The art of Pursuasion 2

[sebbysteiny]

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...

 

I refer you to my first post in this thread where I defined the scope of this thread.

 

As in the last thread, I'm going to deal only with ideas communicated THROUGH the conscious mind and not the brainwashing / thought reform tactics that rely on going AROUND it.

 

The reasons are that brainwashing / thought reform has been dealt with fully and thoroughly in a previous thread titled 'Anger and hate: the Power of Brainwashing'. Anybody with more to add on that topic can continue that thread or start a new one.

 

However honest and genuine persuasion, which is probably far more important in every day life, has not yet been discussed.

[niin]

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

 

But what is a 'reward'?

If i really look into anything objectively, i can always find a reward. This and logic tells me that rewards are the only method.

I believe that rewards are what makes everything tick.

Why do you do sports? You get rewarded by improving your health.

Why do you eat? You get the reward of not dying of hunger.

Why do you do anything. Because it is rewarding.

Why could you be convinced? because you where rewarded.

 

A reward could be money. It could be a useful memory. It could be the feeling you get when you do something you love.

It could be alot of thing. A reward is something that make someone do something.

A reward is the net result when you take all income and deduct all the costs.

 

 

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.

I believe it to be a matter of rewards

Social survival is about keeping the social position you have (or improving it).

If you beliefs survives an attack you get the reward of keeping the social position you have (or improving it).

If your beliefs don't survives the attack, you social position might suffer.

If you stand to loose more than you like by maintaining your "wrong" beliefs, you switch side and get the reward of not losing a big part of your social position.

If the cost of changing your mind is to great, then it is possible that no reward is big enough to change your mind.

 

by expressing the arguments as simply a statement of your view, you are distracting the conscious mind from your real objective

I don't believe it is a distraction. :weather_storm:

The reward for being persuaded is bigger when it is not a person who persuaded you.

Socially we are indebted if someone shows us the truth. So that cost is deducted from any potential rewards.

So by not officially trying to convince them, you make the reward for being convinced bigger.

I can see nothing wrong with it in this case

All things that helps you persuade, helps because they modify the rewards.

 

I was suggesting that ideal arguing is the way the human mind talks to itself. And everybody argues to themselves in this way.

Really? Why do you call it "ideal arguing" then? Would "real arguing" or "internal arguing" not be better?. I normally don't think about Ideals as real.

 

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.

 

I believe that people wish to keep the respect of other people. If those people think evil is wrong, the reward gets smaller.

The rewards for evil is not big enough for most people.

[ryan2006]

There are two types of leaders. Ones that apply persuasion when they are ill informed leading to destruction and ones that are well organized and plan for the good intent of taking care of many. The first type could end up the second or visa versa. Persuading people to learn how to be healthy for example is an excellent approach and one used by my therapist.

[PsyCho]

Sebby I have actually gone and read all your posts as this is an area that also interests me (and I end up doing this on a daily basis). You put forward some intersting points, I'd like to briefly add to this maelstrom:

 

1) The importance of body language. You can dismantle subconscious barriers to arguments and persuasion by mirroring. You want a person to feel connected to you, then you have a much better chance of getting your point accross (or at least getting them to agree with it) :) : :)

 

2) Small steps not big leaps (I think this has been iterated already), you want them to feel that an idea, whatever it is, is already part of their internal construct. It is an idea they themselves have already had, just not voiced. If you can convince them that they thought of it before you even spoke to them, your onto a winner. The art of persuasion is just this; convincing someone and making them believe they actually thought of it. Memory is a wonderfully slippy thing.

 

3) Related to 1 and 2, you obviously have to make adjustments given the audience size. Also I can't stress the importance of matching argument with personality types (it's about avoiding those defense barriers)

 

4) Timing and pacing are key for all of the above points

 

5) As for not getting in by the back door - What do you think all the references to ladies and legs :) (or chaps and physique) involves; If you trigger superstimuli, you remove alot of barriers in your way (evolution helps you here)

 

5) As for your comments about muslims, specifically about "moderate" clerics etc. Your trying to compare like with like, whereas the historical and political histories are completly different. It's like trying to compare a Pollock with a Picasso or Dali with Monet. In art, you always judge something based upon the era and context in which it was created; the background of the artist and the thoughts around at the time. You can not use your clearly westen view of moderate and apply the same stick to the middle east. Also you putting your western stripes on display by using clerics as your stable argument attractor :naughty: . Lets open the box a bit; there are equally as many extreamist christian believers and preachers; their views pretty much as concrete and dangerous. But they do not make good news (particularly in the states), and they are acceptable caucasian individuals. But in terms of a persuasive argument it may be more convincing if you draw on examples from all walks of life. Religion is a hot potatoe at the best of times and usually a good way to bring up defense barriers.

