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

231–240 of 251 posts

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#231

Post by pauldenton »

mlinhares wrote: post #180
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.

The fact that in almost 2024 people still don't understand social media is NOT your friends in a table where you can make shitty comments with no consequences still baffles me. People always have had to separate public and private life, the only differences now is that it seems like they don't understand what is public or private anymore. I frequently see people making public comments on social networks about their e…

This just seems like a very natural back and forth You complain on social media about your employer and how they mistreated you They fire you for making them look bad by describing how they treated you Your view of them as a bad employer is reinforced and you warn people not to work for them Their view of you as a bad employee is reinforced and they earn people not to hire you. In both cases people's views are reinforced by reality. Where's the bug?

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#232

Post by pauldenton »

patrick451 wrote: post #157
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.

Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wron…

Seeking of suppression of desire and sexual deviants, is that what you would tell to people who want to change their gender? Would you tell them it would be healthier for society if they didn't become transgender?

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#233

Post by lapcat »

pauldenton wrote: post #230
lern_too_spel wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving seats obviously doesn't address the economic inequalities. That's why nobody (except maybe some conservatives arguing in bad faith) has ever proposed it.

Punishing people who were never victimizers and promoting people who were never victims for the sake of equity doesn't address the problems of a single parent household and the consequences it has for children, but that is proposed for the sake of Equity all the time

Greater equality is not a "punishment". It's simply a necessity for a functional, just, compassionate society.

In any case, we are all beneficiaries or victims of the past. Children don't start from equal positions. "average per capita wealth of White Americans was $338,093 in 2019 but only $60,126 for Black Americans" https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/how-the-racial-w...

As stated by the linked article, this is actually a vast improvement from 150 years ago. But let's not pretend that the existence of the racial gap wasn't the result of historical factors. Arguing that we're all equal now would just be sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that history didn't exist.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#234

Post by zlg_codes »

pen2l wrote: post #207
rayiner wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you gotta socialize your kids to keep their mouths shut too. My daughter attends a progressive school, and she’s intuited that there’s a de-facto racial hierarchy that she’s none too happy about. (She was recently invited to attend a school-sponsored weekly lunch for black girls, but once a month because she’s half white and half south Asian and I guess that’s how the math works out.) I pointed out that she needs…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#235

Post by lern_too_spel »

pauldenton wrote: post #230
lern_too_spel wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving seats obviously doesn't address the economic inequalities. That's why nobody (except maybe some conservatives arguing in bad faith) has ever proposed it.

Punishing people who were never victimizers and promoting people who were never victims for the sake of equity doesn't address the problems of a single parent household and the consequences it has for children, but that is proposed for the sake of Equity all the time

"Punishing people" is an immature way of looking at public policy. When the government uses my tax money to pay for prisons, is that punishing me? The point is that the policy is meant for the public benefit, and we can debate the merits of each policy on their outcomes.

What addresses the problems of a single parent household then? Let's hear your solutions.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#236

Post by zlg_codes »

montalbano wrote: post #161

I was surprised the blog post did not mention Modes of Persuasion , which were codified in 4th century BCE by Aristotle. Ethos: appeal to authority Pathos: appeal to emotion Logos: appeal to logic I found the post's added description of more recent psychological studies interesting though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

A lot has happened since 4kBC. Not sure if you noticed.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#237

Post by pauldenton »

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…

A lot of people who are supposed to be held in high status are actually held in contempt. Republicans hating Fauci and Biden no matter how much of an expert high status they are. And Democrats calling Trump or Bush #notmypresident means they won't recognize his authority no matter how much education either of them got

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#238

Post by fioiu »

pauldenton wrote: post #232
patrick451 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wron…

Seeking of suppression of desire and sexual deviants, is that what you would tell to people who want to change their gender? Would you tell them it would be healthier for society if they didn't become transgender?

[flagged]

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#239

Post by pauldenton »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #235
pauldenton wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishing people who were never victimizers and promoting people who were never victims for the sake of equity doesn't address the problems of a single parent household and the consequences it has for children, but that is proposed for the sake of Equity all the time

"Punishing people" is an immature way of looking at public policy. When the government uses my tax money to pay for prisons, is that punishing me? The point is that the policy is meant for the public benefit, and we can debate the merits of each policy on their outcomes. What addresses the problems of a single parent household then? Let's hear your solutions.

[dead]

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#240

Post by vintermann »

lapcat wrote: post #216
vintermann wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people are equally racist and sexist today as then? Surely not, it would be terrible news if that was true. It was possible to get ostracized over racism and especially sexism in the 1960s, or even the 1890s, you just had to do worse things to do it generally. If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't so…

> If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever. Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It's society pushing back against them. This is a very long war. Wars are ugly. If you think that racism and sexism will just go down quietly without a fight, well, that's not how it works. When th…

> Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism.

It is absolutely not. Ostracism is - at best - a means towards the end, of ending racism and sexism. One of many. It may work, or it may backfire.

> This is a very long war.

If you can't tell the difference between the means and the goal, it's not just a long war, it's a classic forever war.

Post reply on HN