A quick note on creating effective arguments.

[xiphias]

In order to convince people of things, you have to associate basic things with other basic things. When you're creating arguments, you need to equate things -- actions you want people to do or avoid, people you wish to support or oppose -- with concepts that have strong emotional values.

Note that word: "equate". When you are making arguments, you can make arguments about what people or things ARE -- but you can't effectively make arguments about what people or things ARE NOT.

For instance, "Obama" is a person, and a concept. "A Muslim" is also a concept.

"Not a Muslim" is NOT a simple, basic concept. You can't argue effectively that "Obama" = "Not a Muslim", because "Not a Muslim" isn't a concept that has any real emotional heft to it.

So, if you state the true statement that "Obama is not a Muslim," it gets parsed as "OBAMA" "EQUALS" "not A MUSLIM"

The "not" gets lost. Or it gets moved around a bit, to the level that the hearer might remember, "Xiphias doesn't believe that Obama is a Muslim."

Which is a true statement, but the emotional heft gets moved to "disagreeing with Xiphias" rather than changing one's mind.

Similarly: "MUSLIMS" "ARE" not "TERRORISTS".

A new online ad is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DImb7jvSbaw

The first ten seconds or so -- are not going to help. People don't hear the "don't" in those statements.

However, I have some hope that the "I am an American, I am a Muslim" parts will help.

Comments

[sethg]

Advertising is like managing small children. “Play with this thing over here” is usually a more effective redirection strategy than “don’t touch that”. “I’m a Mac” is a more effective advertising theme than “I’m not a PC”.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, yes!

Redirect, don't negate. Negate just makes you PINK ELEPHANTS AUGH.

[delerium69.livejournal.com]

There are times in my life when I consider becoming a hermit. Are hermits allowed to have pets?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

That's what hermit crabs are for.

Also, cats.

[delerium69.livejournal.com]

*grins*

[ron_newman]

Some folks say the "not your father's Oldsmobile" ad campaign backfired for this reason.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

<"rant>

ARGH!

Sometimes I think I should just give up.

I can argue objectively, but if we are arguing objectively you had damn well better be following the rules too, in which case logical negation (not) is important, and you had better damn well pay attention to it...

Or I can argue emotionally, but if we are arguing emotionally you had damn well better be following the rules for arguing emotionally; in that case the best we can do is each explain our point of view and agree on a mutually non-destructive course of action, so you damn well better not be trying to change my mind, or tell me that I am wrong, or shouldn't do or believe something.

Conflating objective and emotional argument is just wrong. It's dishonest, evil, and manipulative. If that's the way humans work, maybe I should just give up on the whole thing (arguing with humans, that is).

ARGH!

<"/rant>

Kiralee

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

May I cosign your rant? I so utterly share your frustration.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

Certainly. At least now I know I'm not alone ranting in the wilderness.

Kiralee

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I CAN'T give up arguing with humans. Where I live is chock full of 'em, and, in fact, they make up a very large and significant part of my society. In fact, some of my best friends are humans.

And the only two ways to modify society are argument and force. And when I'm not happy with my society, I want to change it. And I'd rather not use force. So I'm left with argument, and I'm left with argument with humans.

There are people who you can convince with logic. But not many of 'em, not for things like this.

So we've got a situation. I want my society to be better, as I define better. In order to make that happen, I need to either convince people of things, or force them to behave in certain ways. I further believe that a society in which I have to force people to do things is worse than a society in which I can convince people of things.

So, I find myself in the situation that I have to convince people of things in order to make society work better, as I define better.

Now, I've got two choices: I can argue in a way that I personally would find most theoretically pleasing, or in a way that is most effective. As my goal is actual on-the-ground change, I'm going with "most effective, congruent with ethical and honorable behavior."

I can be frustrated by the nature of humans, or I can simply use that to guide my behavior.

To me, a rhetoritician being frustrated by the irrationality of humans is like a mechanical engineer being frustrated by friction. It's there, it's a force, if you take it into account, you can use it to your benefit. Lots of things would be easier without it, but, without it, you wouldn't be working in the real world, and, in fact, lots of OTHER things would be IMPOSSIBLE without it.

Creating arguments out of pure logic is like designing machines that will only work in frictionless vacuums. On spherical cattle of uniform density.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

That would be why it's a rant, xiphias... or do you think mechanical engineers never rant about friction... or gravity... or that I'm not breaking my 'resolution' to quit arguing with humans even as we speak.

More seriously... to me, conflating objective and emotional argument isn't "most effective, congruent with ethical and honorable behavior" because it isn't ethical or honorable.

Further, if there was one way that I would like to make the world a better place, it would be to make it clear to humans in general which contexts it was appropriate / effective to argue objectively in, and which contexts it was appropriate / effective to argue emotionally in; along with how to do both effectively, understanding of the damage that's done to individuals and society when they are conflated (eg why it isn't ethical or honorable), and the means to detect and stop the conflation, at least most of the time.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about your facts, or that your response to the facts is invalid. I'm just saying that it's enough to (almost) drive me to despair.

Oh... and I'm a mathematician... creating arguments out of pure logic is what we do... how dare you imply that it's meaningless :).

Kiralee

[amberdine.livejournal.com]

This is the same principle used in goal setting and affirmations. Always state things positively. Little negating terms are overlooked by the subconscious.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yup. Same principle at work there.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

That's what I was going to say! About the subconscious.

[snippy]

And raising children. Frame your rules with positives, they don't hear the "don't" in "don't do that."

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

So they should say "Obama is a Christian?" instead?

I hope no one ever decides to start saying I'm a Muslim. "Stakebait is an atheist of half-Jewish extraction who identifies with that part of her ethnicity even though it's not the right parent for it to count in Jewish law" is definitely NOT a basic thing.