Minimum Wage

[DoubtingThomas]

 

It's man-against-man because the spirit of the law creates an adversarial employment environment.  If I'm a manager, I need people to not look for reasons to sue.  If I'm an employee, I need to know my manager isn't going to screw me over at the first opportunity.  Business is about trust and teamwork.  The fear that my employer will cut my hours to save a buck...the fear that my employee will file a claim against me...These things make all working environments hostile.  Labor laws engender distrust and animus between employer and employee...you see? Man-against-man.

 

That certainly clarifies your meaning. I can't find anything to disagree with except the small point we discussed already. Cheers.

[Hannibal]

An obvious way that the minimum wage actually harms the people it's claimed to help, is that setting an artificial floor incentivises to employ people who hold the qualifications & productivity levels worth that lower wage limit. So employers that would normally employ unskilled workers with very low levels of productivity are now more likely to ignore those people and employ better skilled & more productive workers, considering they must pay the price either way.

[Hannibal]

And it benefits unions too, who don;t wan't cheap unskilled labour (i.e. young people) taking their unionised jobs.

[tasmlab]

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases?  How do they benefit from changes in the law?  Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? "

 

Companies who are the most affected are those that have large populations of low cost labor and are very sensitive to margin.  I don't have any facts to back me up, but I could imagine that companies with slightly less fragile margins would lobby for small increases to disrupt and screw with competitors.  

For example, if Lowes knows that it can afford a 15 cent increase on a huge population of workers and Home Depot can't, then Lowes might lobby for the increase to put the screws into its biggest competitor.

Walmart can wipe whole categories of competitors with moves like this.

I interviewed an exec at a major shipping company (like UPS) who was overhauling their fleet of a specific truck and so lobbied to the US Govt to have stricter environmental laws for this class of truck, thereby forcing the other shipping companies to overhaul their fleet too (an expense they weren't planning on).  And this guy was proud, too, because it was 'environmental'.

 

[tasmlab]

In my experience, the lefty-ish arguement for higher minimum wages is that the worker is the breadwinner for a family, perhaps even with a stay-at-home mom.

When I earned and lived on minimum wage, I didn't have children to support, I lived in a house with roomates/housemates, I didn't do very much, didn't lease a car, etc.  And before that I was a teenager living with my parents.

Should the 15 year old who tears tickets at the movie theatre make $18,000/year?  Seems kind of silly.  In fact, it seems silly to have somebody whose job it is to tear tickets anyways.  Does the president have to chime in on this?

My wife and I hire a 12-year-old girl in the neighborhood as a mother's helper.  She plays with our kids, does projects with them, and sometimes does very selective housework like picking up the toyroom or organizing our kids' art pantry.  We give her $2/hour.  We love it, she loves it and gets great pocket money for a kid, and her parents love that she's learning to work and building a resume.  And it is wholesale ILLEGAL on multiple fronts.  How stupid.

Peter Schiff does a nice bit in last book where he talks about "Back to the Future" how we all delight when we see all of those people working at the gas station.  There's a scene where a car pulls up and four men dash out to fill er up, wash the windows, etc.  He goes on with a list of other jobs that don't exist anymore.

Anyways, I've found a little success with the minimum wage discussion bringing up some of the sillier aspects of menial labor.

[tasmlab]

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases?  How do they benefit from changes in the law?  Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? "

 

More speculation from me:

The administrators of welfare who like to see their empire growing would certainly be good advocates of a higher minimum wage.  It makes their offering look more attractive to the indigent, would build their ranks as people move from marginal labor to wellfare, all while touting the same social justice-y bent.

The gap between the dole and minimum wage isn't just the dollars, but it also 40 hours a week of free time at stake.

[STer]

I'm interested in this thread not because of the minimum wage issue, per se. I'm more interested in the topic the OP raises about strategy. What he seems to be realizing is that most people don't respond to reason or facts or evidence, often in self-destructive ways. In The Fascists that Surround You, Stef laid out pretty well the roots of this. We live in a society with a lot of sociopathic influence and a lot of people, like those in the Milgram experiments, who will simply follow authority and not want to question too much.

So it raises the issue of what someone concerned with ethics should do in such a situation.

There is a somewhat important catch-22 that goes on here. For example, Stef put out that series where he goes over pretty well why logic and evidence and reason fail. And then he puts out a new video based on logic and evidence and so on. It's almost like we're resigned to doing what we know doesn't work.

I struggle with this issue a lot. I'm really wired to want to use logic and reason and evidence and to respect people enough to try to persuade with those strategies. But yet, like Stef and the OP of this thread, I know that it mostly doesn't work. Hell, a Doritos commercial with a goat probably convinces more people to eat Doritos than hours of my reason and evidence convinces people of anything.

I'd love to zero in on this topic. I don't know if this is the place. OP's post was about minimum wage, but it seems to me even more about this topic. But if not, perhaps this could be a topic for another thread depending on what people's interest is. Either way, I think the topic - minimum wage, education, religion - is irrelevant. We don't even have to agree on the topic. It's the failure of logic, reason and evidence and the implications of that that I think we all find troubling.

[VforVoluntary49]

That definitely brings a lot of the issues I was intending to get across into focus. I suppose some of the despair or frustration comes from knowing that on a rational and logical level, minimum wage, price controls, etc. should've been dead and buried long ago, and yet it feels like that those are still the issues we have out there to discuss. It seems like society has moved even further from a debate involving first principles and things like the existence or need for a state at all, and that we can only debate or discuss these small divisive branches of the issues. It's almost like a defense mechanism for the state, these branches if issues-like a firm of divide and conquer. I just wonder if the issue is so far beyond repair and if we should simply stop trying to debate these topics, because it feels like that by debating or arguing these points we imply (not on purpose, obviously) that the fundamental issue of the existence of the state has been decided. My only worry about abandoning that avenue is that you never know which argument may click for someone or send them down a new path. 

