The art of Pursuasion 2

[anglepose]

I agree with pyrotex and seby trus is and the ability to express emotion and veiws in the way you envision them is the key to success, as shown clearly by possibly (in our view) the most evil man of all time, hitler. However the thing was he thought he was in the right. He truly believed he was doing the world a favour, if you ever listen to one of his speaches if you had not known the damaged he had cuased, you would due to unbeleivable persuasive power be inclined to put your trust in him. If you disagree with what i say fair enough but he must have had some persuasive power to incline millions of germans to vote for him even though he was planning a genecide, becuase let me remind you He got elected into power by the people.

 

The scientific analysis of his voice shows he spoke very slightly higher than normal purposfully to attract attetion, aswell as spending hours each day in front of a mirror to. however facist he was in the war you cannot deny he was a great speaker.

[pgrmdave]

The first thing that you need to know to persuade, before anything else, is your audience. They will dictate how you speak, what you say, when you say it, how you say it... Your audience determines whether or not it is even worth attempting to persuade. Let's say that I was trying to convince people that they should support stem cell research. There are three different audiences that I'm talking to - a large group of high schoolers, a group of affluent business owners, and a group of people in their 60's who have recently retired.

 

The high schoolers will be more likely to be persuaded by appealing to their desire for a better future. I'd talk about the wonderful things that the research can provide, and how many lives it would help. I'd provide examples of the worst diseases can be cured, and then present those diseases in the worst of lights, of how horrible they can be (being sure that these are *rare* diseases, to minimize the chance of somebody in the audience having it). Then I'd present some more common diseases that can be cured, and ask how many people know someone with them. I'd present a view of the future that seems perfect, if only stem cell research was allowed.

 

The business owners would be concerned on two fronts - ethics and costs. I'd first explain how the embryos are discarded, regardless of whether or not they are used. They are wasted resources if they are not used, and a burden on the industries which keep them. I'd segue into the high costs of medicine, and specifically medicare and medicaid, two concerns to any employer. Well, stem cell research promises to lower health care costs by keeping people healthier longer. I'd use the most favorable statistics to show how much cheaper it would be per capita, and how much money businesses could save. I'd contrast that to today's system, and extrapolate how much more that the current system could cost their businesses, and how much it would hurt the economy, their workers, and them.

 

The recent retirees presents the biggest problem. They are more likely to be conservative, and set in their ways. I would probably again start with the explanation of how the embryos would be wasted if they don't go to good use. Then I'd talk about the potential use in diseases which they are likely to be encountering now in their older age, and ones which seem to loom in the future. I'd paint a bleak picture of the costs to the individual of health care today, and how much could be saved, in life, life style, and money if only we supported stem cell research. Assuming that some of these people are grandparents, especially if the children would most likely be very young, I would talk about childhood diseases, and how stem cells would benefit their grandchildren.

 

 

Now, each one contains a lot of overlap, and they all contain the same basic ideas, but each needs to be tailored to its group. Yes, there are facts that matter, but for the most part, people are persuaded when things 'feel right' to them.

[anglepose]

to true my dad being a university buiness lecturer has hammered that concept into my head and dave explained it better than i could have done. i totaly agree

[sebbysteiny]

I'm in the middle of a monster post. I wanted to send it today but it's not ready yet. Nevertheless, I shall use concepts from it.

 

The high schoolers will be more likely to be persuaded by appealing to their desire for a better future. I'd talk about the wonderful things that the research can provide, and how many lives it would help. I'd provide examples of the worst diseases can be cured, and then present those diseases in the worst of lights, of how horrible they can be (being sure that these are *rare* diseases, to minimize the chance of somebody in the audience having it). Then I'd present some more common diseases that can be cured, and ask how many people know someone with them. I'd present a view of the future that seems perfect, if only stem cell research was allowed.

 

Pgrmdave, you are most correct about targetting your arguments to your audience. It seems to me that there are two stages. 1) Choose your strongerst arguments, and 2) making your arguments as persuasive as possible.

