For
this blog, I have broken down the type of argument that best persuades me to
agree with the arguer. The equation is as follows: 56% logical facts and
evidences, 23% emotional appeal, 14% moral guilt trip, and the other 7% divided
between charisma, presentation, and author credibility.
The
first things I look for in a persuasive argument are the facts. While emotional
appeals are a powerful part of convincing arguments, it will never be more
important to me than the raw data. This is the main reason why the Sarah
McLachlan “Save the Adorable Animals” commercials are pretty ineffectual for
me. Too much emotion and not enough info make me instantly zone out. Mz.
McLachlan, I love pictures of adorable cats as much as the next guy. I am not a
heartless man. But I need to know exactly where my donations are going, why
they are needed, and what will be done with them before I donate a penny. Sorry,
cat with one eye.
When
I listen to an argument, I absolutely do judge a book by its cover. If the
arguer is charismatic and exciting to listen to, I will certainly pay better
attention to him than his boring counterpart. I apologize for my shallowness. This
is a relatively small part of the equation, however, as is the author’s
credibility. I do not mind much if the author is uneducated and unqualified. If
his information is credible and his presentation is overall positive, I will
not disregard it. Of course I will verify the claims made in his argument. This
should be done any time an argument is presented, so the author’s credibility
is fairly irrelevant.
First of all, good job on this post. You got me laughing, which isn't the easiest thing to do when I'm inwardly groaning about having to do these things in the first place. And secondly, good job again. I totally get your point on the fact that emotions alone can't convince. My post focused a lot on the importance of emotions, but I think my opinion changed somewhat. Those adorabe animal commercials don't affect me much, either. So, you already convinced me. I think you're on the right path for this stuff.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I totally agree with you. I feel like those that have commercials that try to tug the heartstrings are too much. I think to myself, "look, you're trying way to hard." The guilt trip idea is helpful, but not one hundred percent of the commercial needs to be based on it.
ReplyDeleteThat commercial is a great example of playing with people's emotions to win their support. I agree that they solely base their commercials on those emotions though. That may work for some people, but for an argument to be effective, there needs to be facts and more information.
ReplyDeleteI agree that having a charismatic face for your campaign/commercial/whatever is very important in terms of public appeal....isn't that what politics are all about? I also agree with you that sometimes, people try to get our attention with a ridiculous amount of emotion and not enough facts to back them up, and it is important to also have those facts to support an argument.
ReplyDeleteEmotions are key, but i agree that less is more. The guilt trip rarely works for me unless its really well done. And when i say well done i mean well disguised. Once i can label that they are setting me up for a guilt trip it becomes ineffective.
ReplyDelete