What's more persuasive: conviction or logic, enthusiasm or proof?
August 9, 2004 7:07 PM Subscribe
“People are persuaded more by the depth of your conviction than by the height of your logic--more by your own enthusiasm than by any proof you offer.”
Really?
Really?
makes sense. most of the things we do are based on heuristics that make reasonable decisions under most circumstances - evolution looks for practical solutions, not theoretical completeness; people are pretty stupid; logic is hard.
so we have to evolved some other solution - assessing the conviction of the person speaking seems like a pretty reliable approach.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:14 PM on August 9, 2004
so we have to evolved some other solution - assessing the conviction of the person speaking seems like a pretty reliable approach.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:14 PM on August 9, 2004
pretty stupid, typically, and i wish i didn't repeat words so much.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:15 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 7:15 PM on August 9, 2004
George W. Bush.
So, yes. Stupid people anyway. And people who don't hve time to look below the surface.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:46 PM on August 9, 2004
So, yes. Stupid people anyway. And people who don't hve time to look below the surface.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:46 PM on August 9, 2004
You're just describing a truism. One man's "profound" is another's irrelevance.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 PM on August 9, 2004
What andrew said. People don't necessarily resort to this because they're stupid -- although being unable to follow the logic may be one reason. People may resort to heuristics such as assessing depth of conviction or other elements of rhetorical style or something else because, even if they're smart enough, logic doesn't work as a solution. You have to have time to check the assumptions on which the logic is founded, access to a source of empirical data you trust, and both things can be scarce for lots of people in lots of situations. So we guess.
Some people also aren't patient enough, even if they're smart enough. A few months ago I was at a party working on building makeshift camp stoves out of old aluminum beverage cans. The directions called for a number holes to be marked and poked around the circumference at regular, reasonably precise intervals. I suggested a geometric/mathematical solution that would help with the precision bit to one of my friends, who got sortof rolled her eyes and just started trying to eyeball the proper distances. When I finally got around to demonstrating how it worked, she seemed genuinely surprised that it'd turned out to be effective and efficient.
Sometimes *I'm* not patient enough, either -- certain life pressures will render you uninterested in looking up seeming minutia from the relative GDPs of France and Iraq to the mechanics of the real estate market. This is not always a good heuristic -- think the truisms "haste makes waste" and "work smarter not harder" -- but everybody has one true scarcity, and that's time, and not everyone is a good maximizer of its use.
posted by weston at 8:05 PM on August 9, 2004
Some people also aren't patient enough, even if they're smart enough. A few months ago I was at a party working on building makeshift camp stoves out of old aluminum beverage cans. The directions called for a number holes to be marked and poked around the circumference at regular, reasonably precise intervals. I suggested a geometric/mathematical solution that would help with the precision bit to one of my friends, who got sortof rolled her eyes and just started trying to eyeball the proper distances. When I finally got around to demonstrating how it worked, she seemed genuinely surprised that it'd turned out to be effective and efficient.
Sometimes *I'm* not patient enough, either -- certain life pressures will render you uninterested in looking up seeming minutia from the relative GDPs of France and Iraq to the mechanics of the real estate market. This is not always a good heuristic -- think the truisms "haste makes waste" and "work smarter not harder" -- but everybody has one true scarcity, and that's time, and not everyone is a good maximizer of its use.
posted by weston at 8:05 PM on August 9, 2004
I'd agree that experience shows many people are more persuaded by emotion than logic, but there's a third aspect of rhetoric that can be just as powerful.
Besides pathos and logos, there's ethos... that is, who you are. It's the idea behind the spokesman. Joe DiMaggio wasn't passionate about which coffeemaker he recommended, and it's not logical that he was even giving advice on the matter, but it still worked out well for Mr. Coffee.
The most powerful arguments I think invoke each side of the triangle.
posted by Jeff Howard at 8:22 PM on August 9, 2004
Besides pathos and logos, there's ethos... that is, who you are. It's the idea behind the spokesman. Joe DiMaggio wasn't passionate about which coffeemaker he recommended, and it's not logical that he was even giving advice on the matter, but it still worked out well for Mr. Coffee.
The most powerful arguments I think invoke each side of the triangle.
posted by Jeff Howard at 8:22 PM on August 9, 2004
Paraphrasing your question:
"Are people more emotional than logical?"
Probably. Everyone is born with emotions. Not everyone is born with facts, which are necessary to the operation of logic.
Let me remind you of one of the denotations of enthusiasm:
"Enthusiasm is founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rises from the conceits of a warmed or overweening imagination. --Locke."
posted by scarabic at 8:44 PM on August 9, 2004
"Are people more emotional than logical?"
Probably. Everyone is born with emotions. Not everyone is born with facts, which are necessary to the operation of logic.
Let me remind you of one of the denotations of enthusiasm:
"Enthusiasm is founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rises from the conceits of a warmed or overweening imagination. --Locke."
posted by scarabic at 8:44 PM on August 9, 2004
Blue Train: You just nailed religion.
