Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Persuasion through status rather than argument

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 251 posts

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#181

Post by calderknight »

fourthark wrote: post #176
calderknight wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a pretty crazy claim, want to share your reasoning?

Merriam-Webster: "Ideology: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" No ideology = no characteristic thinking. If you think you don't have ideology, you probably have the dominant one. Or don't think.

Epic logic fail. You're affirming the consequent.

Just because A -> B, and we have B, doesn't mean we can conclude A.

Sure,

    Idealogy -> a manner of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
But

    A manner of thinking characteristic of an individual -> idealogy
Doesn't follow from that!

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#182

Post by Georgelemental »

mgaunard wrote: post #57

I think it's educational/cultural; the peripheral route seems particularly prevalent among Americans as opposed to say, continental Europeans, which are much more independent thinkers. Now Americans apparently also have a weird relationship with education (highly status correlated and rejected by certain bands of society) and often appear to interpret the world through the lens of their binary political divide. Coinc…

> the peripheral route seems particularly prevalent among Americans as opposed to say, continental Europeans, which are much more independent thinkers

As a dual US/EU citizen, I can assure you that neither side of the North Atlantic has a monopoly on groupthink or status-worship. I think the means are similar, though perhaps US has larger variance.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#183

Post by zmgsabst »

warkdarrior wrote: post #173
h2odragon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: "People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly. Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with thei…

I missed the memo that I am not allowed to agree with that quote. When did this happen?

When people started saying it to oppose re-introducing systemic racism, such as Harvard being racist to Asian students.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#184

Post by h2odragon »

warkdarrior wrote: post #173
h2odragon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: "People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly. Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with thei…

I missed the memo that I am not allowed to agree with that quote. When did this happen?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/colorblind...

https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/52...

I quoted MLK (as above) at someone in 2020 and was quite surprised when it uncorked a rant about how that must mean i was a racist and didn't care for the struggles of the oppressed and so on.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#185

Post by SantalBlush »

Georgelemental wrote: post #175
lapcat wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.

> I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Even if we grant that the rise in self-censorship is entirely due to "casual racism and sexism" (and I don't grant it), wouldn't that meant that 40% of people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs s…

Not if they do that crap in the workplace.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#186

Post by fourthark »

calderknight wrote: post #181
fourthark wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merriam-Webster: "Ideology: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" No ideology = no characteristic thinking. If you think you don't have ideology, you probably have the dominant one. Or don't think.

Epic logic fail. You're affirming the consequent. Just because A -> B, and we have B, doesn't mean we can conclude A. Sure, Idealogy -> a manner of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture But A manner of thinking characteristic of an individual -> idealogy Doesn't follow from that!

It's a definition, not a consequent. Definition is equality not if-then.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#187

Post by calderknight »

fourthark wrote: post #186
calderknight wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic logic fail. You're affirming the consequent. Just because A -> B, and we have B, doesn't mean we can conclude A. Sure, Idealogy -> a manner of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture But A manner of thinking characteristic of an individual -> idealogy Doesn't follow from that!

It's a definition, not a consequent. Definition is equality not if-then.

You'd be right if it was actually a definition. But it's not. It deals with the attributes of the thing rather than the thing's essence.

Like, the "definition" of car is 'a vehicle moving on wheels', but we can't from that conclude that all vehicles moving on wheels are cars.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#188

Post by BLKNSLVR »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #31

> It might seem intuitive to believe that people with less education are more manipulable. But research suggests this may not be true. > High-status people are more preoccupied with how others view them. Which means that educated and/or affluent people may be especially prone to peripheral, as opposed to central, methods of persuasion. There is a hidden assumtion in the above part. Did you spot it? It is that educate…

THey define High Status:

> Which means that educated and/or affluent

Both are equally tarred with similar traits, which I think the article describes quite well.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#189

Post by xyzelement »

Animats wrote: post #149

> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…

[flagged]

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#190

Post by lapcat »

intalentive wrote: post #165
lapcat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there. Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there? I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the…

Not sure how you define sexism, but more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates and more social cohesion. In the long run those traits propagate themselves. The stereotypical cat lady, not so much. As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Don’t need to be EO Wilson or Richard Dawkins t…

> Not sure how you define sexism

How do you define sexism? I'm not sure how the "stereotypical cat lady" is even relevant.

> more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates

I don't think we need higher birth rates at this point, with over 8 billion humans on Earth already.

> As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common?

Romantic preferences are not racism. Would you say that failure to be bisexual is sexism? (Spoiler: it's not.)

It's crucial to recognize, though, that romantic preferences are entirely subjective. If you consider your romantic preferences to be objectively superior humans and those who aren't to your preference objectively inferior humans who deserve a lower rank in society, that would be racism and/or sexism.

Post reply on HN