Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Persuasion through Intimidation Message-ID: <267@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 12:03:57 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.267 Posted: Thu Dec 13 12:03:57 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 06:53:53 EST References: <4750@fortune.UUCP> <1732@umcp-cs.UUCP> <326@pyuxd.UUCP> <168@masscomp.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 41 Summary: In article <168@masscomp.UUCP> carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) writes: > In article <326@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Instead, let's call the method an appeal to reasoned thinking. Presenting > >verifiable facts, allowing the listener/reader to come to the same conclusion > >through his own reasoning power. > > A wonderful idea in theory, but unworkable in practice. Consider the high > volume of traffic in groups like net.politics, net.abortion, net.origins, or > net.flame. In my 6 months of reading net.{wombat}, I have yet to see an > article like the following: > > "Hey, you guys are right! Article <326@pyuxd.UUCP> finally > convinced me. Until now, I had a deep, heartfelt conviction > that {wombats} were godless atheists, and closeminded fanatics > to boot. But now, after reading your appeals to reasoned > thinking, I have seen the clear light of truth. {Wombats} > don't lesnerize, eat unborn kittens, or do any of the other > disgusting things my parents said they did. > I was wrong. My position was based on blind unreasoning > stupidity. I apologize. > > I don't think the net software could stand the strain of a message like that. In 7 or so years of net-like posting (primarily on the PLATO system), there were a few times when I wrote messages like that. And several more by mail. (It's much easier to do this privately-- it's ego bruising.) Some conversion by means of rational persuasion does occur though. Usually not among the active contestants, but among the observers. Occaisionally, I get mail telling me that I was convincing, and made a difference in belief. Another important point: rational argument need not depend on anything related to TRUTH. It is sufficient to find a common basis of assumptions between the two parties for an argument to be logically valid. Thus, if I and some Christianoid agree that the world is flat, and argue on that basis, we can arrive at rational agreement. [Mandatory flame content:] SO THERE! -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh