Re: Preaching To The Converted
From: Welsh Neanderthal (urg_at_ugh.org)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: How to do magic with infinity"
- In reply to: Kamerynn: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:26:10 -0700
"Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:10nqqlh4dslnl4a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> 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.
In politics, the majority will adopt the name of the party their daddy
supported, regardless of whether the underlying idealogy has
changed, or perhaps completely reversed. This does reflect
badly on intelligence, but has little to do with formal education.
It's genetic crud with hubris. They don't have free will. They have
no will. Many of these people have no impact on the world they
inhabit, other than as sheep tied to lamp posts. Hitler made good use
of people like this.
>
>
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: How to do magic with infinity"
- In reply to: Kamerynn: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