 

Anyway, back to christmas shopping then.... :doh:

[sebbysteiny]

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

If i really look into anything objectively, i can always find a reward. This and logic tells me that rewards are the only method.

 

What I think is going on here is that you are proposing a counter model. My model is ideal arguing without triggering defence mechanisms, you are saying it is almost entirely about 'rewards'.

 

You have said, if I have understood correctly, that 'reward' is defined so widely that almost everything can be described as a reward. Giving to charity, for example, would be supported by the reward of feeling moral.

 

Interesting though your idea is, I think there is a few major gaps that you might like to qualify.

 

If everything has rewards, then a debate is really about which reward dominates. To pursuade, you need to show that your rewards are better than that of the other side. So an enviromentalist would argue that the rewards of saving the planet are superior to the rewards of immediate economic growth.

 

The problem I see is that all you seem to have done is restate the problem in another language but your concept gives no guidence as to how to actually PURSUADE someone that the rewards they previously thought were great are not as great as the rewards of the other side.

 

I also think that our models are actually mutually compatible. If I simply said that ideal arguing gives the mind the reward of making sense, and triggering a defence mechanism deprives the mind of the reward of social acceptance or the reward of an ego boost for understanding reality, then we are saying the same thing.

 

So although I agree that you can look at it in terms of 'a reward', what extra understanding and techniques does one get from looking at it in this way?

 

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.

 

If you beliefs survives an attack you get the reward of keeping the social position you have (or improving it).

If your beliefs don't survives the attack, you social position might suffer.

If you stand to loose more than you like by maintaining your "wrong" beliefs, you switch side and get the reward of not losing a big part of your social position.

If the cost of changing your mind is to great, then it is possible that no reward is big enough to change your mind.

 

I'm not convinced about this paragraph at all. This do not think this means your idea of rewards is 'wrong' only that you might not have applied it correctly to the social status defence mechanism.

 

I think there are all kinds of other things going on here. I also think you might be straying into the 'social alter' here, which is part of brainwashing rather than persuasion through the conscious mind.

Out of time.

[niin]

The problem I see is that all you seem to have done is restate the problem in another language but your concept gives no guidence as to how to actually PURSUADE someone that the rewards they previously thought were great are not as great as the rewards of the other side.

I thought that your suggestions about what to do was pretty good.

I think i can understand better why it works if it works the way I have suggested.

Knowing the concept, also make it easier to identify new ways of improving in persuading.

 

I also think that our models are actually mutually compatible.

I am glad that you think so. I was thinking the same. :naughty:

 

So although I agree that you can look at it in terms of 'a reward', what extra understanding and techniques does one get from looking at it in this way?

I like to use occam's razor. When we have two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, the less complicated formulation is usually better.

I think my formulation is less complicated.

 

I'm not convinced about this paragraph at all. This do not think this means your idea of rewards is 'wrong' only that you might not have applied it correctly to the social status defence mechanism.

 

I think there are all kinds of other things going on here. I also think you might be straying into the 'social alter' here, which is part of brainwashing rather than persuasion through the conscious mind.

Out of time.

 

How did i apply it wrongly?

What kind of things do you think is going on? Or where you referring to earlier posts?

 

I can see how one could misuse my concepts to "brainwash", but should this prevent us from talking about it?

All good things can be used for evil.

[sebbysteiny]

There are two types of leaders. Ones that apply persuasion when they are ill informed leading to destruction and ones that are well organized and plan for the good intent of taking care of many.

Is this just another way of saying you can have good leaders and you can have bad ones?

 

Sebby I have actually gone and read all your posts as this is an area that also interests me

Thanks for the effort. I can see you did give my post a genuine look. QP.

 

1) The importance of body language. You can dismantle subconscious barriers to arguments and persuasion by mirroring.

