[NT] How do you feel about emotional appeal as a persuasive method?

[Coriolis]

I wont waste my words here. Believe what you will.

It is not a matter of belief, but rather of evidence, the evidence of conservative political and popular figures' own words. Ronald Reagan was a master of the emotional appeal. In fact, he was more of a cheerleader for America than a great commander in chief or head of state/government. In this he was quite effective. One of his main accomplishments was to turn around public sentiment toward the military, that had remained quite depressed since the Viet Nam war days. Donald Trump's slogan of "Making America great again" echoes this, and is an attempt to appeal to any feelings of decline and even humiliation, while cultivating feelings of patriotism and pride. All emotions. Now if/when he brings out facts about how to reduce the deficit, or draw down the size and scope of the government without jeopardizing national security, or protect individual liberties from government or corporate incursion - those will (I hope) be more objective appeals, based on facts and reasoning.

 

[great_bay]

In debate and discussion, there is only math to lead the way. If logic can be translated to math equations, right answers would be 2+2=4. Wrong answers would be 1+1=5. We wish to let math and logical reasoning to lead the way of debates. Is there no "believe what you will."

 

[SearchingforPeace]

In debate and discussion, there is only math to lead the way. If logic can be translated to math equations, right answers would be 2+2=4. Wrong answers would be 1+1=5. We wish to let math and logical reasoning to lead the way of debates. Is there no "believe what you will."

Lol.

If people don't agree to the same values and principles, person A will say X + Y =Z and person B will see it X + Y = Q.

Every word has nuance, every principle has shades of interpretation.

Simple issue: do you value security or freedom more?

Is there a wrong answer? No. There is only different values. And so there is no "right" or "logical" answer. Both security and freedom are emotion laden words.

Yet the security vs. freedom debate has been going on for over 200 years, especially after 9/11. The current Apple FBI issue is exactly on this point.

One could argue that a quest for security leads to a police state. Another could argue that quest for freedom could lead to anarchy.

Ignoring this reality is illogical....

 

[great_bay]

Lol.
If people don't agree to the same values and principles, person A will say X + Y =Z and person B will see it X + Y = Q.
Every word has nuance, every principle has shades of interpretation.
Simple issue: do you value security or freedom more?
Is there a wrong answer? No. There is only different values. And so there is no "right" or "logical" answer. Both security and freedom are emotion laden words.

Yet the security vs. freedom debate has been going on for over 200 years, especially after 9/11. The current Apple FBI issue is exactly on this point.
One could argue that a quest for security leads to a police state. Another could argue that quest for freedom could lead to anarchy.

Ignoring this reality is illogical....

I what I said doesn't apply to every single discussion such as being against gay marriage.

 

[highlander]

To be honest, when I was younger, it disgusted me. I felt this for long time. It irritated me that people were persuaded in such a way to no end.

More recently I have come to feel that it works and so I can't dismiss it entirely because a large number of certain people (i.e., personalities) are influenced in this manner and the end result is what really matters.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It is not a matter of belief, but rather of evidence, the evidence of conservative political and popular figures' own words. Ronald Reagan was a master of the emotional appeal. In fact, he was more of a cheerleader for America than a great commander in chief or head of state/government. In this he was quite effective. One of his main accomplishments was to turn around public sentiment toward the military, that had remained quite depressed since the Viet Nam war days. Donald Trump's slogan of "Making America great again" echoes this, and is an attempt to appeal to any feelings of decline and even humiliation, while cultivating feelings of patriotism and pride. All emotions. Now if/when he brings out facts about how to reduce the deficit, or draw down the size and scope of the government without jeopardizing national security, or protect individual liberties from government or corporate incursion - those will (I hope) be more objective appeals, based on facts and reasoning.

Come on, who makes the greater appeal to compassion? Who's views the entire world through the lens of whats fair? Who makes the bigger point about caring about people?

This is ludicrous. Who plays identity politics harder?

The whole oppression fairness lens is solely emotion. Full stop.

And like I said, believe what you will. I'm done with it.

 

[Coriolis]

In debate and discussion, there is only math to lead the way. If logic can be translated to math equations, right answers would be 2+2=4. Wrong answers would be 1+1=5. We wish to let math and logical reasoning to lead the way of debates. Is there no "believe what you will."

Belief still applies, for matters not subject to proof like spirituality, or as [MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION] mentioned, values.

To be honest, when I was younger, it disgusted me. I felt this for long time. It irritated me that people were persuaded in such away to no end.

More recently I have come to feel that it works and so I can't dismiss it entirely because a large number of certain people (i.e., personalities) are influenced in this manner and the end result is what really matters.

Brute force works, too. Most of us would readily yield our valuables to someone pointing a gun at our heads. That doesn't mean we should permit or encourage it as a method of accomplishing goals.

Come on, whole makes the greater appeal to compassion? Who's views the entire world through the lens of whats fair? Who makes the bigger point about caring about people?

This is ludicrous. Who plays identity politics harder?

The whole oppression fairness lens is solely emotion. Full stop.

And like I said, believe what you will. I'm done with it.

I didn't see anyone dispute that liberals use emotional arguments, too. You simply rejected such a tactic as almost an inherent part of being conservative. Hence the focus of my and others' reply. In fact, it was pointed out already that all political factions resort to emotional appeal, they just tend to appeal to different emotions. Conservatives are not exempt from this.

 

[á´…eparted]

Come on, who makes the greater appeal to compassion? Who's views the entire world through the lens of whats fair? Who makes the bigger point about caring about people?

This is ludicrous. Who plays identity politics harder?

The whole oppression fairness lens is solely emotion. Full stop.

And like I said, believe what you will. I'm done with it.

Did you not read the article I liked? This isn't even really up for debate. Both sides- all sides -have emotion clouding. The difference lies between what values are deemed important. This isn't even remotely partisan, but merely how it is.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It is my estimation that it plays less of a role with us. No where did I say it plays no role. But go ahead and think what you want.

 

[á´…eparted]

It is my estimation that it plays less of a role with us. No where did I say it plays no role. But go ahead and think what you want.

I'd actually argue it plays a stronger role by my estimate. Again, it's estimation, and you acknowledged that, so you can't fairly make a broad declarative statement, and need to be more clear and specific with language when doing so. The article explains that there are 5 core values that drive people to believe what they do. Liberals tend to care about 2 of the 5, where as conservative tend to care about 5 of the 5. Since values often have emotional weight behind them, having more values to care about is likely to lend towards more emotional pleading. I mean this in a statistical sense. There will be outliers.

It's really difference between those values that causes most of the rub's IMO. Liberals get annoyed with conservative for caring about those values, and conservatives get annoyed with liberals for not caring about those values.

Ultimately it really doesn't matter (the who does more bit). Approach the issues case by case.

 

[Coriolis]

It is my estimation that it plays less of a role with us. No where did I say it plays no role. But go ahead and think what you want.

That may be because you personally feel less susceptible to such appeals, and tend not to use them yourself. If that's the case, it's commendable, and I wish more people on all sides of the political debate operated that way.

 

[Ursa]

Brute force works, too. Most of us would readily yield our valuables to someone pointing a gun at our heads. That doesn't mean we should permit or encourage it as a method of accomplishing goals.

A comparison between emotional words and violence is a bit crass and sounds suspiciously circular.

For better or worse, strict reason doesn't convince well, which means it can't accomplish much either. That is the intended takeaway, I believe.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

That may be because you personally feel less susceptible to such appeals, and tend not to use them yourself. If that's the case, it's commendable, and I wish more people on all sides of the political debate operated that way.

The emotional appeal used in political debates is a perfect example *cough cough Martin O'Malley*

 

[Tilt]

From personal and professional experience, emotional appeals mixed with a good dose of logic works on most people but heavy-handed emotional appeals and unsubstantiated logical appeals tend to work the best on people who are less educated.

When it comes to persuasion, it boils down to two questions: who is the target audience? And what is the best way to to reach the most number of people within that target audience?

 

[anticlimatic]

Direct emotional appeal is kind of cheating. Logic and reason alone can be used, and if used accurately, emotions will follow and support them naturally. Occasionally direct emotional appeals can come with implied logic, which is just as good, so I think they can be legitimate despite being a shortcut.

Even Doc Holiday used an appeal to emotion to get Wyatt Earp to leave the hospital so he could die alone in peace. "If you ever had even the slightest feelin' for me, go now!" It's an appeal to emotion, but we don't get irritated at it because we know the implied logic behind it. "Motherfucker I've had your back through this whole shit show, now you owe me one."

 

[Z Buck McFate]

What exactly is an emotional appeal here?

I had assumed that the op meant "emotional appeal" to mean someone attempting to appeal to someone else's sense of compassion/empathy using gratuitous emotion- not just appealing to someone's compassion/empathy, but doing so in such an over-the-top fashion that it's blatantly manipulative and even coercive. (That Sarah Maclachlan ad is a good example.)

