Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's an odd sort of a question especially as there's an abundance of evidence that most people can be convinced of practically anything, (provided it contains as little logic or evidence as possible) --no fancy brain scanners or omnicient machinery needed.

Maybe before their adult-hood, when beliefs begin to deeply root, at least the important ones like religion. People tend to be far more stubborn when it comes to things like that, and when they do modify their religious beliefs, it's usually due to cultural change and not from debate or reasoning.

I agree, so the paradox is that it's both true and untrue at the same time.

[ken]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?

The 'right' thing, implies that it would not need to be convinced of anyway. People generally think that they know what the 'right' thing is already. Although, what is the 'right' thing thing to one person can be the exact opposite thing to another person. Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

Perhaps we should start with an exemaple of wrongness instead. For instance ... Ken was wrong to assume that "right thing" in that context was a normative declaration when it was quite obviously an instrumental one.

But I did NOT assume that and could not. Because I am very slow and simple, and now, according to you, also "shockingly stupid", I do NOT even know what "normative declaration" is compared to "an instrumental one", whatever that is also.

WHY would you assume that I assumed some thing, of which I have NEVER even heard of before? I could NOT make an assumption about some thing of which I was NEVER aware of.

I could also use what you wrote as an example of wrongness, but I will NOT, as I was only looking for examples of what the 'right thing' IS.

Also, did you write the quote that I was replying to? If not, then I will wait for the person who wrote it BEFORE I accept your version of what context it was written in. I will also add, however, that your version might be 100% accurate, but do NOT expect Me to just accept that it is right on your word alone. You, also, could have assumed wrong.

A fork is the right instrument with which to each a sausage, and a spoon is the wrong one.

Do you know of anyone that needs "convincing" of that? If so, then I might have to rephrase what I wrote because flashdangerpants does know some people who generally do NEED convincing of the 'right thing'. Does flashdangerpants also NEED convincing of the 'right thing'?

By the way if a human being does NOT have a fork at the time of wanting to eat a sausage, then a spoon, or even their own fingers, might actually become the "right" instrument at that time with which to eat a sausage.

Nobody needs examples of what makes it morally correct to use a fork in order to understand this statement,

No body asked what makes it 'morally' correct to use a fork. You, for some reason that I have not yet become aware of, were the only one here that was thinking along the lines of bodies needing examples of what makes it 'morally' correct to use a fork.

Would, could, 'morality' even come into a discussion that is just about what instrument to use to eat a food is anyway?

you just need to notice the blindingly obvious fact that right in this context means the tool that executes the given task effectively.

Ah, is that what flashdangerpants noticed? Okay noted.

By the way, to some people, a fork IS NOT the correct tool that executes the given task effectively for eating a sausage. For some people do NOT have, thus even use forks. Therefore, the 'right thing' for them IS some thing else, completely different.

You are shockingly stupid Ken.

Noted.

Now that you have made that known, is there anything in regards to what I actually wrote that you would like to look at and discuss, or was that it?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?

The 'right' thing, implies that it would not need to be convinced of anyway. People generally think that they know what the 'right' thing is already. Although, what is the 'right' thing thing to one person can be the exact opposite thing to another person. Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

I think you misunderstand what I meant by 'the right thing'; I wasn't referring to saying the truth, morality, or even providing empirical evidence, but simply a string of words that would convince them over the words you chose and how you phrased them. Basically, if your arguments had been more eloquent, not even necessarily more logically consistent.

No thing can make you believe in any thing. Only you choose to either believe or not believe (in) some thing or not. You can also choose to remain open also, if you want to. However, this machine sounds like inner-self talk anyway, mis/guiding you to believe in things by telling you things based upon your own previous experiences of what has been taught to you, and when you then jump to wrong conclusions IS what makes you believe in the things that you do believe in, which are NOT right anyway.

I believe you dissected my op a bit more than was needed to get most of these points across, some of which were probably past the point of relevancy.

I've heard this line of thinking before, often from theists, but I fundamentally disagree with this concept that belief is actually a choice; I think that it's clearly not. There's no 'button' someone can press on the inside of their brain that suddenly drives them to think about differently, belief is a reflective and automatic reaction based on the evidence provided to you. It's a choice to seek out that evidence, but once provided to you, there's no guarantee those beliefs will change, even they should or they did for you.

I mean, if 'belief' is a choice, than maybe someone who's being tortured should just 'choose' to believe that pain doesn't exist, because that would probably help him out a lot.

A 'good' argument is a sound, valid argument only. All the rest are just statements usually made up to try and convince one's own self that what they believe in is true.

By a good argument, I was referring to one that the person at least finds to be logically valid. Whether it actually is remains another discussion.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions or subliminal feelings.

I'm not sure if you're really convincing anyone if they already have preconceptions about it.

What do you think I meant by "Easy enough if the words fit one's preconceptions"?

I think I see what you're saying.

It's almost impossible to convince anyone of anything that goes against their strongly held preconceptions. How many examples on public forums does one need to prove it?

I agree with you that it often feels like that, though often those feelings are just used as an excuse to not talk to other people at all. Crazier situations have happened, since we know that even the truly religious have lost their faith.

I also agree a forum post is a probably too short term for most proposals to be convincing. I was thinking more along the lines of months, years, or even decades of discussion.

[FlashDangerpants]

The 'right' thing, implies that it would not need to be convinced of anyway. People generally think that they know what the 'right' thing is already. Although, what is the 'right' thing thing to one person can be the exact opposite thing to another person. Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

Perhaps we should start with an exemaple of wrongness instead. For instance ... Ken was wrong to assume that "right thing" in that context was a normative declaration when it was quite obviously an instrumental one.

