Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Persuasion

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 107 of 107
  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    From one of the top persuaders of our time: "Sufficiently advanced persuasion is indistinguishable from madness."

    https://twitter.com/cernovich/status/762000443413258240
    Money on this being some sort of meta persuasion where he is so good at persuasion he's persuading people other people are persuasive.
  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Money on this being some sort of meta persuasion where he is so good at persuasion he's persuading people other people are persuasive.
    More likely he's persuading suckers to buy his book.
  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    More likely he's persuading suckers to buy his book.
    Ohh yeah, yep.
  4. #79
    Yep.
  5. #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.

    Persuasion works even when the target is being told they're being persuaded (and sometimes because they're being told).
  6. #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."

    I got his book after about a month of reading him, knowing it was because he persuaded me to.

  7. #82
    For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

    The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.

    If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias.
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...ange-our-minds
  8. #83
    This is response to Oskar. Moved it here:

    If my goal was to persuade people here, I'd probably have to stop posting for a couple months and for sure get rid of this gangster avatar. Then after I came back I would probably have to spend some time being critical of my "old" positions.



    Persuasion is things like what Scott Adams says in every blog post about abortion. He claims men shouldn't have a say about whether or not women can abort. Yet, at some later point, he will give his actual opinion on abortion, and he will have his women readers' ears since they will think he is on their side. His position will "evolve" and their positions will evolve along with him.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-22-2017 at 12:34 PM.
  9. #84
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If my goal was to persuade people here, I'd probably have to stop posting for a couple months and for sure get rid of this gangster avatar. Then after I came back I would probably have to spend some time being critical of my "old" positions.

    You think your avatar has a role in you ability to persuade this group of science-minded people.

    I haven't read up on persuasion methods, but it seems like "know your audience, and cater to their sensibilities" has to be right up there at the top of the list.

    ***
    In fairness, the rest of this is probably not bad.
    The problem is that, on FTR, people aren't persuaded by you because your notion of what counts as evidence is not the same as ours.

    I think we'd all be more persuaded if you were more openly critical of your positions. When you take an objective, inquisitive approach, you change the tone of "listen to me, I'm right" to "help me figure out how to be right." Ultimately, if you can pull this off in a disingenuous way which manipulates your position, you could maybe be more persuasive. Problem is that you're going to get actual data from your partners in the conversation and if you keep countering with your feelings, then I think you're not going to persuade this crowd any more than you have been.
  10. #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.
  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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.
    Adams claims taking a Carnegie course is better than anything he's written. I'm persuaded. Carnegie sounds great.
  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    You think your avatar has a role in you ability to persuade this group of science-minded people.

    I haven't read up on persuasion methods, but it seems like "know your audience, and cater to their sensibilities" has to be right up there at the top of the list.

    ***
    In fairness, the rest of this is probably not bad.
    The problem is that, on FTR, people aren't persuaded by you because your notion of what counts as evidence is not the same as ours.

    I think we'd all be more persuaded if you were more openly critical of your positions. When you take an objective, inquisitive approach, you change the tone of "listen to me, I'm right" to "help me figure out how to be right." Ultimately, if you can pull this off in a disingenuous way which manipulates your position, you could maybe be more persuasive. Problem is that you're going to get actual data from your partners in the conversation and if you keep countering with your feelings, then I think you're not going to persuade this crowd any more than you have been.
    Listen to me, I'm right: you're right, being perceived as more objective is more persuasive.
  13. #88
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    being perceived as more objective is more persuasive.
    This worked.

    I am so persuaded by you saying a thing that I already believe. Also, I now know that I'm totes smart about it, 'cause I already knew that thing that a moment ago I only believed.
  14. #89
    It's magic!
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Adams claims taking a Carnegie course is better than anything he's written. I'm persuaded. Carnegie sounds great.
    If he's still giving courses he must really be persuasive; the guy's been dead like 60 years.
  16. #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.
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    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.
    I was about to believe this, then I looked at your avatar.
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I was about to believe this, then I looked at your avatar.
    Damn it! So close!

  19. #94
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Why do you credit Scott Adams so much for persuasion? He writes dilbert.

    You could maintain your position, get an even more inflammatory avatar, call everyone an idiot, and yet still be persuasive if you supported your position correctly.
  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Why do you credit Scott Adams so much for persuasion? He writes dilbert.
    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.

