Wake up, Inland Northwest.

That was an experiment. Now, in the interest of science, be honest with your answers to these questions:

Did that sentence make you want to hear what I would say in this column? Did it dispose you favorably toward my opinions?

A quick search of the S-R’s archives revealed the unscientific fact that on half of the letters pages in the past few weeks, at least one of the writers instructs the readers, or an entity such as Congress or the country, to “wake up.”

I’m a morning person, and other morning people out there probably know well that it is a thankless trait. Roommates ask morning people to wake them at specific, relatively early hours, sometimes with the explicit request to make sure they actually get up at that time. And it seems like such an innocuous request that we morning people readily agree. We’re nice people, really.

When the time of waking arrives, however, we are growled at, ignored or forced to lift dead weight in order to fulfill the sacred commission of making sure they get up. The awakened resist and resent the awakening.

The analogy, of course, is that readers probably don’t like to be told to wake up, either. The ones who already agree with the wake-up letter aren’t likely to need the awakening, and the ones who disagree are unlikely to rise and shine because of a rhetorical smack upside the head.

That’s what the wake-up clause is: an attempt to jolt you out of what you currently think and persuade you to think differently. What may have gone unconsidered is whether it is effective for doing so.

Besides being overused as a threadbare cliché that is more apt to put people to sleep than wake them up, I believe there are further reasons to look for different ways to go about writing an opinion letter.

First, it may make the wrong assumptions about why others disagree. As a currently dissenting reader being told to wake up, what would be more difficult for you to listen to: allegations that you’re wrong in interpreting the facts or (in the case of “wake up”) the insinuation that you suffer from a mental or moral lethargy that prevents you from understanding them? The latter certainly makes me grouchier.

To return to the original analogy, it’s true that the sleepers are better off when we do manage to wake them. That very well could be the case with the wake-up letters, too. But unlike hoisting my roommate out of bed, the best bet for ideological awakening is probably not to bombard the sleeper with sarcastic insinuations and clichés.

In the Cold War movie, “The Hunt for Red October,” an American and a defecting Soviet connect by studying and predicting each other’s strategy. When the Soviet finds out the American understands Russian, he is surprised. “It is wise to study the ways of one’s adversary, don’t you think?” says the American in Russian. “It is,” says the Soviet in English.

When you write and read letters to the editor, I encourage you to study the ways of your “adversary.” Despite presumably wanting to “wake up” converts to their view, some of these letters polarize the issues by placing opponents in an unfavorable light – often without any factual support.

The letters may draw cheers from those who agree, but don’t win more friends or influence other people. To do that, as in the movie, you must, figuratively and literally, speak their language. For example, Steve Adams’ Sunday letter quotes the S-R’s values statement and compares it to potential changes he dislikes in our visual arts coverage. While his appeal probably won’t get him exactly what he wants, he likely got more attention than he would have saying, “Wake up, S-R!”

As always, letters using many different strategies are welcomed on this page. I may be wrong in assuming letters are written primarily to change people’s minds. I also may be wrong in concluding that wake-up letters are not effective. If you think so, please let me know at the e-mail address below.

Just bear in mind that I’m already awake.