3 ms·

Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. So the persuasion would need to be applied

Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. So the persuasion would need to be applied to something other than some sort of causative political-implication-laden argument.

jjeaff 3y ago
When you say persuasion, are you referring to fact based, logical argument? Because there are lots of other types of persuasion and certainly some work very well. Lying and telling people what they want to hear without too many details while dog whistling in ways that confirm their prejudices seems to be working pretty well for some people.
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  Just to add that a lot of people don't care about facts. In fact, if acting according to facts make me lose $$ I'd probably start building lies.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  * **that confirm their prejudices** * (my emphasis)
hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
Or, let's say, you don't need a lot of persuasion to guide an election. I mean we already have X, FB, and an army of bots.
naasking 3y ago
Even if it were true that human persuasion is of limited use in shifting opinions, the parent posted is talking about superhuman persuasion. I don't think we should just assume those are equally effective.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Do you think any rhetoric could ever persuade you to you adopt the opposite general worldview of what you currently have? I'm positive that it could not for me. The reason for this is not because I'm obstinate, but because my worldview is not formed on persuasion, but on lived experience. And I think this is true for the overwhelming majority of people. It's why our views tend to change as we age, and experience more of the world. You can even see this geographically. The reason many in South Texas might have a negative view of immigration while those in San Francisco might have a positive view of immigration is not because of persuasion differences, but because both places are strongly impacted by immigration but in very different ways. And this experience is what people associate with immigration in general, and so it forms people's worldview.
  - placebo 3y ago
    While I agree that human persuasion would probably not change a worldview built on lived experience, you can't know in advance what might be possible with superhuman persuasion. You might be led to believe that your experience was interpreted incorrectly, that things are different now or that you live in an illusion and don't even know who you are. There is no way to tell what the limits of psychological manipulation are for reprogramming your beliefs unless you are totally above any human doubt about everything, which is in itself a sad state to be in. I hope that persuaded you :)
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Well, but I'm sure you'd accept that there are limits. Where we may differ is where those limits begin and where they end. In the end LLMs are not magical. All it's going to be able to do is present words to you. And how we respond to words is something that we can control. It's not like some series of words is just going to be able to completely reprogram you. Like here I expect there is 0% chance, even if I had a superhuman LLM writing words for me, that I could ever convince you that LLMs will not be able to convince you to hold any arbitrary position. It's because you've formed your opinion, it's not falsifiable, and so there's not a whole heck of a lot else to be done except have some fun debates like this where, if anything, we tend to work to strengthen our own opinions by finding and repairing any holes in them.
hackerlight 3y ago
> Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. The Republican Party's base became isolationist and protectionist during 2015 and 2016 because their dear leader persuaded them.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I don't think that aligns with the reality of the opinion formation. There was a strong subset of isolationist and protectionist views before 2015.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  I know that by "dear leader" you mean to imply that Trump did something unfair/wrong/sinister/etc ("just like Hitler", amirite fellas?)., but a leader of a large group of people, by definition, is good at persuasion. Franklin Roosevelt moved the Democratic Party in a direction very different from its first century. The party's two previous presidential nominees were a Wall Street corporate lawyer (John W. Davis) and Al Smith who, despite also being a New York City resident and state governor, so opposed FDR by the end of his first term that he founded an influential anti-New Deal organization. During the Roosevelt years the Democrats lost significant support from traditional backers, but more than made up for it with gains elsewhere in what became the New Deal coalition. Similarly, under Trump the GOP lost support in wealthy suburbs but gained support elsewhere, such as Rust Belt states, Latinos (including places like South Florida and the Texas border region), blacks, and (according to current polls) young voters. We'll see whether one compensates for the other.
- zztop44 3y ago
  I think it’s not clear that the causation flowed that way. I think it’s at least partially true that the Republican base was much more isolationist and protectionist than its “establishment” elite, so any significant candidate that played into that was going to get some level of support. That, combined with Donald Trump’s massive pre-existing celebrity, talent for showmanship, and utter shamelessness got him across the line. I think it’s fair to say that at least partially, Trump didn’t shift the base - rather he revealed that the base wasn’t where the establishment thought it was.

