Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

As far as "psychological tricks" go, there are no psychological tricks to selling. So-called sales persuaders (objection rebuttals) don't work. I've abandoned them in midstream in my sales history and started selling more. But around 2003, between 1 to 2 million telemarketers lost their jobs in the US thanks to these "sales persuaders."

A sales script focuses on more general terms, and not on the nuance of individual cases. I agree with you there's no 1 script that even a perfect machine could make that would fit for everyone. But I think if you knew every intimate detail of a person's life verbatim, I think there may very well be a string of words that hit very hard with that person's psyche. You'd know who that person lost their virginity to, if or how that person went to jail, when their parents died, the most traumatic events which have happened to them, who they admire, their moral beliefs, etc. We're talking about a response perfectly tailored to each individual based on everything that's ever happened in their life. I guess the question is if that data is relevant and can actually be used to help convince someone, or are some people just too stubborn.

[Philosophy Explorer]

As far as "psychological tricks" go, there are no psychological tricks to selling. So-called sales persuaders (objection rebuttals) don't work. I've abandoned them in midstream in my sales history and started selling more. But around 2003, between 1 to 2 million telemarketers lost their jobs in the US thanks to these "sales persuaders."

A sales script focuses on more general terms, and not on the nuance of individual cases. I agree with you there's no 1 script that even a perfect machine could make that would fit for everyone. But I think if you knew every intimate detail of a person's life verbatim, I think there may very well be a string of words that hit very hard with that person's psyche. You'd know who that person lost their virginity to, if or how that person went to jail, when their parents died, the most traumatic events which have happened to them, who they admire, their moral beliefs, etc. We're talking about a response perfectly tailored to each individual based on everything that's ever happened in their life. I guess the question is if that data is relevant and can actually be used to help convince someone, or are some people just too stubborn.

Just too impractical. First you don't have that kind of information, even with your closest friends and relatives.
Then the metrics in a typical workplace would demand you have a certain level of contacts with prospects (and track you on that).

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

As far as "psychological tricks" go, there are no psychological tricks to selling. So-called sales persuaders (objection rebuttals) don't work. I've abandoned them in midstream in my sales history and started selling more. But around 2003, between 1 to 2 million telemarketers lost their jobs in the US thanks to these "sales persuaders."

A sales script focuses on more general terms, and not on the nuance of individual cases. I agree with you there's no 1 script that even a perfect machine could make that would fit for everyone. But I think if you knew every intimate detail of a person's life verbatim, I think there may very well be a string of words that hit very hard with that person's psyche. You'd know who that person lost their virginity to, if or how that person went to jail, when their parents died, the most traumatic events which have happened to them, who they admire, their moral beliefs, etc. We're talking about a response perfectly tailored to each individual based on everything that's ever happened in their life. I guess the question is if that data is relevant and can actually be used to help convince someone, or are some people just too stubborn.

Just too impractical. First you don't have that kind of information, even with your closest friends and relatives.
Then the metrics in a typical workplace would demand you have a certain level of contacts with prospects (and track you on that).

It's not about the practicality of it, but a hypothetical. Assuming we could obtain all that information, are the metrics there to convince someone of even the things they would typically be most reluctant about? I use the example of a highly-advanced machine able to scan your brain to add plausibility and help explain what I mean.

It's in part a philosophical question. If it's logically impossible to convince certain people of certain things, than this has massive ramifications for philosophical debate.

[Philosophy Explorer]

A sales script focuses on more general terms, and not on the nuance of individual cases. I agree with you there's no 1 script that even a perfect machine could make that would fit for everyone. But I think if you knew every intimate detail of a person's life verbatim, I think there may very well be a string of words that hit very hard with that person's psyche. You'd know who that person lost their virginity to, if or how that person went to jail, when their parents died, the most traumatic events which have happened to them, who they admire, their moral beliefs, etc. We're talking about a response perfectly tailored to each individual based on everything that's ever happened in their life. I guess the question is if that data is relevant and can actually be used to help convince someone, or are some people just too stubborn.

Just too impractical. First you don't have that kind of information, even with your closest friends and relatives.
Then the metrics in a typical workplace would demand you have a certain level of contacts with prospects (and track you on that).

It's not about the practicality of it, but a hypothetical. Assuming we could obtain all that information, are the metrics there to convince someone of even the things they would typically be most reluctant about? I use the example of a highly-advanced machine able to scan your brain to add plausibility and help explain what I mean.

It's in part a philosophical question. If it's logically impossible to convince certain people of certain things, than this has massive ramifications for philosophical debate.

You originally said:

"Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing? Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one..." Clearly sales would fall under what you brought up. Now it seems you're shifting your focus to just philosophy.

You also say it's in part a philosophical question which is unclear. What else are you driving at? Since we're all individuals, then none can be like minded and what can convince one may have the opposite effect on someone else.

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

You originally said:

"Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing? Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one..." Clearly sales would fall under what you brought up. Now it seems you're shifting your focus to just philosophy.

You also say it's in part a philosophical question which is unclear. What else are you driving at? Since we're all individuals, then none can be like minded and what can convince one may have the opposite effect on someone else.

I know what I said; The philosophical aspects are also clear. They're not mutually exclusive, this is both a philosophical question and one that relies on the science of our psychology. I also said it's perhaps more of a psychological question, so I'm admittedly not sure.

If the machine would be able to convince anyone based on scanning our brain, what does it mean for the free will debate? If it can't, is philosophical discussion even worth it? These are some of the philosophical ramifications of the question I expected some people to get into. I'm sure psychological data would need to be applied to answer it fully, but I think you're using the wrong psychological data to try and answer it, because a blanket script isn't made by a perfect machine.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing? Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but imagine a machine capable of looking into your brain which knows everything about you, and everything that's ever happened to it. It knows exactly which argumentation styles that are the most convincing to you, your favorite words, your current emotions, and every corollary that follows. Using nothing more than words and talking to you to get you to believe in something, would this machine be able make you believe in anything? Are words enough to invoke revelations powerful enough to change very deep-rooted beliefs, even clear irrationalities like convincing you the law of identity isn't actually true?

If the answer is no, how do you think this affects philosophical arguments? Are some debates simply meaningless to get into with the intent of convincing the other person?

My answer is, within a limited amount of time - no. Given an infinite amount of time, I lean more toward thinking this hypothetical machine would be able to convince you of anything. It's hard for us to imagine how an omniscient thing would actually work in reality, but given what I know of human psychology, people don't usually end up changing their world-views, at least the important ones, from a single discussion. It's usually about having good arguments laminate on their mind for an extended period of time, and build up after consequent discussions. If indoctrination is any constellation, otherwise smart people also have no problem of being convinced of even the irrational things, in certain situations. Granted this often involves omitted information as well, but it's all relative to this topic.

It's an odd sort of a question especially as there's an abundance of evidence that most people can be convinced of practically anything, (provided it contains as little logic or evidence as possible) --no fancy brain scanners or omnicient machinery needed.

[Dubious]

Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions or subliminal feelings.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It's an odd sort of a question especially as there's an abundance of evidence that most people can be convinced of practically anything, (provided it contains as little logic or evidence as possible) --no fancy brain scanners or omnicient machinery needed.

Maybe before their adult-hood, when beliefs begin to deeply root, at least the important ones like religion. People tend to be far more stubborn when it comes to things like that, and when they do modify their religious beliefs, it's usually due to cultural change and not from debate or reasoning.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions or subliminal feelings.

I'm not sure if you're really convincing anyone if they already have preconceptions about it. But that's sort of beside the point of this thread, I'm talking about convincing anyone of anything, even if that thing goes strongly against what their preconceptions.

[Dubious]

Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions or subliminal feelings.

I'm not sure if you're really convincing anyone if they already have preconceptions about it.

What do you think I meant by "Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions"?

But that's sort of beside the point of this thread, I'm talking about convincing anyone of anything, even if that thing goes strongly against what their preconceptions.

It's almost impossible to convince anyone of anything that goes against their strongly held preconceptions. How many examples on public forums does one need to prove it?

[FlashDangerpants]

It's almost impossible to convince anyone of anything that goes against their strongly held preconceptions. How many examples on public forums does one need to prove it?

This being, at least nominally, some sort of philosophy forum, I feel a duty to point out that logically your argument is invalid as counter to a logical possiblity of persuasion if you retain that "almost", and is contingent on there being zero counter examples without that qualifier. And anyway, we all know perfectly well that this happens often, but that on a public forum most people who find their initial statement unsustainable will just quitely drop the subject rather than announcing any change of heart.

Other than that though, I guess we agree, as preconceptions and innate word associations are pretty much the key to this sort of thing whether you rely on a science fiction computer or just a plain old newspaper to acheive your ends.

