Changing minds

[warumich]

What is interesting in the whole debate about how to change minds is that it needs to be able to go both ways - i.e. if there is a clear reliable mechanism by which you can change someone's mind, they should be able to use that on you too. But I've got the feeling this is not what you're after, that "mere sophistry" is not going to be the thing you want. Instead, I feel you're after some way of making people "see the truth", independent of the intentions of the arguer. This is more difficult, because "the truth" doesn't talk by itself and needs you as an interpreter - but then you might need to have some introspection on how and why you manage to see "the truth" whereas your interlocutor can't.

In other words, the practice of changing other people's minds needs to start with a close inspection of where your views and assumptions come from, why you hold them yourself, and what they would look like from the perspective of your interlocutor.

If you're into persuasion however (rather than being some uninvested conduit for "the truth"), then you can't do much worse that starting with some basic texts in rhetoric. I'd start with Aristotle's rhetorics, because it's both freely available on Gutenberg etc. and because despite being 2500 years old it's still quite authoritative. If you're into something more modern and cynical, try Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves. This is almost never the case, crucially, not because your interlocutor is too stupid or too cognitively biased to understand them, but because logic is only part of what we need in order to "understand" something (now as you can imagine, what happens when we (think we) understand something is quite a difficult process - not linking to this as I'm lazy, but the philosopher Peter Lipton has written some fascinating papers on that).

What happens when we are being persuaded by an argument is usually (according to Aristotle) an interplay of different kinds of arguments; usually persuasion works best if there is a balanced interplay of what my rhetorics mentor always called the "three musketeers" of rhetorics: ethos, pathos and logos.

Logos is the appeal to the logic of the message itself (i.e. that what most science communicators actually want to get across)

Pathos is the appeal to emotion (i.e. find a way for your argument to actually mean something tangible to your audience. "Think of the children" is crude, but it works. In science communication, think about the endless appeals to the sublime by, say, Brain Cox; it's not enough to tell people facts about astronomy, you have to engage imaginations etc.)

Ethos is the appeal to messenger credibility. (i.e. Professor McSmartypants, with a PhD and a university appointment will be more credible than Dave from down the Fox and Duck. The anonymised "truth must speak for itself" trope that many science bloggers engage in is quite self defeating)

Less often mentioned but also quite important there is also Kairos which is the appeal to the spacial and temporal context in which an argument is made (e.g. the same argument will have different persuasiveness depending on when and where it is made. We've had debates about the Colston statue for decades, but only now during the BLM protests have they started to become persuasive to many people - that's Kairos).

If you look at any well-crafted political speech you can discern these very clearly, and look how they interplay. It's a very useful classroom activity, and quite fun.

[warumich]

Meta post.


Let's have a look at my previous contribution. Don't know whether you found it convincing, I hope so, but at least I have tried to live by these rules.

The logos of the argument I hope speaks for itself (you can take it or leave it, but the raw information on Aristotle etc. is there)
The pathos was my constant appeal to science communication and how it's done wrong, as this is something that I know you lot are interested in. I've even been slightly disparaging about sci com, not too much to lose you I hope, but hopefully enough to get you emotionally invested in what I had to say.
The ethos was embedded in several throwaway remarks that I hope you have spotted. I mentioned my rhetorics tutor, implying that I have some formal education on this; I also ended with a remark about classroom activities which indicates I actually teach this stuff. So I have clearly established that I'm more professor McSmartypants than some random internet dude, and that therefore you should listen to me.

Kairos, ok well I haven't really bothered with that, as kairos is usually slightly outside the speaker's control.

[Stephanie]

What is interesting in the whole debate about how to change minds is that it needs to be able to go both ways - i.e. if there is a clear reliable mechanism by which you can change someone's mind, they should be able to use that on you too. But I've got the feeling this is not what you're after, that "mere sophistry" is not going to be the thing you want. Instead, I feel you're after some way of making people "see the truth", independent of the intentions of the arguer. This is more difficult, because "the truth" doesn't talk by itself and needs you as an interpreter - but then you might need to have some introspection on how and why you manage to see "the truth" whereas your interlocutor can't.

In other words, the practice of changing other people's minds needs to start with a close inspection of where your views and assumptions come from, why you hold them yourself, and what they would look like from the perspective of your interlocutor.

If you're into persuasion however (rather than being some uninvested conduit for "the truth"), then you can't do much worse that starting with some basic texts in rhetoric. I'd start with Aristotle's rhetorics, because it's both freely available on Gutenberg etc. and because despite being 2500 years old it's still quite authoritative. If you're into something more modern and cynical, try Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves. This is almost never the case, crucially, not because your interlocutor is too stupid or too cognitively biased to understand them, but because logic is only part of what we need in order to "understand" something (now as you can imagine, what happens when we (think we) understand something is quite a difficult process - not linking to this as I'm lazy, but the philosopher Peter Lipton has written some fascinating papers on that).

What happens when we are being persuaded by an argument is usually (according to Aristotle) an interplay of different kinds of arguments; usually persuasion works best if there is a balanced interplay of what my rhetorics mentor always called the "three musketeers" of rhetorics: ethos, pathos and logos.

Logos is the appeal to the logic of the message itself (i.e. that what most science communicators actually want to get across)

Pathos is the appeal to emotion (i.e. find a way for your argument to actually mean something tangible to your audience. "Think of the children" is crude, but it works. In science communication, think about the endless appeals to the sublime by, say, Brain Cox; it's not enough to tell people facts about astronomy, you have to engage imaginations etc.)

Ethos is the appeal to messenger credibility. (i.e. Professor McSmartypants, with a PhD and a university appointment will be more credible than Dave from down the Fox and Duck. The anonymised "truth must speak for itself" trope that many science bloggers engage in is quite self defeating)

Less often mentioned but also quite important there is also Kairos which is the appeal to the spacial and temporal context in which an argument is made (e.g. the same argument will have different persuasiveness depending on when and where it is made. We've had debates about the Colston statue for decades, but only now during the BLM protests have they started to become persuasive to many people - that's Kairos).

If you look at any well-crafted political speech you can discern these very clearly, and look how they interplay. It's a very useful classroom activity, and quite fun.

I love this post. I started the thread because I think I have some of the same issues with sci comm as you do, but especially because of your opening sentence:

What is interesting in the whole debate about how to change minds is that it needs to be able to go both ways - i.e. if there is a clear reliable mechanism by which you can change someone's mind, they should be able to use that on you too.

It was also because I noticed that we here sometimes argue about the same topics, and people tend to take the same sides as they always have, and it was just fascinating to think that this forum has a legacy of debunking, and discussing the best ways to debunk, and yet we're as likely to not budge when it comes to our own arguments.

[discovolante]

Meta post.


Let's have a look at my previous contribution. Don't know whether you found it convincing, I hope so, but at least I have tried to live by these rules.

The logos of the argument I hope speaks for itself (you can take it or leave it, but the raw information on Aristotle etc. is there)
The pathos was my constant appeal to science communication and how it's done wrong, as this is something that I know you lot are interested in. I've even been slightly disparaging about sci com, not too much to lose you I hope, but hopefully enough to get you emotionally invested in what I had to say.
The ethos was embedded in several throwaway remarks that I hope you have spotted. I mentioned my rhetorics tutor, implying that I have some formal education on this; I also ended with a remark about classroom activities which indicates I actually teach this stuff. So I have clearly established that I'm more professor McSmartypants than some random internet dude, and that therefore you should listen to me.

Kairos, ok well I haven't really bothered with that, as kairos is usually slightly outside the speaker's control.

This is like Derren Brown when he tells you how he does his tricks but he doesn't really.

That was an interesting post though, thanks. While I was reading it people like Ben Shapiro came to mind and his 'facts don't care about your feelings' slogan which has been nicely shown to be wrong, but also how his 'facts' always strangely seem to lean towards rightwing ideology. So he is putting across a front that says 'I am super logical, therefore everything I say is completely rational and correct' but also appealing to his followers' (young men mostly I think) egos by letting them think that they are super logical too and intellectually superior, which is the total opposite of inquisitiveness and truth-seeking. Obviously Ben Shapiro is an easy target though.

[Tessa K]

This is like Derren Brown when he tells you how he does his tricks but he doesn't really.

That was an interesting post though, thanks. While I was reading it people like Ben Shapiro came to mind and his 'facts don't care about your feelings' slogan which has been nicely shown to be wrong, but also how his 'facts' always strangely seem to lean towards rightwing ideology. So he is putting across a front that says 'I am super logical, therefore everything I say is completely rational and correct' but also appealing to his followers' (young men mostly I think) egos by letting them think that they are super logical too and intellectually superior, which is the total opposite of inquisitiveness and truth-seeking. Obviously Ben Shapiro is an easy target though.

