Persuasion

A person stands before you and says, "believe me." Implicit in all written documents is a similar exhortation. All successful communication involves belief, that the speaker is trusted by the audience. An individual is frequently asked to assent to propositions introduced by another. Should you?

If there are nefarious motivations for the persuasion, perhaps not. Why would one person try to persuade another person to believe as they do? Persuasion involves conscious intention; a person persuades on purpose. As with all purposeful activity, there is a possible logical explanation for persuasion. Some social activities (actions involving more than the individual) are primarily performed for egocentric reasons. In such situations, the other (or others) have an accidental role. The actor is not ultimately concerned with his audience, but with himself. Applied to the action under consideration here, persuading another person is not the persuader's ultimate concern. The persuader could be uncertain of his own beliefs, and thus allay his anxiety by counting another person amongst the believers like him. He wants to place himself into the truth, and attempts to do so by surrounding himself with like-minded people.

Other social actions are primarily performed for tuistic reasons. In such situations, the other (or others) have an essential role. The actor is ultimately concerned with his audience, not himself. In the situation under consideration here, persuading another person is the persuader's ultimate concern. He could simply be trying to relay the truth to another person, and thus acts to her benefit by making her more informed. He wants to bring the audience into the truth, and brings into himself a sense of accomplishment.

Some tuistic actions have malevolent intentions. The persuader here has a will to deceive, wishing from malice to harm the person being persuaded. Here we may place all instances of swindling and lying.

Ideally, communication involves a reciprocity of interest. The speaker is interested (primarily) in the audience--not herself--and the audience is interested (primarily) in the speaker--not themselves. In the first scenario considered here, the persuader is less credible; in the second and third scenarios, the persuader is more credible. Credibility is diminished within a context of conflicted interest. In the first scenario, the persuader is more conflicted. He is doing you a service only by doing himself a service, which is to say he is doing you a disservice. The second and third scenarios may be outwardly indistinguishable to the other person involved in the communication. Trust and distrust are introduced as the means for navigating within the uncertainty. In assessing the situation, the other person may believe and take a risk that the scenario is of the third kind. Or, the other person may disbelieve and take a risk that the scenario is of the second kind.

A tricky thing about people is that they are complex. A given person may harbor all three reasons for persuasion at the same time.

To communicate is a precarious act. To volunteer an observation that may be incorrect, that may be incorporated into another's party's belief-system, that may then be acted upon, that may bring about more ugliness in the world--this is the risk of the speaker, the writer, or the artist. (Moreover, it is the risk of anyone who has a public face, for we are always emanating examples through our living.) Ethics is deeply enmeshed in communication because we take so many of our cues for beliefs from our community.