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

[Coriolis]

[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.

I equated the two as measures justified simply by virtue of effectiveness. Essentially I was pointing out that effectiveness is not the only measure of whether a form of appeal is justifiable.

I agree that rational appeals don't work in every environment, but consider that to be unfortunate. The middle ground I prefer is an appeal based on a combination of reason and values, as I explained above. Direct appeal to emotion is best reserved for when everyone has agreed on a course of action, and just needs to get motivated (fired up) to go out there and implement it. It can also be good to overcome discouragement if things are taking longer and encountering more difficulty than anticipated (e.g. pep talks).

 

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

Whenever I see Truth ads it makes me want to smoke a carton of cigarettes

 

[anticlimatic]

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.

The merit of an appeal based on individualistic values (Fi) is no greater than the merit of an appeal based on collectivist values (Fe), which occupy the bulk of the "appeals to emotion" that this thread is likely targeted at- and likely the types of appeals that bother you more, because Fi just hates Fe. Spelling them out explicitly is helpful, but there still has to be some kind of objective logic present for them to carry. "Because Fi" is not a valid argument either, which is why most SJW type arguments fail spectacularly.

 

[Coriolis]

The merit of an appeal based on individualistic values (Fi) is no greater than the merit of an appeal based on collectivist values (Fe), which occupy the bulk of the "appeals to emotion" that this thread is likely targeted at- and likely the types of appeals that bother you more, because Fi just hates Fe. Spelling them out explicitly is helpful, but there still has to be some kind of objective logic present for them to carry. "Because Fi" is not a valid argument either, which is why most SJW type arguments fail spectacularly.

So you make no distinction between values, whether individual or collective, and emotions?

 

[anticlimatic]

So you make no distinction between values, whether individual or collective, and emotions?

I make no distinction between values and feelings.

 

[Coriolis]

I make no distinction between values and feelings.

How about feelings and emotions? At least in JCF, feeling != emotion, but rather represents one's method of making subjective judgments.

 

[anticlimatic]

How about feelings and emotions? At least in JCF, feeling != emotion, but rather represents one's method of making subjective judgments.

I draw a correlation, rather than a direct connection, between feelings and emotions.

 

[Pionart]

I don't like it generally. It's like creating a temporary state of illusion, in which whatever is being said with that illusion will be sorted by the brain into a category of importance, as being good, bad etc.

Once the emotion fades away, you might look back at what was said and be like "that made no sense...".

 

[Thalassa]

I think that'd be you as an INTP being irked by inferior Fe. IXFP experience something similar with Te. They might actually appreciate Te or use it in a rudimentary way, until it's all like imposing structure upon them.

I'm not saying Fi types don't use emotional/ethical appeals. ..but for example as a vegan something that doesn't sit well with me is a hammered focus on animal cruelty. Yes, I too hate animal cruelty, but good lord there are so many logical or ethical reasons we can give people. ..health, environment are two good ones that actually have some science to it. I love animals but I'm like hey Vern, we're not going to win any wars just railing on about the poor bunny rabbits.

 

[Thalassa]

So you make no distinction between values, whether individual or collective, and emotions?

I agree with you, but using a value system can be part of the problem in some cases, unless you make a rational argument. Like the heavy focus on doing it for the animals a lot of vegans use, and I'm all like please, do you actually expect people who have been socialized with Fe that meat is good and necessary and All American are suddenly going to join you because they love pigs? Yes some people experience that "awakening"...it's spiritual and intrinsic to several Eastern faiths to do no harm or the least harm, the principle of non violence or not consuming animal products (Buddhists, Jains, some Hindus, Hare Krishnas, and others)...but at the end of the day you have to give people REASONS that aren't just simply reflecting your own value system. Health reasons. Appeal to their vanity (that's emotional but it thinks of someone else's potential value system). Show them all the scientific evidence about the environment or human starvation. Of course some people still won't care, but going from a complete "my values" standpoint isn't the most effective for everyone, though it seems to be effective for many people.

 

[Thalassa]

The merit of an appeal based on individualistic values (Fi) is no greater than the merit of an appeal based on collectivist values (Fe), which occupy the bulk of the "appeals to emotion" that this thread is likely targeted at- and likely the types of appeals that bother you more, because Fi just hates Fe. Spelling them out explicitly is helpful, but there still has to be some kind of objective logic present for them to carry. "Because Fi" is not a valid argument either, which is why most SJW type arguments fail spectacularly.

Actually SJW arguments don't fail spectacularly. If anything I've found myself working against some of the most ignorant sheeple ones, like the rebel flag bruhaha, which suddenly became very important out of the middle of nowhere, and reached to outrageous heights, like a 70s-80s sitcom being pulled, and Amazon hypocritically pulling them, while still continuing to sell Nazi merchandise! That's how well Fe works on Fe tyoes, and on some Fi types if it manipulates something in them that's deeply personal.

Fe arguments do work and they work scary well. I think Fe is the only reason anyone would back Donald Trump, for example. He's an ESTP herding the sheeple, with tertiary Fe.

Fi may also NEED Fe, if they believe strongly in something and need it to spread. Just like Fe needs Fi to stand up and shout hey our mother fucking house is on fire, time to move in a different direction.

 

[1487610420]

disgusting

 

[Thalassa]

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.

You've got to be kidding me. Poor people vote against their own best interest. People vote against science. The Christian Right. Are you serious? I'm just going to take a moment of silence to wrap my head around your blindness.

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION]

Ok, now, I took a deep breath, and I want to explain that appealing to selfishness, fear, tradition or greed, can be just as emotional, and is just as values centered as appealing to people's empathy, compassion, or guilt.

The right wing in the United States is openly mocked world wide for ignoring scientific evidence about global warming and environmental destruction. That's not even getting into the bizarre way Republicans have managed to convince some slow, special Christians that Jesus was a capitalist.

 

[Coriolis]

I agree with you, but using a value system can be part of the problem in some cases, unless you make a rational argument. Like the heavy focus on doing it for the animals a lot of vegans use, and I'm all like please, do you actually expect people who have been socialized with Fe that meat is good and necessary and All American are suddenly going to join you because they love pigs? Yes some people experience that "awakening"...it's spiritual and intrinsic to several Eastern faiths to do no harm or the least harm, the principle of non violence or not consuming animal products (Buddhists, Jains, some Hindus, Hare Krishnas, and others)...but at the end of the day you have to give people REASONS that aren't just simply reflecting your own value system. Health reasons. Appeal to their vanity (that's emotional but it thinks of someone else's potential value system). Show them all the scientific evidence about the environment or human starvation. Of course some people still won't care, but going from a complete "my values" standpoint isn't the most effective for everyone, though it seems to be effective for many people.

I don't see how anyone can NOT use a value system. We all have values. Caring about the environment is a value, as is wanting to ensure no one goes hungry, or the broader goal of doing no harm. Giving primacy to scientific evidence is a value as well. We can have reasons for holding the values we do, and hopefully we can articulate these when the values come into play in a discussion. This is how we use values in a rational argument. I don't see this as the same as emotion at all, though we often feel emotions when our values are violated, or supported.

 

[evilrubberduckie]

Its like when I have a friend who is sad and depressed I sympathize and want to help. But once they start saying shit like "Help me, or I'll kill myself." I look at them, walk into the kitchen, and grab a knife, and hand it to them.

I've had to do that twice.

Im not the best person to come to for emotional support...

 

[anticlimatic]

Actually SJW arguments don't fail spectacularly. If anything I've found myself working against some of the most ignorant sheeple ones, like the rebel flag bruhaha, which suddenly became very important out of the middle of nowhere, and reached to outrageous heights, like a 70s-80s sitcom being pulled, and Amazon hypocritically pulling them, while still continuing to sell Nazi merchandise! That's how well Fe works on Fe tyoes, and on some Fi types if it manipulates something in them that's deeply personal.

Fe arguments do work and they work scary well. I think Fe is the only reason anyone would back Donald Trump, for example. He's an ESTP herding the sheeple, with tertiary Fe.

Fi may also NEED Fe, if they believe strongly in something and need it to spread. Just like Fe needs Fi to stand up and shout hey our mother fucking house is on fire, time to move in a different direction.

Fi uses Fe's very similar cousin Te to accomplish what it needs, which is precisely where SJWs start to flounder. Their solution is always some kind of fascist hivemind that they insist must be adopted by the masses, which Ti users instinctually revolt against the same way Fi users instinctively revolt against collectivist Fe agendas.

 

[Amargith]

Fi uses Fe's very similar cousin Te to accomplish what it needs, which is precisely where SJWs start to flounder. Their solution is always some kind of fascist hivemind that they insist must be adopted by the masses, which Ti users instinctually revolt against the same way Fi users instinctively revolt against collectivist Fe agendas.

So your beef isn't necessarily with Fi. It's with Te.

Interesting.

 

[anticlimatic]

So your beef isn't necessarily with Fi. It's with Te.

Interesting.

Bit of a chicken eggy for me.

I actually think that Te is a mutated and broken form of Fe, and that Fi is a mutated and broken form of Ti, usually brought on by childhood trauma of some kind. Like how the orcs in lord of the rings were once elves before sauron tortured and bred them.

It's not a very popular theory.

 

[Amargith]

Bit of a chicken eggy for me.

I actually think that Te is a mutated and broken form of Fe, and that Fi is a mutated and broken form of Ti, usually brought on by childhood trauma of some kind. Like how the orcs in lord of the rings were once elves before sauron tortured and bred them.

It's not a very popular theory.

Uh huh. Yeah, I've felt that way about FeTi, way back when. Ya know, like a tribal system we've outgrown. Fe might've been a good thing for tribal chieftains but Te was the instrument of choice for kings - once we evolved passed the tribal idea into a nation, basically *eats apple*