unspeakablehorror | Entries tagged with persuasion

I think it helps my peace of mind immensely to understand that I can't make someone agree with me. Even if I do everything right, even if everything I said in the argument was true, even if my logic was flawless(which is simply not always possible for anyone), even if I was impeccably patient and polite, people cannot be compelled to believe the truth any more than they can be compelled to believe anything else. Sometimes I even wonder if most attempts at persuasion are futile even before they start. To be sure, people change their minds all the time about things, but that doesn't need to mean that most arguments are successful. It could just mean that there are a lot of them.

I think it means that we all argue things a lot, and other people will turn the different arguments they see over in their mind, of which there are a lot, and eventually they may change their mind about something. But this is often not an immediate process, and typically not in response to any one singular argument.

This also isn't inherently good. People can change their minds to believe something that is true, to become more ethical, or to believe something false or adopt a less ethical mindset. So even when people are convinced, it's not necessarily the good arguments that convince them.

Considering all this helps me to understand both why persuasion is important and why I must limit my time and efforts engaging in it.

Even from a purely practical perspective, changing sentiment is not enough unless people are informed enough to have some idea of what changes need to be made to actually help a given situation.

For example, it's not enough to convince people that climate change is real, because there's a whole bunch of greenwashing out there that will try to convince people that they can save the Earth if they just buy their products.

People want the easiest solution possible. It makes sense, right? Why spend more effort than you have to? But making real, meaningful change often requires significant changes, significant effort. So a non-solution that requires little to no change will naturally look superior to actual solutions if it presents itself as a way to meaningfully address the problem.

Having the right opinions is meaningless if we don't know what will and won't help us achieve our goals.

I think it's a lot easier to have equanimity in this often chaotic world when you understand that there's no magic trick to persuasion. That you can be articulate or passionate or truthful or detailed or all of that and more, but you can't make other people believe you. A person has to be willing to consider your words in the first place before any of that matters.

If your words don't have the desired effect, it can be worthwhile to consider how you might improve them or if you should rethink them, but it doesn't necessarily mean you said anything wrong. It may simply mean you lost that argument before you even started it. Other people can decide they'll never seriously consider certain positions and there's nothing you can do about that. You can practice rhetorical strategies, polish your social skills, hone your logic, present more evidence, and those can all help you better promote your cause. But you can't make people believe you. Sometimes it's better to accept that they won't and move on.

One thing I frequently notice when I see an argument attempting to persuade people is that there's often a lot of inbuilt (and incorrect) assumptions about what people with opposing positions must be thinking. I think placing these assumptions in a persuasive piece, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a terrible way to go about arguing things, because there's typically going to be a wide variance in how people justify their positions and the combinations of positions they hold. There tends to be a wide variance between how a person who holds a position as a core value and a person who violently disagrees with that position thinks about it. And here I cannot stress this enough--people should want to understand why their opposition thinks the way they do.

Understanding is not equivalent to agreement, it is equivalent to knowledge. In the case of positions you know you will not agree with, its purpose is to understand the thinking of people you oppose. It's also to understand whether you truly have a strong argument for your own position. Can you respond to really clever counterattacks, or can you really only counter people whose only argument is a slogan? Not everyone needs to have a good argument for their positions, but if they don't, it might be prudent not to focus their energies on making persuasive arguments for that position. There are, after all, many ways one can forward their chosen causes besides persuasion. And really, regardless of what other possibilities for one's contributions to their chosen causes exist, it seems worthwhile to consider that botched attempts at persuasion can have exactly the opposite of the desired effect. And if this is judged to likely be the case, the best course of action is to concern oneself with using that time for anything besides persuasion instead, even if that thing has no positive impact on those causes, if it at least does not have a negative one.

Sometimes, if you carefully observe what one person says over a long period of time, you can discern the nuances of what that particular individual thinks about an issue they have discussed frequently. This cannot be used to make assumptions about what other individuals who hold the same position may think on the issue, however. It is typical that, for a given position, people from many different walks of life and perspective will hold that position. Therefore the personal experiences and motivations that lead to these different people adopting the same position can likewise be expected to differ.

This is a big reason why I think arguments should focus on the specific empirical and/or philosophical arguments being made, and not propose anything about 'how the other side thinks'.

I think an important thing to understand about me is that I feel emotions are important, but I'm unlikely to put much weight in appeals to emotion. Because emotions aren't the only thing that is important. I don't believe our emotions give us any ultimate control or indication of reality, they are simply an indicator of what we need or want and what we believe will fulfill those needs or wants. But different people need or want different things, so one thing where there needs to be some common ground for such an appeal to work is what the people involved need or want. Another essential place where common ground is necessary for emotional appeals to work is an agreement of facts regarding the issue in question. But if there is both agreement in values and agreement in facts about the issue under discussion, the other party already agrees with you, and no effort in persuasion is necessary.

If, however, there is significant disagreement in values or facts, and persuasion is relevant, the only thing an emotional appeal will communicate is that you have a mismatch of values or beliefs about facts with the other person, not any reason why the other person should change their mind about this.

I think one of the things that makes life less stressful for me is that I don't necessarily feel like lack of persuading people of something is a failure on my part. I don't exclude the possibility that I could have done a better job making my case, but I also realize that persuasion is a dynamic between two people and not a trait the persuader actively has nor is the person being persuaded just a passive participant in the process. Like, on the simplest level, a person can simply choose not to listen to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or contradicts their current beliefs. For someone to be capable of being persuaded of something, they have to be willing to actively listen to arguments regarding it and consider their implications. There's a lot of reasons why this might not happen that have nothing to do with how well I might make my argument.

At least one thing that helps me with disagreements is that I understand that even if a person has the most accurate facts, the most airtight argument, laid out in the least confrontational way possible, the people arguing with them can still just choose to ignore everything they say and, for example, believe an entirely circular argument instead. Like I don't assume all failures to persuade people are due to bad or even badly presented arguments. You can explain all you want, but you can't make a person understand you if they're determined not to.

I think this is a good fact to keep in mind to better cope with failure.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Navigation

Loftwings and Demons

And Sith and Porgs as Well...

Entries tagged with persuasion

The Equanimity of Understanding that I Can't Make People Believe Me

Good Intent Is Not Enough

Persuasion Has Limits

Understanding Opposing Arguments and Persuasion

Appeals To Emotion

Persuasiveness is Not an Inherent Trait

Skill Isn't Everything

Profile

May 2025

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags