[HN Gopher] The Dying Art of Persuasion
___________________________________________________________________
The Dying Art of Persuasion
Author : apsec112
Score : 55 points
Date : 2021-02-16 15:12 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (unherd.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (unherd.com)
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| Persuasion is dying but it's not dead. It has morphed in this age
| of echo chambers. How do you persuade someone who is stuck in a
| situation not hearing opposing viewpoints?
| pnathan wrote:
| The article asserts a strawman, that we had, in the past, cool,
| rational, reasoned debates that we all stroked our beards and
| decided what the right choice of action would be.
|
| I would suggest several counter examples:
|
| * Hearst Newspapers and "Yellow Journalism"
|
| * McCarthyism
|
| * Revolutionary War era op-eds (e.g.,
| https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/T... )
| Grustaf wrote:
| Why persuade when you can simply cancel your opponent?
| Igelau wrote:
| It was a little uncomfortable that the author found it necessary
| to keep referring to Rationalists as "nerds and weirdos".
| Presumably he left these irons in the fire in case someone tries
| to associate him with the Rationalists. Not sure I want to read
| his book if the conclusion is "I only feel like I can talk about
| them safely if I call them derisive names".
| mcguire wrote:
| I suspect the author regards "nerds and weirdos" as positive
| things.
| seph-reed wrote:
| Persuasion is a symptom of a broken system in which everyone
| votes independently.
|
| Systems like "liquid democracy" make it so not everyone needs to
| be an expert on every issue, they just have to choose someone
| slightly smarter than themselves.
|
| In academic spaces, persuasion is still alive and well.
| bentona wrote:
| I agree with the comments positing that persuasion is clearly
| alive and well, given the enthusiasm of today's e.g.
| demonstrations. I believe the author's point, however, is that
| persuasion can (should?) engage the conscious, rational mind,
| rather than just fear-based, tribal instincts leveraged today.
| quirkot wrote:
| I'll take the counterpoint. Tribal instincts exist because it
| is impossible to have rational/conscious debate about most
| things. It's basically over engineering the problem.
|
| How would you convince an entire lakeside community to site a
| water treatment plant somewhere else? How many man-years of
| training would be required for them to have enough fundamental
| understanding to even enter a rational/informed debate? And
| what other topics are competing for that time? vs. "Chris is
| the expert and I trust Chris, so we'll do what Chris says"
| shuntress wrote:
| Maybe it _can_ or _should_ but when the ends justify the means
| and the goal is to scale your persuasion as far and wide as
| possible it seems to be tough to beat "us vs them" fear-based
| persuasion.
| ouid wrote:
| I think that Scott Alexander or whatever his name is, does a much
| better job than say, Paul Graham, at presenting the best
| counterargument whenever he presents something that he believes,
| but it's intrinsically a game of trust.
|
| I think what the New York Times intrinsically understands is that
| the art persuasion is not actually the art of being rational and
| critical. It is the art of convincing someone else that you have
| been rational and critical. I am not generally defending the New
| York Times, I just think that they do understand how good faith
| persuasive essays can be gateways to bad faith persuasive essays.
|
| The existence and effectiveness of bad faith persuasion is
| nowhere clearer than in court, where you are essentially
| obligated by the system to act in bad faith (lawyers would not
| describe it this way, but presenting an argument that you know to
| be flawed is bad faith), and lawyers are _very_ convincing.
| However without an adversarial court system, lawyers are about as
| good a way of getting to the truth of the matter as crystal
| balls.
|
| A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an
| essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the
| essay would look if counterarguments could be inserted after
| reaching some threshold of support by the general population.
|
| The aggregate problem remains, however. Persuasive essays
| maintain a shared credit score which is extremely problematic for
| the process of truth-seeking. Even essays from the same author,
| can operate on wildly different points on the good/bad faith
| spectrum.
|
| I guess my point is that the solution is not "more rational
| essayists", but rather provably adversarial comment systems, in
| which authors are not advantaged.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _I think what the New York Times intrinsically understands is
| that the art persuasion is not actually the art of being
| rational and critical._ "
|
| Catarina Dutilh Novaes once pointed out something that has
| stuck with me: logic is a branch of rhetoric. The original
| purpose of logic is the building of convincing, persuasive
| arguments. In short, it's the other way around from what most
| believe.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| What would a provably adversarial comment system even look
| like? Maybe my uncreativeness is showing - but I can't even
| imagine this.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Reddit's CMV should qualify
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| What does CMV stand for in this context?
| isoskeles wrote:
| > A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an
| essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the
| essay would look if counterarguments could be inserted after
| reaching some threshold of support by the general population.
|
| I'm not sure I follow what you mean here, and how this looks in
| either a good faith or bad faith presentation of some argument.
| Would 'good faith' be closer to an essay that presents its
| arguments in a somewhat neutral but supportive perspective
| (e.g. without lying or misleading), such that adding its
| counterarguments wouldn't almost convincingly disprove
| everything that was just written? Whereas a 'bad faith'
| argument with its counterarguments presented would look quite
| flimsy?
| ouid wrote:
| A good faith argument looks less different from the imagined
| argument. It's a heuristic, peoples imaginations are
| different, but if you can tell that there are objections that
| people would have that haven't been addressed, it is likely
| the author could tell as well.
| furrowedbrow wrote:
| I think your line "It's also more fun" sums it up. Social media
| is about dopamine. As for the art of persuasion, while it might
| be marginalized in the current online environment, I'm encouraged
| when I hear people acknowledge that rational arguments have never
| been the best tool for changing people's minds, especially not in
| the short run. I think more often they come in handy after the
| fact, to rationalize people's feelings and memberships. But
| that's not to say we should throw up our hands and give up on
| reaching people. There's the alternative of delaying rational
| debate until a foundation of decency and emotional goodwill has
| been established--again, pretty tough to do online. There was an
| episode of Yascha Mounk's podcast from 9/4/20 where these two
| approaches are discussed. Elizabeth Anderson offers this critique
| to Mounk's project (called, oddly enough, "Persuasion"): "This is
| why I think I have some slight reservation against your
| Persuasion project, because it's all about argument. I don't
| think Americans in general are ready for argument, what we have
| to have is testimony. That's where people just sit down and talk
| about their lives, and open up in ways that other people can
| actually listen, and hear what the experience of others is like.
| Where people are speaking from the heart, about their experience.
| It's not about larger scale, policy arguments about principles;
| it's just about experience."
| rektide wrote:
| the recent "the best story wins"[1][2] is a different angle but
| kind of suggests a similar thing, that our based instincts win,
| that whatever fits our current context best is easiest to adopt
| & will be adopted.
|
| [1] https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/story/
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26115902
| quirkot wrote:
| This presents a fairly narrow view of persuasion, a romanticized
| version. Broadly defined persuasion is alive and well.
|
| Consider the massive political demonstrations that have occurred
| in the last year, who persuaded these people to leave their homes
| and congregate during the middle of a pandemic?
|
| Consider the rapid decriminalization of marijuana and even other
| drugs. Who persuaded these voters to change the law?
|
| Consider all the new start-ups and other business that rely on a
| sales force to persuade customers of their value and to sign up?
|
| Persuasion is very much still alive
| Digory wrote:
| "Choice" is very much alive in your examples.
|
| We seem to be in an open fight against negative reinforcement.
| To say "policing is the consequence of bad behavior," or "You
| should go to jail for dealing weed" or even "We shouldn't
| cancel services or people too hastily" is to pick a fight.
| quirkot wrote:
| If arguing online has taught me anything, it's that you don't
| need to win a fight to persuade bystanders of your
| righteousness
| Jochim wrote:
| I don't think those points really link together.
|
| 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument.
| Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't fixed the
| problems that lead to high crime in those neighbourhoods in
| the first place and in some cases has made those
| neighbourhoods more dangerous. We already know tough on crime
| policies don't work. It's why we don't chop off the hands of
| thieves. It's why states with the death penalty still have
| plenty of murders.
|
| 2) The argument isn't against negative reinforcement it's
| that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
|
| 3) Implies the people you're arguing against are in favour of
| at least some negative reinforcement.
| coding123 wrote:
| I think what he's trying to say is that instead of doing this:
| L > > > C < < < R
|
| Media outlets are focusing more on this: L <
| < < C > > > R
|
| But you're right, it's still persuasion.
|
| It was all explained during the superbowl man.
| prionassembly wrote:
| Superbowl? Reference?
