[anaisdannyxys]

It took me years to come to grips with this. Why do so many people cling to irrational beliefs? Why do so many people not only reject reasonable arguments that contradict their beliefs, but believe those that deliver these arguments as crazy? The answer is simple: logical arguments don't work very well, but emotional arguments do! Some of us are lucky enough to be extremely resistant to emotional arguments. Some of us believe that we are even immune to them. One thing that I've come to believe is that anyone can fall victim to an emotional argument. We all have varying levels of vulnerability, but no one is above being manipulated.

Characteristics of Logical Arguments vs. Characteristics of Emotional Arguments

Logical arguments are:
direct
simple
singular in expression (no undertones or multiple meanings, what you see/hear is what you get)
devoid of emotion (obvious)
reasonable

Emotional arguments are:
indirect
convoluted
expressing emotion (often times they even use language that conveys emotion, like angry, sad, etc)
abstract
suggestive
often made in secondary and tertiary expression (for example, body language is used in a face to face emotional argument)

Characteristics can tell us what to look out for when hearing arguments. For example, charisma is often a form of manipulation, because it is a non spoken, indirect, and non verbal means of communication. 'Way with words' or 'Gift of Gab' can also be a red flag. Personality characteristics are not in and of themselves indicative of purely emotional arguments, but when coupled with other characteristics one can often infer the intent of the argument.
'Arguments' can be conveyed in non traditional means and still have an effect on the unaware and unprepared. Think advertising.

It's useful to observe the degree of efficacy of certain types of arguments in others. First of all, it helps prevent bad feelings and animosity (how can he/she be so stupid?). Second, it often helps one guard themselves against falling prey to the same types of arguments. In general, the efficacy of any argument has little to do with the truth value or rationality of the argument, rather the intensity of the emotions that the argument appeals to (for most people, that is). This is why arguments appealing to ethnocentricity are so powerful.

When carefully considered this information can be both helpful and depressing. The bad guys almost always use emotional arguments and the good guys try to use logical arguments whenever possible. How can this possibly be anything other than an overwhelming advantage for those that prefer manipulation to truth? I don't think that it can. It explains a lot, but unfortunately it doesn't solve much unless one is willing to engage in the same types of underhanded manipulation that the other side is so willing to engage in.

dys