Are You Persuaded Yet...?
Most of my work nowadays is in sales and marketing. One thing that interests me is persuasion, and being able to change people's opinions. In sales and marketing, this ends up being relatively easy, at least when it comes to the online medium. Why?
Because the first thing you do in sales and marketing is qualifying people. You don't even waste your time trying to persuade those who don't match the ideal customer type. So, for example, you develop a demographics, age group, etc. etc. and target your FB or PPC ads to that specific group. And then the ad's headline will further aim to qualify people to only those with an interest in the main benefit they would obtain from your product/service.
So, say you are targeting 30-to-50-year-old business owners. From this group, you are interested in people who have grown their business successfully to, let's say, the $1 million revenue mark, but struggle to scale further. Your ad headline may be something like "Tired of working longer hours and not achieving the growth targets you're aiming for?"
So obviously when a 30-50 year old business owner with such a problem reads that headline, he will be interested, the others will not. So those interested will click the ad which will take them to a sales page or whatever. This is all a disqualifying process. It's all about looking at the entire world, and developing a cheap process of finding precisely those people who need what you're selling. If you can do this efficiently, you can make a lot of $$$ in online marketing.
BUT...
Notice that there really isn't much persuasion in this. Most of these people are already persuaded - they just need the opportunity to hear what they want to hear. You don't actually convince them of anything. You don't alter their beliefs in any way. The challenge is just finding the right people, and presenting them with the right message.
So in the field of sales and marketing where everyone talks about persuasion, it turns out that no persuasion at all is going on. What about places like TPF, where we continually try to convince each other.
My experience on TPF, and also generally in life has shown me that it is difficult - if not impossible - to persuade others. And I don't mean about small things, but about big things, about their worldview. So if someone gave me the task of persuading, say, @Maw, I cannot imagine how I could possibly do that. Our worldviews are so different, that I simply cannot see how persuasion would even begin. Take the issue of abortion for example. How could I even go about persuading Maw about it? I think we could talk for days, and we may fight, but we'll certainly not convince each other. One of us though, may impose his will on the other in some way, but that will not change the inability to persuade.
And I think much of the issues and eternal problems we struggle with on TPF, and in philosophy in general are of this nature. We are unable to persuade others. The real tactic of persuasion it seems is brute force. We impose certain standards, and eliminate those who do not obey them. We make it seem "natural" that things are the way they are - then they are peacefully and willingly accepted. If one cannot even voice opposition anymore, then what better sign that action X is only natural? The left does this, the right does this, everyone does this. This is the real means of persuading others of the big things, it seems. It's getting the crowd on one's side so to speak - if the crowd is on one's side, it's easy to persuade most people (there are a few like Socrates here and there, but not many).
So in a way, the cultural wars going on at the moment are very important. We cannot convince others, and the only means we have at our disposal is creating a world-order where our view becomes "natural", because even voicing the opposite view is frowned upon. When the left seeks to vilify the right on the issue of abortion, for example, this is exactly what is going on. And in a way, it really does seem like all debate is pointless. It's really about who can impose one's will on the other, it's all politics.
So think about your own experience. Have you ever persuaded someone, on say, TPF, to change their worldview? If yes, how did that happen? And if no, then what does this say about the ability to do philosophy as a society, together? What value does reason then have, if we cannot relate to each other to the extent that we can persuade each other?
Because the first thing you do in sales and marketing is qualifying people. You don't even waste your time trying to persuade those who don't match the ideal customer type. So, for example, you develop a demographics, age group, etc. etc. and target your FB or PPC ads to that specific group. And then the ad's headline will further aim to qualify people to only those with an interest in the main benefit they would obtain from your product/service.
So, say you are targeting 30-to-50-year-old business owners. From this group, you are interested in people who have grown their business successfully to, let's say, the $1 million revenue mark, but struggle to scale further. Your ad headline may be something like "Tired of working longer hours and not achieving the growth targets you're aiming for?"
So obviously when a 30-50 year old business owner with such a problem reads that headline, he will be interested, the others will not. So those interested will click the ad which will take them to a sales page or whatever. This is all a disqualifying process. It's all about looking at the entire world, and developing a cheap process of finding precisely those people who need what you're selling. If you can do this efficiently, you can make a lot of $$$ in online marketing.
