4 ms·

Why is persuasion such a bad thing? He's absolutely in the persuasion game. So is everyone else. I see it as him acknowledging that and saying "you know, this i

by adw 13y ago

Why is persuasion such a bad thing? He's absolutely in the persuasion game. So is everyone else. I see it as him acknowledging that and saying "you know, this is a position of power, I have a responsibility to use it for good, as I see it". Other people have a responsibility for how they react, too, of course. No-one is an island. In particular, anyone who designs a user interface – which guides you to do thing A rather than thing B – is in the persuasion game. They're trying to shape your behavior for - hopefully - your own good. Blackhat UX is when the converse happens. Facts are the domain of pure math. Everything else is conditional.

pdonis 13y ago
Why is persuasion such a bad thing? Because it's extremely difficult to set out to persuade someone of something and not give them a skewed presentation of the issue about which you are trying to persuade them. (IMO it's actually impossible, but just "extremely difficult" is sufficient for this discussion.) And as soon as you skew your presentation of the issue, no matter how you rationalize it in terms of "it's for their own good" or "I've spent a lot of time and effort on this, I know more than they do", etc., etc., you're still, at the end of the day, substituting your judgment for theirs. IMO that's never a good thing. "you know, this is a position of power, I have a responsibility to use it for good, as I see it" Why is it a position of power? Who gave it to him? And why did he take it, instead of saying, "No, I'm not going to take this power and try to use it for good. That never works. Go look up the facts and make up your own mind." Bottom line, I simply don't accept that it has to be that way--that somebody has to have power, and so the best we can do is hope they'll use it for good. I get that it's human nature to let things be that way, I get that the alternative--that everybody makes up their own mind, period, no exceptions--is scary to many people (not to mention that it would basically break our entire media culture). But that doesn't make it right. anyone who designs a user interface – which guides you to do thing A rather than thing B – is in the persuasion game. They're trying to shape your behavior for - hopefully - your own good. Again, I get that this point of view is rampant--it basically defines Apple, for example--but that doesn't make it right. (And yes, I know that Apple does this because its customers pay for it. That doesn't make it right either.) Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I expect things to change any time soon. I labeled my OP as "ranting" for a reason. :-) Facts are the domain of pure math. Everything else is conditional. Really? Gravity is conditional? The way a microchip works is conditional? Or more to the point: is "anyone who designs a user interface is in the persuasion game" conditional? You didn't make it sound that way.
- abraininavat 13y ago
  You throw around this "that doesn't make it right" thing. I'm curious what you think is "right", in general, and from where the concept of "right" comes from. In particular, if I make up my own mind to consider another in a position of power, why is that "not right"?
  - pdonis 13y ago
    if I make up my own mind to consider another in a position of power, why is that "not right" It's "not right" in the sense that, by giving another person the power to decide what's "good" for you, you're giving up an important part of your human potential. As I said, I get that it's human nature to do this: evolution has hard-wired this behavior pattern into our brains. Most of our closest evolutionary relatives form dominance hierarchies, which is what "considering another in a position of power" means: you're putting them above you in the hierarchy. But we humans have the ability to consider abstractions, like a concept of "good" over and above basic survival and subsistence, that other species do not. (At least, we have no evidence that they do, and considerable evidence that they do not.) But "good" is something somewhat different for each individual; no two people have exactly the same concept of "good" (though there is obviously a lot of overlap). If you let someone else decide what's "good" for you, you're giving up the part that's unique to you, because no one else can really know what that is. Only you can really figure out how best to use the unique combination of human qualities that you have, but to do that you have to decide for yourself what your "good" is; you have to refuse to put anyone else in a position of power. Btw, this is, of course, not original with me, though I've put it in my own words above. It's the basic idea of the Enlightenment; it's the basic idea behind the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means not letting anyone else tell you what "happiness" means for you).
    - abraininavat 13y ago
      You seem to be confused about whether you're a relativist or not. If the concept of "good" is different for each individual, surely the concept of "right" is as well. Only you can really figure out how best to use the unique combination of human qualities that you have Do you have anything to back up this claim? It seems very wishy-washy. which is what "considering another in a position of power" means: you're putting them above you in the hierarchy This is a rather one-dimensional way of looking at the world. There are all sorts of power, and all sorts of ways one can hold another in power. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the relationship between me and my local police officer. He is in a position of power, in that I've agreed to follow his directions in most cases, and it's a mutually beneficial relationship. There's also nothing wrong with the relationship between me and my Congressman. He's in a position of a power in that he creates (with others) the law of the land, and I am in a different position of power in that I vote him in or out. I can go on and on, as the world is full of complex relationships, but with respect to the subject at hand, you seem to be arguing that someone is wrong for considering a person worthy of giving advice, and putting that person in a "position of power" by allowing them to speak that advice. It seems really silly.

by adw 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

Why is persuasion such a bad thing? Because it's extremely difficult to set out to persuade someone of something and not give them a skewed presentation of the issue about which you are trying to persuade them. (IMO it's actually impossible, but just "extremely difficult" is sufficient for this discussion.) And as soon as you skew your presentation of the issue, no matter how you rationalize it in terms of "it's for their own good" or "I've spent a lot of time and effort on this, I know more than they do", etc., etc., you're still, at the end of the day, substituting your judgment for theirs. IMO that's never a good thing. "you know, this is a position of power, I have a responsibility to use it for good, as I see it" Why is it a position of power? Who gave it to him? And why did he take it, instead of saying, "No, I'm not going to take this power and try to use it for good. That never works. Go look up the facts and make up your own mind." Bottom line, I simply don't accept that it has to be that way--that somebody has to have power, and so the best we can do is hope they'll use it for good. I get that it's human nature to let things be that way, I get that the alternative--that everybody makes up their own mind, period, no exceptions--is scary to many people (not to mention that it would basically break our entire media culture). But that doesn't make it right. anyone who designs a user interface – which guides you to do thing A rather than thing B – is in the persuasion game. They're trying to shape your behavior for - hopefully - your own good. Again, I get that this point of view is rampant--it basically defines Apple, for example--but that doesn't make it right. (And yes, I know that Apple does this because its customers pay for it. That doesn't make it right either.) Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I expect things to change any time soon. I labeled my OP as "ranting" for a reason. :-) Facts are the domain of pure math. Everything else is conditional. Really? Gravity is conditional? The way a microchip works is conditional? Or more to the point: is "anyone who designs a user interface is in the persuasion game" conditional? You didn't make it sound that way.

abraininavat 13y ago
You throw around this "that doesn't make it right" thing. I'm curious what you think is "right", in general, and from where the concept of "right" comes from. In particular, if I make up my own mind to consider another in a position of power, why is that "not right"?
- pdonis 13y ago
  if I make up my own mind to consider another in a position of power, why is that "not right" It's "not right" in the sense that, by giving another person the power to decide what's "good" for you, you're giving up an important part of your human potential. As I said, I get that it's human nature to do this: evolution has hard-wired this behavior pattern into our brains. Most of our closest evolutionary relatives form dominance hierarchies, which is what "considering another in a position of power" means: you're putting them above you in the hierarchy. But we humans have the ability to consider abstractions, like a concept of "good" over and above basic survival and subsistence, that other species do not. (At least, we have no evidence that they do, and considerable evidence that they do not.) But "good" is something somewhat different for each individual; no two people have exactly the same concept of "good" (though there is obviously a lot of overlap). If you let someone else decide what's "good" for you, you're giving up the part that's unique to you, because no one else can really know what that is. Only you can really figure out how best to use the unique combination of human qualities that you have, but to do that you have to decide for yourself what your "good" is; you have to refuse to put anyone else in a position of power. Btw, this is, of course, not original with me, though I've put it in my own words above. It's the basic idea of the Enlightenment; it's the basic idea behind the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means not letting anyone else tell you what "happiness" means for you).
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    You seem to be confused about whether you're a relativist or not. If the concept of "good" is different for each individual, surely the concept of "right" is as well. Only you can really figure out how best to use the unique combination of human qualities that you have Do you have anything to back up this claim? It seems very wishy-washy. which is what "considering another in a position of power" means: you're putting them above you in the hierarchy This is a rather one-dimensional way of looking at the world. There are all sorts of power, and all sorts of ways one can hold another in power. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the relationship between me and my local police officer. He is in a position of power, in that I've agreed to follow his directions in most cases, and it's a mutually beneficial relationship. There's also nothing wrong with the relationship between me and my Congressman. He's in a position of a power in that he creates (with others) the law of the land, and I am in a different position of power in that I vote him in or out. I can go on and on, as the world is full of complex relationships, but with respect to the subject at hand, you seem to be arguing that someone is wrong for considering a person worthy of giving advice, and putting that person in a "position of power" by allowing them to speak that advice. It seems really silly.