I suppose my worry is that having to try to convince so many people around us of these relatively minor issues means that we are debating the immorality of the types of whips used to beat the slaves, and in doing so we aren't hitting home the immorality of slavery as a system enough and may seem like we are sanctioning its existence by focusing on the minor issues at the same time.

[STer]

 

That definitely brings a lot of the issues I was intending to get across into focus. I suppose some of the despair or frustration comes from knowing that on a rational and logical level, minimum wage, price controls, etc. should've been dead and buried long ago, and yet it feels like that those are still the issues we have out there to discuss. It seems like society has moved even further from a debate involving first principles and things like the existence or need for a state at all, and that we can only debate or discuss these small divisive branches of the issues. It's almost like a defense mechanism for the state, these branches if issues-like a firm of divide and conquer. I just wonder if the issue is so far beyond repair and if we should simply stop trying to debate these topics, because it feels like that by debating or arguing these points we imply (not on purpose, obviously) that the fundamental issue of the existence of the state has been decided. My only worry about abandoning that avenue is that you never know which argument may click for someone or send them down a new path. 

I suppose my worry is that having to try to convince so many people around us of these relatively minor issues means that we are debating the immorality of the types of whips used to beat the slaves, and in doing so we aren't hitting home the immorality of slavery as a system enough and may seem like we are sanctioning its existence by focusing on the minor issues at the same time.

 

Well that's still a topic focus rather than strategy. Even if you see the state as a whole as the core issue and want to focus there, I still see strategy as the bigger problem. Whether the minor issues or more major ones, the problem is reason and logic overwhelmingly seem to fail. I think this is an issue even people with different ideas of what should be done can share an interest in.

One thing that I notice is that when you watch marketers, how many of them even bother trying logic or reason? They don't waste much time with that in most cases. They may throw a few convincing facts in, but mostly they are just trying to be surprising, emotional or even just plain weird to get attention. They don't even waste their time going for the conscious mind, they're going right for the unconscious.

[SaintElsewhere]

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases?  How do they benefit from changes in the law?  Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? "

 

Doesn't have to be lobbying. It's pure vote buying on the part of the Democratic party. People at the bottom may simply not think it through.

[VforVoluntary49]

Well the problem is, how can we appeal to people's unconscious or subconscious? We aren't trying to be marketers or salesmen, at least in the normal context-we are selling a rational and logically consistent approach to studying, investigating and understanding the world and we are trying to "sell" it will logic and reason. I don't think (even if it were possible, which I doubt) we would even want to quick-sell people onto our side-because they wouldn't be here for the right reasons. I think with this movement, it really is not even leading a horse to water, because people have to get there (or at least want to get there) on their own. The best I think we can do is to stand by the watering hole and make sure people see how great it can be.

I suppose two strategies could be either trying to find the people who are already half-way or partly here and do our best to help them along and be a resource/guide as they need, or try to do as Stefan is a big proponent of and live the freeest lives we can and build a great, envious community and give people a glimpse, and maybe that will start people down the path of inquiry

[STer]

 

Well the problem is, how can we appeal to people's unconscious or subconscious? We aren't trying to be marketers or salesmen, at least in the normal context-we are selling a rational and logically consistent approach to studying, investigating and understanding the world and we are trying to "sell" it will logic and reason. I don't think (even if it were possible, which I doubt) we would even want to quick-sell people onto our side-because they wouldn't be here for the right reasons. I think with this movement, it really is not even leading a horse to water, because people have to get there (or at least want to get there) on their own. The best I think we can do is to stand by the watering hole and make sure people see how great it can be.

I suppose two strategies could be either trying to find the people who are already half-way or partly here and do our best to help them along and be a resource/guide as they need, or try to do as Stefan is a big proponent of and live the freeest lives we can and build a great, envious community and give people a glimpse, and maybe that will start people down the path of inquiry

 

There is always this paradox. If you are logical, isn't it logical to recognize that most people aren't persuaded logically? Isn't it illogical to keep trying to use logic to persuade people who don't value logic? It's a tough one and for people for whom being rational and logical is almost a moral imperative, it can tie us in knots.

[Arius]

There is always this paradox. If you are logical, isn't it logical to recognize that most people aren't persuaded logically? Isn't it illogical to keep trying to use logic to persuade people who don't value logic? It's a tough one and for people for whom being rational and logical is almost a moral imperative, it can tie us in knots.

Of course many people don't respond to logical ideas.  They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority.  In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool.

 

Regardless, adopting communication as a vehicle of authority (even to communicate the truth of a matter) is a poor strategy.  One may as well try to violently overthrow the state.  We can abandon the idea of a good government, by rejecting force as a solution to social problems.  Why is it any harder to abandon language as a tool of control, by abandoning marketers' tricks and keeping to rational argumentation?  Perhaps almost no one will be convinced, that's entirely possible, but you can't purge deception and force from the culture using deception or force.

We're not gonna bring math back by producing bad sums.

[Rick Horton]

 

There is always this paradox. If you are logical, isn't it logical to recognize that most people aren't persuaded logically? Isn't it illogical to keep trying to use logic to persuade people who don't value logic? It's a tough one and for people for whom being rational and logical is almost a moral imperative, it can tie us in knots.

Of course many people don't respond to logical ideas.  They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority.  In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool.

 

Regardless, adopting communication as a vehicle of authority (even to communicate the truth of a matter) is a poor strategy.  One may as well try to violently overthrow the state.  We can abandon the idea of a good government, by rejecting force as a solution to social problems.  Why is it any harder to abandon language as a tool of control, by abandoning marketers' tricks and keeping to rational argumentation?  Perhaps almost no one will be convinced, that's entirely possible, but you can't purge deception and force from the culture using deception or force.

We're not gonna bring math back by producing bad sums.

 

Damn, Arius. That's pretty heavy. That's a different level for sure, to think on. Wow, thanks.

[STer]

 

 

There is always this paradox. If you are logical, isn't it logical to recognize that most people aren't persuaded logically? Isn't it illogical to keep trying to use logic to persuade people who don't value logic? It's a tough one and for people for whom being rational and logical is almost a moral imperative, it can tie us in knots.

Of course many people don't respond to logical ideas.  They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority.  In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool.

Regardless, adopting communication as a vehicle of authority (even to communicate the truth of a matter) is a poor strategy.  One may as well try to violently overthrow the state.  We can abandon the idea of a good government, by rejecting force as a solution to social problems.  Why is it any harder to abandon language as a tool of control, by abandoning marketers' tricks and keeping to rational argumentation?  Perhaps almost no one will be convinced, that's entirely possible, but you can't purge deception and force from the culture using deception or force.

We're not gonna bring math back by producing bad sums.

 

Damn, Arius. That's pretty heavy. That's a different level for sure, to think on. Wow, thanks.

 

I don't think it's just about being taught to use language for dominance. Heck, the whole point of the Milgram experiments was that most people do not use language to assert authority. They follow what authority tells them and don't speak up even when they should.

More to the point of this discussion though, it's not a dominance vs. non-dominance issue. It's a logic vs. other ways of communication issue. You can use logic for dominance or not. You can use other ways for dominance or not. What I'm talking about is more that people are just mostly not wired for logic. There is an incentive for diversity in humanity and so you would reasonably expect many people to be more feeling types that respond to emotion. Also many people naturally think in terms of imagery or sensation or other things, rather than just pure rational, linear thought. All of these ways of thinking evolved in humanity for a purpose and have their place. Thinking that if everyone was healthy they'd all be rational logical thinkers is, I think, deeply misguided.

I find it interesting that you immediately equate any form of communication besides logical persuasion to dominating and so on. If someone writes a beautiful song that touches people and gets a message across is that dominance and deceit? What about a lovely painting that goes right to someone's unconscious? The truth is that, for many, these things are far more powerful than logic can ever be.

[VforVoluntary49]

I don't think that logic and a beautiful painting/piece of music are mutually eclusive though.  A beautiful painting is often beautiful for reasons, same with a beautiful symphony-these things don't (except for debatable extreme circumstances) just arise unbidden from people's subconscious. A beautiful painting is often symmettrical or the artist is saying something with his/her painting and is using the language of his tools/canvas/etc. to deliver that message.  That's why something like The Starry Night, or even the Sistine Chapel are beautiful pieces of art-they require forethought and dedication, not emotional randomness, and I think that it is the innate logic of humanity in these things of beauty and art that pierces through people's layers of self-deception and defenses and the appeal to their unconscious is an appeal of reason and logic.  

The same is true for music-beautiful music for most is not just banging keys randomly on a guitar but understanding notes, chords, scales, etc. and blending them together to form a final project. I feel that it's just that in the case of art, the logic and reason and effort is poured into the final project and used to get the message across, whereas a logical argument or statement in words is the final project in that regard. Logic and reason are not thrown out where art enters in.

[STer]

 

I don't think that logic and a beautiful painting/piece of music are mutually eclusive though.  A beautiful painting is often beautiful for reasons, same with a beautiful symphony-these things don't (except for debatable extreme circumstances) just arise unbidden from people's subconscious. A beautiful painting is often symmettrical or the artist is saying something with his/her painting and is using the language of his tools/canvas/etc. to deliver that message.  That's why something like The Starry Night, or even the Sistine Chapel are beautiful pieces of art-they require forethought and dedication, not emotional randomness, and I think that it is the innate logic of humanity in these things of beauty and art that pierces through people's layers of self-deception and defenses and the appeal to their unconscious is an appeal of reason and logic.  

The same is true for music-beautiful music for most is not just banging keys randomly on a guitar but understanding notes, chords, scales, etc. and blending them together to form a final project. I feel that it's just that in the case of art, the logic and reason and effort is poured into the final project and used to get the message across, whereas a logical argument or statement in words is the final project in that regard. Logic and reason are not thrown out where art enters in.

 

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical

Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example).

Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I don't think that logic and a beautiful painting/piece of music are mutually eclusive though.  A beautiful painting is often beautiful for reasons, same with a beautiful symphony-these things don't (except for debatable extreme circumstances) just arise unbidden from people's subconscious. A beautiful painting is often symmettrical or the artist is saying something with his/her painting and is using the language of his tools/canvas/etc. to deliver that message.  That's why something like The Starry Night, or even the Sistine Chapel are beautiful pieces of art-they require forethought and dedication, not emotional randomness, and I think that it is the innate logic of humanity in these things of beauty and art that pierces through people's layers of self-deception and defenses and the appeal to their unconscious is an appeal of reason and logic.  

The same is true for music-beautiful music for most is not just banging keys randomly on a guitar but understanding notes, chords, scales, etc. and blending them together to form a final project. I feel that it's just that in the case of art, the logic and reason and effort is poured into the final project and used to get the message across, whereas a logical argument or statement in words is the final project in that regard. Logic and reason are not thrown out where art enters in.

 

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical

Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example).

Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it.

 

THIS debate could go on for hundreds of years.

[STer]

 

 

 

I don't think that logic and a beautiful painting/piece of music are mutually eclusive though.  A beautiful painting is often beautiful for reasons, same with a beautiful symphony-these things don't (except for debatable extreme circumstances) just arise unbidden from people's subconscious. A beautiful painting is often symmettrical or the artist is saying something with his/her painting and is using the language of his tools/canvas/etc. to deliver that message.  That's why something like The Starry Night, or even the Sistine Chapel are beautiful pieces of art-they require forethought and dedication, not emotional randomness, and I think that it is the innate logic of humanity in these things of beauty and art that pierces through people's layers of self-deception and defenses and the appeal to their unconscious is an appeal of reason and logic.  

The same is true for music-beautiful music for most is not just banging keys randomly on a guitar but understanding notes, chords, scales, etc. and blending them together to form a final project. I feel that it's just that in the case of art, the logic and reason and effort is poured into the final project and used to get the message across, whereas a logical argument or statement in words is the final project in that regard. Logic and reason are not thrown out where art enters in.

 

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical

Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example).

Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it.

 

THIS debate could go on for hundreds of years.

 

I actually don't see what's very debatable about the claims I made:

1) Many artists are not using logic/reason as their methods of communication

2) There is art that is non-sequential, non-linear or non-logical that nonetheless moves people profoundly

I'd be surprised if many people would really try to argue against these claims. Maybe a couple, but not many I don't think.

[Arius]

I don't think it's just about being taught to use language for dominance. Heck, the whole point of the Milgram experiments was that most people do not use language to assert authority. They follow what authority tells them and don't speak up even when they should.

People are conditioned from birth to submit to authority.  First by the family, then by the state.  The Milgram students are exactly what you'd expect from 20 years of behavioral conditioning...good little soldiers.

I find it interesting that you immediately equate any form of communication besides logical persuasion to dominating and so on. If someone writes a beautiful song that touches people and gets a message across is that dominance and deceit? What about a lovely painting that goes right to someone's unconscious? The truth is that, for many, these things are far more powerful than logic can ever be.

Of course, that's not what I said.  Though, I find it interesting that you talk about beautiful paintings and songs as-if those things cannot be used as tools of control.  As-if no one has ever used a

.  As-if a beautiful painting cannot decieve and manipulate.  Much of the communication in society is used for power.  Not all of it.  There are songs, paintings, and arguments which compell without dominating, though such activities can only be accomplished with appeals to truth. 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

I don't think it's just about being taught to use language for dominance. Heck, the whole point of the Milgram experiments was that most people do not use language to assert authority. They follow what authority tells them and don't speak up even when they should.

People are conditioned from birth to submit to authority.  First by the family, then by the state.  The Milgram students are exactly what you'd expect from 20 years of behavioral conditioning...good little soldiers.

I find it interesting that you immediately equate any form of communication besides logical persuasion to dominating and so on. If someone writes a beautiful song that touches people and gets a message across is that dominance and deceit? What about a lovely painting that goes right to someone's unconscious? The truth is that, for many, these things are far more powerful than logic can ever be.

Of course, that's not what I said.  Though, I find it interesting that you talk about beautiful paintings and songs as-if those things cannot be used as tools of control.  As-if no one has ever used a

.  As-if a beautiful painting cannot decieve and manipulate.  Much of the communication in society is used for power.  Not all of it.  There are songs, paintings, and arguments which compell without dominating, though such activities can only be accomplished with appeals to truth. 

 

 

BODY BLOW!

[STer]

 

I don't think it's just about being taught to use language for dominance. Heck, the whole point of the Milgram experiments was that most people do not use language to assert authority. They follow what authority tells them and don't speak up even when they should.

People are conditioned from birth to submit to authority.  First by the family, then by the state.  The Milgram students are exactly what you'd expect from 20 years of behavioral conditioning...good little soldiers.

 

OK, but you had said the opposite. You said:

"They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority.  In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool."

In fact, if what you're saying here is the case, they are taught not to use language for dominance and authority. They are taught not to use it that way at all and to be submissive. 

 

I find it interesting that you immediately equate any form of communication besides logical persuasion to dominating and so on. If someone writes a beautiful song that touches people and gets a message across is that dominance and deceit? What about a lovely painting that goes right to someone's unconscious? The truth is that, for many, these things are far more powerful than logic can ever be.

Of course, that's not what I said.  Though, I find it interesting that you talk about beautiful paintings and songs as-if those things cannot be used as tools of control.  As-if no one has ever used a

.  As-if a beautiful painting cannot decieve and manipulate.  Much of the communication in society is used for power.  Not all of it.  There are songs, paintings, and arguments which compell without dominating, though such activities can only be accomplished with appeals to truth. 

 

Where did I say beautiful paintings and songs can't be used as tools of control. I specifically said (in the part you selected not to quote):

"You can use logic for dominance or not. You can use other ways for dominance or not."

I think that makes pretty clear that I believe intent is separate from which method you use.

The point is that whether your agenda is power or your agenda is healing and compassion, you have to ask which is the most effective way of getting your message across. And it seems pretty clear to me that logic and evidence and rationale is rarely the most effective method these days. So given that fact, if you agree with it, how should we respond? Keep using logic and evidence and rationale anyway on principle? Or use some other more effective means of communication?

[Arius]

The point is that whether your agenda is power or your agenda is healing and compassion, you have to ask which is the most effective way of getting your message across. And it seems pretty clear to me that logic and evidence and rationale is rarely the most effective method these days. So given that fact, if you agree with it, how should we respond? Keep using logic and evidence and rationale anyway on principle? Or use some other more effective means of communication?

I'd be very apprehensive to support any means of arriving at what is true other than reason and evidence.  Perhaps a work of art could direct it's audience toward rational pursuits, but I'd really be nervous about that.  If, say a movie, directs it's audience to perform some action, entirely through ethos or pathos, such that the audience then performs that action.  Well, those poor people could have been compelled to do almost anything.  Appeals to bias are anti-truth.  They make discovering truth more difficult through the obfuscation of facts.  Is it possible to paint a picture which, without appeals to bias, reveals what is true?  I'm unconvinced that, other than mathematics, there is any way to arrive at valid sums.

It isn't that people should think or accept rational arguments.  It is entirely the prerogative of the individual to think critically or not.  There is no imperative to reason.  Reason is a communication style... A series of conventions which are objectively valid.  What better advertisement for reason than reason?  I mean, if I'm gonna advocate people reason, I better use reason to get that message out.  Otherwise, I'd do better to advocate for whatever I was using to in-place of reason.

[Rick Horton]

 

The point is that whether your agenda is power or your agenda is healing and compassion, you have to ask which is the most effective way of getting your message across. And it seems pretty clear to me that logic and evidence and rationale is rarely the most effective method these days. So given that fact, if you agree with it, how should we respond? Keep using logic and evidence and rationale anyway on principle? Or use some other more effective means of communication?

I'd be very apprehensive to support any means of arriving at what is true other than reason and evidence.  Perhaps a work of art could direct it's audience toward rational pursuits, but I'd really be nervous about that.  If, say a movie, directs it's audience to perform some action, entirely through ethos or pathos, such that the audience then performs that action.  Well, those poor people could have been compelled to do almost anything.  Appeals to bias are anti-truth.  They make discovering truth more difficult through the obfuscation of facts.  Is it possible to paint a picture which, without appeals to bias, reveals what is true?  I'm unconvinced that, other than mathematics, there is any way to arrive at valid sums.

It isn't that people should think or accept rational arguments.  It is entirely the prerogative of the individual to think critically or not.  There is no imperative to reason.  Reason is a communication style... A series of conventions which are objectively valid.  What better advertisement for reason than reason?  I mean, if I'm gonna advocate people reason, I better use reason to get that message out.  Otherwise, I'd do better to advocate for whatever I was using to in-place of reason.

 

Yes. if you cherish propaganda as an effective communication tool over reason, then it would be irrational to use reason, and it would be irrational to cherish reason over propaganda if propaganda was the better way to communicate. Of course on the other hand, if propaganda "is" a superior tool of communication it wouldn't negate reason as being the best way to "think" In other words, maybe propaganda is how you communicate with others, reason is how you think for yourself.  Now something tells me that's a bunch of hooey but, what do I know?...

[STer]

 

The point is that whether your agenda is power or your agenda is healing and compassion, you have to ask which is the most effective way of getting your message across. And it seems pretty clear to me that logic and evidence and rationale is rarely the most effective method these days. So given that fact, if you agree with it, how should we respond? Keep using logic and evidence and rationale anyway on principle? Or use some other more effective means of communication?

I'd be very apprehensive to support any means of arriving at what is true other than reason and evidence.  Perhaps a work of art could direct it's audience toward rational pursuits, but I'd really be nervous about that.  If, say a movie, directs it's audience to perform some action, entirely through ethos or pathos, such that the audience then performs that action.  Well, those poor people could have been compelled to do almost anything.  Appeals to bias are anti-truth.  They make discovering truth more difficult through the obfuscation of facts.  Is it possible to paint a picture which, without appeals to bias, reveals what is true?  I'm unconvinced that, other than mathematics, there is any way to arrive at valid sums.

It isn't that people should think or accept rational arguments.  It is entirely the prerogative of the individual to think critically or not.  There is no imperative to reason.  Reason is a communication style... A series of conventions which are objectively valid.  What better advertisement for reason than reason?  I mean, if I'm gonna advocate people reason, I better use reason to get that message out.  Otherwise, I'd do better to advocate for whatever I was using to in-place of reason.

 

I notice in your response you've made "rational" the highest goal. I think moral is the highest goal. Rational means of promoting what you believe is moral is one means. There are also other means. But there seems to be a difference in what end goal we think we're talking about. To me, rationality is one approach, one strategy. But rationality isn't the end goal itself. And if you make it one I think you're pretty much doomed. I don't think it would even be healthy for humanity to be full of 100% rational thinkers. Imagine all the incredible arts and other contributions we wouldn't have if every human brain was wired to primarily be rational all the time.

I think humanity is meant to have a balance of rational and other types of thinkers. The problem today isn't that everyone isn't rational. It's just that things are out of balance and perhaps we have certain roles filled by non-rational people that should be filled with rational ones. But we also need plenty of other types of thinkers in other roles to make things work.

But then you throw in the issue that in some cases it's more important that someone be a moral person than a rational person. And those are not the same thing. There are extremely logical sociopaths out there.

[Arius]

I notice in your response you've made "rational" the highest goal. I think moral is the highest goal.

If "moral" isn't rational, then it's an appeal to bias.  That is, irrational morality is subjective and cannot rightly be described as morality because it is not equally true for everyone.

Suppose I suggest murder is wrong and you ask me why that should be so.  If I respond with "Because you wouldn't want to be murdered", then I'm not making a rational argument.  I'm appealing to your bias of self-interest as a means to convince you to believe something which may or may not be true.  While that's a boss rhetorical technique, it isn't a very powerful argument.  That is a great example of language as a tool for dominance.  It's subtle, because most people are conditioned to think of morality as divorced from rationality.  However, appeals to individual bias are not claims to truth, and cannot describe universals.  It's as-if I claimed you have $5,000,000 in your bank account and, when you questioned how I know that, I respond by saying "Think how much you would benefit from having all that money"...While you would benefit from all that money, your bias of self-interest is not a vehicle to change the condition of the world.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be rational.  There is no obligation to be rational.

[STer]

 

I notice in your response you've made "rational" the highest goal. I think moral is the highest goal.

If "moral" isn't rational, then it's an appeal to bias.  That is, irrational morality is subjective and cannot rightly be described as morality because it is not equally true for everyone.

Suppose I suggest murder is wrong and you ask me why that should be so.  If I respond with "Because you wouldn't want to be murdered", then I'm not making a rational argument.  I'm appealing to your bias of self-interest as a means to convince you to believe something which may or may not be true.  While that's a boss rhetorical technique, it isn't a very powerful argument.  That is a great example of language as a tool for dominance.  It's subtle, because most people are conditioned to think of morality as divorced from rationality.  However, appeals to individual bias are not claims to truth, and cannot describe universals.  It's as-if I claimed you have $5,000,000 in your bank account and, when you questioned how I know that, I respond by saying "Think how much you would benefit from having all that money"...While you would benefit from all that money, your bias of self-interest is not a vehicle to change the condition of the world.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be rational.  There is no obligation to be rational.

 

I guess you're very anti Ayn Rand then because she certainly promoted self-interest as the vehicle to change the world?

So if I'm understanding you correctly you will insist on only using rational means to promote morality even if you know that very few people respond to it and you will probably not gain much traction. That is a valid standpoint if you take that view based on principle. It may be less effective, but if that is what is in line with your own morality then that's your choice. Have I understood?

[Arius]

I still don't know how to produce valid sums without math.  So yes, appealing to individual bias to engender belief reduces argumentation to a choice of meals at a restaurant...It's whatever you like.  In terms of morality, you'd just end-up with a mess of cultural relativism.  Of course, like most people, I'm bad at math.  I'm sure to make terrible arguments from time to time (hopefully not often )...  That is actually my primary motivation to participate in this forum.  If my arguments are terrible, the social anonymity of the internet should grant everyone the honesty to tell me.  I'm simply at a loss to think of a means by which a theory of objective morality (objective anything, for that matter) could be developed using only appeals to bias.

As far as it being less effective... I'm still of the mind that we're stuck choosing between appeals to reason and evidence or appeals to bias.  Now, bias might get more people to follow you, give you money, or worship you.  However, bias isn't going to get those people to rationality...And I think many people want to get to rationality.  There are some definite disadvantages to being tugged about by subjective bias.  I mean, gods and governments are the crowning achievements of non-empirical, irrational thinking.

But yea, with the exception that I'm not sure rationality is less effective, you've got it.

[STer]

 

I still don't know how to produce valid sums without math.  So yes, appealing to individual bias to engender belief reduces argumentation to a choice of meals at a restaurant...It's whatever you like.  In terms of morality, you'd just end-up with a mess of cultural relativism.  Of course, like most people, I'm bad at math.  I'm sure to make terrible arguments from time to time (hopefully not often )...  That is actually my primary motivation to participate in this forum.  If my arguments are terrible, the social anonymity of the internet should grant everyone the honesty to tell me.  I'm simply at a loss to think of a means by which a theory of objective morality (objective anything, for that matter) could be developed using only appeals to bias.

As far as it being less effective... I'm still of the mind that we're stuck choosing between appeals to reason and evidence or appeals to bias.  Now, bias might get more people to follow you, give you money, or worship you.  However, bias isn't going to get those people to rationality...And I think many people want to get to rationality.  There are some definite disadvantages to being tugged about by subjective bias.  I mean, gods and governments are the crowning achievements of non-empirical, irrational thinking.

But yea, with the exception that I'm not sure rationality is less effective, you've got it.

 

I'm finding it strange that you keep responding to my posts in language unrecognizable as being from what I said. I talk about using means other than rational - which can be anything from music to art to poetry to healing touch, heck even Stefan focuses mostly on parenting which involves tons and tons of not only non-rational but non-verbal behavior - and you keep responding as if I said things like "appealing to bias." I don't consider those the same. If your child is hurt, which do you do, reason with them or hold them? Do you go for rational communication or non-verbal communication? I would hope at least you go for both. Is the hug "appealing to individual bias?" I don't think so, yet I think in many cases it is far more effective than anything you could verbally say, much less get across rationally.

I bet there are thousands of situations where simply hugging someone would be more effective than any logical argument you could make. And I don't think that's necessarily "appealing to bias" or manipulation. It may be precisely what they're needing and crying out for while you're focusing on rationale. In fact, we know that intellectualization is a defense mechanism so you may even be manipulating by continuing to focus on reason and logic while they are needing emotional support.

>>However, bias isn't going to get those people to rationality...And I think many people want to get to rationality.

Again I don't think "getting people to rationality" is a reasonable or even healthy general goal. It's too specific. It's not only that only some want to get there. It's that only some are even "supposed" to get there. Do you really think the world's great artists are all really meant to be rational thinkers? Are all sensitive intuitive feelers meant to become rational thinkers? Not only do I disagree with that but I don't think humanity would even survive if that was the case. A planet full of 7 billion purely rational thinkers would be a very barren place. Thank goodness for artists, designers, massage therapists, healers of all kinds who rely more on their strengths in other areas. And thank goodness for the proportion that are rational and who are becoming rational who will play their role in the whole system.

I think it's a grave error to put reason on a pedestal to such an extent that you think reason = morality and other forms of communication and thinking = immorality and harmful bias. I think that's dangerously prejudiced and an overcompensation to the level of irrationality we now have.

[Hannibal]

 

 

I guess you're very anti Ayn Rand then because she certainly promoted self-interest as the vehicle to change the world?

 

 

 

Rand's self-interest is rational self-interest. Ofcourse not wanting to be murdered sounds pretty rational to me - that was probably not the most useful example Arius could have used, but it's not anti-Rand. Rand's idea of self-interest is inseperable from rationality. Otherwise it's self-indulgent self-destruction.

[Arius]

I'm gonna expand the term "rational", cause I think it's one of those idiosyncratic words with too many meanings to be casually used during in-depth conversations.  In the case of argumentation, I use "rational" to denote an objective process whereby a set of definitions and assumptions are combined to reveal a conclusion.  In the broadest sense, I use "rational" to mean "concerned with what is objectively true".  I do not use "rational" as an antonym to "emotional", "artistic", or"sensitive".  I am almost certain a person can both be concerned with objective truth and be highly artistic.  I've known several people who both painted and argued. When I contrast appeals to rationality with appeals to bias, I am contrasting a specific flavor of objective and subjective appeals.

I suspect that you are using "rational" as a character trait of a person.  I believe you are using "rational" in place of "cold", "calculating", or "unemotional".  I think it's funny that the word shares both those meanings.  It's one of those weird words which has both a useful and a derogatory meaning.  I'm not trying to describe a quality of character.  You'll remember, we started this by contrasting a rational, versus "other", approach to persuading people of things.  My thinking is that people's minds are changed (at least in the process of argumentation) by appeals to things.  For example, I just tried to narrow-down the definition of "rational" so I can make reference to it for the purpose clarity.  You might point out that, because of the particular definition I've chosen, some other thing must be true.  There would be a mix of appeals to the shared definition and the value of truth.  There's always gonna be some kind of appeal in a persuasive argument.  That's why I mentioned pathos and ethos.  Those two categories are supposed to encompass everything which isn't logos (an argument).  If a communication is a spoken/written (I'll just say "in word-form") argument, and there is no appeal to some objective truth, then the persuasive reference must be an appeal to some personal bias.

Now, in the case of pathos (raw emotion), we'd find stuff like parents hugging kids.  I don't know that pathos alone persuades.  If I came across a crying stranger, my first reaction would not be to hug them.  My first reaction would be to inquire as to their motivation.  "Why are you crying?", "What's wrong?"...something like that.  If they just needed a hug, I'd do it.  My point is, the expression of raw emotion without a context does not persuade.  In the case of a parent and a child, the two people have a complex personal relationship which serves as a vehicle to inform action at the moment of crying. 

I'm not sure what pure ethos would look like in art, but I'm skeptical that it would persuade outside the context of a word-form argument.

 

[VforVoluntary49]

I think part of the problemcwe are running into is the definitions of some terms. Arius and I are using (I think) reason as directing the actions of people, but not always logical reasoning as a communication method. In the parenting example, the parent (even subconsciously) hugs their hurt child "for" a reason. Child is hurt, hugging may be quickest way to help, therefore hug. It may be instinctive to many but it is still a rational approach. I don't think I see how a world of rational people is devoid of art etc. or such a bad place. Rational doesn't mean robots, it means doing things for x, y, z reasons. An artist still (usually) has a reason. No not everyone responds to reason/evidence in debating or convincing people but I do think that its the method most likely to change people's minds in sustainable ways and for the right reasons. It internalizes their decisions and lets them arrive at the destination through their own decision to follow logic, not be moved or convinced simply because of a powerful message within a piece of art. Also, why the attack on Ayn Rand-noone here said that they subscribed to her idealogy 100% so why the straw man argument?

[STer]

 

I'm gonna expand the term "rational", cause I think it's one of those idiosyncratic words with too many meanings to be casually used during in-depth conversations.  In the case of argumentation, I use "rational" to denote an objective process whereby a set of definitions and assumptions are combined to reveal a conclusion.  In the broadest sense, I use "rational" to mean "concerned with what is objectively true".  I do not use "rational" as an antonym to "emotional", "artistic", or"sensitive".  I am almost certain a person can both be concerned with objective truth and be highly artistic.  I've known several people who both painted and argued. When I contrast appeals to rationality with appeals to bias, I am contrasting a specific flavor of objective and subjective appeals.

I suspect that you are using "rational" as a character trait of a person.  I believe you are using "rational" in place of "cold", "calculating", or "unemotional".  I think it's funny that the word shares both those meanings.  It's one of those weird words which has both a useful and a derogatory meaning.  I'm not trying to describe a quality of character.  You'll remember, we started this by contrasting a rational, versus "other", approach to persuading people of things.  My thinking is that people's minds are changed (at least in the process of argumentation) by appeals to things.  For example, I just tried to narrow-down the definition of "rational" so I can make reference to it for the purpose clarity.  You might point out that, because of the particular definition I've chosen, some other thing must be true.  There would be a mix of appeals to the shared definition and the value of truth.  There's always gonna be some kind of appeal in a persuasive argument.  That's why I mentioned pathos and ethos.  Those two categories are supposed to encompass everything which isn't logos (an argument).  If a communication is a spoken/written (I'll just say "in word-form") argument, and there is no appeal to some objective truth, then the persuasive reference must be an appeal to some personal bias.

Now, in the case of pathos (raw emotion), we'd find stuff like parents hugging kids.  I don't know that pathos alone persuades.  If I came across a crying stranger, my first reaction would not be to hug them.  My first reaction would be to inquire as to their motivation.  "Why are you crying?", "What's wrong?"...something like that.  If they just needed a hug, I'd do it.  My point is, the expression of raw emotion without a context does not persuade.  In the case of a parent and a child, the two people have a complex personal relationship which serves as a vehicle to inform action at the moment of crying. 

I'm not sure what pure ethos would look like in art, but I'm skeptical that it would persuade outside the context of a word-form argument.

 

 

You make some very good points. I guess my point with the hugging, for example, is that often the irrationality is a symptom not of faulty thinking but of wounding or unmet non-cognitive needs. Stef's work focuses heavily on this and that is one of the reasons I find it worth consuming. Imagine, for instance, that a person was hurt at a particular place that is almost always safe. You can argue until you're blue in the face, using every rational means, that that place is not dangerous and it was a fluke. You can point out repeatedly that they are less likely to be hurt there again than they are driving their car to work. In fact, they may even already know all of this logically and still their behavior and beliefs shape themselves around the fear. The human brain simply does not work on pure rationality. It didn't evolve to do so and likely our survival is partly becuase of that.

Well you'd probably agree the best approach to this may be therapy. How many therapists would approach this with simple rational appeals, given that this has likely already failed? Well they may try, but many of them wouldn't be the least bit surprised when that fails to work. In fact, they'd expect that to usually be the case. And what would we do then? Well we would use approaches you would probably call "subjective" and "appeals to bias." And yet these methods are quite what such a person may need to heal and become healthy and able to be whatever their potential is to be. On the other hand, continuing to try over and over to appeal to logic would really be pointless and actually even possibly malpractice. It would be a disregard for how the healing process works in such a case.

So psychotherapies, other than maybe pure cognitive therapy and probably even not including some of that, are usually not based on rational appeals. And yet do you doubt that performed competently they are a crucial part of people becoming healthy and our society becoming healthy?

At an even more basic level, when someone is starving they are unlikely to be in a state of mind to think rationally. What do you do in such a situation? Try to make a better logical appeal? Or help them get food? If you help them get food is this a "subjective appeal to bias"? Well perhaps if you use the food to bribe them to see things your way. But if you are simply meeting that unmet need so they are in a healthier state and more able to be open to reality, I think that's simply a wise approach.

So what I am getting at here is that irrationality stems from many things. Faulty reasoning is only one of them. When faulty reasoning is the origin, it makes sense to focus on logical argument. When faulty reasoning is only the symptom, it may be missing the point to keep focusing on that surface level. And I don't think it is an appeal to bias to focus on the actual origin of the dysfunction.

[STer]

Also one other example that comes to mind is the use of story. Does using story to make a point automatically constitute an appeal to bias? What about the use of parables to make points, often more powerfully than can be done through straight logical argument alone. Is this always manipulation?

Humans seem to have a possibly biologically-based affinity for processing stories. Often a story is far more persuasive than just giving syllogisms. Is it unacceptable to you to use story rather than straight logic to provide a lesson?

[STer]

 

I think part of the problemcwe are running into is the definitions of some terms. Arius and I are using (I think) reason as directing the actions of people, but not always logical reasoning as a communication method. In the parenting example, the parent (even subconsciously) hugs their hurt child "for" a reason. Child is hurt, hugging may be quickest way to help, therefore hug. It may be instinctive to many but it is still a rational approach.
I don't think I see how a world of rational people is devoid of art etc. or such a bad place. Rational doesn't mean robots, it means doing things for x, y, z reasons. An artist still (usually) has a reason. No not everyone responds to reason/evidence in debating or convincing people but I do think that its the method most likely to change people's minds in sustainable ways and for the right reasons. It internalizes their decisions and lets them arrive at the destination through their own decision to follow logic, not be moved or convinced simply because of a powerful message within a piece of art.
Also, why the attack on Ayn Rand-noone here said that they subscribed to her idealogy 100% so why the straw man argument?

 

I thought the thread was started because of a frustration the OP had with the fact that people fail to respond to attempts to persuade them to what he sees as truth using logical forms of communication. I am focusing here only on what type of persuasive strategies are most effective. It is not relevant to me whether the parent has a rational reason for hugging the child, for example. My point is that the parent communicates to the child in that scenario non-verbally, not through argument or attempting to reason anything out.

So I'm focused on communication methods, not on whether there are rational motives involved (or even just motives of any kind, which we might call a 'reason' whether it seems wise or not). I'm focused on a discussion of persuasion strategies, contrasting things like logical argument with other methods of attempted persuasion.

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

I'm not sure where you saw an "attack" on Rand. I simply said that it seemed if someone was against self-interest as a method to improve the world, they would probably not like her ideas then. But I also just realized that Rand mostly used story herself as her method. Her main impact on the world came through her stories, not her non-fiction. So she is an interesting example of someone who used alternative methods to get her points across, for better or worse. I'm not a fan of her, but I just thought she is an interesting example that many people here are familiar with.