Re: Preaching To The Converted

From: Kamerynn (idon'tdoemail_at_sorry.com)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:04:36 -0600

Immortalist wrote:

> The more well informed the members of the audience are, the less likely they are
> to be persuaded by a one-sided argument and the more likely they are to be
> persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments and
> then proceeds to refute them.
>
> On the other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of
> opposing arguments. If the counterargument is ignored, the less-informed members
> of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, they may get
> confused.
>
> (3) One-Sided vs Two-Sided Arguments:
>
> Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your audience
> that capital punishment is necessary. Would you persuade more people if you
> simply stated your view and ignored the arguments against capital
> punishment, or would you be more persuasive if you discussed the opposing
> arguments and attempted to refute them? Before trying to answer this
> question, let us try to understand what is involved. If a communicator
> mentions the opposition's arguments, it might indicate that he or she is an
> objective, fair-minded person; this could enhance the speaker's
> trustworthiness and thus increase his or her effectiveness. On the other
> hand, if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other side
> of the issue, it might suggest to the audience that the issue is
> controversial; this could confuse members of the audience, make them
> vacillate, and ultimately reduce the persuasiveness of the communication.
> With these possibilities in mind, it should not come as a surprise to the
> reader that there is no simple relation between one-sided arguments and the
> effectiveness of the communication. It depends to some extent upon how well
> informed the audience is: The more well informed the members of the audience
> are, the less likely they are to be persuaded by a one-sided argument and
> the more likely they are to be persuaded by an argument that brings out the
> important opposing arguments and then proceeds to refute them. This makes
> sense: A well-informed person is more likely to know some of the
> counterarguments. When the communicator avoids mentioning these, the
> knowledgeable members of the audience are likely to conclude that the
> communicator is either unfair or unable to refute such arguments. On the
> other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of
> opposing arguments. If the counterargument is ignored, the less-informed
> members of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented,
> they may get confused.
>
> Another factor playing a vital role is the initial position of the audience.
> As we might expect, if a member of the audience is already predisposed to
> believe the communicator's argument, a onesided presentation has a greater
> impact on his or her opinion than a two-sided presentation. If, however, a
> member of the audience is leaning in the opposite direction, then a
> two-sided refutational argument is more persuasive. Most politicians seem to
> be well aware of this phenomenon; they tend to present vastly different
> kinds of speeches, depending upon who constitutes the audience. When talking
> to the party faithful, they almost invariably deliver a hell-raising set of
> arguments favoring their own party platform and candidacy. If they do
> mention the opposition, it is in a derisive, mocking tone. On the other
> hand, when appearing on network television or when speaking to any audience
> of mixed loyalties, they tend to take a more diplomatic position, giving the
> opposing view a reasonably accurate airing before proceeding to demolish it.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vt49og3usfsbda%40corp.supernews.com
>
> The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

Kam:
      A good post, Immortalist. Depressing, but good. I say
that it's depressing because I view the majority as uninformed.
This is why the majority can, for example, be persuaded by
presidential "debates." It's sad to think that a one-sided
argument could convince anyone.
      Anyway - thanks for the post.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Converting Fundy Repug Preachers
    ... > The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... > persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments ... > of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, ... > Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... > The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... > opposing arguments. ... the less-informed members ... Would you persuade more people if you ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Preaching To The Converted
    ... The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... opposing arguments. ... Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your audience ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... >> The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... >> Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your ... if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... Prior Experience of the Audience. ... mind the audience is in just prior to the communication. ... one way of decreasing their persuasibility is by forewarning ... them that an attempt is going to be made to persuade them. ...
    (sci.logic)