Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

[ken]

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.

So I am "shockingly stupid" but not so stupid to be confused here. Is this right?

Just maybe you might be somewhat confused about what I was getting? Could you have taken what I said out of context?

I was asking what is the 'right thing's to say in order to convince some one of any thing? Until some proof is given then it is somewhat obvious there is NOT any 'right thing' you could say to convince some one of some thing. (Especially when they are believing the opposite is true). For example if I could say the 'right thing' then I could very easily convince you and all others how to live in peace and harmony together.

Obviously not until some one becomes open to this could I then be able to show and even prove how it is possible. People's beliefs stop them from being able to see the truth.

[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?

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.

I still wonder if you have any examples of what the "right thing" is, that could "convince" someone of anything?

If there was such a thing as "just saying the right thing", or simply stringing the right words together, to convince another of anything, then we ALL would be using the "right" words. I asked for examples because I do NOT know of any "right" thing or of any "string of words" to say to another to convince them of any thing. And, if you had any examples then I would be interested in seeing them. I used the words 'right thing', not in relation to any thing particular but what, from your perspective, could be the 'right thing' (to say).

To "convince" any person of any thing implies you would want to convince them of what is 'right'. But like I said every person already has an idea of what is 'right' themselves, and therefore that is where the trouble is when trying to convince any one of any thing. When people already believe that they know what is right, then there are NO string of words that can convince them. Even proof with evidence will NOT convince a person with strongly held believed preconceptions.

Basically, if your arguments had been more eloquent, not even necessarily more logically consistent.

That is why I said ONLY a sound, valid argument could convince any one of any thing because ONLY a sound, valid argument can NOT be disputed. Although, in saying that, EVEN people will NOT change their views if those views are held as beliefs. That is because beliefs can STOP a person from seeing things as they really are. Even a sound, valid argument can NOT be seen for what IT is if and when people have beliefs that oppose that argument.

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.

The answer to your question is very basic and should be obvious by now. This has been discussed over for thousands of years. I am trying move the discussion along, by looking at and discussing HOW and WHY even with the 'right words' and right arguments people can not convince others and can not be convinced themselves. Convincing has NEVER worked nor NEVER will. HOW to find and see what IS, which is the 'right thing', and that people NEED to be "convinced" of anyway can ONLY be found, discovered, seen, and understood by one way that I KNOW of.

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.

Sounds like you are a prisoner of some of your own beliefs.

I have heard your line of thinking here before also, mostly from adults, but there is absolutely NO evidence to support it.

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.

And most of the so called "evidence" provided to you is the "evidence" you want to see anyway in order to support your already gained and strongly held beliefs. People generally only see what they want to see. People can be extremely biased, which IS caused mostly by their previously held beliefs.

Look at your own beliefs and preconceptions and look at how much they affect the way you then see things. Preconceptions are formed from beliefs.

People have a tendency to search for, and/or interpret, information in a way that confirms their own preconceptions, or beliefs, this leads to all sorts of errors. One of which is NOT listening to nor seeing what IS right and should NOT needed to be convinced of anyway.

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 NEVER said any thing about changing beliefs. To change from one belief to another belief is just about as stupid as having a belief in the first place. I was talking about stopping One's self from completely having beliefs. i can stop having beliefs. So, any human being can stop them self from having beliefs also if they so choose to do so.

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.

Is that about all you have to support your belief here?

Try that and see if it works. But i do NOT need to believe that pain hurts nor even believe that there is pain or not. I already KNOW what the body is feeling. So, I NEVER HAVE TO believe pain is happening.

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.

Well obviously if an argument is NOT sound but just logically valid, then it would NOT necessarily be any good at convincing any one of any thing.

Instead of convincing any one of any thing i prefer to just discuss things with people AND logically reason together until what IT is that we agree on is found, from which truly sound, valid arguments will naturally come to light anyway.

[ken]

A sales script focuses on more general terms, and not on the nuance of individual cases. I agree with you there's no 1 script that even a perfect machine could make that would fit for everyone. But I think if you knew every intimate detail of a person's life verbatim, I think there may very well be a string of words that hit very hard with that person's psyche. You'd know who that person lost their virginity to, if or how that person went to jail, when their parents died, the most traumatic events which have happened to them, who they admire, their moral beliefs, etc. We're talking about a response perfectly tailored to each individual based on everything that's ever happened in their life. I guess the question is if that data is relevant and can actually be used to help convince someone, or are some people just too stubborn.

Just too impractical. First you don't have that kind of information, even with your closest friends and relatives.
Then the metrics in a typical workplace would demand you have a certain level of contacts with prospects (and track you on that).

It's not about the practicality of it, but a hypothetical. Assuming we could obtain all that information, are the metrics there to convince someone of even the things they would typically be most reluctant about? I use the example of a highly-advanced machine able to scan your brain to add plausibility and help explain what I mean.

It's in part a philosophical question. If it's logically impossible to convince certain people of certain things, than this has massive ramifications for philosophical debate.

Is the thing that you are proposing to convince another of a truth or falsehood? This would have a great bearing on how easily or not to convince another of some thing.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

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.

I still wonder if you have any examples of what the "right thing" is, that could "convince" someone of anything?

If there was such a thing as "just saying the right thing", or simply stringing the right words together, to convince another of anything, then we ALL would be using the "right" words. I asked for examples because I do NOT know of any "right" thing or of any "string of words" to say to another to convince them of any thing. And, if you had any examples then I would be interested in seeing them. I used the words 'right thing', not in relation to any thing particular but what, from your perspective, could be the 'right thing' (to say).

To "convince" any person of any thing implies you would want to convince them of what is 'right'. But like I said every person already has an idea of what is 'right' themselves, and therefore that is where the trouble is when trying to convince any one of any thing. When people already believe that they know what is right, then there are NO string of words that can convince them. Even proof with evidence will NOT convince a person with strongly held believed preconceptions.

I think there's a bit of a communication issue, not sure if it's on my part or your. Maybe a bit of both; I'm basically just saying that some people clearly debate better than others, and present the exact same idea in a way that would be convincing to more people. I'm imagining a futuristic robot that's able to debate better than any human ever could, based on everything it knows about you.

Well, people usually try to convince others of what they believe is right. Whether or not it is right is pretty irrelevant to the topic we're discussing.

That is why I said ONLY a sound, valid argument could convince any one of any thing because ONLY a sound, valid argument can NOT be disputed. Although, in saying that, EVEN people will NOT change their views if those views are held as beliefs. That is because beliefs can STOP a person from seeing things as they really are. Even a sound, valid argument can NOT be seen for what IT is if and when people have beliefs that oppose that argument.

People are convinced by illogical arguments all the time. Because not everyone is perfect at reasoning, in fact no one is. In an ideal world, a logically consistent argument is all that's needed to convince someone, but that's just not the reality of human psychology. Often it has to do with the way the person presents the argument, and even the person who presents it.

Sounds like you are a prisoner of some of your own beliefs.

I have heard your line of thinking here before also, mostly from adults, but there is absolutely NO evidence to support it.

It's not really a matter of empirical evidence, but intuitions. Again, demonstrate to me how someone can. What button can I push on my body to suddenly change my beliefs? Even if I can choose to do something that will end up changing a belief, that is an indirect corollary of a choice. Can I "choose" to believe that I'm in a dream now, and not actually talking to you in real time? Can I 'choose' to believe that the next time I open my closet door, it will lead to the magical realm of unicorns?

I don't think we're the prisoners of our beliefs, because I think we pretty much are our beliefs.

I NEVER said any thing about changing beliefs. To change from one belief to another belief is just about as stupid as having a belief in the first place. I was talking about stopping One's self from completely having beliefs. i can stop having beliefs. So, any human being can stop them self from having beliefs also if they so choose to do so.

I don't think we can control the strength or density of a belief either, I think that pretty much implies change anyway. Again, looking something up or refusing to does not guarantee a response to think differently about something, it's a potential corollary of something that actually is a choice.

Try that and see if it works. But i do NOT need to believe that pain hurts nor even believe that there is pain or not. I already KNOW what the body is feeling. So, I NEVER HAVE TO believe pain is happening.

I don't think anything is actually known with 100% certainty, but differentiating knowledge and belief is binary. If we were able to modify our beliefs, we are changing what we know with the observable data that we have. I stand by my torture example, they believe that they are in pain, or they believe that they are being tortured.

[Boris Janssen]

You ask the question how powerful language is. A disembodied piece of text will not change a belief system very easily.

History, psychology and Foucault show us that power can exert itself in language. But it's meaning and weight is context dependent. The speaker matters, however deeply our image of him (or her, most likely, these days) is formed in turn by this same language and context. My belief is that power allows one to convince another to a terrifying degree.

It would work best if you were to run into God, say. Maybe in the form of a crazy ball of light. Whatever. Say he shows you he can do seriously anything. He will be able to convince you with a bit of text on a piece of paper that the earth is flat or that you're a werewolf. Or something more imaginative. Would you stay it's still language doing the work?

I think some important questions are how the power functions, how it's structured, whether it's possessor would even want to convince, and most of all: what if you're him? Should you?

[FlashDangerpants]

I was asking what is the 'right thing's to say in order to convince some one of any thing?

The thing that convinces them ofthe thing, that's massively obvious. You don't need to put 'right thing' in scare quotes to work on such a simple question. You don't even need to trouble people with this stupid question at all.

[ken]

I was asking what is the 'right thing's to say in order to convince some one of any thing?

The thing that convinces them ofthe thing, that's massively obvious. You don't need to put 'right thing' in scare quotes to work on such a simple question. You don't even need to trouble people with this stupid question at all.

Maybe I need to make it clear, FOR YOU.

This is how it started:

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?

Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?

THEN, you chimed in with:

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.

Obviously, you did NOT and still do NOT see that examples of the 'right thing', in quotation marks and NOT scare quotes, was and still is in relation to, to what the question was, that was being asked. BUT, this is ALL My fault because at the end of, "Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is" I should have added, "TO SAY", so that people like you did NOT make the WRONG assumption about what "... examples of what the 'right thing' is?" was in relation to.

My reply of "Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?", was in direct response to the question posed, which was, "Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the 'right thing'? I apologize for NOT adding the words "TO SAY" at the end.

The 'right thing', which was in quotation marks or scare quotes or whatever else they are called and are referred to, was actually IN THE QUESTION posed by the writer, so I used the 'right thing', in the same way and same marks, IN RESPONSE. I might have done this sub-consciously so that My asking for examples of the 'right thing' was obviously in regards to the exact same 'thing' that the question was in relation to.

Again, I apologize profusely for ALL the confusion that I have caused. If there is still any confusion, which would obviously be ALL of My fault again, then I suggest just asking Me clarifying questions BEFORE making any assumptions, so that 'things' can be cleared up before they get more confused, like what has happened here so far.

Further to this, and as you want to carry on with this, it was you who was the one trying to use my so called 'wrong assumption' to try to show an example of wrongness, when all along the only wrongness might be in YOUR words. In YOU, making the wrong assumption that it was wrong for ken to "assume some thing", which when looked back on and thoroughly, ken NEVER made the assumption that flashdangerpants assumed and said that ken had made. Last time when I was pointing this out, inconspicuously, I also said, "I could also use what you wrote as an example of wrongness, but I will NOT, ...".

I was going to leave it at that, but since you are the one who wanted to keep this going, then I am more then willing to look into what you have said and wanted to say. And, we can continue to look far more thoroughly, and expose even more, if you would like to continue on with more.

[FlashDangerpants]

No thanks, I'm bored.

You can contuinue to load up the word 'right' with unecessary and stupid shit. I'm not interested in explaining to you why it is a mistake as you demonstrate zero capacity to learn annything anyway.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I'm not quite sure of everything you two are arguing about, but I believe DangerPants was correct in his original statement that you seemed to misunderstand what "the right thing" was even about. I don't think you would have felt the need to ask for examples, because it's honestly a pretty simple concept, and while I didn't provide exact examples, I did elaborate in the OP. I don't see what insights you could have gained from me giving you examples anyway.

The topic concept can actually be summarized in an even simpler manner: Just imagine someone who is, to you, the perfect debater.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

You ask the question how powerful language is. A disembodied piece of text will not change a belief system very easily.

I think my original OP implies that it's not merely text and that it would be able to talk to you.

Would be interesting to see a study on the influence of text vs speech, though. I think in some cases, for me at least, the prior can actually make something like a philosophical argument much easier to understand. But I think most people in most instances would probably be more swayed by an intimate discussion in person.

[Abunai]

No, because when certain individuals reach a state of enlightenment through their own blind faith then who's to tell them otherwise when they already took the leap of faith towards the nonexistent and even found what they believe to be a greater sense of self.

[ken]

I'm not quite sure of everything you two are arguing about, but I believe DangerPants was correct in his original statement that you seemed to misunderstand what "the right thing" was even about.

Did you write, "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?"

If so, then My question still stands; "Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?" but as I noted I will now add the words "to say" on the end to make it clear that My question was in direct response to your question.

When, and if, you provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possible be that could convince anyone of anything, then we can proceed to look at and discuss this further. Until then the point is mute.

I don't think you would have felt the need to ask for examples, because it's honestly a pretty simple concept, and while I didn't provide exact examples, I did elaborate in the OP. I don't see what insights you could have gained from me giving you examples anyway.

This is NOT about your inability to foresee future insights. The insights you WILL gain are obvious to Me. This is about if you can provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possibly be, which could possibly convince anyone of anything or not. If you can NOT provide any examples, then you do NOT know of anyway of saying the right thing. So, obviously to you it is NOT possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing because you have NO examples of what saying the right thing could possibly be. However, if you possibly could provide some examples of being able to just say the right thing that could convince anyone of anything, then obviously that is possible.

In simple terms; if you can provide some examples, then you have just answered your own question. Alternatively, if you can NOT provide any examples, then you have also just answered your own question.

If you do NOT know of any and can NOT provide any examples of what the right thing is that could be said to convince anyone of anything, then if I was you I would do exactly what I did and ask, "Do 'you' (any one) have examples of what the right thing is to say that could convince anyone of anything?"

If you get any examples, then we can all look at them and discuss further. Until then, the answer to your own question should be very obvious by now. Insight gained?

The topic concept can actually be summarized in an even simpler manner: Just imagine someone who is, to you, the perfect debater.

As I have already explained one of the greatest mistakes that the "education system" has done and continues to do is to teach debating. I already provided the reasons why teaching debating is so intrinsically wrong.

[ken]

No thanks, I'm bored.

You can contuinue to load up the word 'right' with unecessary and stupid shit. I'm not interested in explaining to you why it is a mistake as you demonstrate zero capacity to learn annything anyway.

Just maybe what you assumed from the outset was wrong? And, what you were trying to explain was incorrect?

Have you even considered that scenario?

The question, which I directly responded to asked, "Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing?"

I then asked, "Do you have any examples of what the 'right thing' is?"

Obviously I NEVER loaded up the word 'right' in anyway. I just a very simple question, which speaks for itself what it was in relation to.

You are NOT interested in explaining to Me why it is a mistake BECAUSE it was NOT a mistake. As I have already explained and shown it was your assumption that was a mistake. I did NOT load up the word 'right'. You just misread what I wrote, and then believed in your own misinterpretation. You were and still appear to be NOT open to looking at this as being a possible fact.

As I said earlier, "I was going to leave it at that, but since you are the one who wanted to keep this going, then I am more then willing to look into what you have said and wanted to say. And, we can continue to look far more thoroughly, and expose even more, if you would like to continue on with more."

My quote still stands.

I write in such a way to get people to respond in a certain way, so then I can use that as evidence and proof to support THAT what I am learning how to and one day WILL express. The truth is in our writings and I am more then willing to reveal the truth this way. The more you WANT TO continue on, then the more truth I CAN and WILL reveal.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

When, and if, you provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possible be that could convince anyone of anything, then we can proceed to look at and discuss this further. Until then the point is mute.

The reason why it looks like you don't understand what I'm talking about, is because it's an odd thing to ask an example for. There's no guarantee that you'll be able to relate to it, because everyone has a different argumentation style that they find the most eloquent, or that conveys the best way to understand something. Some people find someone who's a fast-talking, fast-thinking lawyer like Ben Shapiro annoying, and others say that he is very good at debate, or maybe both. There are people who have walked into a Shapiro university speech with a better understanding of conservative that they wouldn't have gotten from anyone else, and I'm sure there are also those who came out more vehemently against political conservatism.

The point of the hypothetical machine discussed in the OP, is that it would be able to determine this, and know who's method and ability for debate is the best to mimic, in order to convince you.

I can't give an example of me convincing you of something because I'm not a perfect machine that knows everything about you, and I'm trying to figure out if someone could convince you of anything. If you just mean an example of anyone being convinced by something due to the eloquence of their speaking, then consider the Shapiro thing as one. It's a fairly basic and simple idea that doesn't really need an example, though. Some people talk better than others, and that's really all there is to it.

This is NOT about your inability to foresee future insights. The insights you WILL gain are obvious to Me. This is about if you can provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possibly be, which could possibly convince anyone of anything or not. If you can NOT provide any examples, then you do NOT know of anyway of saying the right thing. So, obviously to you it is NOT possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing because you have NO examples of what saying the right thing could possibly be. However, if you possibly could provide some examples of being able to just say the right thing that could convince anyone of anything, then obviously that is possible.

By "the right thing", I'm not talking about a basic script that would be applicable to everyone. I discussed this pretty well with PhilExplorer on the other page. The machine would look into the contents of each person's brain, individually, and present arguments in ways uniquely tailored to best suit what you would find convincing.

Well, I can provide examples of people convincing other people of certain things, based on little more than they just talk so eloquently, but I don't know how far that method can go.

As I have already explained one of the greatest mistakes that the "education system" has done and continues to do is to teach debating. I already provided the reasons why teaching debating is so intrinsically wrong.

It's not though? I mean, I don't know how the education system teaches people to debate, but do you really think that a 3-year old toddler could present ideas as convincingly as someone like Ben Shapiro?

[ken]

When, and if, you provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possible be that could convince anyone of anything, then we can proceed to look at and discuss this further. Until then the point is mute.

The reason why it looks like you don't understand what I'm talking about, is because it's an odd thing to ask an example for. There's no guarantee that you'll be able to relate to it, because everyone has a different argumentation style that they find the most eloquent, or that conveys the best way to understand something. Some people find someone who's a fast-talking, fast-thinking lawyer like Ben Shapiro annoying, and others say that he is very good at debate, or maybe both. There are people who have walked into a Shapiro university speech with a better understanding of conservative that they wouldn't have gotten from anyone else, and I'm sure there are also those who came out more vehemently against political conservatism.

The point of the hypothetical machine discussed in the OP, is that it would be able to determine this, and know who's method and ability for debate is the best to mimic, in order to convince you.

I can't give an example of me convincing you of something because I'm not a perfect machine that knows everything about you, and I'm trying to figure out if someone could convince you of anything. If you just mean an example of anyone being convinced by something due to the eloquence of their speaking, then consider the Shapiro thing as one. It's a fairly basic and simple idea that doesn't really need an example, though. Some people talk better than others, and that's really all there is to it.

So, have you just answered your own question?

This is NOT about your inability to foresee future insights. The insights you WILL gain are obvious to Me. This is about if you can provide any examples of what the right thing to say could possibly be, which could possibly convince anyone of anything or not. If you can NOT provide any examples, then you do NOT know of anyway of saying the right thing. So, obviously to you it is NOT possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing because you have NO examples of what saying the right thing could possibly be. However, if you possibly could provide some examples of being able to just say the right thing that could convince anyone of anything, then obviously that is possible.

By "the right thing", I'm not talking about a basic script that would be applicable to everyone. I discussed this pretty well with PhilExplorer on the other page. The machine would look into the contents of each person's brain, individually, and present arguments in ways uniquely tailored to best suit what you would find convincing.

Well, I can provide examples of people convincing other people of certain things, based on little more than they just talk so eloquently, but I don't know how far that method can go.

If a machine can be built that does what you are proposing it could do here, then obviously that by itself answers your own question.

By the way what you are proposing here already takes place.

As I have already explained one of the greatest mistakes that the "education system" has done and continues to do is to teach debating. I already provided the reasons why teaching debating is so intrinsically wrong.

It's not though? I mean, I don't know how the education system teaches people to debate,

Have you ever been in, seen, or even heard of debating classes or debates in schools?

but do you really think that a 3-year old toddler could present ideas as convincingly as someone like Ben Shapiro?

What has this got to do with anything I was saying?

You only brought up that person's name in this last reply of yours here and then ask Me some question that is not really in relation to anything I have been talking about that I can see.