Fo that, he would have had to say that quality of experience often trumps logic.
posted by weston at 8:51 PM on August 9, 2004
Fo that, he would have had to say that quality of experience often trumps logic.
posted by weston at 8:51 PM on August 9, 2004
I can't explain why, but I'm sure that this is bullsh**.
posted by namespan at 11:11 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by namespan at 11:11 PM on August 9, 2004
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
Does anyone realize what ook has just done?
After 5 years of MetaFilter, someone has finally said something that it's literally impossible to disagree with.
My hat is off to you sir. Somebody take this boy to MeTa!
posted by scarabic at 1:25 AM on August 10, 2004 [1 favorite]
Does anyone realize what ook has just done?
After 5 years of MetaFilter, someone has finally said something that it's literally impossible to disagree with.
My hat is off to you sir. Somebody take this boy to MeTa!
posted by scarabic at 1:25 AM on August 10, 2004 [1 favorite]
Most statements beginning with "People are..." are wrong, because there are all sorts of people. In this case, I suspect some (most?) people are just naturally prone to believing in conviction, enthusiasm, and other irrational factors, while others are natural skeptics, needing facts and rational argument to believe things. I also suspect that the latter tended to be clubbed to death until relatively recently; now, under the more relaxed and generous conditions prevailing these days, they survive to become geeks and join MeFi.
posted by languagehat at 7:39 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by languagehat at 7:39 AM on August 10, 2004
I think it depends on what you're kind of decision you're talking about. Bob Cialdini has a great book on the social psychology of persuasion, called Influence, in which he summarizes lots of research about the sorts of heuristics people use to make decisions (say to purchase something). Certainly people want to "be liked by" and resemble other people who they admire and respect - thus the power of celebrity endorsements.
In Pattern Recognition (great read!), Gibson has the character who's the head of an advertising agency type place say that the decision to buy something is made by the more primitive, reptilian parts of the brain, which probably are more inspired by emotional persuasion (though I'm not sure whether anyone's ever persuaded a reptile to do anything!)
To do something or not to do it is a dichotomous decision (join the gym or don't, sleep with someone or not). If you can be brought closer and closer to that "edge" of committment, an emotional impulse could certainly push you over the edge to a decision about committment. Everyone who's ever bought a car or a gym membership knows about this!
For some things, I'd guess that first there's a process that's more logic based - like if you're searching for a car, you'll narrow down your field based on thought about certain attributes. Once there, the emotions probably take more of a front seat.
But for other things, like choosing a lover, emotions are probably driving the decision from the early stages on through, to the great sorrow of many people who just *know* they're making the same mistake again, but can't seem to stop themselves.
posted by jasper411 at 10:07 AM on August 10, 2004
In Pattern Recognition (great read!), Gibson has the character who's the head of an advertising agency type place say that the decision to buy something is made by the more primitive, reptilian parts of the brain, which probably are more inspired by emotional persuasion (though I'm not sure whether anyone's ever persuaded a reptile to do anything!)
To do something or not to do it is a dichotomous decision (join the gym or don't, sleep with someone or not). If you can be brought closer and closer to that "edge" of committment, an emotional impulse could certainly push you over the edge to a decision about committment. Everyone who's ever bought a car or a gym membership knows about this!
For some things, I'd guess that first there's a process that's more logic based - like if you're searching for a car, you'll narrow down your field based on thought about certain attributes. Once there, the emotions probably take more of a front seat.
But for other things, like choosing a lover, emotions are probably driving the decision from the early stages on through, to the great sorrow of many people who just *know* they're making the same mistake again, but can't seem to stop themselves.
posted by jasper411 at 10:07 AM on August 10, 2004
After 5 years of MetaFilter, someone has finally said something that it's literally impossible to disagree with.
I disagree with that.
posted by rorycberger at 10:22 AM on August 10, 2004
I disagree with that.
posted by rorycberger at 10:22 AM on August 10, 2004
...that book, Influence, is really a useful read. It helps to declaw a lot of underhanded sales techniques once you recognize why you react to them the way you do.
posted by leotrotsky at 11:28 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by leotrotsky at 11:28 AM on August 10, 2004
I think this quote certainly applies to me.
I know I felt this sense of unease when I acted as a juror in a trial. First, we listen to one side, the prosecution, say, and then become absolutely convinced of this person's guilt as we see evidence after evidence mount, witnesses agree, erratic behavior all woven into a nice self-consistent narrative about a criminal act.
But then, the defense makes their case, and bit by bit we see how everything that seemed so obviously true in the former scenario now becomes unraveled. Of course this or that witness was lying and we understand why they would be motivated to do so. More witnesses appear who say the exact opposite. Our minds are slowly convinced of this other way of looking at a sequence of events, just as self-consistent as the first narrative. But, both cannot be true.
So, what do we look for? We watch the witnesses. Do we trust them? Are they lying? Can I relate to this person? What would I have done or what would people I know have done in this situation. Who has the most and truest conviction?