It's entirely possible to appeal to someone's compassion by presenting just the facts- and it seemed to me like the point many people were making here is that it's far more effective to appeal to compassion where that's the case. Going overboard with it is precisely what shuts compassion off for a lot of people. As soon as you imply someone 'should' be feeling something, counterwill kicks in and shuts empathy off.

But if "emotional appeal" here means simply any appeal to someone else's compassion/empathy- no matter how logically presented, how void of leading emotion, if the goal is ultimately to appeal to someone's sense of fairness not in a manipulative way- then I'd agree liberals use it more.

[If however "emotional appeal" does mean to appeal to someone's irrational sense of righteousness (eta: e.g. devout faith in Scripture, and faith that it should apply even to people who don't follow that religion /eta), then it seems to me like conservatives are far more guilty- if only because I personally don't begin to understand that appeal, thus making it appear completely irrational/emotion-driven to me.]

 

[Coriolis]

A comparison between emotional words and violence is a bit crass and sounds suspiciously circular.

For better or worse, strict reason doesn't convince well, which means it can't accomplish much either. That is the intended takeaway, I believe.

Crass? Circular? In what way? I was questioning justifying emotional appeals based on an "ends justify the means" perspective. Brute force or other forms of duress are simply additional means in the continuum. At what point do we draw the lines as to what is allowed or not, or ethical or not? I do fairly well convincing based on reason, in environments where people have the background and inclination to be receptive to that. Those of us who encourage the teaching of critical thinking skills would like to expand this segment of the population. Politicians and advertisers, on the other hand, might not get behind such measures.

Direct emotional appeal is kind of cheating. Logic and reason alone can be used, and if used accurately, emotions will follow and support them naturally. Occasionally direct emotional appeals can come with implied logic, which is just as good, so I think they can be legitimate despite being a shortcut.

Even Doc Holiday used an appeal to emotion to get Wyatt Earp to leave the hospital so he could die alone in peace. "If you ever had even the slightest feelin' for me, go now!" It's an appeal to emotion, but we don't get irritated at it because we know the implied logic behind it. "Motherfucker I've had your back through this whole shit show, now you owe me one."

This is exactly the sort of personal appeal from a friend that I tend to exempt. I should point out that I am not nearly as opposed to appeals based on values. The difference is that I expect to see that called out explicitly: support me or my cause because we need to be compassionate toward our neighbors; or because the country is depending on us (patriotism); etc.

But if "emotional appeal" here means simply any appeal to someone else's compassion/empathy- no matter how logically presented, how void of leading emotion, if the goal is ultimately to appeal to someone's sense of fairness not in a manipulative way- then I'd agree liberals use it more.

I would call this a values-based appeal rather than an emotional appeal. Put this way, you may be right. Perhaps liberals appeal more often to values, while conservatives appeal more often to the raw emotions themselves.

 

[Bush]

As a means of fostering togetherness, unity, and common purpose in the more general sense? Yeah, that's fine.

As persuasion? As in, getting someone to do something? No. Screw that. All the emotional appeal tells you is whether or not the speaker is emphatic about what they're saying. Used car salesmen, students trying to get out of exams by saying their grandma died, and manipulative "friends" who use you all rely on emotional appeal. And when one doesn't take a step back they can get caught up in the moment and make brash or otherwise regrettable decisions.

Generally, after or during a conversation, the speaker's feelings on the matter are one of many variables that help guide a decision. Say that you've got a friend who desperately needs your help and outright begs you. Then you know -- "Okay, it's clear that this thing really, really important to him. He cares a lot about it." How much would you have to invest in helping out? Would he reciprocate? Would you care whether or not he would reciprocate?

 

[fetus]

Admittedly I'm too swayed by it, but it doesn't have much place in logical arguments.

In one of my classes a few years back, we had a mock trial for Genghis Khan. My half of the class was assigned to be the plaintiff. We didn't have anything to say, because the "defendant" was clearly in the right. So we just said some crap like "what if you were us?" It was sickening, even for a mushy, Fe person like me.

 

[Ursa]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], it sounded like you equated the two. Now you ask where the line between acceptable and unacceptable should be drawn. That is the question I should have asked ealier to be more clear, because violence and emotional appeals do not occupy the same spot on the continuum.

Reason works in environments where people are receptive to it, but not every place is like that. At some point a compromise has to be reached between strict reason and an emotional appeal in order to move people and projects forwards in those other environments. You are right that emotional appeals rob someone of their rational autonomy. But I don't hate it as much anymore because of the above. The type of scenarios that anticlimatic described were what I had in mind too.