But I did NOT assume that and could not. Because I am very slow and simple, and now, according to you, also "shockingly stupid", I do NOT even know what "normative declaration" is compared to "an instrumental one", whatever that is also.

WHY would you assume that I assumed some thing, of which I have NEVER even heard of before? I could NOT make an assumption about some thing of which I was NEVER aware of.

I could also use what you wrote as an example of wrongness, but I will NOT, as I was only looking for examples of what the 'right thing' IS.

Also, did you write the quote that I was replying to? If not, then I will wait for the person who wrote it BEFORE I accept your version of what context it was written in. I will also add, however, that your version might be 100% accurate, but do NOT expect Me to just accept that it is right on your word alone. You, also, could have assumed wrong.

After you have put on your left shoe, what happens with the other one? Do you wear it on your head because that might be an example of the right foot?

Even you aren't stupid enough not to know that "right" is one word with lots of meanings which are clearly revealed in context. There was no ambiguity in that original sentence, you launched your usual spiel out of context because you are pretentious not because there was any way for you to actually be confused.

[Arising_uk]

... plenty of leading questions and other NLP bullshit. ...

Since when have leading questions been part of NLP? They've been around in sales for yonks.

[Arising_uk]

...
The script/words isn't the path to great sales. ...

By and large the path to great sales is a great product.

[Arising_uk]

...

Just too impractical. First you don't have that kind of information, even with your closest friends and relatives. ...

This is becoming less and less true in the world of social media and the acceptance that bearing one's soul to others is a moral virtue.

[Arising_uk]

...
One thing for sure; without the right words a man would rarely get a woman into bed on the first date. ...

Not heard of Tinder?

[Philosophy Explorer]

...
The script/words isn't the path to great sales. ...

By and large the path to great sales is a great product.

This is baloney. Does the great sales make a great product or does the great product make for great sales? I can transform any salesplace from humdrum into the best seller of any product or service (which I've already done to a limited extent). Let me add that if the product is so great, then why is it superseded by an even greater product as they inevitably do? You're also overlooking competing products.

You are showing prejudice and faulty ideas in your answers and I don't believe you even worked as a sales rep.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

This is baloney. Does the great sales make a great product or does the great product make for great sales? ...

No product no sales and if your product is shit no amount of sales will make it a better product but for sure you can sell shit products with the right patter.

I can transform any salesplace from humdrum into the best seller of any product or service (which I've already done to a limited extent). ...

Sure but it doesn't make for a great product and generally doesn't make for a sustainable one.

Let me add that if the product is so great, then why is it superseded by an even greater product as they inevitably do?

Er!? Technological advances.

You are showing prejudice and faulty ideas in your answers and I don't believe you even worked as a sales rep.

Cold call, door-to-door lead follows and technical sales. I've also been a product manager with a sales team so have a fair idea of the sales process and the kinds of sales people there are and how the quality of a product affects sustainable sales.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Arising said:

"No product no sales and if your product is shit no amount of sales will make it a better product but for sure you can sell shit products with the right patter."

Ultimately doesn't the consumer have the final say in what makes a "great product", not the sales company? Again there are no convincing words that would persuade a consumer from which I speak from experience (to stay on-topic).

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

Ultimately doesn't the consumer have the final say in what makes a "great product", not the sales company? ...

We agree sort of but I think it's the producer who is largely responsible for making a great product and the consumer who confirms or denies it. I also think in the old days the consumer could be influenced a lot more by the sales patter as they had less information to go on and the salesperson could just move on to those who hadn't heard the product was shit but nowadays anyone can find rafts of reviews so this type of sales is on the wane, hopefully.

Again there are no convincing words that would persuade a consumer from which I speak from experience (to stay on-topic).

We agree as I think in the end the consumer wants to buy or not but I think there are loads of words that could be used that inadvertently discourages the consumer from buying.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Arising said:

"We agree as I think in the end the consumer wants to buy or not but I think there are loads of words that could be used that inadvertently discourages the consumer from buying."

Let me ask you this. Sales persuaders or objection rebuttals used to change someone's mind after the prospect gives a no reply are ineffective as customer's decisions are being disrespected ("Which part of NO don't you understand?"), right? So it wouldn't matter what you say because a declination was issued and it's practically impossible to change a prospect's mind. Now my question. If that sales persuader was so important, why wasn't it given before the prospect made his decision where it would have been easier to get the prospect to agree to the offer, given during the sales presentation itself? Same words, but given far earlier before a decision was made.

Have you ever thought about this?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

In terms of a script, you can easily find two people where one will successfully sell and the other person won't. I was those two people. I can't say too much as I'm opposed to creating monopolies (and sales monopolies are very bad news, the worst). I can tell you that sales personalities and voices don't exist because, besides myself, I've successfully tested through a few others. One person said my idea worked and to let him know if I come up with any more ideas. The other person ran a telemarketing operation out of his insurance agency. I wrote him a script with instructions which he gave to his telemarketer. A month later I saw him on other business. He said he didn't normally take advice and he didn't understand why my advice worked, but it did and to let him know if I come up with any more ideas (which I did over 10 years later).

Arising would know to certain extent that what I've stated here is the truth. He should know there are both good and bad sellers, but he wouldn't actually know why. To a certain extent I do, but it's not 100% knowledge which would require further research. So I have a strong basis for saying what I do. Another myth is a salesperson is supposed to fall in love with the product or service which is untrue. Anything can be sold under the sun. And there are no right words. It's more complicated than that.

PhilX