I think courtrooms are where the fuzziness of the decisions we all make in out lives are just laid bare. I know I am not making the right or best decision all the time or embracing the right thing. Its not that I dont have time to fully research everything or weigh out logical consequences as if they were syllogisms. Its more that, as above, there is only a certain amount of facts available and so logic is at an impasse - it is useless.
The real world is not a mathematics textbook. Anyone who nods smugly at the above quotation is probably most in danger of being led astray by a misplaced (because its not possible) desire for self-consistency. The best you can do is navigate the uncertainty and know and understand that the decisions you make, the facts you ascertain, may be provisional, some more than others.
posted by vacapinta at 2:07 PM on August 10, 2004
I know I felt this sense of unease when I acted as a juror in a trial. First, we listen to one side, the prosecution, say, and then become absolutely convinced of this person's guilt as we see evidence after evidence mount, witnesses agree, erratic behavior all woven into a nice self-consistent narrative about a criminal act.
But then, the defense makes their case, and bit by bit we see how everything that seemed so obviously true in the former scenario now becomes unraveled. Of course this or that witness was lying and we understand why they would be motivated to do so. More witnesses appear who say the exact opposite. Our minds are slowly convinced of this other way of looking at a sequence of events, just as self-consistent as the first narrative. But, both cannot be true.
So, what do we look for? We watch the witnesses. Do we trust them? Are they lying? Can I relate to this person? What would I have done or what would people I know have done in this situation. Who has the most and truest conviction?
I think courtrooms are where the fuzziness of the decisions we all make in out lives are just laid bare. I know I am not making the right or best decision all the time or embracing the right thing. Its not that I dont have time to fully research everything or weigh out logical consequences as if they were syllogisms. Its more that, as above, there is only a certain amount of facts available and so logic is at an impasse - it is useless.
The real world is not a mathematics textbook. Anyone who nods smugly at the above quotation is probably most in danger of being led astray by a misplaced (because its not possible) desire for self-consistency. The best you can do is navigate the uncertainty and know and understand that the decisions you make, the facts you ascertain, may be provisional, some more than others.
posted by vacapinta at 2:07 PM on August 10, 2004
Most decision-making techniques are useful, depending on the situation. If one has a lot of information, often logic works best. If there's hardly any information (of if the information is incomplete) and one is FORCED to make a decision, then pure reason won't work (there aren't enough facts). So one has to use intuition, emotion, guesswork, etc.
I think many problems occur in life when one tries to use the wrong decision-making technique in a specific circumstance.
For instance, I wouldn't use reason to choose a lover. Nor would I use emotion when trying to come up with a way to cure strep throat.
Sometimes people don’t consider that they don’t always have to make a decision. If there aren’t enough facts (and you’re not being forced), you can simply hold off until you know more.
Most decision-making techniques are useful, depending on the situation. If one has a lot of information, often logic works best. If there's hardly any information (of if the information is incomplete) and one is FORCED to make a decision, then pure reason won't work (there aren't enough facts). So one has to use intuition, emotion, guesswork, etc.
I think many problems occur in life when one tries to use the wrong decision-making technique in a specific circumstance.
For instance, I wouldn't use reason to choose a lover. Nor would I use emotion when trying to come up with a way to cure strep throat.
Sometimes people don’t consider that they don’t always have to make a decision. If there aren’t enough facts (and you’re not being forced), you can simply hold off until you know more.
Successful people can easily switch from one type of decision-making to another as the need arises. They don’t get bogged down trying to use reason when reason won’t work. They don’t trust their feelings when logic would be more appropriate.
posted by grumblebee at 2:30 PM on August 10, 2004
I think many problems occur in life when one tries to use the wrong decision-making technique in a specific circumstance.
For instance, I wouldn't use reason to choose a lover. Nor would I use emotion when trying to come up with a way to cure strep throat.
Sometimes people don’t consider that they don’t always have to make a decision. If there aren’t enough facts (and you’re not being forced), you can simply hold off until you know more.
Most decision-making techniques are useful, depending on the situation. If one has a lot of information, often logic works best. If there's hardly any information (of if the information is incomplete) and one is FORCED to make a decision, then pure reason won't work (there aren't enough facts). So one has to use intuition, emotion, guesswork, etc.
I think many problems occur in life when one tries to use the wrong decision-making technique in a specific circumstance.
For instance, I wouldn't use reason to choose a lover. Nor would I use emotion when trying to come up with a way to cure strep throat.
Sometimes people don’t consider that they don’t always have to make a decision. If there aren’t enough facts (and you’re not being forced), you can simply hold off until you know more.
Successful people can easily switch from one type of decision-making to another as the need arises. They don’t get bogged down trying to use reason when reason won’t work. They don’t trust their feelings when logic would be more appropriate.
posted by grumblebee at 2:30 PM on August 10, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
Foolish people.
posted by rushmc at 7:12 PM on August 9, 2004