Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument. Gun control? Abortion? The new social science behind why you’re never able to convince friends or foes to even consider things from your side. If all of American politics could be epitomized by a single emotion, it would be the frustration of watching an ignorant politician maniacally disregard the proof that your own position is correct. Professional politicians are dogmatic in part so they can remain “pure” for re-election, but even average citizens talking policy with their friends are rarely swayed by each other’s arguments. Lately, there’s been a growing emphasis on psychological explanations for such intransigence.
And there’s nothing illogical about it. The arguments people make are those that appear the strongest to themselves and the people who already agree with them. How does this happen? It starts with the universal desire to protect against threats to your self-image or self-worth. How does all of this play out in a real-world policy debate? Defining the problem of elevator waiting times by Matt Linderman of 37signals. Sixteen Influence Strategies: Marwell & Schmitt. This is Marwell & Schmitt's Taxonomy of 16 influence tactics. It's a "classic" taxonomy (from 1967) that inspired a lot of subsequent research, writing, and thinking about the topic of influence.
It is still used in modern research as a starting point. Other taxonomies have come up with similar categories, enhancing the "classic" status of the Marwell & Schmitt taxonomy. It's a good, basic list! You'll find a lot of overlap between it and most other taxonomies out there, if you look carefully. Here's a thought question for you--after you read this list, could you break it down into an even more compact list, by combining tactics that appear to be similar? (By the way, Marwell & Schmitt later broke their list down into clusters and dimensions, too. Reward I'll reward you if you do it.
Punishment I'll punish you if you don't do it. Positive Expertise Speaking as an authority on the subject, I can tell you that rewards will occur if you do X, because of the nature of reality. Debt Moral Appeal. The One (Really Easy) Persuasion Technique Everyone Should Know. It’s supported by 42 studies on 22,000 people and it’s the easiest, most practical persuasion technique available. I’ll admit it. A few of the techniques for persuasion I’ve covered here on PsyBlog have been a little outlandish and impractical. Things like swearing, talking in the right ear and pouring coffee down someone’s throat. The studies are interesting and fun but not widely useful. The question is: which persuasion technique, based on psychological research, is most practical, can easily be used by anyone in almost any circumstances and has been consistently shown to work? The answer is: the ‘But You Are Free’ technique.
By reaffirming their freedom you are indirectly saying to them: I am not threatening your right to say no. A recent review of the 42 psychology studies carried out on this technique has shown that it is surprisingly effective given how simple it is (Carpenter, 2013). The exact words used are not especially important. Image credit: Lori Greig. Dialectic. Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity.
The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.[1] The term dialectics is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgement. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent; proving one's argument correct; or proving the opponent's argument incorrect. The Sophists taught aretē (Greek: ἀρετή, quality, excellence) as the highest value, and the determinant of one's actions in life.
List of fallacies. A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Propositional fallacies[edit]