Logic is NOT persuasive

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Eben]
There’s most certainly an ability bias in there, not a gender one. My complaint isn’t so much that logic isn’t taught enough, but rather that unless one takes a course on it in college, it isn’t taught at all.

That being said, I still make decisions on emotion that I should be making based on logic and therefor doing the wrong thing. It drives me crazy. But in the end I understand that it’s my own fault for ignoring the logic and not that God hates me or anything.

Using emotive language to be persuasive works, but always turns the warning bells on for me, and should for other people too. As soon as someone talks about “for the children,” “for your own good,” “because mother nature likes it,” or other purely emotive arguments, everyone should start looking for the hook under the worm. The worm’s still plenty tasty, but one should be aware of what one’s biting into.

-Eben
[/QUOTE]
On your first point, I agree. On the catch phrases, I also agree. I’m really not a proponent of arguing on THAT level. Only that couching it as a personal narrative and making smaller jumps in reason as the story progresses… seems to help. It defangs some of the pseudo-science that gets bandied about to keep people inoculated to real science.

People can tend to forget that in the process of reaching a logical conclusion certain concurrent emotional topics are also wrestled with. A decision to leave a church is not a light and easy matter, for instance. It allows them to see that there are viable emotional answers to those topics as well.

imo.

102

Logic is persuasive – False.
Emotional reasoning is persuasive – False
Not persuading is not failure but rather is an opportunity for growth – Spiritually True.

I have little time to explain:
The human consciousness was evolved/created having three parts, emotional, rational, and autonomic. Each of these parts were evolved/created to promote the individuals survival. Each of these parts must be integrated into a working whole (fully functioning person) for life to be truly and completely experienced (Groked in fullness) and to creatively persuade by passion (Pass I On).

One persuades by passion, period.

I recommend focused self study.

http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/stranger_in_a_strange_land.htm

I highly recommend some Life Training. http://www.moretolife.org
And more training will teach you to persuade and be persuaded. http://www.moretolife.org/courses_purpose.cfm
It is the Way of the Warrior. http://www.moretolife.org/courses_residential.cfm#wow1

Focus on Z

103

[QUOTE=focusonz]
One persuades by passion, period.
[/QUOTE]
I am unconvinced.

104

One persuades by passion, period.

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I am unconvinced.
[/QUOTE]

The messages contained in speeches below were sent unpersuasively many times.
The messages were not received persuasively until they were sent with the passion of these speakers.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0406/reagan.speeches.ap/frameset.exclude.html

105

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
I think a few things are happening here. First, the OP wasn’t clear enough. Second, the defenders of logic are defending logic - on logic’s turf. And I like that. I think it helps.

I also think that the definition of an “argument” is being overly narrowed… I think. Implicit in the commercial are arguments of a sort. They are happy because… They are building a bond because… And McDonalds is a brand that, the world over, seldom has to introduce itself. It gets to rest on the fact that people know them, and the atmosphere, and the food. They let you fill in some of the gaps.

They are happier because they are all eating reasonably cheap, somewhat decent food in a kid friendly atmosphere. The brand gets to work on a near unconscious level, imo.

BUT that’s kind of a distraction. The point is persuasion. And while I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a person persuaded without an argument (a reason why) what an argument is or isn’t, seems secondary. And if anyone seems to think that to be persuasive is to offer an argument… then why does McDonalds persuade so well with their commercials?

Even an unsupported lie, repeated enough, becomes persuasive. I mean… Iraq caused 9/11 right? Well… no. But a lot of people thought so. Some still do. Why? They trusted the brand.

How would we define that phenomenon? People were persuaded. And the point to this thread is persuasion. I’m not pretending to have the answers. If I did this thread would have flowed very differently, if at all.
[/QUOTE]
A McDonalds commercial is an argument. They’re claiming that Mcdonalds is associated with the happy fun things in the commercial and the happy fun emotion that the commercial causes. The argument is that, based on the claim that McDonalds is fun and makes you happy, you should go to McDonalds. Beer commercials have traditionally argued that drinking their brand of beer causes hot women to hang around you (and that therefore you should drink their brand of beer), I gather.

These arguments are based in emotion, and they are indeed arguments. They’re also flimsy as hell from a logical standpoint, in that analytically speaking there’s no real connection between the beer and the hot women, which makes the argument rather unsound (or perhaps invalid, depending on how you rewrote it into formal text).

Emotional arguments are founded in getting people to gain or lose opinions based on something other than the truth of the position. You can persuade people with these pretty well, but it’s got squat to do with the truth. If you care about truth, you need to get yourself some actual facts, and in lining them up and adding them together you will almost inevitably use some form of logic, especially if you’re not totally screwing the job up.

You can say “Think of the children” about anything. Logic helps you figure out whether there are any children involved, and, upon actually thinking about them, what impact interest in their welfare has on your final decision.

106

[QUOTE=begbert2]
A McDonalds commercial is an argument. They’re claiming that Mcdonalds is associated with the happy fun things in the commercial and the happy fun emotion that the commercial causes. The argument is that, based on the claim that McDonalds is fun and makes you happy, you should go to McDonalds. Beer commercials have traditionally argued that drinking their brand of beer causes hot women to hang around you (and that therefore you should drink their brand of beer), I gather.

These arguments are based in emotion, and they are indeed arguments. They’re also flimsy as hell from a logical standpoint, in that analytically speaking there’s no real connection between the beer and the hot women, which makes the argument rather unsound (or perhaps invalid, depending on how you rewrote it into formal text).

Emotional arguments are founded in getting people to gain or lose opinions based on something other than the truth of the position. You can persuade people with these pretty well, but it’s got squat to do with the truth. If you care about truth, you need to get yourself some actual facts, and in lining them up and adding them together you will almost inevitably use some form of logic, especially if you’re not totally screwing the job up.

You can say “Think of the children” about anything. Logic helps you figure out whether there are any children involved, and, upon actually thinking about them, what impact interest in their welfare has on your final decision.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

What I’m submitting is that logic, without the additional stuff, tends not to be persuasive. I’m not saying logic shouldn’t be persuasive. I’m just saying it isn’t - not for most. And it isn’t that logic is not working. It’s that some of their premises are emotional - and also require attention if one is to successfully persuade.

As a semantic aside: I still think logic, itself, is not persuasive directly. It is my emotional investment in thinking reason=logic that means I line up more with logic. Without that emotional instinct… logic wouldn’t mean much to me. Some don’t have that inclination in the same doses as others. We like to assume they do - or should. I’m not sure that’s fair, or even right. (But I would like them persuaded.)

107

Logic is persuasive, but only as a subset of other things. If presidential candidates didn’t talk about condensation symbols THE WELL BEING OF OUR PEOPLE and our LIBERTY and FREEDOM some time in between all the statistics of our children’s education and people without healthcare (which is also presented with dense symbolism 90% of the time) they’d be blown off, they don’t connect with people. However just saying LIBERTY and FREEDOM all the freaking time is not persuasive without at least a few logical paths and reasoning. It’s a balancing act, people want to be entertained by arguments and connected to the point in a sort of wierd fashion, but they also need at least something tangible and referential to convince them this is REALLY a good idea and not just trying to tweak them into agreeing with something for no good reason (even if the referential point of data that seems reasonable is entirely made up… not mentioning any recent cases).
What? Murray Edelman? Who?