jim.shamlin.com

3: Logical Persuading and Legitimizing

The chapter opens with an extended analysis of Old Major's speech from Animal Farm, in which he makes a basic logical argument: we are miserable, man is the cause of our misery, therefore if we get rid of man we will no longer be miserable. This is the basic outline of all logical arguments: this is a problem, this is the cause, and this is the solution - if the audience agrees there is a problem and that the cause is properly identified, then they will feel compelled to accept and adopt the solution. It is by means of this simple logical argument that Old Major incites the other animals to revolt against the humans.

Rational arguments are among the most compelling, which is why they are the most often used (and in the author's observation, the most successful). A purely emotional appeal can be engaging but the feeling fades and the commitment fades along with it, and an argument based on the good character of the speaker fades when the speaker fails to maintain the level of character he claimed - particularly when things don't happen quickly enough, people begin to doubt in the character of a leader. Only reason has staying power.

However, it is a common mistake among logical persuaders to assume that logic alone is enough. Back to Old Major's speech, he does a couple of things before delivering his syllogism: he first establishes his credibility (mentioning his age and wisdom) and suggests his intentions are honorable (he's thinking of the common good). Neither of these things supports his argument, but it does make the animals willing to listen and give his argument fair consideration. So while this chapter focuses on logical persuasion, keep in mind that it is not sufficient to stand on its own.

Logical Persuading

In western culture, logical argument is a tradition dating back to the Greek democracies, in which rational discussion replaced brutality for making decisions and settling disputes. Because so much was at stake in these early democratic societies, a great deal of study and thought was put into the techniques for presenting an ironclad logical argument. Logic was also seen as a method for discovering truth, so it is essential even to scientific inquiry.

He mentions that Eastern philosophy tends to be more mystical and subjective, which may explain why many eastern nations have been laggards in making progress. As these nations have adopted more Western ways of science, technology, and industrialism they are becoming acquainted with logic - but there is still a tendency to turn to irrational methods of persuasion (particularly the social methods that focus on what is popular, inoffensive, or acceptable to a person of a given station and status).

It is often said that the Western approach is too rational, too rigid, and fails to consider anything that cannot be analyzed. And this is a valid criticism, as people are inherently emotional and social creatures - something might make perfect sense, but it is emotionally comfortable, or there may be fear that the decision will be unpopular. In our behavior as consumers, we are entirely irrational - we like what we like and do not analyze or rationalize it. This problem is further exacerbated by the tendency to exclude anything that cannot be quantified - nothing subjective or non-numeric is considered - and plans that seem perfect "by the numbers" fail because they pointedly ignored very important but non-quantifiable factors.

Ultimately, logic must work in unison with emotional and social concerns. A person will not do what is rational if it doesn't "feel" right, but neither are they inclined to follow their feelings and disregard common sense. We can get away with this in our private lives, doing what we "feel" with our own money and our own time for our own pleasure - but we cannot get away with this when we are handling someone else's money (in our professional roles) or asking someone else to undertake inconvenience or hardship for our benefit.

Syllogistic Logic

The basic unit of logic is the syllogism: because A is true and B is true, C must be true (because it contains elements of A and B). A few examples are provided:

However, there are also logical fallacies:

The obvious flaw in the logic is that there is the assumption that John only dislikes chocolate and would be happy with anything else - whereas he might dislike carrot cake as well. (EN: There are better sources to consult on the structure of logical arguments and an enumeration of fallacies, so I'm going to be skipping the elaboration here.)

There is a mention of the heuristic technique of using logic, in which a person who is attempting to persuade others does so by asking questions rather than making statements. This can be effective in dealing with headstrong people because they feel that they are "discovering" the conclusion for themselves rather than being told by someone else. (EN: This technique can backfire horribly if the other person recognizes that you are attempting to manipulate them.)

The critical qualities for making a logical argument are:

  1. Knowledge of the subject matter, which is necessary to be aware of basic information and able to draw logical connection between them.
  2. Knowledge about logic itself, in order to make a rational argument that is based on sound thinking rather than fallacy
  3. Communication skills to be able to convey the information to the audience. This is particularly problematic when experts are attempting to influence non-experts
  4. Reputation is also important. People will listen more readily to someone they believe to be an expert. Titles and positions of authority often bolster this
  5. Character is critical. If a person is known to be dishonest or untrustworthy, listeners will be skeptical as to whether the facts he presents are true and the logic he uses is valid.

He goes back to the point made in the chapter introduction: a logical argument will only be convincing if people are willing to listen to it, and it is often the non-logical and peripheral matters (emotional and social) that cause people to be willing to listen to a logical appeal.

The Limitations of Logical Persuading

The author refers to research that indicates that people make emotional decisions and then justify them with logic afterward. While he acknowledges that this is often overblown by those who wish to dismiss logical and make decisions by gut-feel, there is evidence that supports that even the most "objective" person is often swayed by their emotions: they tend to go with gut feel and it takes quite a lot to get them to consider any alternative solution.

The main limitation of logical persuasion is that it takes time: time to gather and analyze data, time to present conclusions, time to convince someone else of what is the most rational and logical conclusion. When a decision must be made quickly, the logical approach simply takes too much time. Particularly in a life-or-death emergency, we cannot argue about the likelihood of being harmed and mull over the right decision - it's "run for the door" and right now.

Another limitation of logical persuasion is that it is costly and difficult. It's much easier to appeal to someone's fear or hope at a superficial level, knowing that they will react in a panic and then justify their reaction more often than questioning the judgment calls made in an emotional state. Whether this is ethical or unethical depends on how it is used - while we generally believe people who use terror tactics are attempting to undermine logic to get people to do the wrong thing, it is entirely possible to terrorize someone into doing the right thing.

And ultimately, we are emotional beings who seek to gain emotional benefits. There is no logical argument in favor of spending more than necessary to have a luxury good, yet people pursue luxuries because they wish to have a positive emotional experience. We "like" having nice things and "feel" that we deserve them - there is and cannot be any logical argument that is not obviously contrived.

Per his earlier point, logic requires getting others to pay attention. If the audience is not emotionally engaged, they will not believe in or even pay attention to the tedious and detailed logical appeal. But again, this does not mean that logic is invalid, only that it cannot stand alone.

When to Use Logical Persuading

The author presents a number of tips for using logical persuasion, many of which seem like prerequisites:

Tips for Logical Persuading

A handful of random tips:

Legitimizing and Authority

The author describes legitimizing as the actions taken to establish an authority as a means to have a sort of standing influence. A "legitimate" authority is one that people will generally obey first and question later, if at all. This makes authority a very convenient and desirable thing to have and in some instances is expedient to avoid the time-consuming task of presenting a logical case before any action is taken.

The author considers authority to be one of the foundations of society - some rule others, and expect obedience. Laws, traditions, rules and so on are all based on authority: one is meant to obey a rule and not question it because it is backed by authority. (EN: This is a kind way of saying it is backed by force - ultimately the ruling class has the ability to inflict violence and ultimately to kill those who defy their authority.)

There is an enumeration of the roles in society that are presumed to have authority (politicians, police offers, the clergy, etc.) and some of which have no formal authority but are to be obeyed because they have knowledge (doctors, for example). Then, there is a consideration of the trappings of authority - the badges and uniforms that are associated to a role and have come to symbolize authority.

Next, there is the mention of borrowed authority - a person who has no authority borrows on someone else's power to command others. Essentially, this is the tattle: to do as this person demands of he will "tell mom" or suggests that "father will be angry" if he is not obeyed.

There is also a consideration of the degree to which people in various cultures respect authority, and this is often better proven in action: he mentions research findings that indicate few people will say that they respect authority, but in staged experiments it is found that most people comply with authority most of the time. Even self-described individualists and rebels yield to the immediate influence of an authority figure.

He briefly addresses the conception that weak-minded people kowtow to authority and sophisticated ones resist: in fact, it is found that people who comply with authorities tend to be more adept at exerting influence.

The conception that authority works in defiance of logic is, however, entirely supported. Observational studies of authoritarian leaders seldom use logical persuasion - they give blunt, unvarnished orders and expect compliance. They may evoke emotion at times, but seldom make a logical appeal to their audiences. It is said that a person needs no authority to present a logical argument, and it seems tha a person who has authority needs no logic.

The Limitations of Legitimizing

When an individual is accepted as an authority, they can expect immediate compliance to simple commands. When a police officer yells "stop" people stop what they're doing without questioning. It is not, however, effective to gain long-term compliance to complex commands - when people have time to stop and think about what they are doing and why they are doing it, they begin to wonder if authority is legitimate.

Authority also loses its effectiveness if it is used too often. Used sparingly and only when it's the right tool for the job, it retains its power - but when it is over-used people begin to question whether they should be obeying this person. And when they feel authority is misused, the authority figure loses all influence over them.

Authority is also effective when it is established in advance, not in arrears. When a person who is an authority makes a demand, people comply. When a person makes a demand and people do not comply, then presents authority, they do not comply but question the legitimacy of the persons' authority - it becomes clear to them that it is a trick, and likely to be false.

Authority requires poise and self-confidence. One cannot meekly and gently assert authority.

There is a brief mention of the halo effect: a person who is respected for one thing is respected in general. People may be inclined to accept financial advice from a medical doctor, or be amenable to political statements from an athlete or musician - but eventually they come to their senses and realize there are limits to a person's expertise and authority. When this occurs, it tends to undermine their original authority - the doctor who gives bad financial advice finds that his reputation is not damaged merely in financial matters, but also in medical ones.

When to Use Legitimizing

Effective Legitimizing

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT