That's a good link, thanks. That's pretty much how I summed that up too. I agree that the article is not the greatest and I certainly think that the headline is a bit ridiculous, but in general I find the subject of empathy to be an interesting one. For example, why is it surprising that particularly empathetic people would seek to use their knowledge for personal gain? Is that not how the professional culture of the US works? What I found interesting about the article I posted, was that it doesn't mention advertising even once. Advertising these days is increasingly emotionally intelligent and advertisers have shown that they are fantastic at getting people to believe any number of things by appealing to them emotionally. This is something that I feel like most people overlook, especially on the internet. I was surprised that in the link you posted, advertising is mentioned, though only in passing. I would say that persuasion actually has very little to do with being right and quite a bit to do with guiding a person to feel that something is right or correct. I'd also say that persuasion and emotional intelligence as used by advertisers (of all kinds, including people that "spin" things) can result in evil, though it might not be evil in and of itself."In a study in which people were assessed on their awareness of their own evil, researchers discovered that those who were aware of their own evil tended to be evil."
The art of persuasion has not ever been and shall never be solely a matter of being right.
I think "influence" "persuasion" and "manipulation" are the same thing seen through three opinions. That's why the Greeks broke Logos and Ethos out - logic need not be ethical; ethics need not be logical. If anything, current research isn't so much challenging assumptions as it's challenging idealism. It's pretty idealistic to presume that a persuasive person would never be a manipulative person but a realist would recognize that the two positions are not separated by judgement but by aspersion. I shared it. It's worth talking about. But the article is pretty fluffy.
Yeah, that makes sense. If not opinions, then certainly those labels could be used given intent. I guess I should have posted this with a discussion question, as that's what I was looking for by posting the article. Notes for next time!I think "influence" "persuasion" and "manipulation" are the same thing seen through three opinions. That's why the Greeks broke Logos and Ethos out - logic need not be ethical; ethics need not be logical.
I shared it. It's worth talking about. But the article is pretty fluffy.