4 ms·

The flip side is that good ideas with honest framing often lose to bad ideas with better marketing. Being right isn't enough if you can't communicate it and mos

The flip side is that good ideas with honest framing often lose to bad ideas with better marketing. Being right isn't enough if you can't communicate it and most people don't have the patience to evaluate the honest version.

KennyBlanken 6mo ago
Is "better marketing" a euphemism for "more willing to misrepresent the other side, turn a practical issue into an emotional one, and generally trot out every logical fallacy they can think of"? Because that's what I see constantly on social media in response to progressive ideas the rest of the world has largely accepted but apparently just can't possibly work in the United States...
- shake_head_pig2 6mo ago
  [dead]
cm11 6mo ago
I'd add (not saying you said otherwise) that marketing bad ideas well isn't quite the same as good communication. I guess a funny thing is that the more naive or blind or optimistic one is, the more one might wiggle their way out of some definitions of “liar.” If they're good at lying to themselves, maybe it doesn’t count as lying to others.
eleveriven 6mo ago
You still need rhetoric, timing, emotion and narrative. But I'd say the lesson is "good ideas need good communicators" not "good ideas need lies"
altruios 6mo ago
You are correct that ideas do not compete based on how true they are but how easily they are remembered.
georgeecollins 6mo ago
The point the post is making not that good ideas win or lose, its that if you need to lie (that's not better marketing) to persuade your idea probably isn't good and your predictions about the outcomes are false. The context is deceit about the second Iraq war. I think the reason why this post is returning is because we are in the middle of a war where the goals and justifications are being misrepresented and yet people accept predictions about the outcome. "The straight will open itself." ? Right or wrong, an interesting (and ironic) historical analogy.

KennyBlanken 6mo ago

Is "better marketing" a euphemism for "more willing to misrepresent the other side, turn a practical issue into an emotional one, and generally trot out every logical fallacy they can think of"? Because that's what I see constantly on social media in response to progressive ideas the rest of the world has largely accepted but apparently just can't possibly work in the United States...

shake_head_pig2 6mo ago
[dead]

cm11 6mo ago

I'd add (not saying you said otherwise) that marketing bad ideas well isn't quite the same as good communication. I guess a funny thing is that the more naive or blind or optimistic one is, the more one might wiggle their way out of some definitions of “liar.” If they're good at lying to themselves, maybe it doesn’t count as lying to others.

eleveriven 6mo ago

You still need rhetoric, timing, emotion and narrative. But I'd say the lesson is "good ideas need good communicators" not "good ideas need lies"

altruios 6mo ago

You are correct that ideas do not compete based on how true they are but how easily they are remembered.

georgeecollins 6mo ago

The point the post is making not that good ideas win or lose, its that if you need to lie (that's not better marketing) to persuade your idea probably isn't good and your predictions about the outcomes are false. The context is deceit about the second Iraq war. I think the reason why this post is returning is because we are in the middle of a war where the goals and justifications are being misrepresented and yet people accept predictions about the outcome. "The straight will open itself." ? Right or wrong, an interesting (and ironic) historical analogy.