 

I have been focusing almost entirely on the latter. Clearly though, the former is important too.

[Pyrotex]

...hitler...The scientific analysis of his voice shows he spoke very slightly higher than normal purposfully to attract attention, as well as spending hours each day in front of a mirror...

Hitler had something else going for him (as PgrmDave alluded to). He knew his audience; he knew what tribulations they had gone through, and were still going through. He spoke directly to their fears and their hopes. He knew they sought some reason for their pain--a scapegoat; and so he spoke directly to their hate.

 

It is arguable whether Hitler was persuasive or whether he was manipulative. The distinction is one of integrity.

[ughaibu]

Here's van Fraassen on "unobstructed rational management of opinion": http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/CONDIT-ORTH.pdf

 

Those with a morbid distaste for philosophy might want to give the article a miss.

[Pyrotex]

Here's van Fraassen on "unobstructed rational management of opinion": ...Those with a morbid distaste for philosophy might want to give the article a miss.

I thought I liked philosophy, so I dove in. However, the arcane terminology threw me. I did not understand more than 1 sentence out of 8. Turgid. Esoteric.

[sebbysteiny]

I don't think there is any debate that Hitler was persuasive. He quite clearly was.

 

But this thread is dedicated to persuasion through to conscious mind, not by going around it. The former is more accademic and honest in style, whilst the latter is basically brainwashing (or thought reform).

 

I think Hitler specialised in the latter, as his propaganda suggests.

 

But why use Hitler as an example when there is always another example without the negative connitations?

 

I'll try and finish my post and then I'll read the philosophy thingy to see if we are saying similar stuff.

[HydrogenBond]

One of my brothers is a master at the art of persuasion. His advice was "tell them what they want to hear". His technique is to explore what tpeople want/like and then work from that angle by telling them what they want to hear.

 

Many years back my brother and I met some babes at a club. They were good girls looking for good guys, so he persuaded them to come back to our apartment to have some coffee. When we got back, I looked around and told my brother we had no coffee. He said, I know that, but we have plenty of beer. The girls were pursuaded to come back for the coffee. So we apoligized for not having any coffee, offered them some beer, and the rest was all fun and games.

 

Politians use that same technique. They tell people what they want to hear, such as when the Democrats promised "we need to leave Iraq." Using this " tell them what they want to hear promise", they get us back to their apartments, i.e., elected, and then pull the switch. By then it is too late to unelect them. Works everytime. If they are really slick, they shift your attention away from why you electred in the first place by feeling you out (and up) and then making new selective promises.

 

I can see this working on women but because of the feminization of men too many males appear to fall for the game. That is distressing.

[pgrmdave]

I can see this working on women but because of the feminization of men too many males appear to fall for the game. That is distressing

 

HB, I would ask you to reconsider your wording of this statement - as this statement stands it seems quite offensive.

[HydrogenBond]

Sorry If I offended anyone. I was only making an example and apoligize again if it bothered anyone. The irony is, if I told everyone what they wanted to hear, it would be fine.

[sebbysteiny]

The trouble with chosing your arguments that I had was that it didn't fit neatly into my theory.

 

My theory has two elements; ideal arguing (post 1) and the defence mechanism (post 2). The idea was that together, they gave a complete explanation of pursuasion.

 

So if choosing the arguments is a new technique that is outside of both my mechanisms, then I must be missing something.

 

But with a bit of thought, I've just seen where it goes. So it's all cool :cup:.

[InfiniteNow]

So if choosing the arguments is a new technique that is outside of both my mechanisms, then I must be missing something.

Have you considered behavioral inertia and comfort in that which is already accepted?

[sebbysteiny]

Have you considered behavioral inertia and comfort in that which is already accepted?

 

You will see. Unfortunately the post is too long at the mo, so I need to cut down on some stuff :ebomb:.

[Pyrotex]

One of my brothers is a master at the art of persuasion. His advice was "tell them what they want to hear"....I can see this working on women but because of the feminization of men too many males appear to fall for the game...

This technique has been around a long time. It has always worked on men and women alike. Leaders (men) have often aroused great patriotic fervor (in men) by telling them how great their destiny is, how great their reward will be -- enough to get them to willingly, joyfully go to war or indulge in other dicey propositions.

 

St. Paul his own self warned early christians that they would take preachers unto themselves, "having itching ears". That is, the ears of the christians would "itch" to hear certain things, and they would find teachers willing to say those things. For a fee, usually. :naughty: I look about the religious landscape today and see that St. Paul's warning was spot on -- and largely ignored.

 

This tendency in humans has nothing to do with gender. Your assumption that it is a "feminization" thing is not only wrong, but offensive.

[HydrogenBond]

The basis for my superfisical bigotry is connected to one of the fundamental differences between men and women. Men are more visual and women are more verbal, i.e., empirically speaking; like all empiricism, excepts to the rule are always present.

 

Men influence females with verbal pursuation and females influence men with visual pursuation. This is because it caters to their strong suit and is therefore most pursuasive. For example, a women will go through a lot of trouble to look good via makeup, hair, flattering fashion, nails, jewerly, etc., Men know this is not the real person, but they nevertheless like the visual fantasy, and frankly, almost expect it. Females like verbal things. Many women like to read novels/stories and men try to cater to this with stories of their own. They often add some make-up to beef up the story. It is not so much what the story says, but how it is said. If it affects a female in a positive emotional way, it is a good story.

 

The "tell them what they want to hear or see", works on men and women. If the women learns her guy is a leg man she will show a little leg, since this is what he wants to see. After that he is putty in her hands if she is so inclined. Men are simple that way. Men tries to learn what a woman wants to hear. If she is looking for a knight in shining armor, he will try to put on that mask. Because this fantasy forfill her hopes and dreams, this verbal fantasy puts her in a reinforced positve emotional state making her more receptive to him. This dynamics is entirely natural and creates the dual illusions that bring men and women together in love and marriage.

 

For a women to be pursuaded by words is natural, since it caters to her verbal nature. But men should be terminal pursuaded by visuals such a data they can see with their two eyes or logic lines with solid ideas that can paint a good visual image. This type of visial data is often not enough for women. They also want to hear about the social implications with stories of how this will help children or world peace.

 

Getting back to the power of pursuation and tell then what they want to hear, this truth is connected to human nature. For example, if one was a scientist and went into a religious group to discuss Darwinism, this would be a hard group to pursuade directly. Direct discussions would hit to the heart of their core beliefs and would never be heard. If on the other hand, one knew their audience and defined the religious position in a positive way, i.e., tell them what they wish to hear, the scales of open mindedness would tip in your favor, i.e, birds of a feather. If you then presented a marginally controversial argument, this would slightly tip against you but you may still have build up enough positive in you favor to have an open minded audience, at least for a little while.

 

This techniques is deceptive, since one is not be true to what they believe. The irony is that total honesty should be the best policy but this often tips the scales against one, making even good arguments lost because of the emotional wall that can be created by not telling people what they want to hear. Women are better suited to deal with this in a positive way. Males need visuals but their emotional bias, often clouds their field of vision much easier.

[sebbysteiny]

Post 2

 

The story so far

 

The name of the game is to find a complete explanation for persuasion. I have approached this from 2 angles. 1) To understand persuasion for it's own sake and see how it affects the world around us. 2) To get real practical tips on how to make ourselves more persuasive.

 

So far I came up with 'ideal persuasion'. Ideal persuasion was how I said the mind talks to itself and how the mind can persuade itself to change. However, to make a change, one has to actually make an idea be genuinely considered. This is not always so easy.

 

The main practical advice from this is to make your ideas easy to understand so that, if considered, the person will not consider a misinterpretation.

 

In the real world, getting your arguments heard at this level is probably the single greatest challenge.

 

I believe there is only one difference between 'ideal arguments' and real life persuasion.

 

Although this post is long, it is written in semi-chapters. You should really only read what you want to. There is a quick summary at the end for those short of time and if you would like to see more on any point than what is in the summary, then you should be able to find it under my headlines.

 

The defence mechanism

 

If you want to get a point heard, all you need to do is make your argument without triggering the 'defence mechanism'.

 

When I was reading the 'persuasive writing' section of an English language book, I was struck with the introduction example they showed.

 

It was a debate on nuclear power. In reading it, I saw the same old trashy arguments and I was certainly not persuaded. The book then raised the following question. ‘Would the essay succeed in finding any new supporters for the cause, or would it only make old supporters feel better about themselves?’

 

And this is a profound observation. Many arguments that one previously thought were good may be completely rubbish and only work because YOU ALREADY BELIEVED IT.

 

So, then, what separates a persuasive argument from one that may only 'rally the troops'? I say the defence mechanism.

 

What is the defence mechanism

 

Ideas are not just luxuries acquired when mankind’s IQ's grew too large. They are fundamental to our existence; an evolutionary necessity.

 

Many people have asked whether you own your ideas or whether your ideas own you. I think they are one and the same as I will explain.

 

1) If a master persuader told you convincingly that if falling 100 feet will not kill you and you allow yourself to believe him, you very well might die [by jumping off a cliff]. And if a religious cleric were to convince you that the best path to god was to blow yourself up killing infidels, then …. well we all know what happens.

 

So anybody who can control our ideas and beliefs can control our every action. Thus there is little difference between our individuality and our individual ideas. And because of the extreme importance of ideas and beliefs to our survival, we protect them vigorously with a filtering mechanism.

 

Any idea that is incompatible with something you strongly hold to be true will be filtered out almost without consideration.

 

2) Some ideas get more acceptance than others and whoever’s ideas are accepted by the group tends also to be the leader.

 

Take the relationship between Ralph, Piggy and the rest of the group in Lord of the flys. Piggy had all the ideas. But he was not a leader so the group ignored them. Ralph was, and Piggy's ideas flourished (at least at first) through Ralph.

 

Considering the extreme importance of our ideas in terms of social status [an assertion backed up by many self help books], the mind can get extremely defensive when ones own personal opinions are challenged. It is not so much a matter of pride as a matter of social survival for your idea to dominate opposing ideas.

 

So any idea that runs contrary to ones own current beliefs may automatically trigger a defence mechanism in which one simply shuts down from listening to and considering the argument any further.

Thus persuasion in the real world is simply the art of making arguments in a way that does not trigger the defence mechanism.

 

The consequences of triggering the defence mechanism

 

If you trigger the defence mechanism at any point within an argument, the reader / listener will stop listening to your points on the merits and, will start looking for problems with the reasoning and when they find one, however slight, they will often dismiss everything.

 

You will lose the argument which may lose you the entire post. If you continue to trigger the defence mechanism, you will certainly lose the entire post, and maybe even the chapter and the entire book.

 

It does not matter if you have one intellectual gem surrounded by 11 somewhat dodgy claims. The 11 claims will trigger the defence mechanism and the 1 good point will be lost.

 

Thus the difference between the real world and the ideal situation is in the real world, a point can be lost not only on intellectual merit, but on stylistic merit AND the intellectual and stylistic merits of the points that proceeded and followed.

 

Immediate practical applications

If you model each argument or sentence as having a finite probability of containing a defence mechanism trigger, then insightful conclusions can be drawn without any further analysis. It shows you do not want to argue too much. Restrict your points to one thesis at a time so that a persuasive error in one will not affect the other.

 

Make sure weaker arguments do not affect the stronger ones by making a clear separation or even eliminating them altogether.

 

Lastly, if the person agrees with you, do not say much more. If you trigger the defence mechanism on a point on which you agree, you might make them persuade themselves to the other side.

 

Avoiding the defence mechanism

 

From the above, there were two causes for triggering the defence mechanism.

 

1) An idea that appears to defy one person's perception of reality.

2) Something that represents a challenge to ones own beliefs and / or social status.