You can't Spock someone into changing their mind.

I used to work with someone who thought it was enough to batter people with statistics - not a great tactic.

It is a good idea to question your motives first. If you're just trying to prove your superiority then we've established that's not a good motive. Some people think they're doing it for someone else's good but this can all too easily be patronising and superior too.

Saying that the truth matters is not the simple answer it seems to be because it can be like kicking away someone's crutch and then walking away. Dawkins is guilty of this and the 'doing it for your own good' reason a lot when it comes to belief systems in the broadest sense.

There was an experiment done with baby monkeys where they were offered a hard wire frame with a feeding bottle in it or a soft furry female shape with no bottle. Most went for the furry one. If you're going to change someone's mind you need to give them both. It can be quite a responsibility.

[jimbob]

Nice few posts.

Saying that the truth matters is not the simple answer it seems to be because it can be like kicking away someone's crutch and then walking away. Dawkins is guilty of this and the 'doing it for your own good' reason a lot when it comes to belief systems in the broadest sense.

Nicely put, and crystallises something that had made me uneasy about Dawkins... Well that and the whole "Brights" thing, which is a fine way of putting people's backs up.

[Tessa K]

Nice few posts.

Saying that the truth matters is not the simple answer it seems to be because it can be like kicking away someone's crutch and then walking away. Dawkins is guilty of this and the 'doing it for your own good' reason a lot when it comes to belief systems in the broadest sense.

Nicely put, and crystallises something that had made me uneasy about Dawkins... Well that and the whole "Brights" thing, which is a fine way of putting people's backs up.

The Brights:

[Gentleman Jim]

Who will present this?
Carol Smillie or Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen?

[Millennie Al]

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves.

I don't think it is a mistake. Suppose I had the power to convince you of anything I liked. When should I use this power?

1. Whenever I like
2. Whenever I am really sure that I am right
3. Never

The correct answer is obviously "Never". Anything else is unethical as to use such a power is to abuse it. I should only use the truth to persuade - not rhetorical tricks.

[warumich]

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves.

I don't think it is a mistake. Suppose I had the power to convince you of anything I liked. When should I use this power?

1. Whenever I like
2. Whenever I am really sure that I am right
3. Never

The correct answer is obviously "Never". Anything else is unethical as to use such a power is to abuse it. I should only use the truth to persuade - not rhetorical tricks.

Not entirely sure what you're objecting to here, as I wrote in the first paragraph that mere persuasion is exactly what I don't think you're after. But maybe it wasn't entirely well explained, sorry.

Having said that, I do think that science communication often makes the mistake of neglecting the element of persuasion (and I'm saying this partly because I have a PhD in science communication, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things. Spot the ethos here!).

I know rhetorics has a bad reputation, but it's not a magic superpower that lets anyone be able to persuade anyone else of everything. There's a reason why ethos, pathos and kairos are persuasive, and that's not because they are made of fairy dust - there's a logic to them that you can harness in an ethical way (or an unethical way if you're so inclined of course). Ethos should be clear, because an argument rarely uses pure logic that can be followed from first principles, instead there will be matter of facts involved at some point which could conceivably be wrong and therefore the listener needs to have a reason to trust the messenger. Formal qualifications are one thing, but ethos also covers trust through other means like friendship, kinship, peer review etc. It's a perfectly logical. Pathos and kairos maybe a bit less obviously neutral and yes emotional appeal can be used to push wrong messages, but nevertheless I think there is a clear logic to the point that a message is only persuasive if it means something tangible to the audience.

So if you want to do science communication, you'll have to a) find a way to make the message relevant to your audience otherwise there's no point, and b) convince your audience that you know what you're talking about. I don't think this should be controversial, even if these are exactly the same techniques that anyone wanting to spread false information should also use.

[jimbob]

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves.

I don't think it is a mistake. Suppose I had the power to convince you of anything I liked. When should I use this power?

1. Whenever I like
2. Whenever I am really sure that I am right
3. Never

The correct answer is obviously "Never". Anything else is unethical as to use such a power is to abuse it. I should only use the truth to persuade - not rhetorical tricks.

