Lovely post. I invite you to watch a short video I made on this subject a decade ago, posted on my old blog. This was after a stint as a product manager on Facebook games, realizing what kind of content was going viral and what the Internet was becoming. Google "stanrock memetics pt 2 four brothers"
I watched the whole series, amazing! You were wayyy ahead of the curve 11 years ago! I am now left wondering what you would think of this other article of mine: https://mon0.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-philosophy
Yes, though I wouldn't use the word "persuasion" since what is persuasive depends on the context. As you already demonstrated with your math conference example, dispassionate analysis can be quite persuasive to the right crowd. I think the word you're looking for is "rhetoric".
I do hope that intellectuals start using rhetoric more, but I also hope they don't embrace it fully but only selectively. To see why let's take violence as an example again. If nobody does any violence a violent person can grab power without any blowback. But the solution is not to therefore embrace violence, the solution is to only use violence *reactively* against those who use violence *proactively*. In the same way we should use rhetorical techniques *reactively* against those who use them *proactively*.
Also, when using violence reactively one needs to be careful to only target aggressors and not anyone else (even if they indirectly support them e.g. the invaders taxpayers), otherwise they may retaliate, starting a cycle of vengeance. Similarly, when using persuasion techniques to bring an demagogue down, try not to target anyone else (even if they indirectly support them e.g. the demagogues patreon supporters). In realty-land this is often not possible, and even if you succeed a cycle of vengeance may start anyway because they were so devoted to the aggressor (e.g. the son of the target). Not to mention that in the realm of discourse it's sometimes unclear what counts as analysis and what counts as rhetoric so a miscommunication/misinterpretation can easily trigger a spiral of retaliation. If we don't want to start these cycles, and (on occasion) get out of them, I recommend a strategy of "forgiving tit for tat". Start out cooperative, if they become combative switch to a combative style as well, but at random intervals propose a truce/starting a cooperative spiral.
I enjoyed this post, and I recognize the "fast and slow" model. I definitely have had the experience of the "glib" presenter, and I think many of the top podcasters and influencers fit this model.
There is, I believe, a deeper way of looking at the issue of how we make decisions (or how we are influenced, and I think the fast/slow model unfortunately may suffer from being too convenient to encourage proper critical thought.
Consider two people, one of whom has dedicated years of their lives to studying automotive repair, and one who hasn't, but wants to be thoughtful. A car is not working well, and the two of them set out to remedy the situation. They start by reading the codes, and it says "P1234 Intake camshaft sensor signal implausible" (I made this up, but it is real enough).
The second person (call them "slow") reasons through the problem: "The code indicates that the signal from the camshaft sensor is incorrect. The right move is to swap the sensor so that it might provide the correct signal." Totally logical (I know, not the deepest, but you get the point.
The first person (call them "fast") says, "Nope, it isn't the sensor. It is the camshaft solenoid" If pressed, they could provide a justification, "The solenoid controls the timing, and if the signal is implausible, it could be because the sensor is giving a bad reading, but it is more likely that it is giving an accurate reading of a poorly operating timing system."
The issue with prejudicing fast over slow is that it is too shallow. The reality is that most slow, deliberative thinking is not some Aristotelian ideal, it is a form of outcome-seeking. As Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out, jurors do not apply legal thinking to determine a judgment, but to justify it. The systems in our brain that deliberate logically are famously unreliable at creating truth. Fast, if understood as "intuitive" can be much, much more reliable, though it should also not be privileged.
I prefer to think about "deep fast" versus "lean fast." Lean fast is what you are talking about, the use of shallow patterns to make intuitive judgments. We all have patterns, but the default patterns can vary wildly. Someone who is not well-read, does not travel or experience a variety of experiences, or who adopts a rigid mindset (religious, political) simply has a poverty of intuitive "fuel." They adopt default mode prejudices.
On the other hand, when one reads broadly, travels, forces themselves to experience different forms of society, living and even reality (math and philosophy, for example), develops deeper intuition. Such a "deep fast" person will likely have better responses than a lean thinker who attempts to deploy reason.
The reality is that reason is not that reasonable, and it almost always depends on experience. As such, one can reason themselves into terrible decisions and positions (that is the underlying humor of 75% of Monty Python skits) if their lived experience is shallow.
What we call wisdom is a form of fast thinking. The truly wise do not deliberate towards a solution to a specific problem with a set of logical axioms and syllogisms. Wisdom is fast thinking in the moment based on slow processing of experience and contemplation over a long period.
All this being said, I totally agree that we cannot meet violence and domination with pacifism, nor lay down before intolerance!
