Appeals to emotion - the prove my husband wrong post

[Ilah]

Yesterday I was talking with my husband about politics and he said, "the more a politician appeals to emotions the less likely I am to vote for them."

Then he said, "I am probably the only one who feels that way."

I said, "You're wrong, I bet lots of people on the MBTI site would share your feelings on appeals to emotion."

I am not one of those people who enjoys proving other people wrong, but I find myself very curious as to whether my statement is correct.

So how many people out there identify with my husband's strong dislike of appeals to emotion.

Ilah

[InaF3157]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Yesterday I was talking with my husband about politics and he said, "the more a politician appeals to emotions the less likely I am to vote for them."

Then he said, "I am probably the only one who feels that way."

I said, "You're wrong, I bet lots of people on the MBTI site would share your feelings on appeals to emotion."

I am not one of those people who enjoys proving other people wrong, but I find myself very curious as to whether my statement is correct.

So how many people out there identify with my husband's strong dislike of appeals to emotion.

Ilah

He is wrong. That tactic strikes me as manipulative and disrespectful ---> huge FAIL! But you can't blame him because it works on many . . . enough to warrant use of that particular tool and inspire the disgust of folks like your husband.

[proteanmix]

It depends on what the intent of the emotion appeal is. I don't think all emotional appeals are chock full of nefarious intent and selfish manipulation. Any good persuasive argument is balanced to appeal to your emotions (pathos), your logic (logos), and your ethics (ethos).

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Despite the example of Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek television series, emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking. However, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious.

When are appeals to emotion appropriate, and when are they fallacious? No student would attempt to prove a mathematical theorem by playing upon the teacher's sympathy for the long hours of hard work put into it. Such an appeal would be obviously irrelevant, since either the proof is correct or it is flawed, despite the student's best efforts. In contrast, if the teacher attempts to motivate the student to work on proving the theorem by invoking the specter of a failing grade, this appeal to fear is not irrelevant.

Source

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Yesterday I was talking with my husband about politics and he said, "the more a politician appeals to emotions the less likely I am to vote for them."

Then he said, "I am probably the only one who feels that way."

I said, "You're wrong, I bet lots of people on the MBTI site would share your feelings on appeals to emotion."

Personally, I've very sensitive to recognizing an appeal to emotion, and if there's no substance to the claim (i.e., it's all just an emotional appeal and especially if the truth seems to be the opposite), then I'm pretty put-off by it. It makes me negatively inclined to vote for a candidate. To me, emotion is best used to convey the truth of an already solid message in a way that maximizes its impact -- i.e., truly inspires people.

But I think many people are swayed by appeals to emotion. Look at the most successful politicians, and they're the ones who know how to play a crowd and maintain an image of likability.

Policy is often too complex for the general public, even if they have the interest and brainpower to study it in-depth; most people are forced to resort to the politician that one likes most and thus trusts most.

(Just look at the democratic nomination process. Hilary is less likable than Obama, and his message promised change at a time when people wanted it. She was the frontrunner beforehand and still lost.)

Originally Posted by proteanmix

It depends on what the intent of the emotion appeal is. I don't think all emotional appeals are chock full of nefarious intent and selfish manipulation. Any good persuasive argument is balanced to appeal to your emotions (pathos), your logic (logos), and your ethics (ethos).

I don't think all emotional appeals are nefarious either, but I personally just need some substance under them. (And the pathos/logos/ethos combination makes sense. To clarify, someone with a logical message can still be as uninspiring and unvisionary and thus make a horrible leader. Substance has to be tied to passion and conviction, to really reach people long-term.)

[cafe]

I find I often resent it when preachers use that approach.

I might not be as quick to recognize it in politicians because I'm not as familiar with their subject matter.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Yesterday I was talking with my husband about politics and he said, "the more a politician appeals to emotions the less likely I am to vote for them."

Then he said, "I am probably the only one who feels that way."

I said, "You're wrong, I bet lots of people on the MBTI site would share your feelings on appeals to emotion."

I am not one of those people who enjoys proving other people wrong, but I find myself very curious as to whether my statement is correct.

So how many people out there identify with my husband's strong dislike of appeals to emotion.

Ilah

I realize that emotional appeals are part of the campaign process since that's the best way to make an impact on some people, so I wouldn't say I'm less likely to vote for a politician just because they do that, as long as they're also capable of making logical arguments. I'm in the same camp as your husband with politicians who use only appeals to emotion.

[pure_mercury]

I have no problem with politicians appealing to "the better angels of our nature," but they are usually doing it for nefarious reasons. Also, most voters have no real grasp of the issues and how different policies affect them, so emotional appeals resonate.

[Not_Me]

As a T, I naturally don't respond to emotional appeals, but I would not reject a candidate because of it. It's a tool that works on the majority of people, so why not use it?

[Jack Flak]

I don't like appeals to emotion very much, but I'm going to vote based on how I anticipate everything will turn out for the country/state. If said appeals lead me to believe the candidate is full of garbage, they may have an effect.

[Metamorphosis]

I would suspect that people are far more likely to respond positively to the emotional appeals of the candidate that they already support. It's a much more effective campaign tool than actually throwing facts and ideas at people. They hate that. The real question is, do we hate that the candidates try to appeal to our emotions, or do we hate that it works on so many people...particularly when used by the opposition candidate.