People's strongly held preconceptions are changeable. We often face perplexing questions about what the fuck just happened, why did this large group of people just change their mind one day? Look at the recent brexit vote. Today it is largely the right wing of British voters that want out of Europe, while the centre ground mostly wants in and the left are divided, but more inclined to remain than the right. But we had a prior referendum on the matter back in the 70s where the right campaigned to join and the left overwhelmingly wished to escape. Nothing all that important happened in the meantime to cause this left-right switch. The largest change wasn't the structure or purpose of the EU, just the terms in which is was discussed.

Similar inversions have happened in most countries, probably all of them. It used to be that campaigning against immigration was a left wing activity in much of the world, because immigrants are less likely to join unions. But then one day anti-immigration policies got associated with the right, and so the left in most states now campaings on behalf of something it once bitterly opposed.

Which tells us there are at least two easy shortcuts to changing somebody else's mind.
1. Reframe whatever you are discussing so that they reconsider based on some innate association of ideas that everyone holds and which suit your manipulative purpose (Death Taxes!, Socialised Medicine = Death Panels!, "one percenter fat cats", "... benefits corporations not people", "Eurocrats want to make our bananas straight and our children bent").
2. Tell them to dissaprove of something because bad people like it ("the Liberal LAMEstream media wants you to believe...", "the Koch brothers are trying to tell you ...", "... Fake NEWS!...").

It takes agreat effort of will to stop and review actual evidence before forming opinions, and an even greater one to review our prior opinions in light of new evidence. But we can easily be persuaded to get furious about something we have never thought about before, and over time that method allows us to be taken full circle without really noticing we performed a 180 in transit.

[Philosophy Explorer]

FDP said:

"It takes a great effort of will to stop and review actual evidence before forming opinions, and an even greater one to review our prior opinions in light of new evidence. But we can easily be persuaded to get furious about something we have never thought about before, and over time that method allows us to be taken full circle without really noticing we performed a 180 in transit."

This is known as a rush to judgement which is very common, even on philosophy forums. I find many discussions to be way too simple, overlooking a number of pertinent facts.

PhilX

[Nick_A]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing? Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but imagine a machine capable of looking into your brain which knows everything about you, and everything that's ever happened to it. It knows exactly which argumentation styles that are the most convincing to you, your favorite words, your current emotions, and every corollary that follows. Using nothing more than words and talking to you to get you to believe in something, would this machine be able make you believe in anything? Are words enough to invoke revelations powerful enough to change very deep-rooted beliefs, even clear irrationalities like convincing you the law of identity isn't actually true?

If the answer is no, how do you think this affects philosophical arguments? Are some debates simply meaningless to get into with the intent of convincing the other person?

My answer is, within a limited amount of time - no. Given an infinite amount of time, I lean more toward thinking this hypothetical machine would be able to convince you of anything. It's hard for us to imagine how an omniscient thing would actually work in reality, but given what I know of human psychology, people don't usually end up changing their world-views, at least the important ones, from a single discussion. It's usually about having good arguments laminate on their mind for an extended period of time, and build up after consequent discussions. If indoctrination is any constellation, otherwise smart people also have no problem of being convinced of even the irrational things, in certain situations. Granted this often involves omitted information as well, but it's all relative to this topic.

One thing for sure; without the right words a man would rarely get a woman into bed on the first date. It really is the same with philosophy. The modern goals of philosophy require a philosopher to be able to lie like a rug.

[ken]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?

The 'right' thing, implies that it would not need to be convinced of anyway. People generally think that they know what the 'right' thing is already. Although, what is the 'right' thing thing to one person can be the exact opposite thing to another person. Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

Also, saying the 'right' thing, even with all the evidence and proof in the world, will still not convince any one while they are believing that the opposite is the 'right' thing and true.

However, in saying that, saying the 'right' thing to any one who is truly open will see and know that it is right thing straightaway anyway.

Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but imagine a machine capable of looking into your brain which knows everything about you, and everything that's ever happened to it. It knows exactly which argumentation styles that are the most convincing to you, your favorite words, your current emotions, and every corollary that follows. Using nothing more than words and talking to you to get you to believe in something, would this machine be able make you believe in anything?

No thing can make you believe in any thing. Only you choose to either believe or not believe (in) some thing or not. You can also choose to remain open also, if you want to. However, this machine sounds like inner-self talk anyway, mis/guiding you to believe in things by telling you things based upon your own previous experiences of what has been taught to you, and when you then jump to wrong conclusions IS what makes you believe in the things that you do believe in, which are NOT right anyway.

Are words enough to invoke revelations powerful enough to change very deep-rooted beliefs, even clear irrationalities like convincing you the law of identity isn't actually true?

No. The ONLY thing to change very deep-rooted beliefs is the person them self, and that happens if and when the person decides to STOP believing (in) some thing. HOWEVER, words are enough to explain and show how human beings do NOT need beliefs at all, and how much harm and damage can be caused by keeping and holding onto beliefs. By the way going from believing in one thing to believing in some other thing is not really the best thing to do, as you are effectively still remaining a closed person.

If the answer is no, how do you think this affects philosophical arguments?

The answer to this is obvious. The exact same philosophical, so called, "arguments" have been going on for centuries, so trying to convince a person to change their beliefs obviously does NOT work. People pick a side and then debate those philosophical topics instead of making sound, valid arguments in regards to those topics. If and when a sound, valid argument is finally found and/or formed, then there is actually nothing more to dispute. A sound, valid argument, is in itself, an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed. The problem with why the so called "philosophical arguments" are seeming never solved is because of the reason to WHY people see them as one or an other position, then pick one side, and then fight for that side?

The answer to this question is only truly KNOWN by each person because each person has their own reason for doing this negative behavior. But in a very general sense the reason WHY ALL adult human beings see one position over another, pick a side, and then argue for one side ONLY, IS because that is what the so called "education" system has taught them to do. This system teaches children to look for and see one side over another, then to choose one side and to fight for that side as though this is the "right" thing to do. When the truth is it is just about the most "wrong" thing one can do.

The truth is that the so called 'philosophical arguments' really are not arguments at all. They are just topics of discussions to have, which when finally solved, will make human beings much wiser. The wisdom within those discussions is found in the topics themselves. There actually are NOT a one side verses the other side discussion at all, and there is a Truth held up within "both", what generally appears to be, "sides". The example of how this actual wisdom will be and is found will be when any person wants to have a truly philosophical discussion about any or all of the creation/evolution, nature/nurture, chicken/egg, et cetera topics with Me. The discussion, however, will have to based around on the word 'philosophy' meaning having 'the love of wisdom', with wisdom or becoming wiser only being gained by having a true love of 'learning', where learning is gained, far more and far quicker and easier, by being truly OPEN rather than being in any way closed. 'Open', meaning having NO beliefs at all, and, 'closed', meaning either believing or not believing (in) some thing. Being OPEN means you also will NOT be easily led into some thing. In fact the opposite is the truth because when you are truly OPEN you are truly wise and so can not be fooled at all.

Are some debates simply meaningless to get into with the intent of convincing the other person?

Yes, wholeheartedly. This is because of beliefs, AND, debates are actually designed to NOT come to any agreement. Debates are designed to strengthen ones conviction in one position over another's position. People will not be convinced of any thing anyway if they do NOT want to be convinced. 'Convincing' is a relatively negative word in relation to truth anyway, as looking for and finding truth is not about convincing others of what is the truth of things, but in helping others to learn how they can find truth by themselves.

Also, if people seriously looked into WHY they want to convince others and are trying to convince others of some thing, then they would more than likely find that it is for some selfish reason. Trying to convince others of some thing is a complete waste of time and usually does more harm than good, in regards to causing conflict and disputes rather than peace and harmony.

My answer is, within a limited amount of time - no. Given an infinite amount of time, I lean more toward thinking this hypothetical machine would be able to convince you of anything. It's hard for us to imagine how an omniscient thing would actually work in reality, but given what I know of human psychology, people don't usually end up changing their world-views, at least the important ones, from a single discussion.

HOW the actual omniscient Thing actually works IS really far more simple then people could even imagine. People are taught to imagine and perceive that the Universe and they themselves are very complex things and hard to understand, when the truth is the exact opposite.

It's usually about having good arguments laminate on their mind for an extended period of time, and build up after consequent discussions. If indoctrination is any constellation, otherwise smart people also have no problem of being convinced of even the irrational things, in certain situations. Granted this often involves omitted information as well, but it's all relative to this topic.

A 'good' argument is a sound, valid argument only. All the rest are just statements usually made up to try and convince one's own self that what they believe in is true.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?

The 'right' thing, implies that it would not need to be convinced of anyway. People generally think that they know what the 'right' thing is already. Although, what is the 'right' thing thing to one person can be the exact opposite thing to another person. Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

Perhaps we should start with an exemaple of wrongness instead. For instance ... Ken was wrong to assume that "right thing" in that context was a normative declaration when it was quite obviously an instrumental one.

A fork is the right instrument with which to each a sausage, and a spoon is the wrong one. Nobody needs examples of what makes it morally correct to use a fork in order to understand this statement, you just need to notice the blindingly obvious fact that right in this context means the tool that executes the given task effectively.

You are shockingly stupid Ken.