Well that's a different hypothetical situation.

Let's take a real situation.

Imagine that smoking is legal for those over 18, but we know it causes harm to the smoker, and often people around the smoker.

We don't want to infringe on someone's right to smoke, but we do want to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

We could make posters with all the papers showing links between smoking and various illnesses. Or we could make posters showing photos of typical diseases caused by smoking especially where it's pretty clear the particular examples were caused by smoking.

Both are true. But the second has more impact. So I guess you'd be in favour of the first.

I also assume, you think that Richard Dawkins wanting to call Atheists, "Brights" should also work as that puts people's backs up, so they'd really need to be convinced by everything else?

Or alternatively, what Warumich said above...

[nekomatic]

This is a great discussion and IMHO a rare expedition back to the original, er, ethos* of what this place and its predecessor are/were about. Please continue.

Also the three musketeers of rhetoric gag made me laugh heartily.

[Tessa K]

There's a big difference between using words (and images) to engage attention, make people think and make an idea stay with them and using them as propaganda or manipulation.

A prime example would be charity adverts. They educate the viewer to the facts and hope to persuade them to donate. The same tactics are used in propaganda to manipulate people into changing their minds, making them see the enemy as Other and therefore a legitimate target, to get them to enlist etc. They both get personal.

A dry argument, no matter how factual and reasoned, is not going to work as well as a message underlined with something to engage the emotions. Good (effective) educators and persuaders don't separate reason and emotion, they know that certain speech rhythms and rhetotical devices will engage people's 'hearts and minds', that no decision is made without some emotional input and that getting personal either in the examples used or in references to the lives of the listeners will be the most effective tactic.

There's nothing wrong with persuasion in itself. Just ask Jane Austen.

[jimbob]

There's a big difference between using words (and images) to engage attention, make people think and make an idea stay with them and using them as propaganda or manipulation.

A prime example would be charity adverts. They educate the viewer to the facts and hope to persuade them to donate. The same tactics are used in propaganda to manipulate people into changing their minds, making them see the enemy as Other and therefore a legitimate target, to get them to enlist etc. They both get personal.

A dry argument, no matter how factual and reasoned, is not going to work as well as a message underlined with something to engage the emotions. Good (effective) educators and persuaders don't separate reason and emotion, they know that certain speech rhythms and rhetotical devices will engage people's 'hearts and minds', that no decision is made without some emotional input and that getting personal either in the examples used or in references to the lives of the listeners will be the most effective tactic.

There's nothing wrong with persuasion in itself. Just ask Jane Austen.

Indeed, emotions are needed to work out what is actually important.

Pretending otherwise is an illusion

[raven]

Indeed, emotions are needed to work out what is actually important.

Pretending otherwise is an illusion

Funny. I distrust my emotional responses to debate precisely because they are emotional. I've learnt over the years that what I should do is examine the emotion, work out where it came from and whether it's a valid reaction or not before I let it influence what I think.

For instance, on hearing Dawkins supports calling people like me Brights I got an immediate urge to defenestrate him. And I could easily justify that with a rant about how 'bright' is a value-ladened term and he's implying those who aren't in his in-group are lesser citizens. But if I think about it a little longer, I realise that visceral reaction comes mostly from a school history of being singled out as 'bright', and my contemporaries reactions to that, not all admiring, quite often disdainful, but also the friends that were told in no uncertain terms that they weren't bright on a fairly regular basis and were damaged by it, and how divisive it is to categorise kids like that.

So defenestration was an over-reaction because 'bright' touches a nerve. But I still think it's a terrible idea to divide people into groups by some fairly arbitary characteristic that afaik depends mostly on upbringing & exposure to new concepts.

Tear-jerking charity adverts don't work on me either. Hate them. Manipulative, and I know it.

[Tessa K]

Indeed, emotions are needed to work out what is actually important.

Pretending otherwise is an illusion

Funny. I distrust my emotional responses to debate precisely because they are emotional. I've learnt over the years that what I should do is examine the emotion, work out where it came from and whether it's a valid reaction or not before I let it influence what I think.

For instance, on hearing Dawkins supports calling people like me Brights I got an immediate urge to defenestrate him. And I could easily justify that with a rant about how 'bright' is a value-ladened term and he's implying those who aren't in his in-group are lesser citizens. But if I think about it a little longer, I realise that visceral reaction comes mostly from a school history of being singled out as 'bright', and my contemporaries reactions to that, not all admiring, quite often disdainful, but also the friends that were told in no uncertain terms that they weren't bright on a fairly regular basis and were damaged by it, and how divisive it is to categorise kids like that.

So defenestration was an over-reaction because 'bright' touches a nerve. But I still think it's a terrible idea to divide people into groups by some fairly arbitary characteristic that afaik depends mostly on upbringing & exposure to new concepts.

Tear-jerking charity adverts don't work on me either. Hate them. Manipulative, and I know it.

There is a difference between strong emotions triggered by certain situations or words - like your Dawkins example, which I wholly support - and the less overwhelming emotional response to an idea that attracts us to it, that makes us feel satified when we think something through that we're happy with the conclusion, for example.

Loewenstein and Lerner divide emotions during decision-making into two types: those anticipating future emotions and those immediately experienced while deliberating and deciding. Damasio formulated the somatic marker hypothesis (SMH), that proposes a mechanism by which emotional processes can guide (or bias) behavior, particularly decision-making... Emotions, as defined by Damasio, are changes in both body and brain states in response to different stimuli. Physiological changes (e.g., muscle tone, heart rate, endocrine release, posture, facial expression, etc.) occur in the body and are relayed to the brain where they are transformed into an emotion that tells the individual something about the stimulus that they have encountered. Over time, emotions and their corresponding bodily change(s) become associated with particular situations and their past outcomes.

When making decisions, these physiological signals (or ‘somatic markers’) and their evoked emotion are consciously or unconsciously associated with their past outcomes and bias decision-making towards certain behaviors while avoiding others

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_ ... ing#Impact

or just read the conclusion of this from p33 https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenni ... final_.pdf

That's just a very quick scan but there's loads out there on how emotions can't be separated from decision making in the broadest sense of deciding what ideas etc appeal to you, how easily you will choose to change your mind (or not) and so on. Often we're not aware of the emotional component which is probably why this area of study is comparatively recent. Antonio Damasio's book Descartes' Error is a good introduction.

Yes, charity ads are manipulative but you may have noticed they are mainly shown during the day when a large proportion of the audience is made of old people who the charities hope will be more soft-hearted and easily moved (in between the ads for funeral plans, cruises, over 50s life insurance and equity release).

[Millennie Al]

The mistake made by many science communicators is that they neglect the element of persuasion, usually out of some philosophical conviction that the logic of the arguments will speak for themselves.

I don't think it is a mistake. Suppose I had the power to convince you of anything I liked. When should I use this power?

1. Whenever I like
2. Whenever I am really sure that I am right
3. Never

The correct answer is obviously "Never". Anything else is unethical as to use such a power is to abuse it. I should only use the truth to persuade - not rhetorical tricks.

Well that's a different hypothetical situation.

Let's take a real situation.

Imagine that smoking is legal for those over 18, but we know it causes harm to the smoker, and often people around the smoker.

We don't want to infringe on someone's right to smoke, but we do want to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

We could make posters with all the papers showing links between smoking and various illnesses. Or we could make posters showing photos of typical diseases caused by smoking especially where it's pretty clear the particular examples were caused by smoking.

Both are true. But the second has more impact. So I guess you'd be in favour of the first.

That depends on whether the photos were a fair representation of the facts or a biased sample intended to exaggerate the risks. The way to see if the technique is wrong is to ask if the same technique could promote smoking as easily as suppress it. If so, it's wrong. If it ultimately relies on the truth for it to work, then it's ok.

In this example, suppose a tobacco company were to reverse the technique and show photos of people enjoying smoking, would that be just as effective at encouraging smoking as the disease photos were at reducing it?

I also assume, you think that Richard Dawkins wanting to call Atheists, "Brights" should also work as that puts people's backs up, so they'd really need to be convinced by everything else?

There's a huge difference between exploiting people's emotions to make them believe you and provoking their emotions into making them disbelieve you. In fact the latter is also bad for a similar reason - it engages peoples emotions to the detriment of rational analysis, so you are doing them a disservice that way also.

[Stephanie]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

[discovolante]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

Yeah it's an odd one.

Not really related to changing minds or persuasion tactics but if I'm having a discussion online and someone says something I strongly disagree with, my first reaction is a rush of hot rage (way more than real life discussions!). When that happens I usually try and leave some time before responding so I don't just fly off the handle. But even when I've calmed down a bit it doesn't mean I'm totally neutral and detached. I don't see how that is really possible? I may be getting confused about what people are trying to say here (sorry I don't think i totally follow what your links are saying Tessa, please feel free to explain further for the hard of understanding) but I don't think that just being completely neutral about everything is always necessarily a good thing. For one thing it seems like it would reduce your capacity for empathy and well, just because you have stripped all emotion from a subject doesn't necessarily mean you are looking at it entirely rationally.

Obviously if you are doing an RCT on I dunno how chemical x interacts with chemical y, and you 'want' to see a certain result, then you need to detach yourself emotionally, but I'm not sure how far that can apply in the real world.

[discovolante]

Haha sorry my RCT example was f.cking awful, holy sh.t my brain is sludge at the moment.

[Tessa K]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

Yeah it's an odd one.

Not really related to changing minds or persuasion tactics but if I'm having a discussion online and someone says something I strongly disagree with, my first reaction is a rush of hot rage (way more than real life discussions!). When that happens I usually try and leave some time before responding so I don't just fly off the handle. But even when I've calmed down a bit it doesn't mean I'm totally neutral and detached. I don't see how that is really possible? I may be getting confused about what people are trying to say here (sorry I don't think i totally follow what your links are saying Tessa, please feel free to explain further for the hard of understanding) but I don't think that just being completely neutral about everything is always necessarily a good thing. For one thing it seems like it would reduce your capacity for empathy and well, just because you have stripped all emotion from a subject doesn't necessarily mean you are looking at it entirely rationally.

Obviously if you are doing an RCT on I dunno how chemical x interacts with chemical y, and you 'want' to see a certain result, then you need to detach yourself emotionally, but I'm not sure how far that can apply in the real world.

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis

It's very Spock, isn't it? Or early Spock at least. The emotion versus reason argument was used for a long time to denigrate women's thinking; we're all emotion and men are all reason. Or put another way, we're nature and they're culture (in the widest sense) That's another reason I dislike the discounting of emotion. I'm not saying that people here are being sexist in any way but that view is a cultural artefact that may colour thinking without us realising.

The links were just a quick illustration of how entangled our emotions and thought processes are, nothing more complicated than that.

There's an interesting (repeat) series on iPlayer at the moment about the history of the Stiff Upper Lip. There's more to it than emotion/reason but that is part of it, including the more detrimental and gender-biased side of being always rational and supressing or denying emotion.

And yes, I agree that trying to be neutral can reduce empathy.

If you're doing an RCT (or anything else that require focus and objectivity) then being calm helps but there are emotions going on in the background that can help or hinder. And of course there's the Dance of Joy when you get a good result.

[raven]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

I don't think emotions are bad. I just think that acting on 'gut reactions' - fast, and usually strong emotional responses to something - without stopping to examine where they come from, or make an attempt to think more deeply about things can lead you astray. In both decision making, and in debates.

(Aside: I read Thinking, Fast and Slow a couple years back. Fascinating stuff on how we make decisions, most of which made sense to me and only a small part of which made me shouty.)

Some emotions - anger, frustration, distress - can certainly derail debate. I'm sure we've all seen that happen, on-line especially. Quite often if someone posts something with, say, an angry tone, people react to that tone rather than the point they're making. (That's not to say that's right, it's just an observation that that's how people tend to act.) So when I'm debating with people who hold opposing views online, I generally try to do it calmly because I think I'm more likely to be listened to.

Although that does not mean I'm neutral, and I'm not above making arguments based on emotion either. Like... Analogies, say. If you can create a good what-if-you-were-in-this-situation scenario to illustrate a point, then that can make someone more likely to listen and more likely to understand where you're coming from, even if they don't agree. That's the reason anecdotes work so well to convince people, I think. Personal, immediate, easy to understand. And we're all progammed to enjoy stories and empathise with the characters in them.

So, yes, I'm probably just as manipulative as those charity adverts. I just tend to do it via empathy instead of guilt.

I'm not saying debates have to be logic and unemotional. It was more a point about not letting your emotions control you during one. Although, thinking about it, I'm probably more likely to appeal to logic than emotion simply because that is more likely to convince me.

Anyhow... The other thing I wanted to say was that when I've changed my mind on big issues, it's never been overnight. It's been after multiple exposures to new information/other points of view. So I reckon it's always worth challenging views you don't agree with and putting the other side. Even if the person challenged doesn't change their mind immediately, they may later on.

[jimbob]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

Exactly.

Without emotion how do you care to assign the value to anything? How do you assign importance to any decision? Deciding to change jobs would have the same emotional impact as deciding whether to wear a coat when it's cold.

How do you decide that it's vile to take advantage of someone for personal gain without emotions.

Your values, which inform your ethics are based on emotions.

[Tessa K]

I'm absolutely fascinated by this idea that emotions are "bad" in some way, and get in the way of "rational analysis".

I don't think emotions are bad. I just think that acting on 'gut reactions' - fast, and usually strong emotional responses to something - without stopping to examine where they come from, or make an attempt to think more deeply about things can lead you astray. In both decision making, and in debates.

(Aside: I read Thinking, Fast and Slow a couple years back. Fascinating stuff on how we make decisions, most of which made sense to me and only a small part of which made me shouty.)

Some emotions - anger, frustration, distress - can certainly derail debate. I'm sure we've all seen that happen, on-line especially. Quite often if someone posts something with, say, an angry tone, people react to that tone rather than the point they're making. (That's not to say that's right, it's just an observation that that's how people tend to act.) So when I'm debating with people who hold opposing views online, I generally try to do it calmly because I think I'm more likely to be listened to.

Although that does not mean I'm neutral, and I'm not above making arguments based on emotion either. Like... Analogies, say. If you can create a good what-if-you-were-in-this-situation scenario to illustrate a point, then that can make someone more likely to listen and more likely to understand where you're coming from, even if they don't agree. That's the reason anecdotes work so well to convince people, I think. Personal, immediate, easy to understand. And we're all progammed to enjoy stories and empathise with the characters in them.

So, yes, I'm probably just as manipulative as those charity adverts. I just tend to do it via empathy instead of guilt.

I'm not saying debates have to be logic and unemotional. It was more a point about not letting your emotions control you during one. Although, thinking about it, I'm probably more likely to appeal to logic than emotion simply because that is more likely to convince me.

Anyhow... The other thing I wanted to say was that when I've changed my mind on big issues, it's never been overnight. It's been after multiple exposures to new information/other points of view. So I reckon it's always worth challenging views you don't agree with and putting the other side. Even if the person challenged doesn't change their mind immediately, they may later on.

The old 'count to ten' advice is still useful when it comes to debates or responding on social media or just life in general so that strong immediate emotions don't derail you.

Logic and empathy can work hand in hand, for example Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. He's a philosopher writing in a rational, logical way about empathy. He is thinking in societal terms but it is applicable more broadly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

I agree that there is rarely a Road to Damascus conversion moment when we change our minds - about anything complex and central to our beliefs/views, anyway. So yes, sowing the seeds or repeated dripping or whatever metaphor works for you can succeed.

Another factor in changing minds is who is trying to make the change. Quite often we have certain beliefs or attitudes because we strongly identify with other people who hold them, or want to be part of that group and its perceived benefits. So when someone changes their mind they may have to leave that group and deal with the emotional, social and perhaps financial fallout from that especially if they've been part of it for some time. If the new viewpoint comes with an attractive group then that makes the change easier. So there are wider consequences beyond the individual's thought processes that may need to be taken into account and that can be quite a responsibility.

[Stephanie]

Hilda Bastian talks a bit about this:
https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2017/0 ... -evidence/

I didn’t change deeply held beliefs because someone convinced me in one discussion, or even a few. It was a process over years. The scientists and others who influenced me weren’t cheerleaders for the establishment. They were critical of weak research and arguments, regardless of whose interests it served. And they didn’t just expect people like me to believe them because they were experts. They wanted to increase the expertise of others in scientific thinking, especially community leaders.

I had been defending my community’s side in a heated controversy for years. When I changed position, it was a major upheaval. But I was still a member of the community, with many long and very deep ties. It was a two-way street – a lot of reciprocity (another form of social capital).

Being an insider made it harder for people to dismiss me, although some saw me as a traitor and cast me as one of “them” now. Being well-known and still in their midst made it harder for that to gain traction.