BUT...
Notice that there really isn't much persuasion in this. Most of these people are already persuaded - they just need the opportunity to hear what they want to hear. You don't actually convince them of anything. You don't alter their beliefs in any way. The challenge is just finding the right people, and presenting them with the right message.
So in the field of sales and marketing where everyone talks about persuasion, it turns out that no persuasion at all is going on. What about places like TPF, where we continually try to convince each other.
My experience on TPF, and also generally in life has shown me that it is difficult - if not impossible - to persuade others. And I don't mean about small things, but about big things, about their worldview. So if someone gave me the task of persuading, say, @Maw, I cannot imagine how I could possibly do that. Our worldviews are so different, that I simply cannot see how persuasion would even begin. Take the issue of abortion for example. How could I even go about persuading Maw about it? I think we could talk for days, and we may fight, but we'll certainly not convince each other. One of us though, may impose his will on the other in some way, but that will not change the inability to persuade.
And I think much of the issues and eternal problems we struggle with on TPF, and in philosophy in general are of this nature. We are unable to persuade others. The real tactic of persuasion it seems is brute force. We impose certain standards, and eliminate those who do not obey them. We make it seem "natural" that things are the way they are - then they are peacefully and willingly accepted. If one cannot even voice opposition anymore, then what better sign that action X is only natural? The left does this, the right does this, everyone does this. This is the real means of persuading others of the big things, it seems. It's getting the crowd on one's side so to speak - if the crowd is on one's side, it's easy to persuade most people (there are a few like Socrates here and there, but not many).
So in a way, the cultural wars going on at the moment are very important. We cannot convince others, and the only means we have at our disposal is creating a world-order where our view becomes "natural", because even voicing the opposite view is frowned upon. When the left seeks to vilify the right on the issue of abortion, for example, this is exactly what is going on. And in a way, it really does seem like all debate is pointless. It's really about who can impose one's will on the other, it's all politics.
So think about your own experience. Have you ever persuaded someone, on say, TPF, to change their worldview? If yes, how did that happen? And if no, then what does this say about the ability to do philosophy as a society, together? What value does reason then have, if we cannot relate to each other to the extent that we can persuade each other?
Comments (66)
What about specific people whose world views have changed me a result of philosophizing together? Where do I vote on the poll for that?
Quoting Agustino
If we value reason and truth, then we do not at bottom have opposing world-views. And if someone does not, there is nothing to talk about, or rather no way to talk. If reason were a mere tool of persuasion, it would have very little value to me, but it is the bridge that enables communication. 'Can we understand each other?', is my concern, not 'Can we persuade each other?'
Joking aside (if that qualifies as a joke. Sorry, what was the question again?)... I will take whatever tidbits of information, knowledge, wisdom, insider betting tips, dirty limericks, and revolutionary theories I can find here as elsewhere. Perhaps every thought and idea has its parents and grandparents. As well as its siblings and off-spring. It is the rare idea that cannot find companionship and even mate with another idea. Originality is not more valuable than the heritage and ancestry of a single thought. Always with pragmatism in mind. I will do what I can with what I can get. And if even half of the brilliant ideas I encounter can make a dent in this rock of a brain, then gratitude and sharing would be a logical next step. That is, if I want my next step to avoid being a stumble.
In any case, as unenlightened has pointed out, this was not the goal of my posting there. It was a welcome side-effect (who wouldn't like this ego boost?), but to be honest I guess I infuriated as many people as I persuaded.
Persuasion does not happen in a public forum in any case. It happens in the silence of the night, and not only as a result of arguments. We're not that kind of creature (Mr. Spock?), thank God.
I think there's two aspects of persuasion at play. 1, when we make arguments that are pretty good, and we argue confidently, then we sharpen each others minds, even when we disagree. And arguments are generally the most lucid when they're presented in this way. So it's possible to take a stance of persuasion without the motive of persuasion, for the sake pursuing knowledge, asking more questions, etc. And this "stance" isn't disingenuous as long as I whole heartedly believe in my argument.
2, In regards to "reason and truth" via @unenlightened: if reason and truth are, in fact, reasonable and true, then I hope the most coherent posts I've made or things I've said to people in real life are good quality "hmmm..." moments; I don't expect to elicit any "aha" moments. Those moments are an amalgamation of "hmmm..." moments.
Those beliefs serve a function in a particular life of a particular human being.
So chances of changing an entire worldview are pretty slim. What can be done i suppose is shining another light on an individual branch of the tree, so it grows in a different direction.
Maybe substantiate your claims with corroborative evidence from reputable sources, along with iron-tight logic, rather than, for example, "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul" as you did here.
Well yeah, I have witnessed those too, BUT many of those people were already sort-of persuaded prior to the encounter. They just needed a little push so to speak. But I'm more interested in the possibility of bringing about more radical changes.
Yeah, I agree with this, I think this is the most useful comment so far. More radical changes require reflection, but, very often, dialogue is too adversarial to encourage genuine reflection. To achieve genuine reflection, one must first calm the passions so to speak. And around contentious topics, this is not easy, because people have emotional reactions to some issues.
For example, if you try to discuss gay marriage with a homosexual who wants to get married, then it will be quite difficult to get past the emotional barrier - to calm the mind and be capable to achieve the stage of genuine reflection.
Quoting Agustino
You probably should disentangle this is a bit. It's not that big a deal to persuade someone holding an opposite worldview to you of something, but change their worldview you will not do (broadly speaking). The other point is that the worldview is inherently political rather than philosophical (for most except those deep in philosophy and especially professional philosophers). Looking at it from the outside, it's effectively a sociocultural interpretation of the personality, and from the inside the value filter that allows us to make the world psychologically coherent and navigable. Most posters here are either old enough or mature enough to have a fairly developed worldview, which is a part of their psychological engine. So, it's all wrapped up not only in a micro-political engagements like we have on here especially when we're talking politics, but also to a lesser extent in everything we do, it's who we are insofar as we are social actors, and social actors are orientated towards making the social sphere in their image either consciously or unconsciously. That's just part of the nature of social reality and the spead of ideas/ideologies within. Given that, worldview clashes are clashes of socially interpretable values that in order to gain expression have already been internally tested against alternatives, and are armoured by their integration into the larger mesh that is the individual espousing them. So though you might, if you're lucky, get someone to modify their worldview in some minor way, which they may not even be aware of themselves or willing to admit to you, it will normally only be in a way that's integrable with some more fundamental part of it.
There are exceptions, but they're much more likely to occur in the real world. I once had a very homophobic Russian student, who, because we already had a good relationship before I found out how homophobic he was, allowed me to be of some influence in changing his views. But he was only 18 and still very much developing a worldview, already got on well with me and respected me, took a long time to change, and all the evidence suggests he would have changed on his own anyway given the environment he had just entered was a liberal British university, which was a dramatic change from where he'd been previously.
Short answer, no.
I'm not interested in persuading anyone of anything, I don't have any fixed views myself. The only interesting possibility discussion holds is the free and creative communal exploration of ideas.
Changing of one's ideas is an evolutionary process not usually an immediate event. I believe we are all somewhat prone to holding on to views for emotional reasons, but that it is a matter for an individual's own self-examination; no one else can do it for them. Public discussion does provide a situation that can be helpful for people to see where their emotional and psychological biases lie.
If you want to practice a conventional religious or spiritual discipline, then discussion on forums like these would probably be a waste of time.
If you think you know something that others would do well to come to see, then you probably should become a guru; I think you won't have much luck with the philosophically-minded!
I am also a little surprised that veteran members on this site don't develop the sort of friendship where they might persuade each other on some crucial subjects (I'll just say that some posts from Streetlight have recently got me reading some figures like Connolly differently), but still I honestly don't know why anyone would expect to persuade a fully-developed, non-friend to significantly change their minds on anything. Philosophy lives in friendship and mentorship.
*squeals*. The world would be a better place if people read more Connolly! Also - this kind of thing, where one is persuaded not at the level of belief, but at the level of 'topic of interest' is one place where I think persuasion has a role on forums like these. Some of my most consequential shifts in thought haven't been from changing an already held position, but having an interest aroused where it would not have done otherwise. My recent dips into math were triggered in part, I'd say, from some interactions here. Undoubtedly there've been more instances of this.
Edit: To put it in terms I like to use: I've been persuaded about questions, not answers. The most interesting interactions on the forum are not - are never - 'oh you're right', but 'oh I didn't think about that'.
It is true to a large extent that in politics, one group imposes their will on another group. Opinions are not thereby changed, but one can at least close off the opportunity for expression. In the United States, the two dominant political parties effectively close off discussion of issues they would prefer never to hear mentioned, let alone discussed -- like a guaranteed basic income of $24,000 or a tax rate of 90% on the wealthiest 5% of the citizenry.
Children acquire, are taught, and they grow up to hold on to world views. We may change a plank here and there, but reworking one's entire worldview is very strenuous work. A few decades ago I decided to replace the God plank. In the new plank God does not exist. I recently changed my opinion about transsexuals and transgendered persons. I decided most of them are more or less delusional, and so are their doctors (or... business is business). I have been repersuaded that gay marriage is a bad idea for gay people (too assimilationist / accomodationist). The 'persuaders' in those cases were authors I have read over the years, and conversations with various people. Otherwise, I haven't changed my world view very much in the last 50 years.
Small things in life are open to negotiation and persuasion. I was persuaded by an optician to switch to highly refractory plastic for my spectacles rather than glass. I was persuaded to let the milkweed plants in my yard grow (for butterflies). I was persuaded by Consumer Reports to switch to air-cooled chicken rather than water cooled chicken (much less bacteria and much less retained water). These were not big decisions.
That's what I was thinking too, and that's what the poll is indicating as well.
But this has ramifications for philosophy. Remember that Socrates was out there in the marketplace to teach his fellow citizens what is right and wrong - to discover what is the right way to live. If we are unable to persuade others, then this foundational task of philosophy becomes impossible or, better said, useless.
The ramifications extend to politics as well, because, if we are unable to persuade each other, then the only alternative left is force. Then we are deceiving ourselves if we think that we can live in peace. Peace can only come about by mutual adjustment to one another. It entails each member of the community changing oneself to accommodate the interests of the larger community.
Why do you reckon that is? I've noticed the same.
I'm not going to physically attack you because you keep shilling for Trump. We both benefit by agreeing to allow free speech but not violence against each other. Of course, it could eventually go that way but personally I couldn't imagine the vast majority of citizens of advanced democracies supporting violence because of political disagreements around the relative centre such as we have.
Okay, sure, but then we're more of an elite environment here. I would be very surprised if anyone here would physically attack someone else based on differences of opinion.
But the same cannot be said for most people. Most people will easily resort to violence, especially in crowds, where individual responsibility is diminished. You know this, you've studied psychology. The average mass of mankind isn't very enlightened, despite living in democracies today.
This I think is pretty much impossible (there are rare exceptions) for one major reason. Individual opinion or world-view is rarely affected by another individual, or the alternate thought of an 'individual', precisely because 'individuals' are a rarity.
The capacity for independent thought is not a given. people like to think of themselves as individuals, however individuals form part of a herd and a collective consciousness, and are subject to an instinctual imperative to 'fit in' to belong, to be loved, or to be accepted by, or dominate over, their peers.
Ayn Rand offers an interesting and valid perspective on the notion of 'individuality' in her novel. The Fountainhead. Therein, the character Ellsworth Toohey has much to say on the notion of 'persuasion' and of course, Howard Rorak is the protagonist portrayal of an 'individual' in the truer sense.
As such, the capacity to be persuaded or not, is subservient to the instinctual imperative towards belonging. It is a delightful rarity to encounter 'true individuals' who are in control of their instinctual imperatives and as such are open to persuasion via logic and reason. Oftentimes these 'individuals' are referred to as 'intellectuals', 'philosophers' or 'iconoclasts', but they are all united by the ability to overcome instinctual imperative and function or think as 'individuals'.