 

Defying reality

 

Obviously if your main point defies reality, it will be rejected. But you must also be very careful to avoid claims that defy reality within your examples, alternative points and sub points especially if you have constructed the argument to depend on those claims.

 

Someone reading this might say ‘who is this arrogant prick who says what is and what is not reality?’. I suspect I might even be on the verge of triggering the defence mechanism on some people with this omission. The answer is your audience.

 

Some things are important to different people. For example, many people are logical. And even those that are not are still logical to some extent.

 

So you must make sure that you do not make any claims that rely upon logical fallacies. If you do, you may find yourself triggering the defence mechanism at least in part of your audience.

 

Making an argument logically tight does not need as much extra brain power as one might expect.

 

Consider the following arguments.

 

i) Putting a moderate muslim in contact with an extremist cleric will make that Muslim a fanatic. So to stop extremism, we must ban clerics with extremist views.

 

And

 

ii) Putting a moderate Muslim in contact with an extremist cleric can make that Muslim’s views more fanatical. So, to stop extremism, we must regulate Muslim clerics.

 

Which is better? They are both saying EXACTLY the same idea. The difference is, i is sloppy in its use of logic. By using the word ‘will’ instead of ‘may’, the sentence may now defy reality according to some people thus triggering the defence mechanism and the idea is lost. I think the particular logical fallacy is ‘hasty generalisation’ but it could also be the ‘half truth’ fallacy. However, by adding the word ‘may’ the claim is weakened enough to make logical sense but not enough to damage the substance of the argument. Same with ‘make that Muslim a fanatic’ as opposed to ‘make that Muslim more fanatical’, and with the ‘Regulate’ rather than ‘Ban’.

 

It’s like every logical gap is an anchor that can be potentially picked on by the reader and used to justify ignoring the entire substance of the argument.

 

So by simply polishing up the logic of the arguments, one can eliminate triggers of the defensive mechanism which will make the substantive point exponentially more persuasive.

 

This does not mean that one should not make bold claims. But if you are going to make a bold claim, try and restrict it to just 1: the main thesis.

 

I remember somebody accused me of using ‘hit and run logic’. I had a smile on my face from ear to ear after that :lol:.

 

There may be other techniques of avoiding this type of defence mechanism but I can’t think of them. Perhaps you guys can?

 

Also make sure your assumptions on which you base your arguments on are credible (see post 1). The base assumptions can be made more acceptable by emotional rhetoric.

 

For example, if your argument hinges on people thinking that the existance of poverty is a bad thing (eg a welfare state helps people in real need), then you want to create a real emotional bond between that poor man who made a wrong decision or was abused by his family and your audience. Pointing out, say, that the begger, could easily have been any one of us had we been less fortunate.

 

real life example of logic.

 

I was reading the Jerusalem post, a pro-Israel paper with leanings to the right. A pro-Israel left winger wrote a column arguing the merits of Olmert’s ceasefire in Gaza that he proposed. And his argument was essentially this: military tactics are not working, so Israel should pursue diplomatic initiatives. Now I am supportive of this and I agreed with all two pages of what he said …. Except for one little bit. In trying to show that military tactics are ineffective, he said ‘and surely we must realise by now that these military tactics only serve to increase the hatred and the anger amongst Palestinians which will make us less safe’. He must have known this was completely unacceptable to a right-wing pro- Israeli reader. It is completely unacceptable to me as I very strongly believe that Palestinians are angry because of their hatred of Israel’s very existence that is continuously brainwashed into them and Israel’s military operations serve only as an excuse, not a cause for their anger and hate.

 

That single sentence in my view was so far from my reality. By suggesting Palestinian anger is in any way caused by rational responses to Israel’s military operations against militants, I think his argument verges on pro-Palestinian.

 

So the defence mechanism went up. Which is a shame because I agreed with every substantive point he said. However, he did not need to resort to demanding people to swallow that view for people to support his argument. He needed only point out that Israel’s military measures have not been as successful at stopping the Kassam rockets as a cease fire might be.

 

And looking the comments on his article, almost all readers strongly rejected his views and I would bet money that if he had not said that single sentence, the number of critics would have maybe even halved. His editorial may have even been counter productive as some people may think to accept a cease fire, one must accept that military operations against militants are the cause of Palestinian rage.

 

Social Status / argument contradicts previous beliefs

 

This may on the surface appear to be prevent any argument capable of changing somebody’s mind from ever being given proper consideration. But luckily, there are ways around this.

 

Target audience

The first and one of the most important ways round this is to tailor your arguments to your audience as has been suggested by a number of posts before this one. This works for a few reasons. Firstly, because you are minimising the ‘clash’ of ideas between you and your audience, you reduce your chance of a clash of values triggering a defence mechanism. Secondly, people often have real needs and if they see their needs, or the needs that are important to them, are not being addressed at the expense of other needs, this may threaten their social status triggering the defence mechanism. So you must choose your arguments to be compatible and acceptable to that of your audience.

 

Examples

Pgrmdave’s post about research of embryos. The young do not want to hear about the benefits to the old or vice versa because this will threaten their social status. So start with the benefits to the young for the young audience and the benefits to the old for the old audience. And investors are unsympathetic to moral blackmail so start with the profit and loss figures.

 

Also, when I was at University, I only made a contribution to two of my JCR debates. The college JCR was extremely left wing, and both causes were traditional left wing causes and looked like they would carry with an overwhelming majority. I opposed them both. But to do so, I restricted myself only to arguments of the left to appeal to the values they have (equal rights, charity, peace etc). The result: one overwhelming victory; and one narrow defeat (about 45% - 55%).

 

This technique can be extremely effective.

 

Be the first

 

The best way around this DM is to put your point first. If the person has no views on the issue, then there are no opinions and therefore DM's to trigger. The chances that they will be aware of all the issues of the other side is almost negligible. People will lap up your views like a puppy when you compare it to their response if you get there last.

 

But once people already have their views, how can you make them give genuine consideration to the other side’s arguments?

 

Be likable

Firstly, and most obviously, don’t make it personal. Don’t be rude, unlikeable, untrusting etc. Dress nicely and generally cut down on behaviours that cause a defensive reaction.

 

For an example of this, one need only check out posts 2, 3 and 4 of this thread. Ughaibu attacked me personally, I responded and we both ended up ignoring what the other said.

 

Respect your opponent

Secondly respect your opponent. If you attack those who disagree with you without showing any understanding of their position, this will trigger the defence mechanism and you will lose them. This can be done either by agreeing with their main points or by giving an accurate summary of them even if you then proceed to show why you think it is wrong. If they think they have been understood, they will make an effort to understand you. Your honesty will establish trust.

 

Eg,

The democrats say x. But this is complete rubbish based on a manipulation of economics. The truth is y, vote republican.

This is correct as long as x is a genuine representation of a standard democratic argument.

 

The republicans say v. Whist v is absolutely correct, there are other considerations, namely w. The democrat proposal deals with both. Vote democrat.

This is also correct.

 

The green party is the only party that can look after our planet. The Conservative party are a bunch of right wing toffs who do not care about the environment, only their own personal business needs, and Labour is too concerned with helping unions to strike than to deal with the issues of our planet.

This is extremely bad. It will rally the troops but gain no new supporters.

 

The straw and iron man

 

In a previous thread, people discussed how the straw man, and to a lesser extent, an ‘iron man’ [where a weak rather than a false version of the other person’s argument is given] affects persuasiong. This is my view.

 

If you do not make your subject aware of the counter arguments, they may not survive their first contact with the other side. So you can feed the subject a straw man and a counter to that strawman. Now, when exposed to the other side, they make their point that sounds like the strawman, this can make the subject assume they know what you are going to say. But this strawman is unlikely to survive if the debate goes into any depth at all. In this way, a strawman acts to immunise the subject for a short period of time against the opposing arguments by creating a barrier to understanding. However, this ‘vaccine’ will only last until the straw man is exposed.

 

An iron man works in the same way except it will require a more detailed discussion to expose.

 

But the detail required to expose a straw or an iron man may be far more than a simple 2 minute spokesperson on the news or a guardian article. One may need a detailed discussion with a knowledgeable person.

 

But iron and straw men seem to me to only work against those first exposed to an argument.

 

Real life practical example.

 

I was at a Palestinian meeting (yeah, I know, I went to a lot of them), and they were talking about the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees and they gave a lot of bleeding heart stories of suffering of refugees which often lacked just enough important details for me to become sceptical. All the time, I was thinking in my mind ‘this is all very well and good, but you are calling for the complete destruction of the state of Israel’. And suddenly the speaker said ‘Zionists though refuse this because they would say it destroys Israel’.

 

Now what was going on here? Technically all she said was a very quick and brief summary of the enormously good reason for not accepting the right of return. But she left it there, hanging, with no flesh and no explanation. Yet, for Palestinian points, they often went on for hours.

 

The clue was in her tone. The hatred of all things Zionist was abundantly clear and the implication was that this argument is not so much wrong as manipulative evil. By stating the argument in inadequate detail and with a hostile tone, she was creating an iron man.

 

And the result is that often, when I find myself talking about the right of return and it’s inevitable effect of destroying Israel, people say to me, ‘you would say that, you’re Zionist’. This is the beginning of a defence mechanism.

 

So even though the respect and co-existance of both sides is fundamental for peace, pointing out this point triggered a carefully prepared persuasion trap.

 

However, I learnt how to over come this. At the moment of the come back, the defence mechanism is not fully up yet so one has a brief moment to shut it down before it begins. I just go, “that’s right, and there is a very good reason why Zionists say it: the right of return DOES AMOUNT to the complete destruction of Israel”.

 

Thus, by agreeing with the substantive point [Zionists say RoR destroys Israel], but pushing further [because it is genuinely true], I have respected the opposition allowing me to make him/her consider the real argument thus overcoming the iron man. This has even worked on actual Palestinians :hyper: .

 

The wrong answers would be “I’m not a Zionist” or “but it does destroy Israel”. These result in the defence mechanism coming straight up as the subject dismisses me as ‘just another Zionist’ and therefore an enemy to their beliefs.

 

But is it possible to immunise a subject against another side even if that other side can use tactical argumentative finesses as above?

 

Undoubtedly yes. If you present an honest an accurate summary of the other side, and you can still show it is wrong, then no amount of tactical finesse will get the subject swallowing the argument that has been shown to be wrong.

 

Before I leave straw and iron men altogether, there is one final and extremely important point.

 

Notice how I reacted when confronted with an iron man. It raised my defences instantly. What does this show?

 

An iron or staw man will never work to persuade. Somebody of the opinion you are trying to tackle will notice it instantly. So what is its purpose? The answer is to immunize people being exposed to the issues for the first time from subsequent arguments with the other side.

 

So if you are trying to persuade somebody opposed to your views, don’t give iron or straw men. Respect your opponent with the full version. An iron and straw man may have limited success only for someone new to the topic.

 

Speak from your perspective

 

This is probably the single most powerful tool in my view.

 

This is probably the hardest to master, but it really pays dividends. As I was saying, ideas can amount to social status. So trying to persuade anybody of any belief that contradicts yours in any significant way WILL raise the defence mechanism.

 

This at first sight represents a fundamental limit as to what one can and cannot persuade someone to swallow. Every above technique has so far pandered to the other’s values. But wouldn’t it be nice if we can just scrap all that bullshit and say what we really feel and make THAT persuasive?

 

Well, I think one can: by speaking from YOUR perspective.

 

Don’t tell people what to think, tell them what you think. Instead of saying ‘your numbers do not make sense because’ say ‘I don’t understand your numbers because’. Instead of ‘the war in Iraq was a good thing for the world despite what everyone says’ say ‘I still think the war in Iraq was a good thing despite what everyone says’.

 

What’s going on here?

 

Technically speaking, you are not actually trying to persuade them. If anything, your encouraging them to try and persuade you. So when thinking like that, they will try and understand your personal view point and in doing so, will see what the world looks like from another point of view. You are now not challenging their view, merely expressing yours.

 

In this way, you can convince the young to support embrio research using the arguments chosen for the old by simply saying something like ‘the way I see it, the old have given an enormous amount for us and I would certainly like to give them something back by supporting embryo research’. I would be highly surprised if talking about the benefits to the old now triggered the DM in as many people.

 

This can work as a hypnotic suggestion [see my past thread on Islamic terror] since by expressing the arguments as simply a statement of your view, you are distracting the conscious mind from your real objective: implanting your arguments in them. If this is right, then this technique is more related to brainwashing / thought reform and not this particular thread of persuasion through and not around the conscious mind.

 

But I don’t think this is right. To do this right, you need to stop caring about whether others accept your opinion (taken from some self help books). To be a leader, you should have the confidence that your view matters and that you don’t need to make a big effort to persuade. Give your view, and have confidence in it. Why the hell do you care if some shmuch keeps his a silly opinion anyway? So the truth is, you are really only giving your opinion without remorse and anybody who is persuaded by it, great. As your main intended communication is on the conscious level, I say it still is classified under genuine persuasion.

 

Enough theory, how can we use this?

 

Don’t care too much if others disagree. If you communicate you do, you will make yourself LESS persuasive. And it is quite plausible that two very different opinions may be equally valid.

 

Acknowledge your own limitations. Even Einstein was wrong on some things. Everybody can be. And people of less intelligence than Einstein may have understood something that he did not at first. So when you say ‘I may have misunderstood your argument, I think …’, you should genuinely consider the possibility that you have misunderstood and your opponent might be right.

 

Don’t get too attached to your views. Your opponent may be right on some issues. You should be grateful for the extra knowledge and be happy to give in. This will make your opponent more open to considering your views too. So by being open, you are much more likely to persuade on your stronger points.

 

Finally, the summary .

To anybody that read all of the above, thanks. It’s nice to know I’m not talking to myself :lol:. But I acknowledge it was a real beast.

 

1) To get somebody to consider an argument, one must express the argument without triggering a defence mechanism.

 

2) There are two types of defence mechanisms: a) one that blocks an argument that defies one person’s reality; and :hihi: one that challenges a persons deep held values and / or social status.

 

2ai) keep your arguments logically tight. Don’t make unnecessarily sloppy bold claims that amount to a leap in logic. Each one is potentially a trigger for the ‘reality’ defence mechanism even if that logical leap is not essential to the argument or is on a completely different point altogether. Also make each assumption on which your argument is based credible backing them up with appeals to the emotions.

 

ii) Keep your arguments short. Don’t use excess points. Avoid continuing to persuade somebody who already agrees with you.

 

2bi) Tailor your arguments carefully to your audience (as stated in other posts here). You don’t want to challenge somebody’s deep held beliefs and / or social status unnecessarily.

 

ii) A bit manipulative, but try and get your side across first. This will prevent conflicts with any beliefs or values as they don’t have any yet.

 

iii) Be likable. Don’t be rude or aggressive or take things personally. Dress well, present yourself well and be non-threatening. This will make people less likely to feel threatened by the beliefs you are trying to impose on them thus triggering the defence mechanism.

 

iv) Respect your opponent. Put forward your opponents view as reasonably as you can. You can then either agree with it, or say, this is wrong because of x .Don’t give a strawman or iron man of the other side. This only works to prevent people from being persuaded by their first encounter with the other side but has no effect in persuading an opponent. And even then its use is limited.

 

v) Always talk from your perspective. Say ‘I think that x is wrong’ rather than ‘x is wrong’ and ‘I do not understand your numbers’ rather than ‘your numbers don’t add up’. Yes, there are manipulative psychological reasons why this works, but it is best done if done honestly. You might be wrong. Your opponent might be right. And by phrasing things in this way, you avoid personal clashes and therefore defence mechanisms.