Read on Twitter
I& #39;ve been thinking a lot about persuasion. How and why people change their minds.
There& #39;s a cognitive disconnect about the nature of persuasion (between ideal<->reality) as many people try and fail to persuade others to their viewpoint.
There& #39;s a cognitive disconnect about the nature of persuasion (between ideal<->reality) as many people try and fail to persuade others to their viewpoint.
The foundation of the disconnect is a belief that persuasion is about logic and reason. This is the archetypal `redditor`/`facebooker`. Someone who types long-winded commentary and tries to go point-by-point in refutation of the other side.
The problem is, that doesn& #39;t move the needle. It& #39;s basically never moved the needle. And if there ever was a time where it *just might* move the needle, it would have been the past 4 years. As the amount of commentary/facts/fact-checkers/fact-checker-checkers has exploded.
Something something about trying the same thing and expecting different results.
The "persuasive essay" plays some factor in this disconnect. A document where you& #39;re graded on soundness of arguments, evidence, and structure would undoubtedly influence us to think those hold the keys to persuasion.
When you think about "persuasion" though - changing minds - those components aren& #39;t all that important. Your teacher& #39;s minds weren& #39;t changed by your writing.
[relevant clip starts at 11:25] ">https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkC...
[relevant clip starts at 11:25] ">https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkC...
Aside from the comment-war/logical-fallacy-enforcer/fact-checker archetype, memes are the next avenue used in an attempt to persuade.
Memes are really more of a soothing mechanism. An external signal that my position is so simple and reasonable that I feel validated posting it.
There& #39;s nothing wrong with using it for that purpose. The disconnect arises when people promote them under the delusion that they are winning mind-share. I& #39;m incredibly guilty of this on my socials. Thinking that elevating the right memes would shift someone else& #39;s perceptions.
I& #39;ll pause here and say that there are other ineffective patterns of behavior that we partake as we try to persuade. They are easily observed by taking interactions and weighing them based on how someone& #39;s position shifted relative to your own after the encounter.
Not every interaction has to be weighed as such. But if the goal is to persuade, then one would think it necessary to occasionally reflect on how well we& #39;re persuading.
There& #39;s really no prescription for "here& #39;s how to persuade someone to your position". And if I knew such a prescription, I guarantee I would keep it to myself. And probably use it to make way more money than I& #39;m making now.
But there are some underrated ideas to keep in mind.
But there are some underrated ideas to keep in mind.
People are moved by narratives. They already have a set of narratives they tell themselves about the world. These are firm, stable ideas about how the world is. Ideas about the proper nature of government, civility, freedom, duty, economy, money, etc.
Your rhetoric is not graded on its own merits - its graded against how well it overlaps with their narratives. Effective in-roads come from narratives.
Another underrated idea is neutrality, and its impact on credibility and longevity. The only way to speak truth to *both* sides of an issue is to effectively align with neither side. The instant you identify as pro-X or anti-Y, you lose credibility with the anti-X or pro-Y crowd.
And this is a non-linear, precipitous drop in credibility. Like driving a new car off the lot - making a single turn of a few feet - and immediately losing 10% of the value.
Credibility drops like a rock when you void neutrality.
Credibility drops like a rock when you void neutrality.
Granted, credibility will also increase with whatever crowd is aligned with your identity. But it& #39;s anti-symmetric. The amount of credibility lost != the amount of credibility gained.
I& #39;m not advocating always remaining neutral about every issue. The "talk-less, smile-more" crowd is likely filled with a bunch of glad handers and grifters.
Instead I& #39;d advocate aligning to values and principles. And always speaking through those terms.
Instead I& #39;d advocate aligning to values and principles. And always speaking through those terms.
Hold those values and principles tightly. Remain neutral about politics and pretty much everything else.
Another thing to mind: The non-linearity of neutrality/credibility is used by politicos to great advantage. You don& #39;t like what someone is saying? Just claim they& #39;re a partisan hack. Boom, instant X% drop in credibility. It& #39;s not even a clever trick. But it works way too well.
Neutrality also allows longevity. By virtue of not being ignored/blocked/muted - which should be the default response for most - you get more opportunities to share.
There& #39;s a cognitive analogue to "you& #39;re the average of your 5 closest-friends". The top-X voices that someone trusts shape their narratives more than the next 100 voices combined.
I notice this especially with people who frequent podcasts. They& #39;re predictable in their opinions, because they share them with the hosts. (There& #39;s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario in regards to whose opinions were developed first, but that& #39;s outside the scope of this thread)
The more someone allows your thoughts to interact with their thoughts - whether that& #39;s a conversation, or reading your writing, or listening to your podcast - the more opportunities you have to share with them. And the more you drift closer together.
Longevity/Exposure is an underrated mechanism that marketing folks have known for a long time.
