3 ms·

Key quote: > your ultimate goal is to establish the credibility of your side so strongly that others' trust in you is not affected by whether what you say is a

by p-e-w 3y ago

Key quote: > your ultimate goal is to establish the credibility of your side so strongly that others' trust in you is not affected by whether what you say is actually true. Establishing credibility is the ultimate Dark Art.

rstuart4133 3y ago
It's not a new observation https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-is-sincerity-if-you-can-fake https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-... : > “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.” Using bullshit to overwhelm facts is so well known it has it's own "law", Brandolini's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law There are famous practitioners of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop I didn't see much (any?) original thought in what he said. What's more I think there are better explanations for why he won than the one he gave. Given two arguments, one that is a stream of bullshit and one that aligns with at least some facts the audience might know, how can it be that the audience chooses to believe the bullshit? The answer he gave, which is essentially "bullshit is more believable" doesn't ring true to me. What does ring true is that key quote of yours, so the question is how does he establish credibility. He didn't say, but if you want a plausible answer try reading this: https://theconversation.com/d-218742 https://theconversation.com/d-218742
zh3 3y ago
Worth noting that this sort of thing is actually taught at the kind of universities that produce politicians. What matters is winning the argument (irrespective of merit) for whichever side will give the best reward. For example, from [0]:- "Consider the rules of debate: two sides are randomly assigned to argue for and against a topic – say, that we should abolish student debt. Each speaker has equal time to speak before an impartial adjudicator, who awards the more persuasive team." [0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art-of-debating-taught-me-to-see-another-view-it-is-a-skill-that-brings-people-together https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art...

by p-e-w 3y ago

rstuart4133 3y ago

It's not a new observation https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-is-sincerity-if-you-can-fake https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-... : > “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.” Using bullshit to overwhelm facts is so well known it has it's own "law", Brandolini's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law There are famous practitioners of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop I didn't see much (any?) original thought in what he said. What's more I think there are better explanations for why he won than the one he gave. Given two arguments, one that is a stream of bullshit and one that aligns with at least some facts the audience might know, how can it be that the audience chooses to believe the bullshit? The answer he gave, which is essentially "bullshit is more believable" doesn't ring true to me. What does ring true is that key quote of yours, so the question is how does he establish credibility. He didn't say, but if you want a plausible answer try reading this: https://theconversation.com/d-218742 https://theconversation.com/d-218742

zh3 3y ago

Worth noting that this sort of thing is actually taught at the kind of universities that produce politicians. What matters is winning the argument (irrespective of merit) for whichever side will give the best reward. For example, from [0]:- "Consider the rules of debate: two sides are randomly assigned to argue for and against a topic – say, that we should abolish student debt. Each speaker has equal time to speak before an impartial adjudicator, who awards the more persuasive team." [0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art-of-debating-taught-me-to-see-another-view-it-is-a-skill-that-brings-people-together https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art...