I would 100% disagree with the notion that biases are in any way "glitches". Heuristics generally have psychological value.
Alright.
I just used "glitch" because they're not logically sound, and if we were computers, they would be real problems. But, I would agree they--no doubt--had evolutionary value, or were byproducts of something that did.
Here's three the basic persuasive techniques from the Greek study of Rhetoric:
Ethos - The credibility of the speaker due to surrounding social constructs. Example, "I'm a doctor licensed by the board of practitioners, and I think high sodium intake causes heart disease."
Pathos - Appeal to some fundamental emotion. Example, "Let's all meet Charlie, a 6 year old who is clinically obese. He can't play on the playground with his friends. His mom fed him too much sodium."
Logos - Finally, appeal to a principle of order or knowledge. Example, "Sodium in excess must be processed by the kidneys and liver, which will lead to a buildup of residue within the circulatory system causing heart disease."
I think most people would associate logic to Logos here.
Actually though, the fit isn't very precise. Logos from the Greek is a notoriously difficult word to translate, meaning "word" in some places and "knowledge" in others. It also happens to be the root in English behind the word "Logic". So first, be aware that the concept of logic is much more broad than "formal" or "mathematical" logic, but that meanwhile, lots of people are persuasively compelled by the kind of objectivity there.
So, are people persuaded by Logos? Sure. Maybe not all people, but it is a persuasive technique. In my mind though, it doesn't have as much to do with formal logic, but rather, powers of objective observation. If you can measure it empirically, then you are probably looking at evidence for an argument on Logos.
Good persuasive technique though involves all three of the above as much as possible. Our culture in my opinion assigns more credibility to Logos, but the other two techniques are pretty easy to spot. Some people even seem to train themselves to ignore evidence not on Logos. They might specifically hone in on Ethos and Pathos, and even argue on Logos that the evidence shown by the other two isn't credible. But that's where rhetorical skill comes in. It's a difficult skill to master, but it's possible to appeal to someone's Pathos and Ethos without an audience recognizing that you're doing it. The very best persuasive technique does this.
For example, take "informal" logical fallacies such as Strawman, Ad Hominem, etc. They're "informal" meaning "not formal", so they actually have nothing to do with mathematically sound logic. Still though, they are identified with a field of study that examines reason and logic. So when someone argues that a position is wrong because of these fallacies, they are actually using the Ethos of identifying to this particular group. But those who see themselves as being persuaded mainly by logic seem to eat this stuff up anyway.
And so sure, it's understandable that people don't accept arguments on logic alone. Because logic is even worse of a persuasive technique than Logos is, by itself. If you are too empirical and logical, you end up saying nothing. In fact, few arguments are given on logic.
But the question of whether logic persuades was put out as if it were a bad thing that it does not.
I wouldn't agree with that. Actually, I see lots of people attributing undue weight to the logical content of verbal language, at the expense of their other human faculties. These people have a tough time sensing connotative meaning, insist on rigid definitions, and have difficulty learning foreign languages. Ultimately also, they fail to realize that the verbal tool of language that they themselves us is not robust enough to withstand all the mathematical weight of logic that they attempt to put into it.
One example is the interpretation of pre-Renaissance writings. A lot of people insist on giving them an interpretation that is literal and sensory related, when they could not have possibly been intended that way by pre-enlightenment authors. And when they are interpreted according to other means, that camp insists that this is using "special pleading", because ostensibly we are holding every other writing under the magnifying glass of objectivism. We may not be. It's just a circular, auto-reinforcing world view where reality is limited to rational perception, and nothing ever contradicts that because everything not related to rational perception is disallowed.
People just do themselves a great disservice in understanding other people when they attempt this slavish adherence to logic. We have learned in the modern world to give more objective consideration to our statements, but that is not to say that they are devoid of other qualities, and that certainly is not to say that human beings always weighted their statements toward literal, objective meaning. It's not that people not using logic are stupid. Quite the contrary. The reason persuasion boils down to so many different elements is precisely because there are a lot of worthwhile things to be learned that have other mediums of proof.
This is a good post that highlights the different elements of persuasive dialogue. I first encountered these concepts in a class I took on Rhetoric.
But division of persuasiveness into ethos, pathos, and logos is a classical and very helpful way of asserting the proposition that pure logic is but one element of effective persuasive dialogue.
If a person is strong in the logos dimension, but completely lacks ethos, then the audience will be hard pressed to accept what is being said.
The logical person might assert: it simply doesn't matter what my intentions are, if I'm logically correct, then I'm corrent and its as simple as that.
The average person would think, this person cannot be believed. I do not have a refutation to his logical trickery for now, so I won't accept what he says. Because I do not believe he has my best interests as heart, I will either a) keep searching until I find a counter-argument b) just stop listening outright.
