3 ms·
What this suggests is that people put too much self worth in to their opinions and that most people simply aren't suited the rigors of arguing because they're t
by s_dev 11y ago
What this suggests is that people put too much self worth in to their opinions and that most people simply aren't suited the rigors of arguing because they're too emotional (I'm no exception).
Being persuasive online requires people take the utmost care to the emotional distancing the targeted individual will have to invoke as they change their opinion but preserve their self worth.
pg touched off this in his essay http://paulgraham.com/discover.html http://paulgraham.com/discover.html
"The reason there's a convention of being ingratiating in print is that most essays are written to persuade. And as any politician could tell you, the way to persuade people is not just to baldly state the facts. You have to add a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down."
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoFrom what I've seen, if you add only sugar and no facts you'll be better at persuading people than if you mix the two, as long as you can hit their emotions correctly.
- oldmanjay 11y agoCalling it sugar also seems a bit disingenuous, since so much persuasion is based on guilt and shame.
- Roodgorf 11y agoIs that really persuasion though? I mean, it's used as a form of persuasion, yes, but how often do you see guilt and shame successfully persuade someone to another side? I think the prevalence of those tactics is what feeds the attitude that any form of debate will do nothing but further entrench each side in the initial opinion.