The art of Pursuasion 2

[sebbysteiny]

Do my ideas explain all the facts?

 

Persuasion takes far, far more than knowledge, logic or a knack with words.

 

According to my ideas, intelligence only helps in two areas. In ideal arguing, intelligence, facts and knowledge will help you see through the thicket of the debate much further than somebody who lacks these things.

 

However, this can only help if you have mastered the skills in post 2.

 

Of those skills, the idea of making your arguments logical (to prevent the 'reality' defence mechanism) is the only one that might require intelligence, but the amount required is not actually that high.

 

So according to my ideas, intelligence is not the most important thing and can only help if you have mastered the other things as well.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think therefore that my ideas are compatible with your observations.

 

Check.

 

For a start, it takes the ability to listen clearly and compassionately.

It takes the ability to understand another's point of view--from THEIR point of view, not merely from your own.

 

This is what I called 'respect for the opposition', which prevents triggering the 'social status / deep beliefs' defence mechanism.

 

Check.

 

And true persuasion, the kind that moves mountains, calls men to arms, and alters lives must be based on a willingness to "make your opponent right".

 

This seems to me to be very similar to what I called 'talk from your perspective'. By acknowledging your opponent might be right, you are not directly threatening your opponent preventing triggering the 'social status / deep beliefs' defence mechanism.

 

Check.

 

Persuasion isn't boring, regardless of merits about 'this or that'. Not saying that long posts are necessarily boring, but there is a power in conciseness and brevity.

 

Conciseness makes your ideas easier to understand and easier to interest the reader enough to be read. This is suggested from Post 1, ideal arguing.

 

Check.

 

The Art of Persuasion has very little to do with proper spelling, or even proper syntax.

 

Wow, pyrotex has made many contributions. QP.

 

I think you will agree, though, that you want to make your ideas easy to understand and accurate spelling aids this. Also, though I did not say it in Post 2, I think innaccurate spelling can act as a 'reality' defence mechanism trigger in some people. So it's best to be accurate.

 

But if you can be clear and you are not persuading someone with a spelling and grammar rod up their arse, spelling is not essential.

 

Check.

 

Persuasion and Winning an Argument are two separate and distinct things.

 

They way I have explained this is that you may very well win the ideal argument, but that will not help you pursuade if you have triggered a defence mechanism.

 

But I'm not sure you can 'lose' an argument and still persuade unless you have persuaded on particular points which you won even if you lost the main argument.

 

You might be right, but I find it very difficult to see how somebody who has clearly seen their argument triumphing can be persuaded to the argument they perceived themselves to beat.

 

I think what you might mean is that even though you may have objectively lost the argument, some people might perceive you as having won it and then being persuaded.

 

If this is right, your observation entirely agrees with my ideas.

 

Check (subject to confirmation).

 

The scientific analysis of [Hitler's] 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.

 

My ideal arguing idea predicted that a point made clearly with good body language and voice tone improves your ability to persuade as long as you don't trigger any defence mechanisms.

 

Trusting body language also prevents the 'social status / deep belief' defence mechanism.

 

Emotions can help estabilsh base assumptions in an argument which prevents triggering the 'reality' defence mechanism.

 

Check

 

The first thing that you need to know to persuade, before anything else, is your audience.

 

If your arguments are tailored to be closer to the deep beliefs of the audience, you will be less likely to trigger the 'social status / deep beliefs' defence mechanism.

 

Check.

 

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

 

This is a distinction I have made. The former goes around the conscious mind, the latter goes through it. I have focused on going through it.

 

Check.

 

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.

 

This is very similar to 'targetting the audience' except this is more spontanious. It's a good idea. The only problem is it seems somewhat restrive about how you can persuade somebody on something that they don't want to hear. Nevertheless, it is still a good strategy to use when you can.

 

It seems to me compatible with my ideas in the same way as targetting the audience is.

 

Politians use that same technique. They tell people what they want to hear, such as when the Democrats promised "we need to leave Iraq."

 

I'm not convinced this is persuasion. It seems to me more like explaining what you belief in in the hope that people who agree already would vote for you so I think it's 'rallying the troops' rather than persuasion.

 

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

 

'Social status / deep beliefs' IS a defence mechanism triggered by anything that goes against somebodies deep beliefs and / or social status. So that principal is a key stone of my entire idea.

 

Check.

 

My god. I think I've done it. My ideas actually DO explain how and why every persuasive technique actually works, at least every one randomly suggested so far by the wonderful citizens of hypography.

 

And it only took me about 3-4 hours to formulate.

[sebbysteiny]

Nobody read my post

[Eclogite]

You argued for the value of brevity, but you failed to persuade yourself of the truth of this. Is it surprising that your writing was ignored?

[sebbysteiny]

You argued for the value of brevity, but you failed to persuade yourself of the truth of this. Is it surprising that your writing was ignored?

 

Putting together a complete theory of pusuasion was no easy task.

 

If you look at my post, I had douzans of tips on improving ones persuasion some requiring fundamental changes of mindset. When you add this together with a number of illustrative examples, I make no appoligies for length.

 

I even included a summary at the end for those who just wanted to skim the post ignoring the detail.

 

And brevity is only important if the extra content does justify the reduced brevity.

 

Although it may take time to read, it took over 4 hours to write.

[pgrmdave]

Sebby - rather than telling us that you are right (not that I disagree) why don't you try to persuade us?

[Pyrotex]

Sebby - rather than telling us that you are right (not that I disagree) why don't you try to persuade us?

 

What an increadibly freakin' novel idea!!!

Pgrmdave, my chappeau is off to you!!!

 

:evil:

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby - rather than telling us that you are right (not that I disagree) why don't you try to persuade us?

 

I'm not trying to tell you or persuade you I am right. I am trying to persuade you to read the post (particularly post 2= and the I would love to hear what you guys think, right or wrong.

[Eclogite]

And brevity is only important if the extra content does justify the reduced brevity.

Although it may take time to read, it took over 4 hours to write..

I think it was Mark Twain, in a letter to a friend, who closed with these words "I had intended to write you a two page letter. Unfortunately I did not have the time, and thus my letter is ten pages long."

 

or,

 

Here is the best book review I ever read.

 

The Art of Brevity

Excellent.

 

 

P.S.

I shall read it. Eventually.

[Pyrotex]

There was this Peanuts cartoon strip one Sunday: Linus is busy with crayons and paper. His sister Lucy picks up his drawing and says, "what is this supposed to be?" Linus says, "it's a work of art. I spent half an hour drawing that." Lucy wads the paper up and tosses it over her shoulder, saying, "a true work of art takes at least 45 minutes."

 

A theory of persuasion may only be as good as the number of people its author can persuade to read it.

[pgrmdave]

Sebby, the reason I suggest that you attempt to persuade is because that is the true test of your theory. Whether or not it seems correct doesn't matter - it is whether or not it makes one a more effective persuader that matters. I'll warn you that should you not take the challenge, I will attempt to use your system to persuade people that it is wrong :D

[niin]

sebbysteiny

I like some of your ideas, but i think you are missing the real essence of the subject.

 

People are persuaded by rewards. :phones:

You can persuade anyone, if you give them a big enough reward (or make them believe they will get it)

If you persuade someone in the way that you described in your first posts, it is only because they like to find the objective truth and didn't get any rewards big enough to counter that.

 

Think about it. Don't let your defence mechanism prevent you from finding the truth. :eek_big:

If you have any arguments/examples to put forth against this, please do.

 

PS: If you want the truth, you only have to make sure that the rewards for the truth is bigger than anything ells.

[Pyrotex]

sebbysteiny

I like some of your ideas, but i think you are missing the real essence of the subject. People are persuaded by rewards. ....

Very good!

Another way to say this is: Speak to the other's self interest. If they believe that there is something in it for them (a "reward") then they will listen and do the hard thinking necessary to follow your argument. Only THEN will your facts and logic (assuming you have any) make an impact on them.

[sebbysteiny]

Sorry I havn't responded of late, but I'm on holiday and internet access is scetchy. I have only 5 mins to eech out a reply before I lose this computer.

 

Sebby, the reason I suggest that you attempt to persuade is because that is the true test of your theory. Whether or not it seems correct doesn't matter - it is whether or not it makes one a more effective persuader that matters. I'll warn you that should you not take the challenge, I will attempt to use your system to persuade people that it is wrong

 

I agree; the theory can only be judged on whether or not it makes one a more effective pursador, and any further accedimic conclusions are a welcome bonus.

 

But I can't both explain in explicit detail a pursasion technique and at the very same time use that technique to pursuade people of its accuracy.

 

If you doubt the techniques described, you need look only at the examples to see the power and effectiveness of the techniques.

 

I also do not claim to have mastered the above techniques perfectly.

 

And I would welcome you to argue against the subject but only as far as you genuinely feel that my ideas do not represent an accurate picture of reality.

 

sebbysteiny

I like some of your ideas, but i think you are missing the real essence of the subject.

 

People are persuaded by rewards.

 

Thank you very much. The problem I have is that I can only see it from my perspective and explain the processes of my mind that occured in my life when people tried to pursuade me.

 

I would love to know what bits you liked and to hear your perspective on them.

 

But I disagree with your last sentence [in the quote].

 

What I have said is that there a number of techniques which all may avoid triggering a defence mechanism. Each one is as important as each other, though some may be more common than others.

 

Time up. More soon.

[Racoon]

Two things that are great for persuasion...

Money, and a well endowed woman.

 

I don't know of too many people who can't be artfully persuaded by either a large sum of cash, or a nice pair of kittens in a bag. :D

 

:shrug:

[sebbysteiny]

cont from last post.

 

'rewards' are one effective method of persuasion, but I don't think they are the only one.

 

But what is a 'reward'?

 

Another way to say this is: Speak to the other's self interest. If they believe that there is something in it for them (a "reward") then they will listen and do the hard thinking necessary to follow your argument. Only THEN will your facts and logic (assuming you have any) make an impact on them.

 

QP for pyrotex. As described in my [long] post 2, this is similar to choosing your arguments to appeal to your audience. Infact, I see no difference at all between your 'reward' concept and choosing your arguments. This can be done by either appealing to their personal self interest (eg health concerns) or appealing to their personal beliefs and accepted values.

 

But in my post 2, I said the two were actually one and the same thing, hence 2 defence mechanisms (reality + deep beliefs / social status) and not three.

 

So I think what you have said is identical to what I have said.

 

If you persuade someone in the way that you described in your first posts, it is only because they like to find the objective truth.

 

...

 

PS: If you want the truth, you only have to make sure that the rewards for the truth is bigger than anything ells.

 

My first posts were only half the answer. I was suggesting that ideal arguing is the way the human mind talks to itself. And everybody argues to themselves in this way.

 

But they will only be persuaded if they give the opposing argument genuine consideration. To do that, you must say the argument without triggering a defence mechanism.

 

I'm not convinced people will only be interested in truth if it is their interests. Most people I think would not wish to contribute to evil even if that evil is in their interests. How many times has the fate of those who you will never know, meet or miss guided you in your support for a particular political action. Fundamentally, I think people look for truth and want to do what is right but sometimes their logic has gone wrong in a serious way.

[sebbysteiny]

Two things that are great for persuasion...

Money, and a well endowed woman.

 

I don't know of too many people who can't be artfully persuaded by either a large sum of cash, or a nice pair of kittens in a bag.

 

:doh:

 

I think your suggestions split into three catogaries.

 

1) money. This I think is appealing to someones self interest discussed above.

 

2) Women. This I think is using the 'social alter' to manipulate the subconsious. Basically this means using social pressure to get an argument around the conscious straight into the subconscious. This is brainwashing / thought reform and not the topic of this thread.

 

3) Kittens. I think this is quite clearly brainwashing / thought reform. The only problem I'm having is that I can't see exactly how it works which is frustrating even if it is not relevant to the topic being discussed. I think it works by equating emotions to an idea. Demonisation is a special case of this where you equate love to a people and hate to another people.

[InfiniteNow]

Per the thread's title, art implies subjective application, hence some will persuade others differently. Perhaps you should restate this to "Proposed parameters of effective persuasion." Art, while in the eye of the beholder, seems to have no clear place in this thread...