopolies based on your audience’s worldviews.
Several key worldviews exist in Western society, and every one of them, no matter how different they are, can somehow accommodate these arguments.
A Few Disclaimers
These languages are also called frames—structures that hold the arguments and make them understandable to the readers.
But before we dive into these worldviews, a few disclaimers are in order.
Disclaimer #1:
By showing you the same arguments framed for different worldviews, I don't claim that these arguments are all equally persuasive. Some worldviews make these arguments easier or more difficult.
Roughly speaking, though, you can make the same arguments to different audiences simply by speaking their philosophical and political language.
Disclaimer #2:
Some people feel resistance toward the labels I'll be using to identify worldviews. To be clear, I don't mean to overemphasize political labels. However, these labels are useful because:
A) most people's worldviews actually fall under one of these categories because they are influenced by the society around them.
B) when we write, we typically want to reach more than one person, so it becomes somewhat necessary to choose a commonly shared worldview.
Let's dive into these frames:
Libertarian Frame
Libertarians put the individual above every other unit and prioritize personal freedom and individual rights.
Within this frame, you can say:?
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies because they’re formed consensually by individuals and they decrease prices, which creates more material comfort for individuals.?
B) Governments should break monopolies because they grow into soulless machines that lobby the government to benefit its shareholders, not consumers and citizens.
Conservative Frame
Conservatives put family and Church above every other unit and prioritize preserving traditions like the nuclear family.?
领英推荐
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies as long as they don’t hurt families and religious communities because the role of government is to let families live as they see fit, with freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.
B) Governments should break monopolies because corporate power and greed often grow hostile to family and church values by exploiting employees and consumers, which leaves less room for traditional values of family and community.
Communitarian Frame
Communitarians put the community above every other unit, seeking near-perfect equality.
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies, but their power should be limited or funneled to the government because the power amassed by monopolies can be used by communities through their government representatives.
B) Governments should break monopolies because corporations value their shareholders, not the communities in which they operate. Plus, they often hurt small, local businesses.?
Socialist Frame
Socialists put society above every other unit and seek the equal distribution of resources within society.
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies because the means of production should be publicly owned anyway. The government should seize control over these monopolies and not let another one see the light of day.
B) Governments should break monopolies because it creates extreme inequalities between people in society, which damages the social fabric and causes all sorts of societal ills.
Nationalist Frame
Nationalists also put society above every other unit, but they focus on national pride more than on equality.?
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies as long as they keep operations in the country and benefit the nation; breaking them would make the nation less competitive worldwide.?
B) Governments should break monopolies because they pose a danger to national sovereignty, and large transnational monopolies hold no allegiance to any country.?
Statist Frame
Statists and sometimes authoritarians put the state and/or its leader above every other unit, often at the expense of others.?
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies because monopolies, being large and close to the government, can be leveraged to control the population.
B) Governments should break monopolies because companies that become more powerful than the government are a threat to the survival of the state and its sovereignty.
Traditional Conservative Frame
Traditional conservatives put their civilization above every other unit, seeking to preserve values, ideas, and traditions.
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies as long as they don’t hinder freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion because the role of government is defensive rather than preventive.
B) Governments should break monopolies because for-profit organizations that grow too large and too powerful pose a fundamental threat to traditional values and can’t coexist with tradition.
Preservationist Frame
Preservationists put the species above every other unit, seeking the survival of the human species.
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies as long as they don’t harm the environment because the role of the government is to protect people, and these monopolies may be able to fund environmental projects through various taxes.
B) Governments should break monopolies because for-profit organizations that grow too powerful are fundamentally incentivized to disregard the environment and maximize value for shareholders, which is irreconcilable with preservation.
Religious/Spiritual Frame
Religious and/or spiritual people put infinity (e.g., God, nature, higher power) above every other unit, engaging in faith.
Within this frame, you can say:
A) Governments shouldn’t break monopolies as long as they’re not oppressing the collective spirit or breaking the universal laws of nature because freedom is a universal and timeless human desire.?
B) Governments should break monopolies because corporations grow into systems that seek their own survival and expansion, not the spiritual welfare of humanity.
How to Use This in Your Daily Writing and Communication
The beauty of this insight is you can use it for any type of writing—from business communication to nonfiction writing to marketing. What you need to do is sit down and figure out your audience's worldview.
Once you know your audience's worldview, figure out which ideas and keywords will match your argument or topic, and you can start writing in a way that's aligned with your audience's worldview.
For more insights like this one, and for an even deeper dive into your audience's worldview, refer to The Architecture of Writing guide. This article was inspired by some of the content you'll find this guide.