8 ms·

I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that all persuasion happens through repetition. Maybe I'm a bit full of myself, but I like

by CoryG89 10y ago

I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that all persuasion happens through repetition. Maybe I'm a bit full of myself, but I like to think that with sound enough logic, I could be persuaded from my position by hearing an argument only once. That would probably be the distinction I would draw between persuasion in general and indoctrination / brainwashing. Of course, generally indoctrination and brainwashing seem to have a much higher rate of success in changing minds, which is indeed depressing.

metaobject 10y ago
I've read geometric/mathematical proofs that have convinced me immediately. Just seeing the logical steps flow from step to step was enough to prove the assertion was true.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- spynxic 10y ago
  I consider this as an object of argument as well, however, axioms seem to be the underlying structure of repetition for all proofs [as far as I understand mathematics].
  - drdeca 10y ago
    What do you mean "structure of repetition"? Premises which are already accepted are used to conclude further ones.
erik14th 10y ago
The "brainwashing" part is not related to the repetition, but the way you "acquire" the information, "acquire" on the sense of taking it for yourself. If you learn something through repetition, it's a good thing, it is learning. If you're fooled by repetition, then it's brainwashing. Also important to note, that quite often, the one that fools you is yourself. Now to distinct between "being fooled" and "learning". I would say that learning comprises understanding, while being fooled only comprises agreement. Thing is, defining "real understanding" is a pretty hard problem.
gizmo 10y ago
Learning is repetition. Exercises. Flash cards. Midterms followed by exams. You either hear the argument once and you repeat it to yourself, or you get the argument spoon fed multiple times, but the bottom line is the same. Without repetition there is no memorization or internalization, and no learning can take place. Phrasing the challenge as "sound enough logic" puts the burden of proof in the wrong place. It implies that whenever you're not persuaded it's the fault of the other person for not being persuasive enough. That's the opposite of open-mindedness. It is exactly because of the presumption that your current beliefs are true that you won't change your mind as easily as you might think. Even Scientologists say they'll leave the church if somebody could just provide them with evidence it's all baloney, but it's a standard of proof nobody can meet. When I say all persuasion is repetition, it's really not an overstatement. Maybe you're closer to believing me this time ;-)
- theoh 10y ago
  Um, what about the Elaboration Likelihood Model? It's about persuasion and it contends that there are two ways it happens: through a rational evaluation of the material, or based on the credibility of the source (and other social cues). Now, sometimes you might come to believe something through repetition, but it's possible to verify things (some of the time) and you shouldn't just claim that repetition is the only route.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    I think the model is wrong, because it presumes people are rational agents that change their mind either through careful evaluation of the arguments or by outsourcing this rational evaluation to a trustworthy person. This model doesn't take repetition at all into consideration, so I don't think it holds up empirically. Back in Aristotle's day it was about Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I don't think that model has stood the test of time either. I don't want to open Pandora's Box, but look at Trump's speeches. He persuades through repetition, and it demonstrably works.
    - theoh 10y ago
      Ok, I didn't mean to beg the question by simply claiming that people can rationally evaluate statements. The things people learn are not noise. They have structure, they have hidden consistencies. Whatever you think of the rationality or otherwise of thought, surely you will agree that trying to learn inconsistent facts is going to be more trouble than learning consistent facts which support each other in a cumulative way. People might identify with the opinions of a politician because they already hold those opinions, or similar opinions. They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.

by CoryG89 10y ago

metaobject 10y ago

I've read geometric/mathematical proofs that have convinced me immediately. Just seeing the logical steps flow from step to step was enough to prove the assertion was true.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
spynxic 10y ago
I consider this as an object of argument as well, however, axioms seem to be the underlying structure of repetition for all proofs [as far as I understand mathematics].
- drdeca 10y ago
  What do you mean "structure of repetition"? Premises which are already accepted are used to conclude further ones.

erik14th 10y ago

The "brainwashing" part is not related to the repetition, but the way you "acquire" the information, "acquire" on the sense of taking it for yourself. If you learn something through repetition, it's a good thing, it is learning. If you're fooled by repetition, then it's brainwashing. Also important to note, that quite often, the one that fools you is yourself. Now to distinct between "being fooled" and "learning". I would say that learning comprises understanding, while being fooled only comprises agreement. Thing is, defining "real understanding" is a pretty hard problem.

gizmo 10y ago

Learning is repetition. Exercises. Flash cards. Midterms followed by exams. You either hear the argument once and you repeat it to yourself, or you get the argument spoon fed multiple times, but the bottom line is the same. Without repetition there is no memorization or internalization, and no learning can take place. Phrasing the challenge as "sound enough logic" puts the burden of proof in the wrong place. It implies that whenever you're not persuaded it's the fault of the other person for not being persuasive enough. That's the opposite of open-mindedness. It is exactly because of the presumption that your current beliefs are true that you won't change your mind as easily as you might think. Even Scientologists say they'll leave the church if somebody could just provide them with evidence it's all baloney, but it's a standard of proof nobody can meet. When I say all persuasion is repetition, it's really not an overstatement. Maybe you're closer to believing me this time ;-)

theoh 10y ago
Um, what about the Elaboration Likelihood Model? It's about persuasion and it contends that there are two ways it happens: through a rational evaluation of the material, or based on the credibility of the source (and other social cues). Now, sometimes you might come to believe something through repetition, but it's possible to verify things (some of the time) and you shouldn't just claim that repetition is the only route.
- gizmo 10y ago
  I think the model is wrong, because it presumes people are rational agents that change their mind either through careful evaluation of the arguments or by outsourcing this rational evaluation to a trustworthy person. This model doesn't take repetition at all into consideration, so I don't think it holds up empirically. Back in Aristotle's day it was about Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I don't think that model has stood the test of time either. I don't want to open Pandora's Box, but look at Trump's speeches. He persuades through repetition, and it demonstrably works.
  - theoh 10y ago
    Ok, I didn't mean to beg the question by simply claiming that people can rationally evaluate statements. The things people learn are not noise. They have structure, they have hidden consistencies. Whatever you think of the rationality or otherwise of thought, surely you will agree that trying to learn inconsistent facts is going to be more trouble than learning consistent facts which support each other in a cumulative way. People might identify with the opinions of a politician because they already hold those opinions, or similar opinions. They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.