 

I can see you have read up on the topic. This makes your opinion particularly valid since the chances are you can see what is and is not my own creation.

 

Mirroring (immitating the body language, voice tone and even trance words to get rapport) helps persuasion definitely. The question is how?

 

I say it works in two ways. Firstly, when you have rapport, the person feels connected to you. So you have gained trust and this reduces the chances of raising the 'social status / deep beliefs' defencive mechanism.

 

Secondly, if somebody has rapport with you, they do not wish to break it. So if you slip your idea on which they disagree, they may even accept it simply to maintain rapport. This may not mean they genuinely believe it, but if you sustain the dosage, then they may genuinely believe it. This works then by using social pressure aka the social alter and is part of brainwashing / thought reform rather than persuasion through the conscious.

 

So only the first reason is relavent to this thread. And I believe I did talk about it in Post 2.

 

But yes, mirroring is a good technique. The only problem with it that I have found is that I have not found it so easy to get the hang of, which is quite important since this thread is about practical tips as much as it is about social science.

 

The way I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but everybody mirrors to some extent. It's natural. So rather than focus on immitating someone, one should focus on improving your own content and body language in conversation to get them to mirror you, or to get you mirroring them naturally.

 

Mirroring also sucks when it comes to picking up hot chicks.

 

The weaknesses of mirroring in my view is that it is following rather than leading in nature.

 

2) Small steps not big leaps (I think this has been iterated already), you want them to feel that an idea, whatever it is, is already part of their internal construct. It is an idea they themselves have already had, just not voiced. If you can convince them that they thought of it before you even spoke to them, your onto a winner. The art of persuasion is just this; convincing someone and making them believe they actually thought of it. Memory is a wonderfully slippy thing.

 

I think this contains two different tips.

 

1) Try to make the argument or belief you wish to pursuade too far from that already believed by the crowd. I think this is a special case of tailering your arguments to your audience which has been discussed in post 2.

 

3) Related to 1 and 2, you obviously have to make adjustments given the audience size. Also I can't stress the importance of matching argument with personality types (it's about avoiding those defense barriers)

 

Again, this is more good advice on tailering arguments to the audience.

 

What's notable to me is that you have accepted the frame about defense barriers in forming your advice. It seems then that you agree with the main thrust of my post 2. Cool :doh:.

 

5) As for not getting in by the back door - What do you think all the references to ladies and legs (or chaps and physique) involves; If you trigger superstimuli, you remove alot of barriers in your way (evolution helps you here)

 

See below.

 

5) As for your comments about muslims, specifically about "moderate" clerics etc

 

Your quite right to point out that the arguments I gave are not infallible. There are counter arguments.

 

But the argument was only used to illustrate the technique of making a statement more persuasive by improving the tightness of the argument. Do you agree at least, that the second argument was more pusasive than the first?

 

But what is interesting here is that the argument did trigger a defence mechanism within you.

 

Religion is a hot potatoe at the best of times and usually a good way to bring up defense barriers.

 

Quite right. Especially where religion and politics collide.

 

This is because you might say something that attacks them or their deep held beliefs raising the 'social status / deep beliefs) defence mechanism.

 

So one should avoid bringing religion etc. into arguments unless they are necessary.

 

However, what happens if the area you want to persuade IS religion or religious politics? Then, you have no choice but to make your argument as persuasive as possible.

 

I'm wondering though were my argument did not work. Logically everything I said followed, so I think it either raised a 'deep belief / social status' mechanism or was eliminated by ideal arguing. I doubt the latter since you appeared to deny any merit at all to the argument which suggests you completely ignored it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the deep belief that the argument violated was this.

 

You believe that Islam is no different to any other religion (the politically correct model) and has no faults or flaws that other religions do not have. Therefore, any mention of 'Islam' without also mentioning other religions contradicts your belief in the equality of Islam with all other religions.

 

If I am right, the word 'Islam' alone may have raised your defence mechanism and meant that you ignored the thrust of the argument: that Islamic clerics should be regulated. You may also notice that I did not say or imply that the same is not true for other religions.

 

You also appeared to pick on the word 'moderate' to raise another defence mechanism. I'm not quite sure why.

 

If I am right, it shows how easy it is for people to ignore the thrust of the argument simply because there was one word or idea out of place. So my advice remains to eliminate all the places you can see where resistance can anchor itself even if it may not be possible to eliminate all such anchors for all people all of the time.

