The art of pursuasion

[sebbysteiny]

First, a preliminary ramble about this thread.

 

This thread focuses on pursasive writing and speaking techniques and how and why they work.

 

This is not English literature because it goes into the psychology and explanations.

 

It is not a physical science because the heart of it is aimed at improving and using our understanding of pursasion.

 

It is not philsophy because it does not really pose any philosphical questions.

 

So I can only conclude it's a social science. A moderator might disagree, but if this thread is moved, it should be by consensus of multiple moderators.

 

 

So how do you pursuade?

 

To pursuade, you have to get an argument past the filtering mechanism of the conscious and accepted by the subconscious. There are two ways to do this.

 

1) By diverting the conscious mind to chase a metaphorical bone or something whilst you feed your main arguments straight to the subconsciousl. This is essentially brain washing / thought reform and there are many ways of doing this: hypnotic suggestions; songs; cross word puzzles; linguistical gymnastics / abuse; social alter etc. These cheap tactics are the intellectual equivilent of breaking in at the back exit and have all been discussed in previous threads. They are NOT relavent to this thread.

 

2) By successfully passing through the conscious mind and being allowed to pass into the subconscious. This is the intellectual equivilent to knocking on the front door and being invited in. This is what I consider the most honest approach and it is this that I wish to discuss in this thread.

 

Questions that will be asked:

 

Does being on the 'right' side help?

 

Is logic helpful?

 

Can you change somebody's mind and how?

 

Why is it harder to change somebody's mind when they already have a view?

 

What are the mechanics and mechanisms behind a successful and unsuccessful pursasion attempt.

[InfiniteNow]

So I can only conclude it's a social science. A moderator might disagree, but if this thread is moved, it should be by consensus of multiple moderators.

Gee, thanks for laying it out for me. I wouldn't have known how to moderate if you hadn't told me. :girl_hug:

 

 

:boy_hug:

[InfiniteNow]

Does being on the 'right' side help?

There is only a side of choice, and the righteousness of either is subjective to the observer.

 

Can you change somebody's mind and how?

 

Why is it harder to change somebody's mind when they already have a view?

Your second question implies an answer to the first.

 

 

Basically though, all you can change is your own mind, and try to influence others to enroll in and accept that decision based on merit of the argument and appeal to emotional attachments they may have.

 

What are the mechanics and mechanisms behind a successful and unsuccessful pursasion attempt.

Ask any moderately unattractive college student, it's all about the alchohol.

 

 

Cheers. :girl_hug:

[sebbysteiny]

There is only a side of choice, and the righteousness of either is subjective to the observer.

 

I think this is a somewhat philosphical point.What I mean is, does it help if the facts and figures actually back you up rather than your oponent.

 

Righteousness may be subjective, but only up to a point. Eg, the twin towers was actually an Israeli conpiracy by Mossad agents aimed at framing the Arab world.

 

Basically though, all you can change is your own mind, and try to influence others to enroll in and accept that decision based on merit of the argument and appeal to emotional attachments they may have.

 

I agree you can change your own mind (although not always), but are people really influenced by 'the merit of the argument'? Yes, brainwashing etc. does not require 'the merit of the argument' and the conscious is better, but is the conscious perfect? What are it's flaws? Many people who lack the ability of strong logical analysis can still find themselves pursuaded by other arguments even at the expense of stronger more logical ones.

[pgrmdave]

I'm not quite sure what you mean about persuasion. There are many different types of persuasion, and they are very different. If you're trying to persuade somebody to perform a simple action that they don't want to, it is usually best to show that they can get something out of it in the immediate future - i.e. a parent promises something if a child cleans their room, I offer to pay for gas if a friend drives me somewhere. If trying to persuade somebody to undertake a larger project, it is better to show long term benefits to them, or if there are none, promise to provide some - "I'll help you paint your house if you help me rebuild my steps". It usually works best to do your side first, before they help you.

 

However, even better than these is to get some way for these things to be what the person wants. If you want person A to perform action B, make them want to perform action B, and your job is already done.

 

However, to persuade somebody to think a certain way, or to believe a certain thing is much more difficult. That requires attacks on two or more fronts, usually. You need to appeal to their logic, and show (whether true or not) that it is more logical. This WILL NOT WORK ALONE! You also need to appeal to their emotional side, and show that it 'feels right' some how. This is not possible with all things, nor is it possible with some things will some people. Depending on the person, you may also need to appeal to a philosophical side, and argue that the philosophy behind it is correct. For example, I don't agree with parts of QM because I disagree with some of the philosophical implications of it. Even if it is logical, I am a determinist, and so, unless I change my philosophical views, I can't fully embrace modern physics.

[sebbysteiny]

Quite right, PGRMdave, I never fully qualified exactly what type of pursuasion I am talking about.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean about persuasion. There are many different types of persuasion, and they are very different. If you're trying to persuade somebody to perform a simple action that they don't want to .....

Nope :teeth:

However, to persuade somebody to think a certain way,

or to believe a certain thing .....

Bingo :boy_hug:.

 

That requires attacks on two or more fronts, usually. You need to appeal to their logic, and show (whether true or not) that it is more logical. ... You also need to appeal to their emotional side

 

Very true. But my point is that suppose you construct an argument that contains both these things. Some people will not accept it. Some will. And further, most of the people who accept it had accepted it already.

 

So why do some people reject an argument whilst others do not? And what can you do about it to maximise pursasive power?

 

Step 1 is obviously to make the argument as easy to understand as possible. But now that you have your argument, what can you do to make it pursuade?