Lovely post. I invite you to watch a short video I made on this subject a decade ago, posted on my old blog. This was after a stint as a product manager on Facebook games, realizing what kind of content was going viral and what the Internet was becoming. Google "stanrock memetics pt 2 four brothers"
I watched the whole series, amazing! You were wayyy ahead of the curve 11 years ago! I am now left wondering what you would think of this other article of mine: https://mon0.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-philosophy
I enjoyed this, thanks. Food for thought.
Yes, though I wouldn't use the word "persuasion" since what is persuasive depends on the context. As you already demonstrated with your math conference example, dispassionate analysis can be quite persuasive to the right crowd. I think the word you're looking for is "rhetoric".
I do hope that intellectuals start using rhetoric more, but I also hope they don't embrace it fully but only selectively. To see why let's take violence as an example again. If nobody does any violence a violent person can grab power without any blowback. But the solution is not to therefore embrace violence, the solution is to only use violence *reactively* against those who use violence *proactively*. In the same way we should use rhetorical techniques *reactively* against those who use them *proactively*.
Also, when using violence reactively one needs to be careful to only target aggressors and not anyone else (even if they indirectly support them e.g. the invaders taxpayers), otherwise they may retaliate, starting a cycle of vengeance. Similarly, when using persuasion techniques to bring an demagogue down, try not to target anyone else (even if they indirectly support them e.g. the demagogues patreon supporters). In realty-land this is often not possible, and even if you succeed a cycle of vengeance may start anyway because they were so devoted to the aggressor (e.g. the son of the target). Not to mention that in the realm of discourse it's sometimes unclear what counts as analysis and what counts as rhetoric so a miscommunication/misinterpretation can easily trigger a spiral of retaliation. If we don't want to start these cycles, and (on occasion) get out of them, I recommend a strategy of "forgiving tit for tat". Start out cooperative, if they become combative switch to a combative style as well, but at random intervals propose a truce/starting a cooperative spiral.
I enjoyed this post, and I recognize the "fast and slow" model. I definitely have had the experience of the "glib" presenter, and I think many of the top podcasters and influencers fit this model.
There is, I believe, a deeper way of looking at the issue of how we make decisions (or how we are influenced, and I think the fast/slow model unfortunately may suffer from being too convenient to encourage proper critical thought.
Consider two people, one of whom has dedicated years of their lives to studying automotive repair, and one who hasn't, but wants to be thoughtful. A car is not working well, and the two of them set out to remedy the situation. They start by reading the codes, and it says "P1234 Intake camshaft sensor signal implausible" (I made this up, but it is real enough).
The second person (call them "slow") reasons through the problem: "The code indicates that the signal from the camshaft sensor is incorrect. The right move is to swap the sensor so that it might provide the correct signal." Totally logical (I know, not the deepest, but you get the point.
The first person (call them "fast") says, "Nope, it isn't the sensor. It is the camshaft solenoid" If pressed, they could provide a justification, "The solenoid controls the timing, and if the signal is implausible, it could be because the sensor is giving a bad reading, but it is more likely that it is giving an accurate reading of a poorly operating timing system."
The issue with prejudicing fast over slow is that it is too shallow. The reality is that most slow, deliberative thinking is not some Aristotelian ideal, it is a form of outcome-seeking. As Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out, jurors do not apply legal thinking to determine a judgment, but to justify it. The systems in our brain that deliberate logically are famously unreliable at creating truth. Fast, if understood as "intuitive" can be much, much more reliable, though it should also not be privileged.
I prefer to think about "deep fast" versus "lean fast." Lean fast is what you are talking about, the use of shallow patterns to make intuitive judgments. We all have patterns, but the default patterns can vary wildly. Someone who is not well-read, does not travel or experience a variety of experiences, or who adopts a rigid mindset (religious, political) simply has a poverty of intuitive "fuel." They adopt default mode prejudices.
On the other hand, when one reads broadly, travels, forces themselves to experience different forms of society, living and even reality (math and philosophy, for example), develops deeper intuition. Such a "deep fast" person will likely have better responses than a lean thinker who attempts to deploy reason.
The reality is that reason is not that reasonable, and it almost always depends on experience. As such, one can reason themselves into terrible decisions and positions (that is the underlying humor of 75% of Monty Python skits) if their lived experience is shallow.
What we call wisdom is a form of fast thinking. The truly wise do not deliberate towards a solution to a specific problem with a set of logical axioms and syllogisms. Wisdom is fast thinking in the moment based on slow processing of experience and contemplation over a long period.
All this being said, I totally agree that we cannot meet violence and domination with pacifism, nor lay down before intolerance!