What is the actual efficacy of logic as a tool of persuasion in your experience?
I have come to the realization that when it comes to actual persuading people, actual logic is just not that useful of a tool in life.
I've always placed a great emphasis on the importance of logic as a means of persuading people. In the past I used to believe that forging stronger logical reasoning skills would strengthen my powers of persuasion. But in fact, this just has not been the case.
There are a number of reasons why someone is persuaded over to ones side, but so rarely is the case that someone is persuaded by another's sheer logic.
In fact to put too much emphasis on logic is bound to cause one many problems in life.
-The opposite party is actually willing to keep an open mind and objectively understand what you're saying. (Note- I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone capable of this, largely because this also requires one to have an open mind and objectively understand what they themselves and the other party is saying.)
-You basically dazzle the opposite party with charisma and great talking ability.
In fact, I would argue that logical flaws are a far better method of persuading people than good logic.
Good logic is both "boring" and "unnatural". Logical flaws are "exciting" and "natural".
There's also the fact that so many people fail to recognize that they themselves are committing logical flaws, even though they recognize it in others.
That being said, logic is a great tool in life. In fact, it's necessary. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to do a bunch of basic things or even get your mind to process information without descending into pure gibberish.
It's just that it's not very good at certain things that most people think it is. I think it's because of Mr. Spock.
Persuasion is emotional, not intellectual. Logic is relatively ineffectual unless you're operating within the framework of a very logical discipline - and even then it's questionable (both philosophy and science have some notorious cases where logic was ignored in favor of a persuasive writing style).
That said, if you can agree on premises with someone, logic can help show them that they're making a mistake or not following their own thought to its conclusion. It's an impoverished tool even then because there will usually be unstated premises, and they'll usually matter more than the stated premises, but it's not utterly impotent.
-The opposite party is actually willing to keep an open mind and objectively understand what you're saying. (Note- I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone capable of this, largely because this also requires one to have an open mind and objectively understand what they themselves and the other party is saying.)
-You basically dazzle the opposite party with charisma and great talking ability.
In fact, I would argue that logical flaws are a far better method of persuading people than good logic.
Good logic is both "boring" and "unnatural". Logical flaws are "exciting" and "natural".
There's also the fact that so many people fail to recognize that they themselves are committing logical flaws, even though they recognize it in others.
That being said, logic is a great tool in life. In fact, it's necessary. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to do a bunch of basic things or even get your mind to process information without descending into pure gibberish.
It's just that it's not very good at certain things that most people think it is. I think it's because of Mr. Spock.
In terms of power of persuasion, I've found an overemphasis on logic is more likely to offend the other person than persuade them. As you said, first off few are willing to truly entertain an open mind.
But I think in terms of persuasion, convincing another party you are on that party's side, a friend or ally of that party is a more persuasive technique than pure logic.
This may entail even "agreeing" with their outright logical flaws. Of course in the purest logical sense, being one's ally or enemy has no bearing on the logic of an objectively framed argument. But if you don't agree with someone and keep spouting off logic, it never seems to go over well, and it certainly is poor at convincing them of anything.
Logic lends credibility to an argument, but human beings are at their are core emotional creatures. Logic is best used to help defend an emotional standpoint, logic by itself is rarely useful.
I don't remember where the article was, but one of the theories on the development of human speech is that the concept of logic arose largely as a means to win arguments by rationalizing. It doesn't mean the logic actually has to be well thought out or even accurate, it just has to be enough to sell an emotion.
Persuasion is emotional, not intellectual. Logic is relatively ineffectual unless you're operating within the framework of a very logical discipline - and even then it's questionable (both philosophy and science have some notorious cases where logic was ignored in favor of a persuasive writing style).
That said, if you can agree on premises with someone, logic can help show them that they're making a mistake or not following their own thought to its conclusion. It's an impoverished tool even then because there will usually be unstated premises, and they'll usually matter more than the stated premises, but it's not utterly impotent.
I have a background in computer science. There logic is of course our bread and butter.
I also have a background in law. There logic is modestly useful. But one cannot abide by pure logic in law or they will run into trouble. For example, in Criminal Law I remember reading a statute that was recursively defined.
Of course, if you took the statute logically, you would be interpreting the law incorrectly.
But with regards to family interactions, I'm going to go on a limb and say Logic is nigh-impotent. As a tool of persuasion it is not an effective means with anyone in my family--not my grandmother, grandfather, mother, sister, etc..
If you spell out a contradiction to people, they normally relent.
While well known cognitive biases are common because of glitches in our hardware/software, if you can do a good job of explaining the error and showing how it applies, people respond. Of course, pride and whatnot can play a part in preventing good communication when people do try to explain such things.
Yet,
People--generally--want to seem logical. And, we do seem to have something internally that rejects contradictions, once we realize they are contradictions. But, somethings are harder to realize than others.
This might be overly reflective, but when I personally end up getting persuaded of something, the person trying to persuade me will very see immediate results.
It normally takes a bit of time and personal reflection for me to truly change my mind on something.
I suppose I'm saying that the persuasiveness of an argument is probably a little bit harder to measure that you might realize
I've found an overemphasis on logic is more likely to offend the other person than persuade them.
Absolutely. That is because people associate high intelligence with logical reasoning skills (with good reason). If your logic is beating their argument somehow, then by extension your logic > their logic, and thus your intelligence > their intelligence. Basically, you can't win an argument through logic alone without also insinuating that you're smarter then the other guy. People will then home in on this bit, and conclude "Wow this guy thinks he's right just because he's smarter, what an arrogant douchebag".
What is the actual efficacy of logic as a tool of persuasion in your experience?
I have come to the realization that when it comes to actual persuading people, actual logic is just not that useful of a tool in life.
This is the classical rhetoric-dialectic dichotomy dating back to the ancient Greeks.
My take is this: Logic is a tool for mapping relationships between truths, but truth and persuasion are essentially unrelated. Many charismatic figures and popular movements are where they are today by virtue of being persuasive in their falsehoods.
If you're trying to persuade someone about truth, then logic is of the essence and your approach should be dialectic in its character. If you're trying to persuade someone to accept your viewpoint independent of its truth, then you'll want to avoid, twist, distort, and undermine logic to steer your audience away from the truth, and your approach should be rhetorical in its character. Conversely, if you are in the audience of a speaker aiming to persuade and you wish to avoid being persuaded of falsehoods, then follow the speaker only as far as his rhetoric meshes with logic -- go any further and you are leaving the territory of truth and entering the uncharted seas of made-up nonsense.
Also bear in mind that persuading people isn't the end-all or be-all of human conversational interaction. Sometimes you have a discussion where you get to learn something, teach something, or discover something even if you don't wind up persuading anyone of anything -- and when you sacrifice logic at the altar of persuasiveness, you lose out on all chance you ever had to learn, teach, or discover anything that's actually true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The application of logic fails in many common debate/arguments because in the core of many issues there are subjective matters that can't be solved with logic alone. Surprisingly a great number of issues are a matter of preference.
Ex: The classic fiscal problem that devides the right and the left wing politics. At the core of it there just two different subjetive moral positions - one side believes people are entlitled of freedom, other side believe people are entitled of welfare. When a policy can't accomplish both things people will argue forever but you can't "win" this argument with logic alone because in the bottom of it lies our passion for certain fundamental moral positions.
Being right is irrelevant if you can't get the other person to listen to you. In the context of persuasion, obviously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
This depends largely on who you are trying to persuade. Some people will be very receptive to logic, and some won't. Given that, it's a good idea to get some skill in logical reasoning, so you can interact with the first group well, and some skill in alogical persuasion, so you can interact with the second group well. I try to spend more time with the former, but of course you can't avoid interacting with both through the course of your life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
Logic only works on the logical. People caught in an ideological framework are not likely to listen to reason when their "feelings" are the only thing that they respond to. Just my two cents.
Logic only works on the logical. People caught in an ideological framework are not likely to listen to reason when their "feelings" are the only thing that they respond to. Just my two cents.
Most ideological frameworks I've come in contact with ARE 'logical.' As in, they proceed logically from a set of axioms assumed true.
How do you define "logical" and "logic" in this context, Nodrog?
Logic only works on the logical. People caught in an ideological framework are not likely to listen to reason when their "feelings" are the only thing that they respond to. Just my two cents.
Most ideological frameworks I've come in contact with ARE 'logical.' As in, they proceed logically from a set of axioms assumed true.
How do you define "logical" and "logic" in this context, Nodrog?
By logic, I mean being able to think about things with an empirical mind, to evaluate assimilate or discard information based on its validity. Perhaps I incorrectly defined "ideological framework." I'm referring to people who favor rhetoric over critical thinking. Logic is not an effective method of persuasion for people like this.
I was an organizer for quite some time and most people care little about logical arguments. They want to know why they should vote or care. They want to know how something will impact their day-to-day lives. And you have to make it in a context they understand. If you want to argue against the construction of a rail yard in East Texas, you have to talk about eminent domain rather than the fact that the diesel pollution from the trains might give them a heart attack or lung cancer in 40 years.
Perhaps I incorrectly defined "ideological framework." I'm referring to people who favor rhetoric over critical thinking. Logic is not an effective method of persuasion for people like this.
I don't mean to single you out about this, and I'm really only trying to use you as an example for what I said here, so please don't take this personally, but...
I'm not convinced--yet--you really know what the term "logical" means. You seem to be mistaking it for "reasonable" or "scientific" when it has a different meaning.
This confusion in what "logic" really means is something I've encountered quite a bit, which is why I'm harping on it with you. Commonly, people seem to think that "being logical" means something different from what it actually means.
They want to know why they should vote or care. They want to know how something will impact their day-to-day lives. And you have to make it in a context they understand.
How do any of these choices of framing exclude the use of logic? Telling someone that things will get better for them is at least a feint in the direction of logic -- one is claiming that a particular result will follow from certain preconditions.
Don't get me wrong; this is exactly where a sly rhetorician would drop the matter, not bothering to explain (as logic requires) why the good thing follows from his position -- in fact, this kind of omission is one of the most common rhetorical tactics there is -- but nevertheless, it is an appeal to something superficially resembling logic that one is making here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Perhaps I incorrectly defined "ideological framework." I'm referring to people who favor rhetoric over critical thinking. Logic is not an effective method of persuasion for people like this.
I don't mean to single you out about this, and I'm really only trying to use you as an example for what I said here, so please don't take this personally, but...
I'm not convinced--yet--you really know what the term "logical" means. You seem to be mistaking it for "reasonable" or "scientific" when it has a different meaning.
This confusion in what "logic" really means is something I've encountered quite a bit, which is why I'm harping on it with you. Commonly, people seem to think that "being logical" means something different from what it actually means.
Okay, so what does logic mean then? The way I understand it, science is predicated on "being logical." The scientific process is a logical series of steps in the acquisition of knowledge. In fact, it's a type of deductive reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, being logical is analogous being reasonable.
I'm referring to these definitions of logic:
log·ic
ˈläjik/
noun
noun: logic
1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
I'm saying you can't use logic to reason with certain kinds of people. It doesn't matter if you have evidence that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. A Creationist just won't listen to you.
Following the laws of logic.
As in, if I assume that Obama is a Muslim and I only vote for Christians, then it would be logical for me not to vote for him.
In fact, the ONLY 'logical' conclusion from those starting points would be for me to not vote for him. The validity of those axioms is immaterial when speaking about how 'logical' I am being.
The way I understand it, science is predicated on "being logical." The scientific process is a logical series of steps in the acquisition of knowledge. In fact, it's a type of deductive reasoning.
Yes, science is logical, but not all forms of logic are scientific. "Logic" is a broader category to which "science" is a very small subsection.
I'm saying you can't use logic to reason with certain kinds of people. It doesn't matter if you have evidence that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. A Creationist just won't listen to you.
Scientific evidence doesn't really have anything to do with logic, only nomologic.
The problem is that the Creationists are working off of a separate set of axioms when compared to you.
You can call them "unreasonable" or "unscientific" based on their assertion about the age of the Earth, but it is harder to show they are being "illogical."
Yes, science is logical, but not all forms of logic are scientific. "Logic" is a broader category to which "science" is a very small subsection.
Right, it's coming back to me. A = B, B = C Therefore A = C is a logical statement. Logic is concerned with the structure of an argument, not necessarily the argument itself. I took a couple of Critical Reasoning courses in Undergrad. I'm not sure why I forgot this.
Don't worry about offending me. It'll take a lot more than pointing out my mistakes. ; ) Thanks for clarifying.
I have come to the realization that when it comes to actual persuading people, actual logic is just not that useful of a tool in life.
I've always placed a great emphasis on the importance of logic as a means of persuading people. In the past I used to believe that forging stronger logical reasoning skills would strengthen my powers of persuasion. But in fact, this just has not been the case.
There are a number of reasons why someone is persuaded over to ones side, but so rarely is the case that someone is persuaded by another's sheer logic.
In fact to put too much emphasis on logic is bound to cause one many problems in life.
What is your take on this?
-The opposite party is actually willing to keep an open mind and objectively understand what you're saying. (Note- I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone capable of this, largely because this also requires one to have an open mind and objectively understand what they themselves and the other party is saying.)
-You basically dazzle the opposite party with charisma and great talking ability.
In fact, I would argue that logical flaws are a far better method of persuading people than good logic.
Good logic is both "boring" and "unnatural". Logical flaws are "exciting" and "natural".
There's also the fact that so many people fail to recognize that they themselves are committing logical flaws, even though they recognize it in others.
That being said, logic is a great tool in life. In fact, it's necessary. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to do a bunch of basic things or even get your mind to process information without descending into pure gibberish.
It's just that it's not very good at certain things that most people think it is. I think it's because of Mr. Spock.
That said, if you can agree on premises with someone, logic can help show them that they're making a mistake or not following their own thought to its conclusion. It's an impoverished tool even then because there will usually be unstated premises, and they'll usually matter more than the stated premises, but it's not utterly impotent.
In terms of power of persuasion, I've found an overemphasis on logic is more likely to offend the other person than persuade them. As you said, first off few are willing to truly entertain an open mind.
But I think in terms of persuasion, convincing another party you are on that party's side, a friend or ally of that party is a more persuasive technique than pure logic.
This may entail even "agreeing" with their outright logical flaws. Of course in the purest logical sense, being one's ally or enemy has no bearing on the logic of an objectively framed argument. But if you don't agree with someone and keep spouting off logic, it never seems to go over well, and it certainly is poor at convincing them of anything.
I don't remember where the article was, but one of the theories on the development of human speech is that the concept of logic arose largely as a means to win arguments by rationalizing. It doesn't mean the logic actually has to be well thought out or even accurate, it just has to be enough to sell an emotion.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I have a background in computer science. There logic is of course our bread and butter.
I also have a background in law. There logic is modestly useful. But one cannot abide by pure logic in law or they will run into trouble. For example, in Criminal Law I remember reading a statute that was recursively defined.
Of course, if you took the statute logically, you would be interpreting the law incorrectly.
But with regards to family interactions, I'm going to go on a limb and say Logic is nigh-impotent. As a tool of persuasion it is not an effective means with anyone in my family--not my grandmother, grandfather, mother, sister, etc..
While well known cognitive biases are common because of glitches in our hardware/software, if you can do a good job of explaining the error and showing how it applies, people respond. Of course, pride and whatnot can play a part in preventing good communication when people do try to explain such things.
Yet,
People--generally--want to seem logical. And, we do seem to have something internally that rejects contradictions, once we realize they are contradictions. But, somethings are harder to realize than others.
It normally takes a bit of time and personal reflection for me to truly change my mind on something.
I suppose I'm saying that the persuasiveness of an argument is probably a little bit harder to measure that you might realize
Absolutely. That is because people associate high intelligence with logical reasoning skills (with good reason). If your logic is beating their argument somehow, then by extension your logic > their logic, and thus your intelligence > their intelligence. Basically, you can't win an argument through logic alone without also insinuating that you're smarter then the other guy. People will then home in on this bit, and conclude "Wow this guy thinks he's right just because he's smarter, what an arrogant douchebag".
This is the classical rhetoric-dialectic dichotomy dating back to the ancient Greeks.
My take is this: Logic is a tool for mapping relationships between truths, but truth and persuasion are essentially unrelated. Many charismatic figures and popular movements are where they are today by virtue of being persuasive in their falsehoods.
If you're trying to persuade someone about truth, then logic is of the essence and your approach should be dialectic in its character. If you're trying to persuade someone to accept your viewpoint independent of its truth, then you'll want to avoid, twist, distort, and undermine logic to steer your audience away from the truth, and your approach should be rhetorical in its character. Conversely, if you are in the audience of a speaker aiming to persuade and you wish to avoid being persuaded of falsehoods, then follow the speaker only as far as his rhetoric meshes with logic -- go any further and you are leaving the territory of truth and entering the uncharted seas of made-up nonsense.
Also bear in mind that persuading people isn't the end-all or be-all of human conversational interaction. Sometimes you have a discussion where you get to learn something, teach something, or discover something even if you don't wind up persuading anyone of anything -- and when you sacrifice logic at the altar of persuasiveness, you lose out on all chance you ever had to learn, teach, or discover anything that's actually true.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Ex: The classic fiscal problem that devides the right and the left wing politics. At the core of it there just two different subjetive moral positions - one side believes people are entlitled of freedom, other side believe people are entitled of welfare. When a policy can't accomplish both things people will argue forever but you can't "win" this argument with logic alone because in the bottom of it lies our passion for certain fundamental moral positions.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Most ideological frameworks I've come in contact with ARE 'logical.' As in, they proceed logically from a set of axioms assumed true.
How do you define "logical" and "logic" in this context, Nodrog?
By logic, I mean being able to think about things with an empirical mind, to evaluate assimilate or discard information based on its validity. Perhaps I incorrectly defined "ideological framework." I'm referring to people who favor rhetoric over critical thinking. Logic is not an effective method of persuasion for people like this.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
I don't mean to single you out about this, and I'm really only trying to use you as an example for what I said here, so please don't take this personally, but...
I'm not convinced--yet--you really know what the term "logical" means. You seem to be mistaking it for "reasonable" or "scientific" when it has a different meaning.
This confusion in what "logic" really means is something I've encountered quite a bit, which is why I'm harping on it with you. Commonly, people seem to think that "being logical" means something different from what it actually means.
How do any of these choices of framing exclude the use of logic? Telling someone that things will get better for them is at least a feint in the direction of logic -- one is claiming that a particular result will follow from certain preconditions.
Don't get me wrong; this is exactly where a sly rhetorician would drop the matter, not bothering to explain (as logic requires) why the good thing follows from his position -- in fact, this kind of omission is one of the most common rhetorical tactics there is -- but nevertheless, it is an appeal to something superficially resembling logic that one is making here.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Okay, so what does logic mean then? The way I understand it, science is predicated on "being logical." The scientific process is a logical series of steps in the acquisition of knowledge. In fact, it's a type of deductive reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, being logical is analogous being reasonable.
I'm referring to these definitions of logic:
log·ic
ˈläjik/
noun
noun: logic
1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
I'm saying you can't use logic to reason with certain kinds of people. It doesn't matter if you have evidence that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. A Creationist just won't listen to you.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
As in, if I assume that Obama is a Muslim and I only vote for Christians, then it would be logical for me not to vote for him.
In fact, the ONLY 'logical' conclusion from those starting points would be for me to not vote for him. The validity of those axioms is immaterial when speaking about how 'logical' I am being.
Yes, science is logical, but not all forms of logic are scientific. "Logic" is a broader category to which "science" is a very small subsection.
You can be one without being the other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Reason_compared_to_logic
Scientific evidence doesn't really have anything to do with logic, only nomologic.
The problem is that the Creationists are working off of a separate set of axioms when compared to you.
You can call them "unreasonable" or "unscientific" based on their assertion about the age of the Earth, but it is harder to show they are being "illogical."
Right, it's coming back to me. A = B, B = C Therefore A = C is a logical statement. Logic is concerned with the structure of an argument, not necessarily the argument itself. I took a couple of Critical Reasoning courses in Undergrad. I'm not sure why I forgot this.
Don't worry about offending me. It'll take a lot more than pointing out my mistakes. ; ) Thanks for clarifying.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH