The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Talking about talking about [RHETORIC]
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
From Wikipedia:
~~~~~~
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.
~~~~~~
I tend to assume that there's at least one or more optimal ways to conduct oneself and phrase/present a position, depending on one's goals, and the audience, subject, and other similar contexts. As such, the best/optimal conduct depends on a lot of factors, and there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach. What "works" (again, depending on one's goals, etc) in a forum like this, for example, might not work at the Thanksgiving dinner table, might not work in a presidential debate, might not work in a discussion among not-quite-like-minded friends.
I would love to see any empirical studies or anecdotes, readings like How To Win Friends and Influence People, whatever, and I think it would be interesting to see some discussion on the efficacy and relevancy of those things as well.
Extracting some questions from the Wikipedia entry to get started:
1) What kinds of conversational heuristics to people like to use? In what contexts do you find they are most appropriate?
ex: At least in forums, I like to ask lots of questions, both as a means to better understand the other person's position, and as a means to give them a long line with which to hang themselves. More words spent on nonsense means more and more obvious targets.
2) What are kinds of goals you have in different interactions with people? Do you tend to seek to convince people of your point of view, do you seek to make them feel bad for holding their views, do you seek to change your own mind, or...?
ex: When I'm with my particularly religious and conservative friends, I mostly seek to open them up to the possibility of being wrong about my views or being wrong about their own views. I try to add as much nuance as possible to their rigid worldviews, while not saying anything that might threaten our friendship.
3) Have you read any relevant and interesting books, had any notable experiences, found any useful studies on the matter?
ex: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/09/want-to-correct-misinformation-try-doing-it-with-a-graphic/
At this point, we pretty much take for granted the power of graphics to help journalists explain — stories, concepts, context. What we pay less attention to is graphics’ power to persuade. But that could (and, maybe, should) be changing. A new paper on motivated reasoning and political misperception — the latest from political science professors Brendan Nyhan, of Dartmouth, and Jason Reifler, of Georgia State — suggests that graphics can also provide a powerful, and perhaps essential, way of counteracting misinformation. In the political world, in particular — but presumably in the broader sphere, as well.
4) What rhetorical mistakes do you often see, from yourself or others? How are they mistakes?
ex: I think the mistake we all tend to make is misjudging our audience, target, or the context, and thereby employing the wrong strategy. I believe that we reflexively assume that other people are like us in some respects that they actually are very different, We present conflicting data before people are primed to accept it, we try to persuade individual interlocutors rather than the audience, etc.
5) Do you have any moral qualms about rhetoric?
ex: no.
~~~~~~
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.
~~~~~~
I tend to assume that there's at least one or more optimal ways to conduct oneself and phrase/present a position, depending on one's goals, and the audience, subject, and other similar contexts. As such, the best/optimal conduct depends on a lot of factors, and there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach. What "works" (again, depending on one's goals, etc) in a forum like this, for example, might not work at the Thanksgiving dinner table, might not work in a presidential debate, might not work in a discussion among not-quite-like-minded friends.
I would love to see any empirical studies or anecdotes, readings like How To Win Friends and Influence People, whatever, and I think it would be interesting to see some discussion on the efficacy and relevancy of those things as well.
Extracting some questions from the Wikipedia entry to get started:
1) What kinds of conversational heuristics to people like to use? In what contexts do you find they are most appropriate?
ex: At least in forums, I like to ask lots of questions, both as a means to better understand the other person's position, and as a means to give them a long line with which to hang themselves. More words spent on nonsense means more and more obvious targets.
2) What are kinds of goals you have in different interactions with people? Do you tend to seek to convince people of your point of view, do you seek to make them feel bad for holding their views, do you seek to change your own mind, or...?
ex: When I'm with my particularly religious and conservative friends, I mostly seek to open them up to the possibility of being wrong about my views or being wrong about their own views. I try to add as much nuance as possible to their rigid worldviews, while not saying anything that might threaten our friendship.
3) Have you read any relevant and interesting books, had any notable experiences, found any useful studies on the matter?
ex: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/09/want-to-correct-misinformation-try-doing-it-with-a-graphic/
At this point, we pretty much take for granted the power of graphics to help journalists explain — stories, concepts, context. What we pay less attention to is graphics’ power to persuade. But that could (and, maybe, should) be changing. A new paper on motivated reasoning and political misperception — the latest from political science professors Brendan Nyhan, of Dartmouth, and Jason Reifler, of Georgia State — suggests that graphics can also provide a powerful, and perhaps essential, way of counteracting misinformation. In the political world, in particular — but presumably in the broader sphere, as well.
4) What rhetorical mistakes do you often see, from yourself or others? How are they mistakes?
ex: I think the mistake we all tend to make is misjudging our audience, target, or the context, and thereby employing the wrong strategy. I believe that we reflexively assume that other people are like us in some respects that they actually are very different, We present conflicting data before people are primed to accept it, we try to persuade individual interlocutors rather than the audience, etc.
5) Do you have any moral qualms about rhetoric?
ex: no.
0
Posts
But before you even engage in the conversation, the most important question you have ask yourself is this:
Do I want to be right or do I want to be right?
We live in a world where reasoned rhetoric has shown itself time and again to be the most successful, most thorough, and most agreeable form of discourse and conflict resolution, yet so many people ardently refuse to accept its usage when engaged in conflict.
As Stephen Colbert once said, most people don't want to know the truth, they want to feel the truth, because human psychology innately is based upon projection, not reason, and the lizard brain is visceral.
The question I find myself with often is whether to amend my logic to better be understood by the lizard-brained, or to attempt to teach old lizards new tricks, getting them to understand how logic works. I'm not sure the ends justify the means if the cycle of ignorance is perpetuated.
At least when I'm interacting with people who are very different from me, morally, philosophically, economically, politically, etc, I try very hard to keep it as even and civil as possible. By focusing on what others say, by asking questions, I better understand the situation, better understand my interlocutor(s), and keep the focus on what they say as opposed to what I say. The less I assert, the less that can be taken out of context. The more questions I ask, the more problems are revealed (or, alternatively, the more truth-value I place on the other person's position).
By allowing the other person to speak and by asking questions, I show interest and am less likely to offend someone out of a conversation. I also like to show self-doubt, as it reveals that I'm not committed to any particular position that opposes the person I'm talking to.
At least, that's the narrative I put on my interactions. I'm not sure how true it is.
I am trying less and less to use insider bullshit jargon like "fallacy", "strawman", and "ad hom!", and am trying to find more accessible, less eggheady alternatives that demonstrate those problems without sounding like I'm talking in code.
I'm looking for ways to appeal to the logic center of the lizard brain I guess?
I have the most luck with this when I ask for the contending party to extrapolate the natural outcomes of their argument. This works fantastically when engaged in ideological debate against someone whose worldview is unconcerned with the impractical, e.g., "The world would be a lot better without abortion/gays/gun control." It also allows you to introduce them to the fallacy that begets Rhetorical Logic 101: The Is/Ought Fallacy.
When I try to have discussions with some academics, I find that they utilize jargon as a way to rhetorically pull up the rope ladder as they retreat into their own argumentative treehouse. We'll talk about, say, Heidegger for a while, and as soon as I articulate a criticism, or find a problem with their argument, then out comes the German and the jargon.
Jargon is fine. Utilizing jargon in discussions is fine. Jargon as a defense mechanism is mostly just dickish.
That being said, I think jargon has utility and there's no need to abandon it. Sometimes people like to learn new words, and using jargon in a helpful, informative way can aid in educating some people to particular nuances in some fields of study. If I tell my students they've strawmanned someone's position, and they don't know what that means, then I'll teach them what the word means rather than not use the word.
If you're using jargon to clearly articulate a particular notion? Cool.
If you're using jargon to obfuscate the conversation and avoid genuine dialog? Not cool.
Jargon is appropriate in many contexts. I'm skeptical of the utility of many common entry-level phrases like the ones I listed earlier though, even, and sometimes particularly, among people who are familiar with them.
I sometimes get the (perhaps mistaken) sensation that people often react to things like "strawman" as a kind of emotional trigger rather than to its underlying meaning. I think this might be similar to how the modern Right in America treats the word "racism". The response is emotional rather than "wait, how [am I/is my intellectual ally] doing this thing".
You may be mistakenly moving from particulars to universals. Something that never happens on internet discussion forums, ever.
Some people might forget the meaning of "strawman" and instead have emotional reactions to the noise / symbols. Sure.
That doesn't undermine the utility of the term when used by rational persons in academic arguments. If one uses the term, and later in the conversation determines that one's interlocutor didn't understand it, or misinterpreted it, then the point can be clarified.
That's a problem with the contemporary approach to debates as a contest with winner and loser, and not the thesis - antithesis - synthesis model. Debates should be about reaching a new understanding about the subject matter on all sides, not making the other dude cry in his basement.
Regardless of whether wiki is clear on the difference, the second is obviously the one I'd prefer.
I think you're right. I think this is just a matter of being aware of the context and audience.
I don't typically have academic arguments. I'm not sure how rational the people are I talk with in any context.
I agree that that would be ideal in many situations. I'm not sure how possible it is though, given how people react to information and people who challenge their beliefs.
In terms of non argumentative dialogue, like attempting to convince a person to follow the course of action you wish to take, it seems that a similar but different rhetorical strategy can be useful. Drawing out their desires, by asking them questions relating to these aspects of their personality. You can kind of lead someone into at least an approximation of what you'd like to accomplish. I think of a common form(opening) of this kind of utterance would be something along the lines of "I don't know, what do you want to do?"(Upon them responding to an initial inquiry regarding choice of activity). This can open up exchanges of suggestion.