On saying "no" - Over 20 years ago I did a sales training program. It had a lot of stuff to it, but the most important concept is to never, ever act like a salesman. Everyone has a negative perception of salespeople, so your job is to be the exact opposite.
Anyway, one of the key tenets of their approach was to give the prospect permission to say no. Most people absolutely hate rejecting other people. And with salespeople, they also fear that you'll apply a lot of pressure and try to get them to change their minds. So they ghost you instead.
Dunno if this applies well to writing for the NYT, but since taking that course I've found that giving permission to say no up front to be stress-reducing for everyone involved.
Calling someone "Hitler" (or just the possibility of being called a "nazi") can incentivize someone to accept your point (or at least stop resisting your arguments) for fear of being considered an Evil Person.
Shouting can be another way to incentivize your interlocutor to accept what you're saying or stop resisting what you're saying, again from fear of provoking aggression.
"Persuading" is about making the other person align with me; steering another agent's behavior in way that doesn't conflict with me. It is not (necessarily) required that this "alignment" is executed in an epistemically sound and warranted fashion. To persuade others, we use reasons, logic, and, yes, "dirty tactics". The confusion that "arguing is not about persuasion" arises from a tacit and faulty assumption that "persuasion" proceeds only via epistemic rationality.
Interesting. For me, the notion of persuasion that is relevant to an ideal notion of argument involves changing minds, not just behaviors. If you point a gun at me and tell me you'll shoot me if I don't say that I agree with you, this isn't persuasion in the sense that BB and I are interested in.
Yes, but then again, "changing minds" can be incentivized. Belief formation is not independent of the consequences of belief acquisition. Incentives that have nothing to do with attaining epistemic goals (like truth or knowledge) can (often unconsciously) influence the formation of our beliefs. Your example of pointing a gun at someone is an extreme case where people would be fully aware of the "incentive" but most of the time incentives that play a role in "changing minds" are "smooth operators".
Fear of being considered an Evil Person (like in a Hitler analogy) is a smooth operator.
Fear of being an object of someone's aggression can also be a smooth operator.
Taller self-confident people with a deeper voice are more persuasive than people who lack the same attributes but convey the same message. Moreover, we would consider the difference between these two people as a difference in *persuasion* (one person being more persuasive than the other) even though the content of the message (and its arguments) are the same.
The reason I emphasize changing "behavior" rather than "minds" when persuasion is concerned is an evolutionary one: we evolved to persuade each other but the reason why persuading is an evolved feature of human nature is ultimately because it has out-of-the-head consequences. Since it has to influence biological fitness it cannot simply be about the "mind". Changing minds has to be reflected in what we do. A desire to persuade someone of something could be part of our evolved nature only because the outcome of "persuasion" can be manifested in behavior.
Consider a Twin Earth where people "change minds" due to other people's persuasion but the consequences of "changing minds" are not reflected in a person's behavior. In Twin Earth, the practice of persuading wouldn't be a product of natural selection.
P.S. I greatly benefited from the discussions at the Budapest Summer School in 2014. organized by Nic Baumard. Merry Christmas!
Dear Professor, As always, it's a pleasure to read your article! Merry Christmas 🌲☃️and Happy New Year! My hope is that unjust war in Ukraine and in Gaza will end in 2025 and evil is destroyed!🙏
I'd love to read a piece exploring why people find it so hard to say "thanks, but no". I've noticed it when trying to get a builder to take on a job (they say they're interesed then dont return calls, or don't show up). In social situations I see people say they are interested in a social event when it seems clear to me they are not really interested, then make a excuse at the last minute or don't show up. I think the builder example is more strategic, the social one more to do with ot wanting to upset people,but I do think there is usually a mixture of both. The example of the NY times article likely involves both motivations.
I suppose this is part of a broader question,which is "why don't people say what they really think"
thanks for the really interesting response! Yes I think youre right that the cost of saying no in a clear way is too high - having thought about it some more, I dont think Id like it if someone said "thanks, but I dont really feel like it" . Maybe the situation we have works well, where people say "yes" in a way that still signals a lack of enthuiasm which is later converted into a half-baked excuse for not showing up - it seems annoyingly indirect to me when it happens, but may be the most adaptive way to do it as it always leaves enough ambiguity to save face for both parties.
In the casy of the NYT article, I think its much more likely to be a tatic that editors use, similar to the self-employed contractor - keep as many options open as possible and the cost of alienating the client is not that high.
On saying "no" - Over 20 years ago I did a sales training program. It had a lot of stuff to it, but the most important concept is to never, ever act like a salesman. Everyone has a negative perception of salespeople, so your job is to be the exact opposite.
Anyway, one of the key tenets of their approach was to give the prospect permission to say no. Most people absolutely hate rejecting other people. And with salespeople, they also fear that you'll apply a lot of pressure and try to get them to change their minds. So they ghost you instead.
Dunno if this applies well to writing for the NYT, but since taking that course I've found that giving permission to say no up front to be stress-reducing for everyone involved.
Here's a bog post I wrote about it in 2003: https://derekscruggs.com/2003/11/04/up-front-contracts/
Why does Bob agree to debate you, when you crush him so brutally?
And is he really so angry / bitter / prickly? I love him as a writer, but for someone who wrote "Why Buddhism Is True"....
"I find these points convincing."
I do not.
Calling someone "Hitler" (or just the possibility of being called a "nazi") can incentivize someone to accept your point (or at least stop resisting your arguments) for fear of being considered an Evil Person.
Shouting can be another way to incentivize your interlocutor to accept what you're saying or stop resisting what you're saying, again from fear of provoking aggression.
"Persuading" is about making the other person align with me; steering another agent's behavior in way that doesn't conflict with me. It is not (necessarily) required that this "alignment" is executed in an epistemically sound and warranted fashion. To persuade others, we use reasons, logic, and, yes, "dirty tactics". The confusion that "arguing is not about persuasion" arises from a tacit and faulty assumption that "persuasion" proceeds only via epistemic rationality.
Interesting. For me, the notion of persuasion that is relevant to an ideal notion of argument involves changing minds, not just behaviors. If you point a gun at me and tell me you'll shoot me if I don't say that I agree with you, this isn't persuasion in the sense that BB and I are interested in.
Yes, but then again, "changing minds" can be incentivized. Belief formation is not independent of the consequences of belief acquisition. Incentives that have nothing to do with attaining epistemic goals (like truth or knowledge) can (often unconsciously) influence the formation of our beliefs. Your example of pointing a gun at someone is an extreme case where people would be fully aware of the "incentive" but most of the time incentives that play a role in "changing minds" are "smooth operators".
Fear of being considered an Evil Person (like in a Hitler analogy) is a smooth operator.
Fear of being an object of someone's aggression can also be a smooth operator.
Taller self-confident people with a deeper voice are more persuasive than people who lack the same attributes but convey the same message. Moreover, we would consider the difference between these two people as a difference in *persuasion* (one person being more persuasive than the other) even though the content of the message (and its arguments) are the same.
The reason I emphasize changing "behavior" rather than "minds" when persuasion is concerned is an evolutionary one: we evolved to persuade each other but the reason why persuading is an evolved feature of human nature is ultimately because it has out-of-the-head consequences. Since it has to influence biological fitness it cannot simply be about the "mind". Changing minds has to be reflected in what we do. A desire to persuade someone of something could be part of our evolved nature only because the outcome of "persuasion" can be manifested in behavior.
Consider a Twin Earth where people "change minds" due to other people's persuasion but the consequences of "changing minds" are not reflected in a person's behavior. In Twin Earth, the practice of persuading wouldn't be a product of natural selection.
P.S. I greatly benefited from the discussions at the Budapest Summer School in 2014. organized by Nic Baumard. Merry Christmas!
Dear Professor, As always, it's a pleasure to read your article! Merry Christmas 🌲☃️and Happy New Year! My hope is that unjust war in Ukraine and in Gaza will end in 2025 and evil is destroyed!🙏
Happy Christmas 🎄!
I'd love to read a piece exploring why people find it so hard to say "thanks, but no". I've noticed it when trying to get a builder to take on a job (they say they're interesed then dont return calls, or don't show up). In social situations I see people say they are interested in a social event when it seems clear to me they are not really interested, then make a excuse at the last minute or don't show up. I think the builder example is more strategic, the social one more to do with ot wanting to upset people,but I do think there is usually a mixture of both. The example of the NY times article likely involves both motivations.
I suppose this is part of a broader question,which is "why don't people say what they really think"
thanks for the really interesting response! Yes I think youre right that the cost of saying no in a clear way is too high - having thought about it some more, I dont think Id like it if someone said "thanks, but I dont really feel like it" . Maybe the situation we have works well, where people say "yes" in a way that still signals a lack of enthuiasm which is later converted into a half-baked excuse for not showing up - it seems annoyingly indirect to me when it happens, but may be the most adaptive way to do it as it always leaves enough ambiguity to save face for both parties.
In the casy of the NYT article, I think its much more likely to be a tatic that editors use, similar to the self-employed contractor - keep as many options open as possible and the cost of alienating the client is not that high.
Love you, Paul, but Bob won the Biden debate... 😀