8 ms·

To Persuade Someone, Look Emotional

159 points by dnetesn 8y ago

cardiffspaceman 8y ago
The title suggests that what you need to do is appear to be making an emotional decision but the article seems to suggest that you need to actually make an emotional decision. The difference is between Dukakis quickly saying no and instead revealing all the feelings he'd have before choosing principle over vengeance.
classichasclass 8y ago
I think it's also because people who feel strongly on an issue want at least to see that you take the issue with the same gravity they do, and the best way to demonstrate that is that you, too, have a visible emotional response to the topic, that it gave you as much internal turmoil to come to the conclusion you did. The worst thing you can do is to make a weighty issue seem simple or that you regard it tritely. That's what Dukakis did wrong, even though I have every belief he actually did think the issue through.
copperx 8y ago
> According to a recent study, people who make instinct-based moral judgments are perceived by their peers to be more moral and more trustworthy than those who rely on reasoning alone. That's a depressing fact if true. Reasoning is a superior way of making a moral judgement, solely because we're wired to thing about ourselves and our close tribe before anything else. It's only through reasoning that we can consider the true "big picture."
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  Well, if peoples' reason is perfect, than it is a superior way of making decisions. I'd certainly like it to be the case that we could do that. However, one thing we might take away from your claim that "wired to thing about ourselves and our close tribe before anything else" is this: If people are motivated to come up with an incorrect decision, then reason can often give people a mistaken sense that they are being ration, when in fact they are using a rather large set of tools to get their preferred answer.
- kdl20kxkrk 8y ago
  That describes all the managers I’ve worked with. Stern or at least unapologetic and unwavering support of company and process the worker bees all bitch about. “Owning” their role when the reasoned mind might question what they really own? Don’t think some mid-level director has their name on the right paperwork. CEOs drink the kool-aid. They control the spec to which people build. Reasoning around that is verboten. They all think they have good reason, but it’s usually “abide the cultural meme”.
- darkerside 8y ago
  It actually makes total sense. If you make decisions based on emotion and not just reason, if we are close, you are more likely to make decisions in my favor. So of course I'd be more likely to trust you. Don't be depressed by human nature. Accept it for what it is, and realize that it's what's gotten civilization this far.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Against your favour and in their selfish but sometimes ill-conceived interest. Only belonging works in your favor, everything else emotional is against.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      Do you have friends or family? Don't you have emotional bonds or attachment to them? Wouldn't you make decisions in their best interests over a stranger, possibly irrationally?
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    One might also say that moving above human nature is what's gotten civilization this far. Our nature for 99% of our time of a species have been to kill, rape, pillage each other. Emotions are never going to be superior to logic and rationality in decision making. At worst, they lead people to make very bad decisions. And they also lead to people being exploited. As far back as the Ancient Greeks Socrates wrote extensively on exploiting emotions to achieve success in argument. And today politicians, the media, advertisers, even individuals actively exploit emotional response for their own benefit. Emotional control has become more important than ever in today's society. In times past people were not so widely adept in emotional exploitation and communication was limited in any case to a close physical proximity. But in today's society of global communication with vast numbers of individuals skilled in emotional exploitation, emotionality is like a leash that those skilled in pathos can drag people around by, to whatever end they seek.
    - darkerside 8y ago
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I've heard worse from an interviewing course from a Human Resources veteran who left the field to care for family that has me conclude that much of humanity is frankly batshit insane by the definition of 'divorced from reality'. In addition to paying 80% attention to how it is said instead of the content of what is said they tend to judge people who are better at putting on an appropriate 'mask' of confidence as 'trustworthy' when they all know that nearly everyone puts on a show for interviews anyway. That is believing that people who demonstrate better capabilities of actively faking emotions are more trustworthy. When aptitude is widely linked to practice. Saying you want a surgeon who can't stand the sight of blood so they'll make fewer unnecessary cuts is more logical than that. That is beyond trusting your intuition and into flat out divorced from reality and putting on a heaping helping of cognitive dissonance on top. The revelation was disturbing yet it also explains /a lot/ of societal dysfunctions and why high functioning sociopaths are disproportionate among CEOs.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    I somewhat agree with you, but I don't think you're giving these intuitions enough credit. Feelings are fine-tuned over millions of years to be good signals. Things like the halo effect, for example trusting people because they are attractive, are well-rooted in empirical evidence. Humans may recently have found a better way but that remains to be seen; on the face of it, reason is much more abstract and hence more 'divorced from reality'. It certainly doesn't warrant an immediate switch of strategies.
    - maze-le 8y ago
      >> Feelings are fine-tuned over millions of years to be good signals. If you're going for a hunt on large mammals, gut feelings about your peers is probably a good way to judge a person. An interview for a job is (usually) an entirely different situation. >> Things like the halo effect, for example trusting people because they are attractive, are well-rooted in empirical evidence. Oh my god, please don't tell me you trust people because they are looking good. If you do, you should consider establishing a different trust-metric, one that maybe has to do with the job a person is actually requested to do.