 

Really? Why do you call it "ideal arguing" then? Would "real arguing" or "internal arguing" not be better?. I normally don't think about Ideals as real.

 

That's what I called it and as it's my theory I can call it anything I like :naughty:. I chose 'ideal arguing' because that is how one should argue ideally in a non real world and it is how I belive the mind talks to itself.

 

But in the real world, defence mechanisms get in the way.

 

It's like anything. Things should work ideally but for a real life consideration. If you strip away that real life consideration, then one should end up with the ideal situation. This means that the ideal situation is still usefull in partially describing real life as long as you realise that real life considerations can create drastically different outcomes.

 

Yes 'internal arguing' is perfectly adaquate. 'real arguing' is not since my ideal arguing does not work in the real world unless you can get passed the defence mechanisms. For example, even the best presented arguments cannot convince Einstein that, contrary to reality, general relativity is wrong.

 

But the advantage of coming up with a theory is that one can name the concepts as one wishes :).

 

I like to use occam's razor. When we have two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, the less complicated formulation is usually better.

I think my formulation is less complicated.

 

I accept the principal of occam's razor but one needs to be careful here. One cannot say that Degree level physics is wrong compared to GCSE simply because GCSE is less complicated. For occam's razor, one requires two alternative explanations given at similar levels of detail. I don't believe this is the case here.

[sebbysteiny]

Why am I dismissing ideas as 'brainwashing'?

 

In my view, there are two very different types of persuasion.

 

The conscious is designed to filter out some ideas from others. There are thus two ways of getting an idea past the conscious into the subconscious.

 

1) You can go directly through it. Submitting your ideas to the honest judgement of the subconscious is in my view the most noble form. There are no tricks, or clever language. You say an idea. If somebody agrees they will be persuaded. If not, they won't.

 

This is used in academic and legal circles the most. It is also most prominent in hypography posts. And often, if somebody is aware of many of the tricks of the oponents, only this type of arguing can be effective.

 

You may talk of sexy girls, but lets face it; you can't hire a girl to come to the house of every hypography member. Unfortunately, here, one must rely on the strength of their arguments as filtered by the conscious mind.

 

This thread is dedicated to this type of persuasion.

 

2) You go around the conscious. If your mind was a guard dog, this is the equivilent of chucking the dog a bone and some sausages whilst you raid the undefended subconscious through the back door.

 

I have called this 'brainwashing' but after a hefty debate with KickAssClown, we agreed that 'throught reform' was generally the best description. Using the social alter, for example, hogs the conscious mind with efforts to socialise whilst the values of the group sink straight in unguarded. This is why women help sell cars. And this is why a tight group of susceptable moderates can become a cell of terrorists.

 

Another example would be a cross word puzzle. 11 letters. Clue: the greatest member of hypography. First letter S. Last letter Y. Conscious distracted by the logical puzzle. The message is free to leave it's fair just and accurate message into your subconscious.

 

Linguistical gymnaistics is another form. [Can you spot the example above?] As is attaching emotions by analogy which can be used to sell calenders with bunny rabbits as easily as it can be used to demonise an entire people.

 

It's not good nor bad. It's just dishonest in my view. But if you want to be truly persuasive, you must master this form of communication too even if only to defend against it. Further, if you wish to sell effectively, the tools you will need mainly come from this form of persuasion.

 

But these are NOT the topic of this thread. There are other threads that have exhausted the topic in my view. And I think the mechanism for such persuasion is fundamnetlally different from the mechanism of method 1.

[Eclogite]

Another example would be a cross word puzzle. 11 letters. Clue: the greatest member of hypography. First letter S. Last letter Y.

Well clearly your arguments should be ignored since you can neither count, nor spell.:cup:

Eclogite only has eight letters, and begins and ends with an 'E'.:)

[niin]

For occam's razor, one requires two alternative explanations given at similar levels of detail. I don't believe this is the case here.

I guess you think my concept give less details than your way of looking at it.

Lets look a some of your suggestions.

 

1) Explain ideas clearly

The more time i have to use to understand your ideas, the more i want out of it. Just like i do when i work. If i usually get xxx amount of reward for a period of time spent reading, then i will not settle with less.

 

2) Make your ideas interesting

Interesting ideas is only interesting because they are rewarding.

