3 ms·

This presents a fairly narrow view of persuasion, a romanticized version. Broadly defined persuasion is alive and well. Consider the massive political demonstr

This presents a fairly narrow view of persuasion, a romanticized version. Broadly defined persuasion is alive and well. Consider the massive political demonstrations that have occurred in the last year, who persuaded these people to leave their homes and congregate during the middle of a pandemic? Consider the rapid decriminalization of marijuana and even other drugs. Who persuaded these voters to change the law? Consider all the new start-ups and other business that rely on a sales force to persuade customers of their value and to sign up? Persuasion is very much still alive

coding123 6y ago
I think what he's trying to say is that instead of doing this: L > > > C < < < R Media outlets are focusing more on this: L < < < C > > > R But you're right, it's still persuasion. It was all explained during the superbowl man.
- prionassembly 6y ago
  Superbowl? Reference?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Yeah this should be developed more
  - coding123 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gPOPLrUfyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gPOPLrUfyw An ad played during the superbowl.
Digory 6y ago
"Choice" is very much alive in your examples. We seem to be in an open fight against negative reinforcement. To say "policing is the consequence of bad behavior," or "You should go to jail for dealing weed" or even "We shouldn't cancel services or people too hastily" is to pick a fight.
- quirkot 6y ago
  If arguing online has taught me anything, it's that you don't need to win a fight to persuade bystanders of your righteousness
- Jochim 6y ago
  I don't think those points really link together. 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument. Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't fixed the problems that lead to high crime in those neighbourhoods in the first place and in some cases has made those neighbourhoods more dangerous. We already know tough on crime policies don't work. It's why we don't chop off the hands of thieves. It's why states with the death penalty still have plenty of murders. 2) The argument isn't against negative reinforcement it's that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place. 3) Implies the people you're arguing against are in favour of at least some negative reinforcement.

coding123 6y ago

I think what he's trying to say is that instead of doing this: L > > > C < < < R Media outlets are focusing more on this: L < < < C > > > R But you're right, it's still persuasion. It was all explained during the superbowl man.

prionassembly 6y ago
Superbowl? Reference?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Yeah this should be developed more
- coding123 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gPOPLrUfyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gPOPLrUfyw An ad played during the superbowl.

Digory 6y ago

"Choice" is very much alive in your examples. We seem to be in an open fight against negative reinforcement. To say "policing is the consequence of bad behavior," or "You should go to jail for dealing weed" or even "We shouldn't cancel services or people too hastily" is to pick a fight.

quirkot 6y ago
If arguing online has taught me anything, it's that you don't need to win a fight to persuade bystanders of your righteousness
Jochim 6y ago
I don't think those points really link together. 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument. Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't fixed the problems that lead to high crime in those neighbourhoods in the first place and in some cases has made those neighbourhoods more dangerous. We already know tough on crime policies don't work. It's why we don't chop off the hands of thieves. It's why states with the death penalty still have plenty of murders. 2) The argument isn't against negative reinforcement it's that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place. 3) Implies the people you're arguing against are in favour of at least some negative reinforcement.