The art of Pursuasion 2

[sebbysteiny]

Why 2 threads?

 

The reason for me making a new thread rather than simply extending the old one is that this thread will contain something fundamentally different to what is in the other thread.

 

The other thread was a fishing expodition in which I used the opinions expressed to test and improve what I wish to put forward here.

 

So I'll move straight to the point.

 

I'm going to give a complete theory of the art of pursasion in a great deal of detail.

 

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.

 

I will make a clear distinction between the theory and the practice so that one can immediately benefit from this theory without necessarily agreeing with or understanding it.

 

Also, I think that there are a number of different factors that interact together to make something pursasive, so I will give a few main posts in which I cover 1 factor at a time.

 

Why is my view in any way reliable? Communication has always been something that has interested me. I have read many books and ideas about pursasion that range from self improvement books through to English literature advice on pursasive essays and it will include my experiences in student politics and various writings here as well as in other places. I couldn't help but notice a common thread in which the ideas from numerous sources all seemed to interact together almost too well.

 

So I'm going to share my ideas and you guys can do with them what you will. You can attack, contribute, or just read the concepts given in this thread.

[sebbysteiny]

Post 1

 

There's no such thing as pursuasion

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

I think it is fundamentally impossible to pursade somebody to any particular point of view. If you know a counter argument to one of their arguments, you cannot force somebody to accept it no matter how right that argument is.

 

Instead, people can pursade themselves. Nobody wants to have a wrong or morally outrageous idea. So if they come into contact with an argument that suggests they have done so, then they will convince themselves out of their previous beliefs. Either that or they will find an equally compelling counter counter argument.

 

So the name of the game is to give the person the arguments necessary for them to convince themselves that their previous view was wrong in their own time.

 

The IDEAL argument

 

In a perfect world without human weakness, all arguments and debates will take place in the ideal form. Later, I will give practical factors that significantly disrupt the ideal argument, but the ideal argument will form the backbone of pursasion.

 

From my extra studies of English language, all arguments are of a similar format.

 

They start with a base assumption.

 

They then try to argue that, as a consequence of that assumption, a certain conclusion must be reached. Sometimes that assumption may be based on the conclusions of another argument (resulting in a chain of reasoning). Other times, the assumption is based on a simple premise. Eg, education is a good thing, crime is bad, aiding the third world is good etc.

 

Arguments can be countered by either attacking the logic of the conclusions reached (and for this reason, a logical argument can be far more pursasive), or by attacking the premise itself. Eg, it is not necessarily certain that aiding the third world is a good thing as it may, for example, create dependancy. That counter itself has a premise that 'dependancy' is a bad thing and the conclusions made are that aid causes dependancy, both of which may now be attacked.

 

So in this way, one can put arguments against counter arguments until one finds the arguments that are based on all but unchallengable premises' with all but perfect reasoning of both logic and emotion. This is what I shall call 'the truth'.

 

So this is how an argument is fought in an ideal world.

 

The only problem is, it is not always obvious what the counter is. And since you can't prove a negative, there is no way of knowing that no counter arguement exists which would make a premise or reasoning you thought was solid, very dodgy.

 

So in an ideal argument, you will not get all the arguments so they will not always reach the truth. They will, however, reach the truth as far possible when one relies on the facts and arguments within the combined knowledge of the participators to the discussion.

 

Further, some arguments may rely on a premis or reasoning that requires other knowledge or practical experience to be acceptable. So even in an ideal argument, one participator may not have the necessary experience or knowledge to be convinced by the correct argument. However, all is not lost.

 

Just because the argument has not been accepted does not mean it has been forgotten. If it is 'the truth', then reality will provide evidence for it's correctness. In this way, now that the participator is aware of the argument, they will begin to notice the evidence to support that view. And the argument may be accepted albeit a year or two later.

 

I'll give two examples. Firstly, a number of times in my life, I have heard arguments that I felt were completely wrong. However, a year or so later, I discovered something from practical experience which affected my views. It was only when I tried to explain what I had learnt to somebody else that I realised I was giving the very same argument I had rejected a few years earlier.

 

Secondly, as people here know, I have a contriversial view that the Moderate Muslim community is not as moderate as the moderate Western community. I gave this argument to a friend who predictably accused me of Islamophobia. However, a year later, we saw each other again, and he said to me 'you know, you were right about that'. I asked why, and 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.

 

However, you can get around this problem if you can get the argument supported by a reliable authority. But this can only go so far. Sometimes, to accept an argument, you really must have the practical experience and / or knowledge to support.

 

So even in the ideal argument, there are flaws. Namely, that people may lack the experience or knowledge to accept the true argument; and people may not always be aware of all the arguments. But nevertheless, the ideal argument consists of bouncing arguments and counter arguements off each other.

 

Ideal pursasion

A single person bouncing ideas in his mind is a bit like the ideal argument, but with one person. In this way, the person can pursuade himself if he can come accross the correct arguments and facts.

 

The practical applications

 

The very basic backbone of pursasion is that you must somehow put arguments that challenge the person's previous opinions into the person's mind so that the person gives it consideration. After that, the purseadors job is done. The subject will, if the argument is sufficiently powerful, pursade himself of it's correctness and cast out his previous now rejected views.

 

But in practice, making arguments be considered properly is not as easy as it seems..........

[ughaibu]

Your posts are rendered unpersuasive by their excessive length.

[sebbysteiny]

Your posts are rendered unpersuasive by their excessive length.

 

I take your point. Although my aim is not to pursuade but to put forward my ideas, I think a summary of Post 1 will be helpful for the lazy. But if you want more detail, you should go back to post 1.

 

Summary of Post 1

 

1) People don't pursade others, they pursade themselves.

2) An ideal argument is when one argument is put forward against another etc. until one argument dominates above all others. That argument is called 'the truth'.

3) Idea pursasion works in the same way as the ideal argument. However in ideal pursasion, there is only 1 participator, themselves and the argument takes place in his mind.

4) To pursuade a subject, one must make the subject consider the argument that beats the arguments currently accepted by the subject. Then, once considered, the subject will pursuade himself.

5) But in the real world, things are not so easy ...........

[ughaibu]

The accusation of "lazy" is ad hominem, I stopped reading at that point.

[sebbysteiny]

The accusation of "lazy" is ad hominem, I stopped reading at that point.

 

Ironically enough, YOU HAVE PROVEN A MAJOR THESIS of what I will discuss in my next post. I don't think you could have made a better contribution to illustrate what happens in the real world.

[ughaibu]

Whoopy doo, it would be wonderful if I knew what you're on about.

[Pyrotex]

Whoopy doo, it would be wonderful if I knew what you're on about.

 

The Art of Persuasion is not to be taken lightly, or assumed for oneself as an ancillary of intelligence, experience or education. Some of the smartest people cannot persuade an Eskimo to buy charcoal.

 

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

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".

 

When Damocles got up to speak,

The people said, "how well he spoke!"

When Demosthenes got up to speak,

The people said, "let us march!"

[Turtle]

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".

 

When Damocles got up to speak,

The people said, "how well he spoke!"

When Demosthenes got up to speak,

The people said, "let us march!"

 

Low Shoe said: Let us march while I speak well of soles. :evil:

[sebbysteiny]

I forgot to add this to Post 1.

 

Post 1 cont

 

The practical applications cont.

 

So from 'ideal pursuasion' a few tips follow about improving the pursuasive power of your posts.

 

Explain ideas clearly. This can be done by: keeping them short; having a strong and logical paragraph (oral or writen) structure; good signposting; accuarate grammer and spelling; any others?

 

Make your ideas interesting. Boring speech / posts are harder to understand. This can be done by: jokes; clever phrases; building tension to a climax; emotional ploys; eliminating excess verbage; any others?

 

These are all essentially English language points one learns at school. So if you can obey the above AND contain arguments in them, then you are already 1/3 the way there.

[Racoon]

I take your point. Although my aim is not to pursuade but to put forward my ideas, I think a summary of Post 1 will be helpful for the lazy. But if you want more detail, you should go back to post 1.

 

I think Ug has a point though. 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.

 

I applaud your efforts however, as I can think of fewer things more important than the power of persuasion.

[Edella]

... accuarate grammer and spelling...

Lol! I just find it funny that you misspelled accurate and grammar, not to mention persuasion, verbiage and written. I shouldn't laugh too hard though, without a spell checker I'm not much better. I would highly recommend one, especially if you find spelling to be important when instructing people on how to succeed in the art of "Pursuasion"

[sebbysteiny]

Lol! I just find it funny that you misspelled accurate and grammar, not to mention persuasion, verbiage and written.

 

I hate you sooooooooo much right now. :eek: grrrrrrrrrrrrrr woof bite scratch claw.

 

Not saying that long posts are necessarily boring, but there is a power in conciseness and brevity.

 

First, I repeat my disclaimer

 

my aim is not to pursuade but to put forward my ideas

 

But I agree. Less is more. But some highly pursuasive arguments are too complex to explain in a few paragraphs even if written with brevity. So saying short posts are 'better' is not always true.

 

There is a balance. Do the extra paragraph's add something that counterbalances the extra words being used? If so, then it's best to keep writing. Otherwise, stop after a few paragraphs.

 

My main posts are going to be long because of the nature of what I'm doing. Some of what I write has been taken from different sources some of which are more acceptable to some than others. However much of what I write is original in that I have not read it from any other source. The concept of the ideal argument, for example, is almost entirely original. So some of this post is still a personal thesis and up for debate.

 

At the same time, it is also instructional to help people improve their pursuasion so explanations and examples of the techniques are required.

 

I believe to be truely useful, I should give the background (where I got the ideas from including any sources to distinguish between what is mine and what is established elsewhere), evidence to support, examples of their use, a full explanation of the mechanisms, what exactly an argument is, how they can be attacked, and what makes an argument 'better' than another.

 

If you can find a way of explaining all that in 2 paragraphs, you are a better writer than me.

[sebbysteiny]

For those who are browsing this post searching for writing tips they can use immediately, I'm afraid your going to be disappointed by this post.

 

For any good scientific theory to be justified, it must explain all the facts. This post is going to see how the concepts above deal with, in my view, one of the most important topics possible in social science and even the world. The question is so big it is almost philosophical, almost, but not quite.

 

Is debate and discussion fit for purpose in finding truth.

 

I want to go back to Pgrmdave's highly cynical remark in the original thread.

 

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

 

What insight does my proposed mechanisms have on this?

 

Dave has noted quite correctly that people can be pursuaded from the correct position supported by the merits to an incorrect position that is not.

 

For my theory to work, it has to explain how this can happen.

 

Those who have read my theory will remember that an ideal argument will find the truth but for two limitations:

 

in the ideal argument, there are flaws. Namely, that people may lack the experience or knowledge to accept the true argument; and people may not always be aware of all the arguments.

 

If my theory is right, these limitations must explain why the merits of the case do not always matter.

 

Lets take the following argument. The truth is argument A. Argument B counters it, but B is countered by C leaving argument A in tact. [senario 1]

 

Person 1 believes argument A. But (s)he was unaware of argument B and therefore also argument C. Person 2 suggests argument B but because argument C is not known by either party the ideal argument does not reach truth, and infact reaches it's polar opposite.

 

This is how ideal arguing can go against the merits of the case.

 

But does the truth have an advantage?

 

From the above analysis, we notice that the truth instantly has an advantage. It is the only side that can always win if argued perfectly. So if both parties are equal, the truth should win. It is thus like 0s and Xs. If you have the truth on your side, you can only lose by throwing away your advantage. Another analogy is that having the truth on your side is like having the advantage of serve in tennis. Yes, you can be broken, but it is much easier to win when truth is on your side.

 

But this advantage without further explanation, may only be slight. Imagine an argument with about 20 counters and counter counters etc. There may now be too many arguments for truth to get a significant advantage since one has to uncover too many layers for it to be reached. [senario 2] It is now more like 50-50 .... unless something else plays a role.

 

And I propose there is something else.

 

If argument A has truth on its side, and argument B does not, then argument A is supported by reality whilst argument B is not. When something violates a person's vision of reality, the mind is instantly triggered to look for counter arguments. And the bit of the argument that triggered this reaction, which is very likely to be the bit that contradicts reality, is where the mind will begin it's search for a counter.

 

In this way, the conscious mind is more likely to come up with a counter to an argument that contradicts truth than it would to one that coincides with it. Thus even in long and complex arguments, the truth has even more of an advantage.

 

Since this advantage also hinges on the ability to think up new arguments, the more intelligent and knowledgable the participators, the better the ideal argument will be at finding truth (few, well that's a relief.... all that education at least counts for something).

 

But I will admit that attempting to calculate the size of this advantage is a bit too much for little old me :eek:.

 

conclusion

 

In a debate between knowledgable people, the ideal argument will be closer to a senario 1 situation. Thus the truth should get a significant advantage in my view. However, between people with less knowledge, the ideal argument will be closer to a senario 2 situation. So the truth will get some advantage, but it is impossible for me to say how much.

 

 

The implications on the legal system

 

If my above conclusion is right, this might mean that real justice is not always that reliable even in a court of law. This is highly disturbing. However, I think that something different happens in a court of law from most other forms of discussion.

 

The law will have been debated, discussed, then made into law, and then the judges spend sometimes 100s of years discussing the correct approach. Sure, at the beginning of this discussion, judges may get it wrong sometimes. But then the judgements are scrutinised by hundreds of accademics and dousans of other later cases. Under this scrutany, all the arguments eventually get exposed. And when that happens, truth has a decisive advantage.

 

Thus, the judge need only find facts and even this is guided by hundreds of years of procedural debate. Once the facts are established, then the law can be relied on for giving the correct answer.

 

So the only scope for a decision to be contrary to truth is when 1) the law is young, or 2) on finding facts. For the latter at least, the vaste majority of facts are easy to establish.

 

So I say legal systems still work.

 

With that, I think I can move onto my next concept which I believe moves pursuasion from this ideal argument senario into the real world, and I suspect it's conclusions will more than satisfy those skimming the posts for practical tips.

[Pyrotex]

The Art of Persuasion has very little to do with proper spelling, or even proper syntax. Here is an aphorism, which is also the title of a book on the Art of Persuasion:

 

"You have to be believed before you can be heard".

 

Counter-intuitive, yes? But think about it. It is not the logic of your words, the strength of your assertion, nor the power of your imagery that persuades. It is trust. Trust persuades. Trust gets people to listen to you as if you have something to say. Trust gets them to attempt to follow your logic, twisted though it may be, and to give you the benefit of the doubt when they can't follow your logic.

 

Rule #1 of the Persuader: Pick your arguments carefully. Never waste your time trying to persuade people of points that are useless or frivolous.

[sebbysteiny]

Nice post Pyrotex.

 

In my next big post, i will explain how I think things work in the real world. I believe that will explain how the things you have just described work.

 

But I will take you up on one point.

 

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

 

The main point I made was that, as a consequence of ideal arguing, one needs to make ones arguments as easy to understand as possible. I think all ideas of pursasion will agree. Correct spelling and syntax helps this.

 

And I want to leave with what will be one of my main practical tips.

 

Rule #1 of the Persuader: Pick your arguments carefully. Never waste your time trying to persuade people of points that are useless or frivolous.

 

The question is, why does this help?

[Pyrotex]

Rule #2 of the Persuader: Persuasion and Winning an Argument are two separate and distinct things. Do NOT confuse them with each other. Persuasion can be objectively measured; Winning is a personal, subjective (and usually emotional) judgement call. One can persuade and yet not win an argument.