- keithnz 8y ago
  morals are tricky. I think quite often when people make a quick "moral" judgement it's more about what they feel is right. Reasoned morals can be the opposite, sometimes they can feel wrong and often require people to stop and think about why a certain thing is in fact moral. When someone makes an instinct based moral judgement the instant message is that the person is concerned with morals ( whether it be reasoned or not ), which does send this message that the persons fundamental nature is to do the right thing ( whatever 'right' is doesn't matter so much as the desire to do it) Where someone who takes time to figure out moral questions, it feels like they aren't inherently moral. Even worse when their reasoned moral judgement doesn't "feel" right. You may have to know that person more intimately to realize that they thoughfully moral. I feel maybe this has lot more to do with social cohesion rather than morality.
- hrktb 8y ago
  The working definition for instinct based moral judgements in the study is to have an absolute position on things (ex: kiling is wrong, whatever the circumstances), and I can see how it can be easier attribute morality, and cooperate and trust people with consistent believes. As long as they don’t kill people you can say they kept their moral views, it’s very simple. On the other hand, people who take moral decisions depending on the situation and the context are unpredictable in a way. And the result will be more difficult to judge as moral or not. People who stick with them long enough might come around to trust them and see them as moraly sound, but there is a higher barrier to entry. The study was about partner choice, and for me the takeaway would be that it’s easier to trust people that are also easier to understand
- biql 8y ago
  Once the logic argument is formulated, the part the decides to act or not act on it is still the emotional part. If someone chooses interests of humanity over their selfish interests, it's because the level of their understanding, which they attained after spending time thinking about, makes them feel better about this choice.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Well, sorta. Research has shown that emotion is vital to 'good behaviour'. It is not the case that we should hope to craft humanity into unfeeling robots. [0] At the same time, you're clearly right that we should be more rational when it comes to trying to act morally [1] [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-smart/201502/why-our-emotions-are-more-rational-we-think https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-smart/201502... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empathy-paul-bloom-the-empathy-instinct-peter-bazalgette-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empath...
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Always remember this when reading a psychology paper: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/most-psychology-papers-cant-be-reproduced/ http://www.iflscience.com/brain/most-psychology-papers-cant-...
- goldfeld 8y ago
  Actually, no it's not--for me. I'm very analytical yet instinct and intuition are far more trusworthy in general as a human source of contact than any reasoning my poor material brain can concoct. It depends on your understanding of the world, granted HN skews disproportionately to your view.
- ycombinete 8y ago
  I don't think this is depressing, for the reasons that you find it depressing. This says "on reasoning alone". I wouldn't trust someone who didn't reference their instincts/emotions for moral decisions. There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions. And I'm not just talking psychopaths, but also people who's emotional centers have been damaged. This is unsurprising to me, because our emotions and our morality are both part of the system that makes us social creatures (e.g. empathy). Morality is essentially a meta-structure that helps hold societies together. Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. There are some nice explanations of this by people like Jonathan Haidt.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    > There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions > Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. Can you give an example of these studies? I’m interested in how they assign a qualifier of “good” or “bad” to various moral decisions. Are subjects not consistent in their moral decisions, or do their decisions disagree with the moral priors of the researchers? How do the researchers establish that their moral decisions are correct? That’s the essence of ethics itself. Unless these studies are exceptionally careful in their setup, I think it’s probable they’re begging the question implicitly. A more reserved conclusion might be that people with less empathy, in the aggregate, consistently make moral decisions which are different from those who have more empathy. But I think this conclusion might be kind of vacuous to anyone who has read a philosophy book or two on ethics.
    - ycombinete 8y ago
      I don't have any specific studies to mention, I am afraid, as I've only had them through third party sources. They will be in the books Waking Up by Sam Harris, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. The last two more specifically.
ilamont 8y ago
TFA doesn't differentiate between types of emotion. What if it's anger, exasperation, or some other negative emotion? I've worked with people who tended to display these emotions when making decisions, interacting with people, and carrying out their work. Far from persuading me, it was more likely to make me think that the quality of their decision-making (and other aspects of their work) was compromised.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  "Emotional" in this context is generally understood as "appealing to the audience's emotions." Displaying anger at your audience may not be convincing, but if you want your audience to be angry about something else, then displaying the anger you want them to share can be quite effective.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Like certain popular politicians who shall not be named. A common enemy is among the oldest tricks in the book.