Logic is more than axioms, it's also soundness. Following simple arguments like the following is widely accepted where I am from, but does it make sense?
Obama's policy preference is Obamacare.
Obamacare is socialism.
Therefore, Obama is a socialist.
The soundness of an argument can depend on extralogical properties. For instance, determining whether or not Obamacare is socialism involves examining the particulars of Obamacare, which are to at least some extent outside the scope of pure logic. If this particular argument is unsound, nothing about logic made it unsound -- rather, it would be an empirical examination of Obamacare that would make it unsound.
Or this extreme example that a friend of mine ascribes to:
John Boehner is orange and his eyes turn yellow when a picture is taken of him.
Reptilian aliens sent to control the world have yellow eyes and discolored skin.
Therefore, John Boehner is a reptilian alien sent to control the world.
This is actually an invalid argument by way of pure logic; it's an instance of affirmation of the consequent.
Venture outside the big cities into the suburban and rural areas and you'll find otherwise.
Your contention here being that I've never been to a suburb or rural area? I see that the critical thinking skills of the cohorts you identified above are rubbing off on you.
No one seems to enjoy adhere to formal logic more than you Crashing00, so on point, I leave you with this funny snippet of 'formal logic' from a scene from Get Smart the Movie. (2008)
Siegfried: How do I know you're not Control?
Maxwell Smart: If I were Control, you'd already be dead.
Siegfried: If you were Control, you'd already be dead.
Maxwell Smart: Neither of us is dead, so I am obviously not from Control.
I do not know so much about pure logic, I just wish what ever logic or rationale people used was consistant. For instantce, Anti-gun people oppose liberty at the purported gain/save of life yet are all for liberty when it comes to abortion. Or pro lifers, who value life but still support the death penalty.
No one seems to enjoy adhere to formal logic more than you Crashing00, so on point, I leave you with this funny snippet of 'formal logic' from a scene from Get Smart the Movie. (2008)
Well, I enjoy trying to figure out the truth about things to the greatest extent I can, and I'd have a very difficult time doing so if I didn't enjoy logic. Anyone who seeks truth but doesn't enjoy logic is in quite a pickle.
But if it's lame logic jokes you're after, I know quite a few of those.
Did you ever hear the one about the logician who wanted to teach his daughter not to deny the antecedent? He told her that if she didn't eat her vegetables, then he'd send her straight to bed without dessert. Feeling suitably cowed, she proceeded to choke down a whole plate of broccoli, at which time he sent her straight to bed without dessert. (Many years later it is discovered that she never denies antecedents... and also never eats vegetables.)
What is the actual efficacy of logic as a tool of persuasion in your experience?
It is differs from one setting to another. In a political debate a person can give a perfectly well reasoned and logical argument and still lose the debate to better rhetoric while on the flip side you can very easily win an academic debate by using better logic.
All depends on who and what you are debating I guess.
The problem with logic in the context of argument and debate, is that it requires the other party to be intelligent and open minded.
It doesn't matter if all your premises are correct and your logic is sound if the person you're talking to is too stupid to understand or too narrow minded to even listen.
Generally speaking, most people are more easily swayed by emotional manipulation than logical persuasion.
The trick is to know who you're talking to. When to be logical and appeal to the mind, and when to be irrational and appeal to the heart.
The problem with logic as a tool for persuasion is the difficulty of convincing someone of your basis for the logic.
Like Taylor has been saying, a lot of people consider logic to be something much more narrow than it actually is.
Logic is the ability to take a basis for reasoning, and a set of rules, and extrapolate using those two things a result which is compatible with those two things vs something incompatible.
Ultimately in an argument about _any_ subject not strictly mathematical or single-statement-simple(e.g. "The Sky is Blue"), if you drill down far enough into the core of the argument you will eventually reach a root that is subjective based on personal moral or ethical weighting or preference.
To use an example from Magic, you have different types of players, Spike, Timmy, Johnny. Each fundamentally will consider different cards "Better". Each can logically argue their case based on what their axioms justify as "Better". Timmy might think Enter the Infinite+Omniscience is a good combo because as long as you have a win condition in your deck, if you can play Omniscience with EtI in your hand, you are guaranteed to win.
Spike might feel that Ash Zealot is a good card because in a RDW mono red deck you're basically guaranteed to be able to cast it on turn 2 and it's super cost efficient.
Timmy will disagree, because that puny Ash Zealot isn't going to win the game. And he'd be logically right, because based on his criteria of measurement, Ash Zealot, itself, is less likely to guarantee a win than Omniscience+EtI. Ash Zealot gets beaten by a lot of other creatures, it dies to removal, and it only deals 2 damage per turn. EtI+Omniscience instantly wins you the game.
Both are logically correct because they are arguing on a different basis from eachother.
The fact that if you boil down most arguments they result in a fundamental difference in logical basis means logic is rarely actually a tool for persuasion, because both people arguing are being logical.
Charisma is more effective than logic because it is more effective at changing someone's basis for logic than logic itself is, since you can't make a logical argument for a difference in basis most of the time. Generally anyone with a similar basis for argument who is logical(and therefore susceptible to a logical argument) is already going to think the same thing anyways unless presented with just outright new information they were unaware of, in which case argument or debate is unnecessary, just information.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alright.
I just used "glitch" because they're not logically sound, and if we were computers, they would be real problems. But, I would agree they--no doubt--had evolutionary value, or were byproducts of something that did.
This is a good post that highlights the different elements of persuasive dialogue. I first encountered these concepts in a class I took on Rhetoric.
But division of persuasiveness into ethos, pathos, and logos is a classical and very helpful way of asserting the proposition that pure logic is but one element of effective persuasive dialogue.
If a person is strong in the logos dimension, but completely lacks ethos, then the audience will be hard pressed to accept what is being said.
The logical person might assert: it simply doesn't matter what my intentions are, if I'm logically correct, then I'm corrent and its as simple as that.
The average person would think, this person cannot be believed. I do not have a refutation to his logical trickery for now, so I won't accept what he says. Because I do not believe he has my best interests as heart, I will either a) keep searching until I find a counter-argument b) just stop listening outright.
No one seems to enjoy adhere to formal logic more than you Crashing00, so on point, I leave you with this funny snippet of 'formal logic' from a scene from Get Smart the Movie. (2008)
Siegfried: How do I know you're not Control?
Maxwell Smart: If I were Control, you'd already be dead.
Siegfried: If you were Control, you'd already be dead.
Maxwell Smart: Neither of us is dead, so I am obviously not from Control.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Well, I enjoy trying to figure out the truth about things to the greatest extent I can, and I'd have a very difficult time doing so if I didn't enjoy logic. Anyone who seeks truth but doesn't enjoy logic is in quite a pickle.
But if it's lame logic jokes you're after, I know quite a few of those.
Did you ever hear the one about the logician who wanted to teach his daughter not to deny the antecedent? He told her that if she didn't eat her vegetables, then he'd send her straight to bed without dessert. Feeling suitably cowed, she proceeded to choke down a whole plate of broccoli, at which time he sent her straight to bed without dessert. (Many years later it is discovered that she never denies antecedents... and also never eats vegetables.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
It is differs from one setting to another. In a political debate a person can give a perfectly well reasoned and logical argument and still lose the debate to better rhetoric while on the flip side you can very easily win an academic debate by using better logic.
All depends on who and what you are debating I guess.
It doesn't matter if all your premises are correct and your logic is sound if the person you're talking to is too stupid to understand or too narrow minded to even listen.
Generally speaking, most people are more easily swayed by emotional manipulation than logical persuasion.
The trick is to know who you're talking to. When to be logical and appeal to the mind, and when to be irrational and appeal to the heart.
Like Taylor has been saying, a lot of people consider logic to be something much more narrow than it actually is.
Logic is the ability to take a basis for reasoning, and a set of rules, and extrapolate using those two things a result which is compatible with those two things vs something incompatible.
Ultimately in an argument about _any_ subject not strictly mathematical or single-statement-simple(e.g. "The Sky is Blue"), if you drill down far enough into the core of the argument you will eventually reach a root that is subjective based on personal moral or ethical weighting or preference.
To use an example from Magic, you have different types of players, Spike, Timmy, Johnny. Each fundamentally will consider different cards "Better". Each can logically argue their case based on what their axioms justify as "Better". Timmy might think Enter the Infinite+Omniscience is a good combo because as long as you have a win condition in your deck, if you can play Omniscience with EtI in your hand, you are guaranteed to win.
Spike might feel that Ash Zealot is a good card because in a RDW mono red deck you're basically guaranteed to be able to cast it on turn 2 and it's super cost efficient.
Timmy will disagree, because that puny Ash Zealot isn't going to win the game. And he'd be logically right, because based on his criteria of measurement, Ash Zealot, itself, is less likely to guarantee a win than Omniscience+EtI. Ash Zealot gets beaten by a lot of other creatures, it dies to removal, and it only deals 2 damage per turn. EtI+Omniscience instantly wins you the game.
Both are logically correct because they are arguing on a different basis from eachother.
The fact that if you boil down most arguments they result in a fundamental difference in logical basis means logic is rarely actually a tool for persuasion, because both people arguing are being logical.
Charisma is more effective than logic because it is more effective at changing someone's basis for logic than logic itself is, since you can't make a logical argument for a difference in basis most of the time. Generally anyone with a similar basis for argument who is logical(and therefore susceptible to a logical argument) is already going to think the same thing anyways unless presented with just outright new information they were unaware of, in which case argument or debate is unnecessary, just information.