    You could maintain your position, get an even more inflammatory avatar, call everyone an idiot, and yet still be persuasive if you supported your position correctly.
    In Cialdini's two persuasion books, he argues extensively (using psychology research) that people are emotionally persuaded by irrational things pretty much all the time.
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In Cialdini's two persuasion books, he argues extensively (using psychology research) that people are emotionally persuaded by irrational things pretty much all the time.
    Not sure that's a particularly great insight, that emotions guide behavior more than reason.
  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Not sure that's a particularly great insight, that emotions guide behavior more than reason.
    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).
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    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).
    Those reports should probably be taken with a grain of salt. There's probably a significant degree of lack of metaknowledge there, but there's also a significant degree of wanting to appear like a sensible person who thinks things over rather than a knee-jerk caveman.
  24. #99



    I find this pretty amazing. I'm posting it in this thread because the experiment appears to accord with one of Cialdini's keys of influence (commitment) and the idea that if you want to change somebody's belief, get them to think that they came up with the new idea themselves.

    The short: a guy interviews people telling them about Bernie's new tax plan and its details. They all liked the ideas and the plan and think it's much better than anything Trump could have come up with. Then he told them it was actually Trump's plan from the beginning. Then they rationalize how Trump's plan is not so bad in the first place and maybe he's different than they thought.

    The key of influence element, commitment, emerges from them having "committed" to liking the plan. So, when they are told it is actually Trump's plan, they tend to find a way to stick with their commitment (because not doing so is real bad for self-image, honesty, social status, etc.).
  25. #100
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I like to think most people don't automatically agree or disagree with a political view merely based on who else supports it.

    South park had an episode way back when, where the kkk supported a position...forcing everyone else away from that position.

    I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.
  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I like to think most people don't automatically agree or disagree with a political view merely based on who else supports it.
    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.

    *It may be relevant that people don't really even understand policy, so using what "sounds good" according to preconceptions or who supports it might be a common heuristic people employ.
  27. #102
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Framing is for sure a thing. And some people certainly hard stuck in whatever political mindset they belong to.

    But I also find videos like that to be of minimal persuasive value. We all know they interviewed several people, and cherry picked the ones that support their argument the best.
  28. #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.

    There's a claim that whenever there is a doubt or an alternative plausible claim in somebody's mind, the evidence and rationale attempting to persuade them is unpersuasive. I tend to agree with that claim. This type of video will always have doubt since the doubt can always be something like "well that's on a campus where people aren't like me" or "small sample" in addition to the point you made.
  29. #104
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    What were the tweets?

    Even if he made the tweet errors in frustration, he's still more than able to shake it off. He knows how to move in the public eye off-script. Rubio is the exact opposite - no movement or awareness. He's a joke of a candidate.

    It's hard to know what page he's on, so I'm partial to just thinking that he's built this way and people are mistaking it for genius. He just genuinely shits on people or builds them up while building himself taller and people see charisma in it, while it's really just a well-worn schtick.

    I used to hear it all the time on the radio, "XYZ is a fanatical leftwing lunatic" or "this guy is an incredible life long friend who I really respect as one of the best out there." Everyone would be either terrible or great. I saw Trump do this with Christie today - friends for years, spectacular governor. Of course, he spoke differently about the same Christie when he was in the race a few weeks back, claiming Christie made NJ worst state in the nation and ruined himself with the bridgegate scandal, I remember.

    I think just that schtick alone plus all the validation of having his name and always coming from money and having money has made someone who has complete self-assured-confidence and real feel for how to pivot people's opinions around that and I don't see much more depth to it other than 'build it up bigger or blow it up louder.'
    Hot damn did I bullseye this narcissist.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  30. #105
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post



    I find this pretty amazing. I'm posting it in this thread because the experiment appears to accord with one of Cialdini's keys of influence (commitment) and the idea that if you want to change somebody's belief, get them to think that they came up with the new idea themselves.

    The short: a guy interviews people telling them about Bernie's new tax plan and its details. They all liked the ideas and the plan and think it's much better than anything Trump could have come up with. Then he told them it was actually Trump's plan from the beginning. Then they rationalize how Trump's plan is not so bad in the first place and maybe he's different than they thought.

    The key of influence element, commitment, emerges from them having "committed" to liking the plan. So, when they are told it is actually Trump's plan, they tend to find a way to stick with their commitment (because not doing so is real bad for self-image, honesty, social status, etc.).
    Nice catch.

    I heard about one that wasn't in Cialdini's book. Tacitus Trap - when you as a governor have credibility, whatever you do good or bad is regarded as good. When you as a governor have no credibility, whatever you do good or bad is regarded as bad.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  31. #106
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I like to think most people don't automatically agree or disagree with a political view merely based on who else supports it.

    South park had an episode way back when, where the kkk supported a position...forcing everyone else away from that position.

    I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.
    You are, fammy.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Nice catch.

    I heard about one that wasn't in Cialdini's book. Tacitus Trap - when you as a governor have credibility, whatever you do good or bad is regarded as good. When you as a governor have no credibility, whatever you do good or bad is regarded as bad.
    Ah I like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •