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

[intuit888]

Sounds like we might as well go ahead and call this the anti-Fe thread. I knew there was a reason I don't like the majority of SFJs. Fe combined with Si is just......

as an INTP I am the most logical person I know. I totally detest appeals to emotion. but I have fe and si.... so???

 

[Laxton]

I feel that it is manipulative. However, I often find myself doing it in my everyday social interactions without thinking. I usually talk to people when I want something, and I find it very easy to get what I want from them.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

as an INTP I am the most logical person I know. I totally detest appeals to emotion. but I have fe and si.... so???

So do I (unless I'm actually an INTJ in denial) but my Fe is very limited. Somehow I'm always that person who goes against the group, not in an "I'm so unique" sort of way, but more of a "we should consider all options" way. As far as I know, all my Fe does is keep me aware of social norms. I always feel a sort of awkwardness when someone is talking too much in an instructor/student setting or when someone says something inappropriate at work/school, like I'm waiting for something bad to happen.

What I mean by Fe/Si is the "this is what most people think, which means it's correct" mentality. Go on sites like Buzzfeed or Huffpost and you'll see a lot of that: debatable views or political causes that are assumed to be shared by everyone simply because of their popularity. These views are typically emotionally-driven, such as supporting gun bans (argument: it's so keep our kids safe), supporting the death penalty (argument: they deserve it), immigration reform (argument: how would you feel if your family was split up?), etc. People who lead with Fe seem to be most likely to do this (especially ESFJs).

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I should also mention that I don't mind emotional appeal at all on a more personal, less societal scale. I sometimes manipulate myself into feeling the feelings I'm using to persuade others. Must be the shadow Fi.

 

[Kendrix]

It depends on wether it's relevant to the topic and an accurate depiction of the situation.

Ovsly as a cheap persuation tactic, like fearmongering, sentimentality used to make things appear evil or ridiculous etc. it's just low.

But where suffering is the main issue, it should be there and be called what it is and not belittled.

 

[sculpting]

I don't know if this is an NT thing or just a personal thing, but I can't stand the use of emotional appeal. I don't even know why; I guess it just seems manipulative.

I remember watching documentaries in high school about inequality, poverty, etc. Of course I care about these issues, but when they're presented in a way that's specifically designed to make you feel bad, I become very unsympathetic. It becomes much worse if someone claims that it will "make us think," because the idea isn't to get us to think. The idea is to persuade us using a purely emotional method.

Because I'm terrible at explaining things, I'll use an example.

If I see a homeless person on the street, I'm going to feel empathy and/or sympathy for them and there's about a 90% chance I'll either give them money or food. If I'm watching a documentary on homelessness and why we should all care about it, complete with sad background music and lots of tearful interviews, it just pisses me off. I think I dislike the idea of being told how I should feel.

Can anyone relate?

I do feel the feelings, quite terribly so, but then I recognize it is manipulative in nature and then seek the data behind the sad images to substantiate the real issue. The more emotional something or someone is, the more likely I will withdraw and try and analyze the situation from a distance as to not become influenced.

Unless it is my dog....he has these sad sad eyes that tell me that, although he has eaten all the shoes and left a trail of sofa cushion death across the front yard, he simply is overcome with remorse and heartbreak....he never, ever meant to do it, it just sort of happened...yeah, I let him manipulate me

 

[Cowardly]

I can't stand the use of emotional appeal. I don't even know why; I guess it just seems manipulative.

It's to be expected. You don't like to be manipulated, neither do I. However, emotional appeals are supposedly the most effective, so a case could be made for them.

 

[Galena]

I'm very susceptible to them, and I hate that about myself, so I tend to contain my reaction. Or not, and feel fucking weird later.

Also, while it's a fact that they work, and I know how they work, I still feel some disbelief when I see them work. Like, we've learned this lesson so many times. We could all name some awful things that this stuff has persuaded people do. And yet...?

 

[Thursday]

Most people aren't smart, they're emotional. Appealing to their emotions is like using a shiny thing to get the attention of a monkey or bright colors to attract insects. You can't escape biology, so emotional appeal is the safer route to get your point across.

 

[Dolce vita]

Unless in best interest of the recipient in your opinion....how to sleep at night?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm turned off by emotional appeals, but will respond to a moral appeal. There can be a reasoned appeal to a course of action. My first internal image of an emotional appeal would be to help animals. I would rather hear the information about the numbers of animals that need help, what the issue is, and how I can help. I will respond emotionally to images of hurt animals, but prefer to know the information.

Emotional appeals to sell a product or idea, whether those emotions are positive or negative, are a complete turn off to me. I will stop listening, and take a step way back if I feel coerced. I am also repulsed by appeals to my character to get me to do something. "If you are a nice person you will do ..... for me". That's the most certain approach that will result in no action on my part. People who bully if you don't agree with them are also a turnoff.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I don't know if this is an NT thing or just a personal thing, but I can't stand the use of emotional appeal. I don't even know why; I guess it just seems manipulative.

I remember watching documentaries in high school about inequality, poverty, etc. Of course I care about these issues, but when they're presented in a way that's specifically designed to make you feel bad, I become very unsympathetic. It becomes much worse if someone claims that it will "make us think," because the idea isn't to get us to think. The idea is to persuade us using a purely emotional method.

Because I'm terrible at explaining things, I'll use an example.

If I see a homeless person on the street, I'm going to feel empathy and/or sympathy for them and there's about a 90% chance I'll either give them money or food. If I'm watching a documentary on homelessness and why we should all care about it, complete with sad background music and lots of tearful interviews, it just pisses me off. I think I dislike the idea of being told how I should feel.

Can anyone relate?

I don't see anything wrong with emotional appeals per say it's only when it's an appeal without any logical grounding or evidence/facts to back it up that annoys me. It's like when all that's left to a bad argument is an emotional appeal then it's tough for me to accept the argument.

However, the opposite is somewhat true also. If we're talking about human beings/people then abstracting beyond the emotional element is a mistake I think. Dealing with people isn't like dealing with purely abstract logical principles - people happen to be more dynamic than that. Still, I don't think its particularly constructive to ignore logical principles when dealing with people either. I think a healthy balance of both is the right approach.

Sometimes making an abstract logical arguments pointing out the inconsistencies are insufficient to 'move people' to embracing a way of thinking or an argument. MLK pointed out the inconsistencies in racism plaguing the 60s but I don't think he would've gotten as much traction if he didn't wrap the argument into an emotional appeal to human decency too. MLK had a substantive argument but it was only truly effective because he knew how to tug at peoples' emotions on the matter. Mastering an empathetic and logical approach at the same time isn't as easy at it sounds.

So I see a homeless person asking for money outside of a 7-11 my mind is already thinking what does he want to buy? My heart sympathizes with a shitty situation but I already recognize that it isn't my fault as if I'm part of some systemic oppression holding this person down. I typically ask are you hungry ( often times they'll ask for money for food because they are hungry) so instead of giving straight money I offer to walk in the store with the person and ask what they would like to eat. The ones that take the offer I know are 'in it' for the food and not some other reason. Those that refuse to let me buy them food but insist on cash only tells me that they seek to buy things other than food.

See logic + empathy can work together well.

 

[CitizenErased]

I don't know if this is an NT thing or just a personal thing, but I can't stand the use of emotional appeal. I don't even know why; I guess it just seems manipulative.

I remember watching documentaries in high school about inequality, poverty, etc. Of course I care about these issues, but when they're presented in a way that's specifically designed to make you feel bad, I become very unsympathetic. It becomes much worse if someone claims that it will "make us think," because the idea isn't to get us to think. The idea is to persuade us using a purely emotional method.

Because I'm terrible at explaining things, I'll use an example.

If I see a homeless person on the street, I'm going to feel empathy and/or sympathy for them and there's about a 90% chance I'll either give them money or food. If I'm watching a documentary on homelessness and why we should all care about it, complete with sad background music and lots of tearful interviews, it just pisses me off. I think I dislike the idea of being told how I should feel.

Can anyone relate?

ME! You know who I hate the most? Those UNESCO-like people hunting people on the sidewalks.

Do you have a minute for starving children? -> They're already putting you in a position of guilt. My answer always is: "Yes, but not this one!"

I obviously care that poverty is making little kids die of starvation, but I don't like when the presentation of the topic is intended to make you feel that the next kid that dies is on you.

I also hate movies that talk about terminal illnesses because most of them aren't "informative fiction". They're just made to profit from people's vulnerability/sensitivity to those topics, and I think this is the lowest kind of making money.

Then with "normal people", I also hate emotional manipulation. Luckily it doesn't work on me. I lived 18 years under the roof of a manipulative mother, I'm completely immune to it.

 

[1487610420]

disgusted

 

[Tater]

 

[Mole]

Most of us say we don't like advertisements and say, anyway they don't influence me.

But trillions of dollars are spent every year precisely because we are measurably influenced by advertising.

It all began with Edward Bernays in 1928 in the USA with his book called Propaganda, click on https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

Advertising works on emotional manipulation, and emotional manipulation, or propaganda, has been extended to the movie industry, and American movies routinely manipulate our commonly held fantasies, using the highest production values.

 

[Hitoshi-San]

I don't like it. if you're going to try and argue with me, you need to give me some evidence, not just tell me I'm a terrible person for not agreeing with you. emotional appeal is subjective and facts are objective, so therefore I think persuading me with facts will lead me to believe that whatever you're trying to convince me of is true. also, if whining is how you're gonna try getting your point across, that comes across as immature most of the time and I just won't want to listen.

 

[Bush]

Essentially, emotional appeal is a method for delivering ideas, or at least opening up an avenue through which to do so. For good and for bad, of course.

Trying to instill shame and guilt and all of that is utter bullshit nonsense. It may work, but at what price? Have you convinced the other person, or have you simply forced them to begrudgingly carry out orders? Congrats, you haven't won a teammate so much as that you've recruited a sleeper double-agent who will have no problem stabbing you in the face at some point later on. And also, you're a dick.

We're bombarded with that sort of stuff all the time. I do trust that most people have the capability to at least recognize some of this negative emotional appeal, but we all fall prey to it to some degree.

There's such a thing as emotional appeal in a positive, honest sense. Best I can think of is using it to honestly establish some common ground from which differences can be discussed and hashed out. There's no sense in shutting out what might be good ideas because of a stark psychological barrier, and those barriers are easier to overcome than we think. When you do, you're actually honestly talking at the idea level, rather than simply walking away and having your own ideas further justified on false pretenses.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Well worth the watch. Freud, Bernays, marketing, manipulation, all laid out

 

[Jaguar]

I don't know if this is an NT thing or just a personal thing, but I can't stand the use of emotional appeal. I don't even know why; I guess it just seems manipulative.

Of course it's manipulative. It's used to influence juries. And voters.

How do I feel about it? It depends on the goal.