Conditions that constrain persuasion

Difference between persuasion and expression of an opinion

Conditions that make persuasion particularly difficult

·      An opposition (i.e., already come to a decision) audience that has:

o   Taken the stance in public (especially if s/he has taken credit for it being a good idea or otherwise explicitly attached her/his ego/worth to the position);

o   Suffered for the position, had someone loved suffer, or caused others to suffer (e.g., voted for a policy that caused anyone to be injured);

o   Equated the idea/position with core beliefs of his/her culture, religion, political party, or ideology (since disagreement necessarily becomes disloyalty);

o   Been persuaded to adopt the position out of fear (especially for existence of the ingroup) or hatred for an outgroup;

o   Is committed to authoritarianism and/or naïve realism (equates changing one’s mind with weakness, illness, sin, or impaired masculinity; is actively frightened/angered by assertions of uncertainty or situations that require complex cognitive processes);

o   Does not value argumentative “fairness” (insists upon a rhetorical “state of exception” or “entitlement”—aka “double standard”—for his/her ingroup);

o   Has a logically closed system (cannot articulate the conditions under which s/he would change her/his mind).

·      A culture that

o   Demonizes or pathologizes disagreement (an “irenic” culture);

o   Is an honor culture (what matters is what people say about you, not what is actually true, so you aren’t “wrong” till you admit it);

o   Equates refusing to change your mind with privileged values (being “strong,” “knowing your mind,” masculinity) and“changing your mind” with marginalized values (being “weak,” “indecisive,” or impaired masculinity);

o   Enhances some group’s claim to rhetorical entitlement (doesn’t insist that the rules of argumentation be applied the same across groups or individuals);

o   Has standards of “expertise” that are themselves not up for argument;

o   Promotes a fear of change;

o   Equates anger and a privileged epistemological stance.

·      A topic

o   That results from disagreement over deep premises;

o   About which there is not agreement over standards of evidence;

o   That makes people frightened (especially about threats from an outgroup);

o   That is complicated and ambiguous;

o   That is polarized or controversial, such that people will assume (or incorrectly) infer your affirmative position purely on the basis of any negative case you make (e.g., If you disagree with the proposition that “Big dogs make great pets because they require no training” on the grounds that they do require training, your interlocutor will incorrectly assume that you think [and are arguing] that big dogs do not make great pets).