- drasticmeasures 8y ago
  Beep bop beep! Instructions unclear; angrily shouted at Trump supporters for, in my master's view, supporting evil. Didn't seem to work! Initiating testing on MUM protocol: "Look hurt and worried about Trump supporters' well-being while asking them if everything is alright at home." "Do you really hate me? I don't hate you. I'm sorry. Can I do something to help? You want me to listen. Alright. I want to learn from you. I'll hush and listen. You're right. What was the point of me criticizing you if that only made us not listen to each other? You're right, almost nobody ever says you're right anymore!, but it makes the other side feel understood, and feeling understood makes them want to listen to us as well, even if just a little bit. Maybe it's my fault, too. I'm not perfect. I'm sor-- I guess a heartfelt apology isn't going to help you. I will change what I do for the better." Empathy is hard work for a robot.
natrik 8y ago
Is persuasion using emotion to heighten the strength of the persuasion manipulation? Relevant - https://i.imgur.com/yN2l1Cp.png https://i.imgur.com/yN2l1Cp.png
- Cyphase 8y ago
  The other screenshotted discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17662135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17662135 [How to tell the difference between persuasion and manipulation]
itronitron 8y ago
'scientists say' << I guess I could either read the source material or just wait a year and see another headline that refutes their conclusions.
- cjohansson 8y ago
  that is a scientific fact, any refutations are more probable that no refutations
andrewclunn 8y ago
Instinct IS superior to abstract reasoning on creating scalable, functional, understandable moral codes. This "weakness" of the masses is their subconscious reliance on emergence over self proclaimed intellectuals' rationales, and they are the wiser for it.
dotancohen 8y ago
I've done A/B/C testing to see how likely someone is to install Telegram when they get surprised that I don't have Whatsapp. Those to whom I explain in a straight-faced manner that Whatsapp is intrusive, almost never install it. Those to whom I whine that I don't like the intrusiveness are very likely to install it. The third group, to whom I whine that I just don't like Whatsapp, are also likely to install it. In short, don't give someone a reason to do something. Just whine.
- tempodox 8y ago
  That recipe may only work with a specific target audience. I know a few grown-ups who are highly allergic to whining. With them, you'll achieve the opposite effect.
  - magic_beans 8y ago
    Allergic to.
    - tempodox 8y ago
      Thanks, fixed.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    Some but not all of them might just do it to appease/shut up the whining one. So there is still a higher conversion rate from taking the whining approach. So why don't we all whine? This I have asked of shouting. Normally I politely ask people to do things with a friendly tone of voice. However there have been moments, e.g. on-coming car catastrophe, where I have shouted at people and been surprised at how quickly people move or do as they are told. Shocked at being heard and being 'obeyed' I have wondered why I don't do it more often. I dismiss the idea as it is not me and contradicts many aspects of my upbringing. But you can see how it is that some people get what they want in the world by shouting/whining or being a general narcissist.
    - darpa_escapee 8y ago
Proven 8y ago
Sounds like a guide to psychopathic behavior To defend yourself from manipulative psychopaths, ignore emotional signs in discussion.
paulpauper 8y ago
Persuasion seems like a pseudoscience , much like hypnotherapy, telekinesis, speed reading, ediic memory, etc. If were as effective as the people claim, you could just persuade a million people to give you $1 and be a millionaire. That example may seem contrived, but how hard should it be to persuade someone to give someone as little as $1, especially with special persuasion techniques? Surely that shouldn't be too hard. But that is what panhandlers try do, so I think much of persuasion is just begging, or begging is the most effective persuasion technique. If you keep pestering enough people to do something, some may capitulate. There's not much science or any sort of special 'social engineering' techniques involved in that. People think that there is a science or special skill to being persuasive, but 4-year-olds and beggars seem to excel at it. People who are reasonably intelligent and competent are not going to fall for these persuasion techniques...it's better to learn how to be more competent than waste time trying to learn persuasion. Yeah, you can probably persuade a stranger to give you a few dollar, but it won't work in situations where the stakes are higher. Regarding Dukakis and the 1988 presidential debate, attributing his loss to his answer is an example of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Because he lost, pundit needs to work backwards to try to find a reason why he lost, but that does not prove that his answer was why he lost. Scott Adams (and this is where I disagree with him) attributes Trump's win to special persuasion techniques, but Trump was going to get about 50% of the vote (just by virtue of being that GOP nominee) regardless of any special techniques. And also, if pursation were so effecvie, he why not just purade everoyne watchign his Periscopte to give him a few dolalr.s Surely that shoudl not be too hard.
asdf1234tx 8y ago
In the absence of historical data, receiving information from another person, without any quick way to verify what has been communicated, coupled with a necessity to decide/act, has long required/used a shortcut. You look in that person's face, you make the call. You'all remember that stuff. Maybe not so common now, but it's still on TV.. "My word is my bond." and all that. If that utterance doesn't come with a hardcore look of sincerity playing across the face, well then it's not believable. Looking emotional doesn't mean looking distraught. It means not looking like a mannequin. Even with data, logic, reason, and an armful of facts, imagine two people with equal amounts of the aforementioned, trying to convince a 3rd party, but one of the individuals throws in expressions/mannerisms that communicate "trust", "sincerity", and "competence"...

159 points by dnetesn 8y ago

The title suggests that what you need to do is appear to be making an emotional decision but the article seems to suggest that you need to actually make an emotional decision. The difference is between Dukakis quickly saying no and instead revealing all the feelings he'd have before choosing principle over vengeance.

classichasclass 8y ago

I think it's also because people who feel strongly on an issue want at least to see that you take the issue with the same gravity they do, and the best way to demonstrate that is that you, too, have a visible emotional response to the topic, that it gave you as much internal turmoil to come to the conclusion you did. The worst thing you can do is to make a weighty issue seem simple or that you regard it tritely. That's what Dukakis did wrong, even though I have every belief he actually did think the issue through.

copperx 8y ago

> According to a recent study, people who make instinct-based moral judgments are perceived by their peers to be more moral and more trustworthy than those who rely on reasoning alone. That's a depressing fact if true. Reasoning is a superior way of making a moral judgement, solely because we're wired to thing about ourselves and our close tribe before anything else. It's only through reasoning that we can consider the true "big picture."

scarecrowbob 8y ago
Well, if peoples' reason is perfect, than it is a superior way of making decisions. I'd certainly like it to be the case that we could do that. However, one thing we might take away from your claim that "wired to thing about ourselves and our close tribe before anything else" is this: If people are motivated to come up with an incorrect decision, then reason can often give people a mistaken sense that they are being ration, when in fact they are using a rather large set of tools to get their preferred answer.
kdl20kxkrk 8y ago
That describes all the managers I’ve worked with. Stern or at least unapologetic and unwavering support of company and process the worker bees all bitch about. “Owning” their role when the reasoned mind might question what they really own? Don’t think some mid-level director has their name on the right paperwork. CEOs drink the kool-aid. They control the spec to which people build. Reasoning around that is verboten. They all think they have good reason, but it’s usually “abide the cultural meme”.
darkerside 8y ago
It actually makes total sense. If you make decisions based on emotion and not just reason, if we are close, you are more likely to make decisions in my favor. So of course I'd be more likely to trust you. Don't be depressed by human nature. Accept it for what it is, and realize that it's what's gotten civilization this far.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Against your favour and in their selfish but sometimes ill-conceived interest. Only belonging works in your favor, everything else emotional is against.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Do you have friends or family? Don't you have emotional bonds or attachment to them? Wouldn't you make decisions in their best interests over a stranger, possibly irrationally?
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  One might also say that moving above human nature is what's gotten civilization this far. Our nature for 99% of our time of a species have been to kill, rape, pillage each other. Emotions are never going to be superior to logic and rationality in decision making. At worst, they lead people to make very bad decisions. And they also lead to people being exploited. As far back as the Ancient Greeks Socrates wrote extensively on exploiting emotions to achieve success in argument. And today politicians, the media, advertisers, even individuals actively exploit emotional response for their own benefit. Emotional control has become more important than ever in today's society. In times past people were not so widely adept in emotional exploitation and communication was limited in any case to a close physical proximity. But in today's society of global communication with vast numbers of individuals skilled in emotional exploitation, emotionality is like a leash that those skilled in pathos can drag people around by, to whatever end they seek.
  - darkerside 8y ago
Nasrudith 8y ago
I've heard worse from an interviewing course from a Human Resources veteran who left the field to care for family that has me conclude that much of humanity is frankly batshit insane by the definition of 'divorced from reality'. In addition to paying 80% attention to how it is said instead of the content of what is said they tend to judge people who are better at putting on an appropriate 'mask' of confidence as 'trustworthy' when they all know that nearly everyone puts on a show for interviews anyway. That is believing that people who demonstrate better capabilities of actively faking emotions are more trustworthy. When aptitude is widely linked to practice. Saying you want a surgeon who can't stand the sight of blood so they'll make fewer unnecessary cuts is more logical than that. That is beyond trusting your intuition and into flat out divorced from reality and putting on a heaping helping of cognitive dissonance on top. The revelation was disturbing yet it also explains /a lot/ of societal dysfunctions and why high functioning sociopaths are disproportionate among CEOs.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  I somewhat agree with you, but I don't think you're giving these intuitions enough credit. Feelings are fine-tuned over millions of years to be good signals. Things like the halo effect, for example trusting people because they are attractive, are well-rooted in empirical evidence. Humans may recently have found a better way but that remains to be seen; on the face of it, reason is much more abstract and hence more 'divorced from reality'. It certainly doesn't warrant an immediate switch of strategies.
  - maze-le 8y ago
    >> Feelings are fine-tuned over millions of years to be good signals. If you're going for a hunt on large mammals, gut feelings about your peers is probably a good way to judge a person. An interview for a job is (usually) an entirely different situation. >> Things like the halo effect, for example trusting people because they are attractive, are well-rooted in empirical evidence. Oh my god, please don't tell me you trust people because they are looking good. If you do, you should consider establishing a different trust-metric, one that maybe has to do with the job a person is actually requested to do.
keithnz 8y ago
morals are tricky. I think quite often when people make a quick "moral" judgement it's more about what they feel is right. Reasoned morals can be the opposite, sometimes they can feel wrong and often require people to stop and think about why a certain thing is in fact moral. When someone makes an instinct based moral judgement the instant message is that the person is concerned with morals ( whether it be reasoned or not ), which does send this message that the persons fundamental nature is to do the right thing ( whatever 'right' is doesn't matter so much as the desire to do it) Where someone who takes time to figure out moral questions, it feels like they aren't inherently moral. Even worse when their reasoned moral judgement doesn't "feel" right. You may have to know that person more intimately to realize that they thoughfully moral. I feel maybe this has lot more to do with social cohesion rather than morality.
hrktb 8y ago
The working definition for instinct based moral judgements in the study is to have an absolute position on things (ex: kiling is wrong, whatever the circumstances), and I can see how it can be easier attribute morality, and cooperate and trust people with consistent believes. As long as they don’t kill people you can say they kept their moral views, it’s very simple. On the other hand, people who take moral decisions depending on the situation and the context are unpredictable in a way. And the result will be more difficult to judge as moral or not. People who stick with them long enough might come around to trust them and see them as moraly sound, but there is a higher barrier to entry. The study was about partner choice, and for me the takeaway would be that it’s easier to trust people that are also easier to understand
biql 8y ago
Once the logic argument is formulated, the part the decides to act or not act on it is still the emotional part. If someone chooses interests of humanity over their selfish interests, it's because the level of their understanding, which they attained after spending time thinking about, makes them feel better about this choice.
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
Well, sorta. Research has shown that emotion is vital to 'good behaviour'. It is not the case that we should hope to craft humanity into unfeeling robots. [0] At the same time, you're clearly right that we should be more rational when it comes to trying to act morally [1] [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-smart/201502/why-our-emotions-are-more-rational-we-think https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-smart/201502... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empathy-paul-bloom-the-empathy-instinct-peter-bazalgette-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empath...
- ajuc 8y ago
  Always remember this when reading a psychology paper: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/most-psychology-papers-cant-be-reproduced/ http://www.iflscience.com/brain/most-psychology-papers-cant-...
goldfeld 8y ago
Actually, no it's not--for me. I'm very analytical yet instinct and intuition are far more trusworthy in general as a human source of contact than any reasoning my poor material brain can concoct. It depends on your understanding of the world, granted HN skews disproportionately to your view.
ycombinete 8y ago
I don't think this is depressing, for the reasons that you find it depressing. This says "on reasoning alone". I wouldn't trust someone who didn't reference their instincts/emotions for moral decisions. There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions. And I'm not just talking psychopaths, but also people who's emotional centers have been damaged. This is unsurprising to me, because our emotions and our morality are both part of the system that makes us social creatures (e.g. empathy). Morality is essentially a meta-structure that helps hold societies together. Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. There are some nice explanations of this by people like Jonathan Haidt.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  > There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions > Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. Can you give an example of these studies? I’m interested in how they assign a qualifier of “good” or “bad” to various moral decisions. Are subjects not consistent in their moral decisions, or do their decisions disagree with the moral priors of the researchers? How do the researchers establish that their moral decisions are correct? That’s the essence of ethics itself. Unless these studies are exceptionally careful in their setup, I think it’s probable they’re begging the question implicitly. A more reserved conclusion might be that people with less empathy, in the aggregate, consistently make moral decisions which are different from those who have more empathy. But I think this conclusion might be kind of vacuous to anyone who has read a philosophy book or two on ethics.
  - ycombinete 8y ago
    I don't have any specific studies to mention, I am afraid, as I've only had them through third party sources. They will be in the books Waking Up by Sam Harris, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. The last two more specifically.

ilamont 8y ago

TFA doesn't differentiate between types of emotion. What if it's anger, exasperation, or some other negative emotion? I've worked with people who tended to display these emotions when making decisions, interacting with people, and carrying out their work. Far from persuading me, it was more likely to make me think that the quality of their decision-making (and other aspects of their work) was compromised.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
"Emotional" in this context is generally understood as "appealing to the audience's emotions." Displaying anger at your audience may not be convincing, but if you want your audience to be angry about something else, then displaying the anger you want them to share can be quite effective.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Like certain popular politicians who shall not be named. A common enemy is among the oldest tricks in the book.
drasticmeasures 8y ago
Beep bop beep! Instructions unclear; angrily shouted at Trump supporters for, in my master's view, supporting evil. Didn't seem to work! Initiating testing on MUM protocol: "Look hurt and worried about Trump supporters' well-being while asking them if everything is alright at home." "Do you really hate me? I don't hate you. I'm sorry. Can I do something to help? You want me to listen. Alright. I want to learn from you. I'll hush and listen. You're right. What was the point of me criticizing you if that only made us not listen to each other? You're right, almost nobody ever says you're right anymore!, but it makes the other side feel understood, and feeling understood makes them want to listen to us as well, even if just a little bit. Maybe it's my fault, too. I'm not perfect. I'm sor-- I guess a heartfelt apology isn't going to help you. I will change what I do for the better." Empathy is hard work for a robot.

natrik 8y ago

Is persuasion using emotion to heighten the strength of the persuasion manipulation? Relevant - https://i.imgur.com/yN2l1Cp.png https://i.imgur.com/yN2l1Cp.png

Cyphase 8y ago
The other screenshotted discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17662135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17662135 [How to tell the difference between persuasion and manipulation]

itronitron 8y ago

'scientists say' << I guess I could either read the source material or just wait a year and see another headline that refutes their conclusions.

cjohansson 8y ago
that is a scientific fact, any refutations are more probable that no refutations

andrewclunn 8y ago

Instinct IS superior to abstract reasoning on creating scalable, functional, understandable moral codes. This "weakness" of the masses is their subconscious reliance on emergence over self proclaimed intellectuals' rationales, and they are the wiser for it.

dotancohen 8y ago

I've done A/B/C testing to see how likely someone is to install Telegram when they get surprised that I don't have Whatsapp. Those to whom I explain in a straight-faced manner that Whatsapp is intrusive, almost never install it. Those to whom I whine that I don't like the intrusiveness are very likely to install it. The third group, to whom I whine that I just don't like Whatsapp, are also likely to install it. In short, don't give someone a reason to do something. Just whine.

tempodox 8y ago
That recipe may only work with a specific target audience. I know a few grown-ups who are highly allergic to whining. With them, you'll achieve the opposite effect.
- magic_beans 8y ago
  Allergic to.
  - tempodox 8y ago
    Thanks, fixed.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Some but not all of them might just do it to appease/shut up the whining one. So there is still a higher conversion rate from taking the whining approach. So why don't we all whine? This I have asked of shouting. Normally I politely ask people to do things with a friendly tone of voice. However there have been moments, e.g. on-coming car catastrophe, where I have shouted at people and been surprised at how quickly people move or do as they are told. Shocked at being heard and being 'obeyed' I have wondered why I don't do it more often. I dismiss the idea as it is not me and contradicts many aspects of my upbringing. But you can see how it is that some people get what they want in the world by shouting/whining or being a general narcissist.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago

Proven 8y ago

Sounds like a guide to psychopathic behavior To defend yourself from manipulative psychopaths, ignore emotional signs in discussion.

paulpauper 8y ago

Persuasion seems like a pseudoscience , much like hypnotherapy, telekinesis, speed reading, ediic memory, etc. If were as effective as the people claim, you could just persuade a million people to give you $1 and be a millionaire. That example may seem contrived, but how hard should it be to persuade someone to give someone as little as $1, especially with special persuasion techniques? Surely that shouldn't be too hard. But that is what panhandlers try do, so I think much of persuasion is just begging, or begging is the most effective persuasion technique. If you keep pestering enough people to do something, some may capitulate. There's not much science or any sort of special 'social engineering' techniques involved in that. People think that there is a science or special skill to being persuasive, but 4-year-olds and beggars seem to excel at it. People who are reasonably intelligent and competent are not going to fall for these persuasion techniques...it's better to learn how to be more competent than waste time trying to learn persuasion. Yeah, you can probably persuade a stranger to give you a few dollar, but it won't work in situations where the stakes are higher. Regarding Dukakis and the 1988 presidential debate, attributing his loss to his answer is an example of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Because he lost, pundit needs to work backwards to try to find a reason why he lost, but that does not prove that his answer was why he lost. Scott Adams (and this is where I disagree with him) attributes Trump's win to special persuasion techniques, but Trump was going to get about 50% of the vote (just by virtue of being that GOP nominee) regardless of any special techniques. And also, if pursation were so effecvie, he why not just purade everoyne watchign his Periscopte to give him a few dolalr.s Surely that shoudl not be too hard.

asdf1234tx 8y ago

In the absence of historical data, receiving information from another person, without any quick way to verify what has been communicated, coupled with a necessity to decide/act, has long required/used a shortcut. You look in that person's face, you make the call. You'all remember that stuff. Maybe not so common now, but it's still on TV.. "My word is my bond." and all that. If that utterance doesn't come with a hardcore look of sincerity playing across the face, well then it's not believable. Looking emotional doesn't mean looking distraught. It means not looking like a mannequin. Even with data, logic, reason, and an armful of facts, imagine two people with equal amounts of the aforementioned, trying to convince a 3rd party, but one of the individuals throws in expressions/mannerisms that communicate "trust", "sincerity", and "competence"...