Here are some of the ways I go about trying to convince people of things. I have no idea whether it actually works or not.
Attacking someone else’s thought process has the problems the OP observes. So instead, I try to explain my thought process. The goal is that they will say, “hey, I can get on board with what this guy is saying.” Even if they aren’t ready to get on board, at least they might be more open-minded towards my position for the future, and be willing to “agree to disagree” (yes, it’s a fallacy, but don’t point that out). I want to gain some of their epistemic trust.
Even when I disagree, I do the following things:
Emphasize areas of agreement
Personalize and subjectivize my disagreement: “Well, in my view...”, “here’s how it looks to me”, “what worries me is this”, “I can’t quite get on board with that”
Use analogies, rather than pointing out fallacies. (Though be careful picking analogies, or you can get whole conversation trees discussing the aptness of the analogies.)
Respond to what I actually think their argument is, rather than trying to nitpick or trap them in what they actually said.
Point out implications of what they are saying, and ask them if they agree with those implications.
I also try to project a likable, trustworthy character that people can feel is a “good person.” Liking is an important tool of persuasion. You see, most people cannot consider arguments separately from people. By coming off as a likable and credible, I correct for people’s biases against views they don’t initially agree with. I want to minimize people automatically throwing out my arguments simply because they don’t like the way I come off. Of course, I can’t please everyone, and not everyone is going to like me. (Some people will consider my debate style passive-aggressive, and with them, all I can do is throw in a bit of sarcasm or anger.)
Luckily, since I have high Agreeableness and Openness, most of these strategies I describe are pretty authentic and fit my personality, most of the time. I have text files full of snippets of sarcastic stuff that I don’t post, because nowadays I try to post what I would post if I looked at the thread tomorrow, rather than what I feel like posting in the heat of the moment.
I could probably go even farther towards projecting a likable character, and being emotionally relatable. But that could get smarmy, and I’m not always in the mood. So the character I project probably comes off as more cerebral than I seem in real life.
I won’t claim the strategies of persuasion that I use to be successful or ideal; they are simply the habits I’ve fallen into over the years. Also, what I do in discussions where I’m only trying to convince onlookers, not the other person, can be different. YMMV.
Only if you use your powers for evil. I assume you’re aware of your moral compass at all times and would only ever use these powers for win-win being excellent to others.
Here are some of the ways I go about trying to convince people of things. I have no idea whether it actually works or not.
Attacking someone else’s thought process has the problems the OP observes. So instead, I try to explain my thought process. The goal is that they will say, “hey, I can get on board with what this guy is saying.” Even if they aren’t ready to get on board, at least they might be more open-minded towards my position for the future, and be willing to “agree to disagree” (yes, it’s a fallacy, but don’t point that out). I want to gain some of their epistemic trust.
Even when I disagree, I do the following things:
Emphasize areas of agreement
Personalize and subjectivize my disagreement: “Well, in my view...”, “here’s how it looks to me”, “what worries me is this”, “I can’t quite get on board with that”
Use analogies, rather than pointing out fallacies. (Though be careful picking analogies, or you can get whole conversation trees discussing the aptness of the analogies.)
Respond to what I actually think their argument is, rather than trying to nitpick or trap them in what they actually said.
Point out implications of what they are saying, and ask them if they agree with those implications.
I also try to project a likable, trustworthy character that people can feel is a “good person.” Liking is an important tool of persuasion. You see, most people cannot consider arguments separately from people. By coming off as a likable and credible, I correct for people’s biases against views they don’t initially agree with. I want to minimize people automatically throwing out my arguments simply because they don’t like the way I come off. Of course, I can’t please everyone, and not everyone is going to like me. (Some people will consider my debate style passive-aggressive, and with them, all I can do is throw in a bit of sarcasm or anger.)
Luckily, since I have high Agreeableness and Openness, most of these strategies I describe are pretty authentic and fit my personality, most of the time. I have text files full of snippets of sarcastic stuff that I don’t post, because nowadays I try to post what I would post if I looked at the thread tomorrow, rather than what I feel like posting in the heat of the moment.
I could probably go even farther towards projecting a likable character, and being emotionally relatable. But that could get smarmy, and I’m not always in the mood. So the character I project probably comes off as more cerebral than I seem in real life.
I won’t claim the strategies of persuasion that I use to be successful or ideal; they are simply the habits I’ve fallen into over the years. Also, what I do in discussions where I’m only trying to convince onlookers, not the other person, can be different. YMMV.
So.… am I using “Dark Arts”?
Only if you use your powers for evil. I assume you’re aware of your moral compass at all times and would only ever use these powers for win-win being excellent to others.