 

3) the truth has an advantage

Well The truth is often a very good advantage to have. Yes...very rewarding.

 

4) Restrict your points to one thesis at a time so that a persuasive error in one will not affect the other

If you keep making mistakes, you prove that you are not trustworthy. The perceived value of the reward become lower and lower.

 

5) if the person agrees with you, do not say much more

Again if you say something stupid, you lower the value of the reward. Another reward can then look bigger than your reward.

 

6) tailor your arguments to your audience

You maximize the perceived value of the reward.

 

7) improving the tightness of the argument

You maximize the perceived value of the reward.

 

8) Respect your opponent.

You maximize the perceived value of the reward.

 

Which details are missing?

 

 

he said that he noticed statements made by moderate Muslim community leaders and followers that were much more extreme than the comments made by moderate leaders in other communities.

Your friend didn't believe you the first time. He would have had to distrust mainstream views. When later he found out the mainstream view was wrong, he would have to distrust himself if he wanted to keep up his false belief. So he changed his mind and got the reward of trusting in his own experiences. The perceived reward became bigger and that was what changed his mind.

 

You say that people persuade themself with the arguments. What if you don't understand the arguments?

By looking for a reward, they could be persuaded even if they didn't completely understood the argument.

Just like a child can be convinced of something because the parent rewards it.

Do you also think parents brainwash children?

 

I think that there are a number of different factors that interact together to make something persuasive

I think there is only one. The reward factor.

[Eclogite]

The reward factor.

Would you clarify a single point for me. I can agree with you if you consider that the reward may take the form of satisfaction with a well crafted, logical, plausible argument that provides an explanation that 'sounds' right and stands up to vigorous 'interrogation'. Would this meet your definition of reward?

[niin]

Would you clarify a single point for me. I can agree with you if you consider that the reward may take the form of satisfaction with a well crafted, logical, plausible argument that provides an explanation that 'sounds' right and stands up to vigorous 'interrogation'. Would this meet your definition of reward?

Yes. :)

It is a very significant reward for alot of people.

[Pyrotex]

...Your friend didn't believe you the first time. He would have had to distrust mainstream views. When later he found out the mainstream view was wrong, he would have to distrust himself if he wanted to keep up his false belief. So he changed his mind and got the reward of trusting in his own experiences. The perceived reward became bigger and that was what changed his mind.....

My father once told me that you could persuade anybody of anything, IF you were able to make them think it was their idea all along. This is the basis of much television and theatre humor.

 

A key to the art of persuasion is Patience. If you don't have to persuade right now, then don't try. Plant the seeds. Give up any "attachment" you may have for instant agreement. Let it be okay that they disagree.

 

This takes the pressure off them, and they can freely think about your ideas without fearing that it will cause you to "win" and them to "lose" the argument. The seeds will grow, and there will be other opportunities to discuss the idea. If the seeds begin to make sense to the other person, then they will come up with their own justifications.

 

One of the biggest barriers to persuasion is communicating to the other that you have a huge "attachment" to the outcome. This makes it a win-lose proposition for them. Of course they can't be persuaded -- this would mean (if only in YOUR eyes) that they "lose". Ain't gonna happen.

[sebbysteiny]

Niin,

 

I´ll try and fairly sum up our competing ideas.

 

You believe that persuasion requires giving people a suitable reward.

 

I say that persuasion requires avoiding two defence mechanisms.

 

We have all, however, predicted apparently identical results.

 

The problem I have with your alternative is that I think it is far too general. Almost anything can be described as 'a reward'. So it can be used to explain how almost anything works. So I think not only can your version explain how and why the persuasion techniques predicted and explained by my version work. Your version predicts how and why any persuasion technique works even for techniques that are not actually effective.

 

In other words, mine predicts concrete techniques. Yours does not. Mine has clear limits beyond which it says a technique is not 'persuasive'. Yours does not. All you seem to do is find a technique and say 'it has a reward' whist ignoring that hundreds of other techniques of poor persuasion also have a reward.

 

Another problem with your alternative explanation is that I cannot see any reason why a reward would make an argument persuasive. Evolutionary, it makes no sense. The body creates rewards for itself only if it aids survival. It does not create rewards for itself for 'intellectual perfection' or anything else. My defence mechanisms come from understanding the functions of beliefs and therefore the measures taken to protect them. Yours seems to put the horse before the cart with no explanation for why the rewards work the way you say they do.

 

The only way I think you may be onto something is by saying that the defence mechanisms take the form of hormonal releases that give the illusion of 'a reward' when confronted with ideas of the form that triggers defence mechanisms. In which case I'm not sure it actually adds anything. All it says is that the defence mechanisms work by some kind of release of hormones, which is in my view quite obvious.

 

The real question which my ideas answer that yours do not is, why how does the mind 'reward' itself and how can one use that for persuasion.

 

My father once told me that you could persuade anybody of anything, IF you were able to make them think it was their idea all along. This is the basis of much television and theatre humor.

 

A key to the art of persuasion is Patience. If you don't have to persuade right now, then don't try. Plant the seeds. Give up any "attachment" you may have for instant agreement. Let it be okay that they disagree.

 

I agree with this. I don´t know if you read the post, but this was explained in post 1, ideal arguing.

 

The mind will only consider evidence for arguments that it has considered. The important thing is to get the mind to consider the argument. However, the mind may lack the knowledge or experience to accept the argument immediately. However, once aware of the argument, then if that argument is right, the gradual accumulation of evidence over every day may be sufficient for that person to persuade himself that the argument is right even if this takes a few years.

 

But without knowledge of the argument, the subject will not realise the significance of the evidence (s)he comes across every day.

 

So once you have got the person to consider the argument by stating it without triggering defence mechanisms, you have to simply sit back and let the subject persuade himself gradually.

 

Do you agree that we are describing the same thing?

[Eclogite]

Sebbysteiny, you have contrasted your hypothesis of persuasion with niin's view of persuasion and reward. It seems to me that your hypothesis is predicated on the ultimate rational behaviour of humans. Niin's hypothesis will work for rational or emotional behaviour, or any combination. I know where I would place my money.

[niin]

You believe that persuasion requires giving people a suitable reward.

You don't have to give a suitable reward. They only need to get a suitable reward from something.

 

The problem I have with your alternative is that I think it is far too general.

I don't think it is.

Reward could be so many things, because the world is complex.

We could get the complex example by applying the theory to a specific case.

 

So it can be used to explain how almost anything works.

This sound like a good argument for my version.

 

Your version predicts how and why any persuasion technique works even for techniques that are not actually effective.

Which techniques are you talking about? It is hard to believe this when you don't give an example.

 

mine predicts concrete techniques. Yours does not.

Just because you stated some techniques first, does not mean that i could not have stated them without your input.

 

Mine has clear limits beyond which it says a technique is not 'persuasive'. Yours does not.

I disagree. Every time the rewards is to small, you can't persuade them. Limit right there.

 

All you seem to do is find a technique and say 'it has a reward' whist ignoring that hundreds of other techniques of poor persuasion also have a reward.

I was talking about the biggest reward. You have to compare rewards. It is not enough to just have a reward.

 

Another problem with your alternative explanation is that I cannot see any reason why a reward would make an argument persuasive.

You can't expect to discredit a theory by stating you don't understand it.

 

Evolutionary, it makes no sense. The body creates rewards for itself only if it aids survival. It does not create rewards for itself for 'intellectual perfection' or anything else.

'intellectual perfection' could very easily aid survival. What really helps survival is useful stuff. Rewarding stuff.

 

Yours seems to put the horse before the cart with no explanation for why the rewards work the way you say they do.

It is a result of evolution. Things that is helpful to your continued survival is important. How would you know what that is? Just look for the rewards.

 

But without knowledge of the argument, the subject will not realise the significance of the evidence (s)he comes across every day.

significance = rewards

 

I can see that I can't persuade you.

Maybe i didn't explain it right or maybe you just invested to much in your theory.

Maybe the reward for the truth will become big enough later.

If you change your mind in a few years, come back and tell me. :lol:

[pgrmdave]

but niin - are there not some things that rewards, no matter how big, will not work? And you seem to be not talking about mere persuasion, but every action that one undertakes. Everything people do is to gain a reward in some way, there is no self-less action. So, coming from that standpoint, is not saying that to persuade someone to do something requires providing a reward merely a tautology? It's almost as basic as saying that to persuade someone, I need to get them to do something that they wouldn't originally have done.