 

Depending on the person, you may also need to appeal to a philosophical side, and argue that the philosophy behind it is correct. For example, I don't agree with parts of QM because I disagree with some of the philosophical implications of it. Even if it is logical, I am a determinist, and so, unless I change my philosophical views, I can't fully embrace modern physics.

And yet you are still willing to use computers and the internet dispite that quantum mechanics (in the form of semiconductors) are fundamental to their creation. :girl_hug:

 

If you dismissed that argument, why did you? If you agreed, are you a convert?

[Racoon]

I think in order to persuade people you first need to be convincing in character and well versed.

Having the power of persuation isn't a gift or refinement that most people posses.

 

Persuading a person requires many different well-honed character traits. You must be confident (not cocky), eloquent (not stumbling over your own words), and charming (not slick). If you're in possession of these prerequisite talents, you'll stand a much better chance of getting what you want.

http://www.askmen.com/fashion/how_to_200/207_how_to.html

 

*Show them all the benefits of your idea.

 

Prepare for any contradictions and be ready for any that you may not have thought of.

 

*Don't be afraid to agree with the person a little. Say things like: "Okay, but..." or "Yeah except..." or just say yes but don't let them completely prove you wrong.

 

*If you realize that you may have been wrong in one aspect then admit it. It will make you seem more trustworthy.

 

*Ask them just to consider it and think about your idea, given time to think they may realize their mistakes.

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-People

[sebbysteiny]

Sublime post Racoon.

 

But I'm afraid I won't be giving any QP's for it. :boy_hug:

 

I think we are getting the types of things that actually work now. We could have more examples of such techniques, but I think Racoon has all but covered that particular topic regarding the manual on what to do.

 

The only question is, why do they work?

 

I mean think about it. Why should you admitting something that you were wrong encourage people to take another point you make more seriously? Isn't that ad homenim? Person A says X; Person A says Y; X is correct; therefore Y is correct. It's a blatant logical fallacy. Yet it is enough to convince even the conscious mind of most people.

 

What is going on under the surface that makes these techniques work?

 

And further, is it helpful to be logically correct, or is it irrelivant?

 

And lastly, of course you get QP's racoon. :girl_hug:

[InfiniteNow]

I agree you can change your own mind (although not always), but are people really influenced by 'the merit of the argument'?

To answer yes or no would be a generalization, and not accurate. Individual differences, previous experience and relationship of the parties involved, the alignment of the stars, whatever... all play a role on outcome.

 

 

I think this is a somewhat philosphical point.

The philosophical nature in which I expressed it makes it no less valid.

 

 

Cheers. :girl_hug:

[InfiniteNow]

What is going on under the surface that makes these techniques work?

Millenia of evolution whereby social interaction played a determining role in the success of the organism.

[sebbysteiny]

To answer yes or no would be a generalization, and not accurate. Individual differences, previous experience and relationship of the parties involved, the alignment of the stars, whatever... all play a role on outcome.

 

I notice one factor that seems to be distinctly lacking here; the merits of the argument.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The art of pursuasion

 

Okay, so it sounds like an *** thing to say, but one of the major components of persuading people of anything is your image.

 

Your reputation is all you really have.

 

I notice one factor that seems to be distinctly lacking here; the merits of the argument.

 

No one gets to the merits of the argument if you smell bad and yell at them. It's why spelling is important on resumés.

 

In order to persuade people of anything it is just as important that you be charming, witty and engaging as it is for you to be logical, solid on evidence, and coherent. Perhaps even more so.

 

I consider this to be a "law" of human nature. While I cannot "prove" from first principles that this is true - I've certainly never seen it NOT be true.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

The merits of an argument matter very little in persuading people.

[sebbysteiny]

The merits of an argument matter very little in persuading people.

 

A new low in sinicism :cup:.

 

But I'm not sure that's actually true. When Einstein conceded defeat to the implications of Quantum Mechanics, was that not pursuasion by the merits of the argument?

 

And in the vaste majority of criminal cases, the evidence often speaks for themselves.

[TheFaithfulStone]

And in the vaste majority of criminal cases, the evidence often speaks for themselves.

 

Now, is that because the vast majority of criminal cases are poorly paid public defenders against well funded prosecutors offices? Or perhaps because in the vast majority of criminal cases the suspect is so clearly guilty that it's not much of a contest?

 

Evidence to the contrary.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

And the discovery of a racist police officer who was found to have actually planted evidence which put the rest of the evidence under suspicion.

 

In other words, the reputation and the image of the police officer played a role in persuading the jury of OJ's "not guilt."

 

Hmm. ;)

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

And in the vaste majority of criminal cases, the evidence often speaks for themselves.

 

Evidence to the contrary.

 

Hasty Generalisation?

 

But in OJ, we have to admit the evidence was not overwhelming. And the discovery of a racist police officer who was found to have actually planted evidence which put the rest of the evidence under suspicion.

 

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Go figure.

 

Now, is that because the vast majority of criminal cases are poorly paid public defenders against well funded prosecutors offices? Or perhaps because in the vast majority of criminal cases the suspect is so clearly guilty that it's not much of a contest?

 

The point I was making was the latter.

 

But I want to go back to the original statement by PGRMdave

The merits of an argument matter very little in persuading people.

 

If that is true, then every belief you (and all of us) have has very little to do with the merits of the argument. I refuse to believe that. I think that we all are trying to see the merits. However we do not always succeed. That does not mean we never succeed.

 

So ask yourself, does having the truth on your side actually help you at all when it comes to pursuasion? If not, then one cannot say that pursuasion through the conscious mind is any better than pursuasion through the subconscious mind aka brainwashing.