M
I don't believe it works like that, intellectuals' and philosophers' egos are so wrapped up in what they believe they very often find it extremely difficult to be persuaded of the contrary. After all, that could mean their work, sometimes their life's work, is based on falsity. And just look at the sniping that goes on in academia. It''s more about building intellectual walls around your ideas than being open to invasion by others. On the other hand, those who have no particular stake in an idea can often easily be persuaded one way or another.
I agree.
But the question remains: what is the compunction for one to remain "wrapped up" in an idea despite evident logic that offers a fundamental contradiction to the 'cherished premise'. You have supplied more valid 'reasons' but not an explanation.
The universal answer is 'fear' of some particular consequence.
Fear, as an entity is reducible to a potential antagonism towards a particular instinctual imperative.
Therefore the holding of illogical beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) is a 'fear' based reaction, and as such it is an instinctively (as opposed to a logically) driven behavior.
Fear of death or individual insignificance, may underpin the ludicrous belief in an interventionist God for example.
M
Sure, but it's often subconscious and easily masked. A lot of human psychology revolves around convincing ourselves that we're being reasonable when we're not. So, how does anyone know who is the true individual and who isn't? Who's the arbiter of that? Logic itself can't answer the question because intellectual disagreements are not a simple matter of logic. Otherwise we could just ask a computer to solve our issues.
Again I agree.
But the human computer (if used correctly) is far superior in many respects to the mechanical or potential quantum mechanical computer.
I think one can make a reasonable judgement upon who is and who is not an 'individual' on the basis of how close their opinions correlate to the process 'logic' and, how much those opinions might correlate to the process 'emotion'.
Emotions represent the expression of instinctual imperative, however 'logic' entails the disciplining of emotion towards the universal goal of instinctual satiety.
Happy people are usually 'individuals' they are either sufficiently intelligent or sufficiently stupid; the former is sometimes open to logical persuasion, whilst the latter is usually not.
M
This is wrong. There can be no logic without emotion. Logic without emotion is dead, it doesn't do anything, and cannot decide anything.
This assertion indeed sounds quite emotional.
Computers are entirely logical and yet devoid of emotion, they make lots of decisions every day, upon which we depend. Indeed I make many many 'decisions' that do not have an emotional basis, such as when and where to take a dump, when and what to eat etc.
Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel?
M
It's quite simple really. Not having a bowel movement when you need to have one is not comfortable. So you experience revulsion towards abstaining, and therefore you go and have your bowel movement. It is an emotion that compels you to do it. Reasoning is based on emotions. Without emotions, you would take no actions whatsoever. So you take a bowel movement because you want to feel good, you don't want to get sepsis or some other form of stomach infection, etc. All those are ultimately anchored in emotions.
If I may... Dr. Freud would say that there is at least an unconscious influence. But I do agree with your point in general. :up:
Quoting Agustino
My iMac does get weepy and emotional at certain times of the month. Sometimes I can’t touch it at all without a scene. Is it an Apple thing? I’ve always wondered why... :wink:
Programmed by human beings. We program them based on our emotions, so they do what we want.
Quoting Agustino
This is most interesting as the discourse is venturing into or becoming that which is the subject of the discourse itself. Fixed immovable beliefs that have a deeper emotional basis.
We have departed from reason and presently appear to be talking about that which emerges from Buridan's ass.
M
Agreed.
Instinctual imperatives for the most part are sub-conscious. However they can be brought to the level of consciousness through endogenous-insight (intelligence), and (or good psychoanalysis) and then be subject to logic and reason. IE independently or with assistance, sub-conscious instinct can be brought to the level of consciousness and subjected to reasoned analysis.
My point is that this process (insight) must occur prior to the possibility of a change in ones opinion or view. When this does not occur it is quite possible that subconscious instinct will direct reason and cause one to cling to irrational or illogical beliefs despite evidence or logic to the contrary.
Sometimes we disagree with people simply because we don't like them or find them to be threatening in some way. Even people as repulsive as Trump have made reasonable statements that my initial 'feeling' is to disagree with simply because they are being made by a very unintelligent man, even fools are sometimes right.
My reasoning is clearly threatening or disliked by some. Rather than ask what is really under threat, the reason itself is attacked from illogical positions. Effectively the reason or the logic of the reasoning is not under siege, but rather deeper instincts (known or unknown) provide the coordinates for the discussion and the positions within the context of the discussion itself.
M
Sure, but people in advanced democracies are generally very adverse to violence against one another unless its sanctioned either by a specific authority, e.g. Milgram, or crowd, in-group, Stanford Prison etc., which is not a situation that most people find themselves in very often. The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think.
I would agree that. Trained to await the next instruction of how to feel about a particular news event or issue. Or what to purchase next. What’s “hot” or “in fashion”. As for aggression, there is usually a plan for that. Be it a “Day of Rage” in the Mid-East, Two-Minutes Hate in Orwell’s 1984, or the celebration of a sports championship in Philadelphia. :wink:
:up: I would generally agree with those statements. With the additional comment that (in my opinion) the subconscious can be seen, analyzed, directed, and controlled roughly in the same way a horse can be tamed and ridden successfully. It can be done of course. But there is always a possible wild card in the deck. Some moment when the horse gets spooked, or decides to stop to munch on some leaves despite your commands. Similar to the unpredictable selection of dreams the unconscious decides to screen for our entertainment or edification or goodness knows what.
Agreed,
The likelihood of the wild card is dependent (but not entirely so) upon the 'ability' of the trainer and the passions of the horse.
Given that we are possibly in agreement more than disagreement, we must ask is being agreeable more pleasurable than the fire and fury of disagreement?
M
Whilst I agree with the general assertion here I think it is technically incorrect, in respect of violence.
Consumption particularly by white westerners is an example of an externally influenced or engineered activity.
Most white western consumption in respect of needs beyond the philosophically valid: food warmth sustenance, education etc... are programmed or inculcated into the herd via the psychology of the herd itself and external manipulations of herd psychology vis media and corporate entities.
The consumptive act is an act of great violence and yet the violence, vis the consequence of consumption is not 'owned' by the consumer. Both the consumption, and the avoidance of ownership of the consequence, have been removed from the reality of the consumer by external forces. The violence that is consequenced by consumption is therefore removed by the magic of the contemporary church of capitalism.
Future generations who will inherit the consequence of the consumptive act will doubtless recognize it to have been of a greater violence than any totalitarian regime of the past.
The herd, and those who manipulate the herd are the purest form of real and potential evil.
M
Well, yes, capitalism is inherently violent and exploitative, although that hasn't really been the focus here, which has been the individual propensity to violence due to ideological disagreement. Also, it's not just particularly white westerners, but particularly everyone in western countries who consume significantly more in resources than those in developing nations.
Also agreed!
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Hmmm... good question! So for the sake of unpredictable variety, I am going to disagree and move for “re-buttal” ala Homer Simpson.
Agreed, and apologies,
my point was a little off topic.
I am always a bit sensitive when capitalism appears to be getting off the hook.
M
This is something I agree with, but I've never seen anyone else express such views. The poisonous influence of capitalism has become so familiar that we no longer question it. Just like we say that a river "runs", and never realise this is a metaphor. [Rivers don't have legs, so cannot run in the literal sense.] Or we talk of the Crucifixion (if we happen to be Christians), without appreciating the true horror of the image we are offering.
What is fashion? Is it art? Is it culture? Or is it something intended to get us to buy more new stuff when the old stuff still has plenty of life left in it?
"Your red coat is still beautiful!"
"Yes, but yellow is this season's colour, so I will throw it away and buy a yellow one."
This is obscene, and yet most people don't see anything here to worry them. This is how we humans have destroyed our own world. The world itself will survive, of course, and some forms of life will surely (?) survive too. But it seems unlikely that humans will, and they will be baffled. Baffled because they (even as they become extinct) have no idea how it was caused, or that it was them (i.e. us) that caused it. :roll:
So thank you, Marcus de Brun, for posting this. :up:
Damn! So was my response to you, then. :blush:
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Yes! Me too. :up: :grin:
That's very poetic, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I care more about getting it right than exploring a dead end. The less of the latter, the better in my opinion.
It's possible to get it right and still not be persuasive you know.
Mm, I never said anything about 'getting it right' so dunno what you're on about.
Yes, I know.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes, I know what you did and did not say. You said something about an interest in other perspectives. What I'm on about is a matter of priorities. I don't know about you, but diving deep into an exploration of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is not at the top of my list of priorities. I'm on about trimming the fat.
Forget the "how" for a moment. There are some things we just know, right? Do you have a conscience? Do you have a body? That's a good place to start.
Yes, and that tells us something about human nature and philosophy, but what it tells us is a bit like being told that you've got a stain on your shirt or that you've left your flies undone.
Quoting Benkei
Yes it does, and yes I do. You're wrong. And your flies are undone.
It doesn't matter that you know you're right as long as you believe you are (in order to be authentic). You can be skeptical about knowledge claims including your own and still take a position, and legitimately consider it right.
@Mayor of Simpleton taught me family outside of born kin
@Tobias changed/taught me proportionality
@Benkei helped me compartmentalize 9/11
@Banno changed my view/ taught me that the physically disabled have sexual needs just like those who are not disabled.
@Hanover has taught me gentle truths through jest
@Postmodern Beatnik taught me how to put in a "stop gap" between reading /hearing an idea and me allowing an emotional reaction to be assigned to what I read/heard.
@unenlightened truly my mentor, my Sage, too many lessons to list. I will just call it life coaching. :heart:
@Sir2u has taught me to not take life so seriously and how to respect unknown lines in the sand.
@Bitter Crank taught me that life does cease for all of us no matter how much the other is loved and will be missed.
@Sapientia has taught me to be humble in expressing unpopular positions but also reminds me that there are hills I am willing to die on.
To Kamerynn, 180, Wosret and Mongrel :heart: you are significant threads in the tapastety that makes up my character even though your no longer in my daily life.
Yes; or rather, I have been persuaded by other people, who showed me a flaw in my reasoning. But I sure as heck would not have admitted it to them! :shade:
The primary function of reason and arguments is not to persuade, but to seek truth. Proof:
P1: We call a thing 'good' if it achieves its function.
P2: An argument is called perfect (fully good) if its conclusion is obtained with certainty, that is, we are certain to have found truth.
C1: Therefore the function of an argument is to find truth.
P3: Despite an argument being perfect, some recipients may still be unconvinced. That may be so because they are pig-headed; looking to be right, not to find truth.
C2: Therefore the function of an argument is not to persuade.
Persuasion is only a secondary or bonus effect of reason and arguments. Having said that, if your argument is flawless, and the recipient's intent is to seek truth primarily (and there is no misunderstanding), then persuasion will necessarily follow.
And besides, other than sales and marketing people, who cares about persuading those who don't seek truth anyways? :wink:
Everyone, because persuasion is effective in politics. Are Trump and his supporters interested in truth? Doesn't appear so. In fact, accepting and supporting the lies has become a sign of solidarity. Only winning matters.
My statement was meant as a prescriptive statement (should we care) rather than a descriptive statement (do people actually care); but I now see it was poorly worded. As a descriptive statement, I agree with you.
Gosh, I never know if it's a good idea to interrupt the conversation and backtrack after I've been too busy to get on here for several days but in this case I will just for the dumb comment: I agree!
I think that one problem with the conception of persuasion implicitly offered in the OP is that it seems to set us to work on a static conception of truth and reason. You can't persuade someone to change their long-held philosophical views because a person's philosophy doesn't boil down to the possession of a position which is inferred from the given of 'facts', 'truth', 'modes of reasoning', whatever. It's a lot more organic than that, it involves the development of your whole person. The best you can hope for is the honor of influencing another person's organic development (unless of course you're a tin-pot dictator who has other means of persuasion.).
Ying, I find what you have pointed out to be profound and a difference I was likely missing. Maybe it is because I wear my heart on my sleeve that I often lose sight of the idea that what I am expressing in the public realm is my private/personal position. But because of this I allow myself to be impacted personally and that is not always a healthy impact.
Maybe I need to listen more to Aristotle rather than arguing with him. :chin:
It was a minor victory, but it demonstrated the need to establish common ground, and that is important to respect the other guy and his position.
Nice one. :100: