= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Rationality Quotes June 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (413)
Phil Plait, Don't Be A Dick (around 23:30)
Voted up for the link to the video, which is a good explanation for why dumping hostility on people is not an effective method of convincing them.
FWIW, those that are 'hostile' don't generally believe they're going to convince the people they're being hostile to. They're after the peanut gallery; the undecided.
The effect on the peanut gallery is hard to track.
It's at least as likely that dumping hostility on outsiders is a way of maintaining group cohesion among those who have already identified themselves with the issue.
As you say, in-group signalling is a more likely explanation - hostility is widely unpersuasive to those who are actually undecided.
The former is the most powerful method I know of for the latter. As elspood mentioned, it obviously isn't the victims in particular that will be persuaded.
Wouldn't killing be better described in this context as coercion? Which feels distinct from persuasion, to me.
On humans it does both. Humans are persuaded by power, not merely coerced. (Being persuaded like that is a handy 'hypocrisy' skill given bounded cognition.)
I don't you can properly isolate these two strategies, there is a reason peace so frequently evolves into war: intelligent rational people living in a peaceful time frequently can reach their goals most easily by creating a violent environment. Diplomacy is safer, easier, and generally something I prefer, but violence can influence many more people much faster.