On Sunday 2004-02-15 15:48, Julia Thompson wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on > > > this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more > > > positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. > > > Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper > > > ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the > > > prejudices. > > > > Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle > > approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while > > making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them > > to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you > > explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, > > maybe not even usually. > > It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive > hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation and much gentler prods over > the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a > change in mindset 12 months after the initial event. > > Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people > I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned > out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it > was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste. > > And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a particular > subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that happens, the best > thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that subject. Saying things > that are tangental to that subject in discussions of other things might > help some, but confronting a subject head-on with someone who has their > position very deeply entrenched is more likely to make them dig in deeper > with it. (I have seen this most notably in a couple of people > significantly older than myself.) > > Julia > > post didn't come through on the account I made the original commend on, > sigh
Julia, everything I know about persuasion as a science confirms that you are correct. Non-confrontational persuasion works best. Outright attacks hardly work at all. Nevertheless, my feeling has long been that the non-confrontational techniques taught in psychology, social work, communication, and marketing classes are highly manipulative. They are overtly manipulative political tactics designed to move from argumentation to conversationalism. I too prefer being on the recieving end of an "I-message" ... until I notice my interloculator has changed from a socratic exchange to manipulative psycho-therapy. There are times where socratic engagement is stupid but optimally persuasive engagement is immoral. Is there a difference between marketing and debate? When, if ever, does an economically rational person opt for socratic debate over friendlier, more persuasive diological engagement? Is there a conflict between standards for honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying relationships on the other. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
