02-20-2017 04:59 PM
#76
| |
| |
02-20-2017 05:13 PM
#77
| |
02-20-2017 05:19 PM
#78
| |
| |
02-20-2017 05:20 PM
#79
| |
|
Yep. |
02-20-2017 05:23 PM
#80
| |
|
He's doing multiple things. Cernovich is first and foremost a self-brander. He's been explicit about it. His game is likely mostly just about these two elements: (1) making money, (2) uncucking the world. |
02-20-2017 05:35 PM
#81
| |
|
It's funny, Adams might have a blog post about one of the most persuasive words in the English language: "because". He might describe how Cialdini discusses that it doesn't matter what comes after the "because". Studies show just including that word increases the desired response of the subject. Then he might end the post with something like "buy my book because this post is persuasive." |
02-21-2017 06:41 PM
#82
| |
|
|
02-22-2017 12:31 PM
#83
| |
|
This is response to Oskar. Moved it here: |
Last edited by wufwugy; 02-22-2017 at 12:34 PM. | |
02-22-2017 12:38 PM
#84
| |
| |
02-22-2017 12:39 PM
#85
| |
What's genius about these persuaders is that they've managed to sell others on the concept that they're doing something besides paraphrasing Dale Carnegie. | |
02-22-2017 01:33 PM
#86
| |
| |
02-22-2017 01:36 PM
#87
| |
| |
02-22-2017 01:42 PM
#88
| |
02-22-2017 01:45 PM
#89
| |
|
It's magic! |
02-22-2017 02:00 PM
#90
| |
02-22-2017 02:01 PM
#91
| |
|
Yeah he's teaching straight from the grave. It's a fact. The fact that you do not know this fact shows that you are in fact indoctrinated by the deep state. |
02-22-2017 02:18 PM
#92
| |
02-22-2017 02:21 PM
#93
| |
| |
02-22-2017 11:09 PM
#94
| |
Why do you credit Scott Adams so much for persuasion? He writes dilbert. | |
02-23-2017 02:05 PM
#95
| |
|
Adams began blogging about persuasion after he saw an in on the topic due to Trump. He was my in to the topic. He was one of the first people (possibly the first) to publicly state that Trump was going to win the election due to his use of persuasion, and he spent the next year explaining Trump's behavior every step of the way in such a way that makes sense within the constraints of early persuaders like Cialdini and Carnegie. |
02-23-2017 02:54 PM
#96
| |
02-23-2017 03:34 PM
#97
| |
|
You're right, it's not, in an abstract sense. But when you ask people the things they think their decision making is mostly based in reason on, they tend to have an endless list; yet what persuaders argue is that the only kinds of things that reason plays a dominant role in decision making is things where emotion has no part whatsoever (like balancing a checkbook). |
02-23-2017 03:47 PM
#98
| |
10-20-2017 04:12 PM
#99
| |
|
|
10-20-2017 04:55 PM
#100
| |
I like to think most people don't automatically agree or disagree with a political view merely based on who else supports it. | |
10-20-2017 06:16 PM
#101
| |
|
I agree with the sentiment that people don't agree or disagree with a political view based on its support by another. However, I do think that the support of another frames the issue in their mind in a way that they can rationalize in the direction of their political (not policy*) preferences. What I'm getting at is how there are convincing cases that can be made for each of opposing views, and most people can make those convincing cases if they tried. Yet, when they enter the idea-space with the frame that somebody they think is always wrong has an opinion, their minds are primed to make the convincing case against that person's opinion. |
10-20-2017 06:37 PM
#102
| |
Framing is for sure a thing. And some people certainly hard stuck in whatever political mindset they belong to. | |
10-20-2017 07:10 PM
#103
| |
|
Yeah even if they don't do that, the videos probably still aren't persuasive. They're just preaching to the choir type videos. |
10-28-2017 05:38 AM
#104
| |
| |
10-28-2017 05:44 AM
#105
| |
| |
10-28-2017 05:46 AM
#106
| |
| |
10-28-2017 01:01 PM
#107
| |
| |