| « | "Their" Shot? |
»
|
|
Monday, October 10, 2005
Seducing The Other
How one might best persuade others to adopt one's own convictions is a matter of ongoing interest to any rational man. Of course, it's a classical problem without a general solution, but even so we've learned certain specific things about it -- as usual, more from our failures than from our successes. Virtually everything we've learned has been about the inadequacies of argumentative tools.
1. Logic is seldom enough.
"You cannot reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into." -- Multiply attributed, and possibly apocryphal in all cases, but true nonetheless
A man may hold a position on an issue of substance for any of the following reasons:
- He deduced it from a set of clearly understood premises;
- He induced it from a series of data provided by the world around him;
- He experienced a revelation -- that is, a private and unshareable event;
- He inherited it from his parents;
- He was indoctrinated or brainwashed into it;
- He adopted it the better to emulate some admired figure;
- He finds it tactically useful in pursuing something he wants.
Perhaps there are other avenues by which one may acquire and uphold a significant, publicly expressed conviction, whether sincerely or otherwise, but the above cover the overwhelming majority of cases.
Of the above mechanisms, only 1 and 2 can be affected by rational counter-argument. Not only are mechanisms 3 through 7 proof against disputation; the attempt to reason against them often provokes a severely hostile response. They are not irrational but a-rational; that is, reason and evidence are not relevant to them.
2. You can't argue premises.
This self-evident truth seems to baffle many persons. A theist -- one who believes in the existence of God -- cannot prove his belief by any widely accepted standard for proof. Neither can an atheist, who maintains that God cannot possibly exist. Both positions are matters of faith: premises, from which further positions might be drawn, and upon which they would stand. In some cases, a premise arises from one of the a-rational causes above; in others, a chain of evidence or experiences synergizes with the believer's emotional predispositions or early training. But in no case can one precipitate a conversion away from the premise with logic.
A premise can sometimes be defeated by counter-example, but that requires the premise itself to be weak or weakly defended. Conspiratorialists form an interesting case study. The staunchest conspiratorialists are able to dismiss any counter-example thrust at them with a deft adjustment of their theories. There's always enough that can never be known to allow them to nudge the evidence against their contention into the land of might-have-beens. The acid test is Michael Emerling's "onus of criterion" tactic: when asked what evidence, if it could be found and presented to him, would persuade him that his conspiracy theory is not true, the champion conspiratorialist will:
- Evade the question, or:
- Admit that he can imagine no such discovery, or:
- Accuse you of being part of the conspiracy.
Such a position is better armored than our tools can pierce.
3. Hypocrisy.
The Greek roots of the word "hypocrisy" mean "the reason beneath." He who proclaims a position hypocritically has some reason other than his stated one for holding it. This is often the case in politics, where special-interest groups routinely conceal their lust for largesse or provincial advantage behind a veil of pretended concern for "the public good."
Yet the hypocrite is more reachable than the a-rational man or the premise holder: there's something he wants, and he conceives his espoused position as instrumental to getting it. If polemicist Smith can show hypocrite Jones that there's another way to get it that doesn't require him to misrepresent his reasons, he has a chance to change Jones's position.
This is not always possible, for two reasons:
- It might be impossible for Smith to learn Jones's real motives;
- Jones's real reason for his position might be morally unacceptable.
Marshall Fritz, founder of the Advocates for Self-Government, put it thus: There's no point in talking to someone who's into world domination.
The late Don LaVoie once gave a marvelous presentation on "Seducing The Left." LaVoie oriented his talk toward the specific goals and predispositions of the typical left-liberal, and exhorted libertarian activists to treat them as worthy of sober consideration, even respect. He decried the typical "mask of moral horror" the freedom activist displays toward the left-liberal, pointing out that leftists are proud of their moral positions. You cannot blast a man out of a position of which he's proud with a frontal assault; you must seduce him away from it with a higher priority or a better vision.
But really, it's the same with anyone, no matter what positions he holds. He has his reasons, whether or not they seem reasonable to anyone else. No man worthy of other men's respect has ever surrendered his position out of distaste at being called an idiot, or a monster.
That doesn't mean there are no idiots nor monsters to contend with, of course.
Comments
In answer to your “And?” of yesterday, is another question that you seemed to have addressed with this “Seducing the Other.” You know me better than I know my own mind.
I also have since learned the meaning of that name (after all these years!) I constantly bring up: dweller in the valley. Delightfully I find that phrase may be way understated. It carries an optimistic note; it connotes a choice, still. Dwell. Shallow or deeply?
Posted by Pascal Fervor on 10/10/2005 at 07:16 PMThis is why I debate gun control supporters, and not shout at them. This is why I discuss facts and give links to data and acts of self-defense. I try to challenge their assumptoins, to make them question their own beliefs.
Unfortunately it’s too often a case of leading a horse to water - but I do so publicly so that other horses might follow along and decide to drink.
That works, now and again.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 10/10/2005 at 09:17 PMI feel the real challenge to leftists is the disconnect between their stated premises and the policy stances of their party.
One of the reasons I was formerly more comfortable with the Left (but never committed—I voted for Nixon in ‘72) was that I took at face value their claims to support liberty, self-determination, and the rest.
It wasn’t until I gained the perspective to see the disconnect between the Left’s words and behaviors that I began to drift away and become more a man of the Right.
There are committed socialists on the Left, and you’re right: no amount of countervailing evidence will serve to convert those. But there are legions of the confused, who do not, cannot, or will not see the disconnect. If it can be convincingly adduced, there is a chance that some of them will come across.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 10/11/2005 at 08:54 AM