jjeaff 3y ago

When you say persuasion, are you referring to fact based, logical argument? Because there are lots of other types of persuasion and certainly some work very well. Lying and telling people what they want to hear without too many details while dog whistling in ways that confirm their prejudices seems to be working pretty well for some people.

hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
Just to add that a lot of people don't care about facts. In fact, if acting according to facts make me lose $$ I'd probably start building lies.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
* **that confirm their prejudices** * (my emphasis)

hnthrowaway0315 3y ago

Or, let's say, you don't need a lot of persuasion to guide an election. I mean we already have X, FB, and an army of bots.

naasking 3y ago

Even if it were true that human persuasion is of limited use in shifting opinions, the parent posted is talking about superhuman persuasion. I don't think we should just assume those are equally effective.

somenameforme 3y ago
Do you think any rhetoric could ever persuade you to you adopt the opposite general worldview of what you currently have? I'm positive that it could not for me. The reason for this is not because I'm obstinate, but because my worldview is not formed on persuasion, but on lived experience. And I think this is true for the overwhelming majority of people. It's why our views tend to change as we age, and experience more of the world. You can even see this geographically. The reason many in South Texas might have a negative view of immigration while those in San Francisco might have a positive view of immigration is not because of persuasion differences, but because both places are strongly impacted by immigration but in very different ways. And this experience is what people associate with immigration in general, and so it forms people's worldview.
- placebo 3y ago
  While I agree that human persuasion would probably not change a worldview built on lived experience, you can't know in advance what might be possible with superhuman persuasion. You might be led to believe that your experience was interpreted incorrectly, that things are different now or that you live in an illusion and don't even know who you are. There is no way to tell what the limits of psychological manipulation are for reprogramming your beliefs unless you are totally above any human doubt about everything, which is in itself a sad state to be in. I hope that persuaded you :)
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Well, but I'm sure you'd accept that there are limits. Where we may differ is where those limits begin and where they end. In the end LLMs are not magical. All it's going to be able to do is present words to you. And how we respond to words is something that we can control. It's not like some series of words is just going to be able to completely reprogram you. Like here I expect there is 0% chance, even if I had a superhuman LLM writing words for me, that I could ever convince you that LLMs will not be able to convince you to hold any arbitrary position. It's because you've formed your opinion, it's not falsifiable, and so there's not a whole heck of a lot else to be done except have some fun debates like this where, if anything, we tend to work to strengthen our own opinions by finding and repairing any holes in them.

hackerlight 3y ago

> Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. The Republican Party's base became isolationist and protectionist during 2015 and 2016 because their dear leader persuaded them.

RandomLensman 3y ago
I don't think that aligns with the reality of the opinion formation. There was a strong subset of isolationist and protectionist views before 2015.
TMWNN 3y ago
I know that by "dear leader" you mean to imply that Trump did something unfair/wrong/sinister/etc ("just like Hitler", amirite fellas?)., but a leader of a large group of people, by definition, is good at persuasion. Franklin Roosevelt moved the Democratic Party in a direction very different from its first century. The party's two previous presidential nominees were a Wall Street corporate lawyer (John W. Davis) and Al Smith who, despite also being a New York City resident and state governor, so opposed FDR by the end of his first term that he founded an influential anti-New Deal organization. During the Roosevelt years the Democrats lost significant support from traditional backers, but more than made up for it with gains elsewhere in what became the New Deal coalition. Similarly, under Trump the GOP lost support in wealthy suburbs but gained support elsewhere, such as Rust Belt states, Latinos (including places like South Florida and the Texas border region), blacks, and (according to current polls) young voters. We'll see whether one compensates for the other.
zztop44 3y ago
I think it’s not clear that the causation flowed that way. I think it’s at least partially true that the Republican base was much more isolationist and protectionist than its “establishment” elite, so any significant candidate that played into that was going to get some level of support. That, combined with Donald Trump’s massive pre-existing celebrity, talent for showmanship, and utter shamelessness got him across the line. I think it’s fair to say that at least partially, Trump didn’t shift the base - rather he revealed that the base wasn’t where the establishment thought it was.