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| Yeah this should be developed more
| kop316 wrote:
| I've noted an increasing trend in US papers that the headline or
| the first few paragraphs sort of level where the author expects
| your beliefs will be, and much of the article is precicated on
| such beliefs. For me personally, it makes trying to read the rest
| of the article, whether I agree with the headline/first few
| paragraphs or not, much more difficult.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Lol. The art is not dead. It has simply moved on from ancient
| forms. Nobody's mind is being changed by editorials in some
| paper-and-ink newspaper. Minds are changed through social media.
| The skill now isn't about formulated argument. It is about subtle
| pushes delivered through a variety of means. Want grandma to
| change her mind about politics? Don't send her a well-reasoned
| letter. Manipulate her social media feeds. Hit her with targeted
| adds/messages from apparently like-minded people. Manufacture
| something that she fears that will draw her to where you want her
| to move. The art of persuasion isn't dead. It is just now
| operating on a wider playing field and softer rulebook.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| It seems what you are describing is manipulation, not
| persuasion. The outcome is the same but at least in my mind
| persuasion means to have a good faith argument.
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| As someone who worked in the reputation management industry, I
| find that there is an element of truth to your statement.
|
| The essence if persuasion lies in enforcing your values onto
| another party. Media saturation has been a time-tested, and
| effective technique to ensure the right narrative is conveyed.
|
| However, the mediums have changed in the modern era, therefore
| the technique, although still valid, must be adapted for the
| age of social media and instant gratification.
| mcguire wrote:
| "Enforcing"?
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| > _Minds are changed through social media._
|
| Respectfully disagree. I think minds are being changed by news
| sources and real-life experiences, and social media is
| reinforcing the views of each tribe.
| shuntress wrote:
| Minds are changed by all inputs but some are more effective
| than others.
|
| I don't think it is a stretch to assume "community consensus"
| is the most effective way to change minds.
|
| That (in both cases, _perceived_ ) consensus can be accessed
| through either "traditional" or "social" media but either way
| people decide based mostly on _" What does everyone else
| think about this?"_
| [deleted]
| TwitBar wrote:
| > minds are being changed by news sources
|
| Optimistic of you. For everyone else, social media supplants
| traditional news.
|
| > and real-life experiences
|
| For many, social media _is_ reality. Enough to end lives,
| livelihoods, and each other 's patience at least.
| rhencke wrote:
| Human interaction is fundamentally persuasive, even when
| completely unintentional. I don't think you can get around
| that.
| __s wrote:
| You can get around it. A couple weeks ago I had friends over
| while their place had to be vacated for a few hours, they
| bought lunch, we played with cats
|
| You can go after "all altruism is selfish" argument but
| you'll end up having to settle with "some altruism is more
| selfish than others"
| rhencke wrote:
| I find that experience to be persuasive, as well. It
| persuades me about the kindness of your friends.
| __s wrote:
| You weren't a part of this interaction. You're going with
| the "How can you tell if someone is vegan? ..they'll tell
| you" joke
| marcinzm wrote:
| As I see it the art of persuasion has been weaponized over the
| last century through media and advertising. Ever more effective
| ways of manipulating people were devised and deployed at scale.
| The current most effective approach being social media. So why
| would someone bother with an older less efficient weapon when
| they can use the latest and greatest weapon for the same price?
| potta_coffee wrote:
| Is that the art of persuasion or the art of propaganda?
| chanakya wrote:
| To say that propaganda is part of the art of persuasion would
| be stretching the meaning of persuasion beyond its general
| usage. Persuasion implies a respect for its recipient and
| their rational faculty and trying to convince them by
| reasonable evidence and arguments. That is missing from
| propaganda. In fact, propaganda and advertising is most often
| the opposite, in that it aims to overpower the rational
| faculty with irrational appeals to emotion.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Propaganda is a tool of persuasion. So too is fear, money,
| guilt, logic and everything else under the sun that may move
| someone's mind from one opinion to another. The outer bounds
| are only what is acceptable under the various rulebooks (eg
| laws) which today are wide open compared to yesteryear.
| wwweston wrote:
| It's the art of persuasion via propaganda.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Appeals to emotions, bias, fear, and arguments from authority
| have always been used to persuade people.
|
| See Aristotle's Rhetoric. Ethos, pathos.
| mdavis6890 wrote:
| Not true - for the most part social media and the other types
| of ads, etc you mention are about reinforcing already-held
| beliefs, or otherwise giving them direction. Persuasion is
| about actually changing someone's mind.
|
| This is why a given political ad can reinforce the beliefs of
| two people who believe opposing ideas: One says "See, I KNEW it
| was true." and the other says "See! I knew the
| media/platform/community was biased this way!"
| conception wrote:
| This is a legit startup idea I'd pay for. "De-radicalize your
| parents". It gets their ad profiled and crafts a campaign
| highly targeted with an ever non-radical content stream.
|
| For reals - y'all reading this now - right or wrong, this is a
| thing that's needed. I have no idea what I'd pay... 50/mo? 1000
| for a full campaign? But it'd be substantial.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Much like John Oliver's show paid to have "informative"
| commercials run on Fox news in the DC area specifically
| targeting the US president. It is perfectly legal but
| expensive.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Fun irony: Simultaneously, conception's parents were paying
| the same company to finagle conception's feed.
|
| The one thing both ad drips agreed on was that this company
| was the absolute best.
| ironmagma wrote:
| How is this different from paying to remove ads altogether?
| It will start out true to the idea, but then over time the
| companies will slowly start to double dip, re-radicalizing
| the content because that gets more engagement.
| conception wrote:
| Oh yeah 100%, no doubt. But I can dream.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| The Wolves of Nova Scotia :)
| mcguire wrote:
| " _But the line in which he "aligns himself" with Murray is on
| whether there is a genetic component to poverty (which surely
| there must be), ..._ "
|
| What? Genetic component of poverty?!
|
| " _Another example. "Free speech" has become a left-right
| battleground issue, and the instances we read about are always of
| right-wing speech being limited by left-wing activists. So,
| inevitably, left-wing people think it's a partisan attack on
| them, or a smokescreen for people who just want to say unpleasant
| things (which, let's be clear, it often is). But Alexander takes
| a different tack. In one post, for example, he calls attention to
| a woman fired for "having a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker on her
| car" by her George W Bush-supporting boss. The point is, or at
| least the effect on me was, to drag the issue away from partisan
| sniping. It wasn't firing shots in the culture war, it was
| talking to liberals and left-wingers, trying to persuade._ "
|
| Alexander's post is from 2013, which was before much of the
| current free speech hoopla. Somehow, I'm not finding this
| persuasive.
|
| Ultimately, in fact, I think this article is exactly what it
| seems to be complaining about, just in regard to an issue that is
| orthogonal to the big political discussions it uses as examples:
| Chivers is writing to a rationalist audience about how
| rationalists are wonderful.
| rektide wrote:
| consider the reciprocal, how persuadable are people? how much
| humility do we temper our views & stances with?
|
| the internet exposes so many of us to torrents of information.
| the world seems more firm & certain, now that the cold war is
| over, now that capitalism's steady gobbling up of all local
| systems has proceeded space for decades unabated & unchanged. my
| guess is that people feel more resolute in their own views, &
| that the world seems less in flux/malleable than ever.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-17 21:03 UTC)