I'll respond to the title instead of the article.
As an attorney, I've found that the best persuasion is the removal of impediments and friction standing between the person you hope to influence and what they want to do in the first place.
Most other tactics amount to force or deceit ("manipulation").
That sounds a lot like what data scientists have to do at any publicly traded company.
Are you talking about the judge, opposing attorney, your client, coworker, business partner, or who? Surely that context matters much more than you're suggesting, viz what you individually perceive the impediments and friction to be, and how you both think they can be removed?
(Not OP) How so? Behind every "no", there is a good reason. If you are honestly curious to understand the objection or hesitation, you may find ways to address them, and find others opening up to your suggestions when their points have been heard. Fundamental principle behind NVC.
Lawyers vs. lawyers may not be the cleanest example since a defence lawyers job is to make it harder for th prosecution to win, but then might want to get that advantage then mediate a deal.
For most of us ideally a colleague is more aligned than that.
This connects with me. More about helping people do what they already have in mind. Connecting with people and finding overlapping interests rather than a manipulation mindset.
> force or deceit
exactly!