Asperger's and arguments
I had an engaging conversation with margoeve yesterday evening, about logic, persuasion and Adbusters. Afterwards I wondered if my Asperger's gives me an atypical perspective on advertising, and persuasion in general.
Asperger's makes it easy for me to miss or dismiss the emotional content of ads and arguments, and it makes me see them in a very rational, low-emotion way. I want a logical reason to buy the product, vote for the candidate or support the policy, not an appeal to my emotions. When I do notice the emotional content of arguments it I consider it irrelevant at best, manipulative and criminal at worst. I see the use of emotion in arguments as a way to exploit human weakness and drag us down to an animal level.
It particularly bothers me when someone tries to use emotion to pave over the logical potholes in their argument. It makes me suspect they know their position is wrong, so they resort to emotional manipulation instead. I get really pissed when lives are on the line, as with medical and political arguments. Manipulation that costs money is fraud, manipulation that costs lives is tantamount to murder.
It's not quite that simple, though. Most people will use whatever arguments work best, and people may respond better to emotional appeals even when there's a solid logical argument for the position. When this happens on a mass scale (as with advertising) it undermines democracy. Citizens get used to making most decisions for emotional reasons and their reasoning ability atrophies. The more a person is persuaded by emotional manipulation the more natural it seems and the more they accept it, becoming easy prey for demagogues. The persuaders aren't stupid and respond to this by focusing even more on emotional manipulation, and the vicious cycle continues. This poisons our political process becase just as an independent and inquisitive press is essential to democracy, so is an electorate well equipped with finely-tuned bullshit detectors.
Despite how I sound I'm not remotely heartless. My greatest goal in life is emotional: To increase human happiness. Thus it's fair to say that all my goals are either emotional or based on an emotional goal. I use logic to pursue them, but there's no paradox because the logic is on a different level.
Emotions don't behave according to logic but they do follow rules, if complex ones. Logical arguments can address emotional issues quite well, as long as they accept the way emotions really work rather than trying to make them obey logic. For instance I might decide I need therapy, a new job or some change in my relationship to be happier. I don't apply logic on that level, I accept those needs as given, then on a higher "managerial" level I think rationally about how to acheive those goals and so become happier.
Anyone who's been the victim of my mothering knows I feel very intensely when people are suffering or in need. That's a very strong motivator for me on the personal, social and societal levels - I think suffering demands action. It's precisely because I feel so strongly for people that I think decisionmaking should be based firmly on reason: I think we should choose the course that will best achieve our goals in helping people, not the course with the best salesman. When people are suffering or in need they deserve no less than our smartest efforts, in addition to our most vigorous efforts and our most passionate efforts.
Asperger's makes it easy for me to miss or dismiss the emotional content of ads and arguments, and it makes me see them in a very rational, low-emotion way. I want a logical reason to buy the product, vote for the candidate or support the policy, not an appeal to my emotions. When I do notice the emotional content of arguments it I consider it irrelevant at best, manipulative and criminal at worst. I see the use of emotion in arguments as a way to exploit human weakness and drag us down to an animal level.
It particularly bothers me when someone tries to use emotion to pave over the logical potholes in their argument. It makes me suspect they know their position is wrong, so they resort to emotional manipulation instead. I get really pissed when lives are on the line, as with medical and political arguments. Manipulation that costs money is fraud, manipulation that costs lives is tantamount to murder.
It's not quite that simple, though. Most people will use whatever arguments work best, and people may respond better to emotional appeals even when there's a solid logical argument for the position. When this happens on a mass scale (as with advertising) it undermines democracy. Citizens get used to making most decisions for emotional reasons and their reasoning ability atrophies. The more a person is persuaded by emotional manipulation the more natural it seems and the more they accept it, becoming easy prey for demagogues. The persuaders aren't stupid and respond to this by focusing even more on emotional manipulation, and the vicious cycle continues. This poisons our political process becase just as an independent and inquisitive press is essential to democracy, so is an electorate well equipped with finely-tuned bullshit detectors.
Despite how I sound I'm not remotely heartless. My greatest goal in life is emotional: To increase human happiness. Thus it's fair to say that all my goals are either emotional or based on an emotional goal. I use logic to pursue them, but there's no paradox because the logic is on a different level.
Emotions don't behave according to logic but they do follow rules, if complex ones. Logical arguments can address emotional issues quite well, as long as they accept the way emotions really work rather than trying to make them obey logic. For instance I might decide I need therapy, a new job or some change in my relationship to be happier. I don't apply logic on that level, I accept those needs as given, then on a higher "managerial" level I think rationally about how to acheive those goals and so become happier.
Anyone who's been the victim of my mothering knows I feel very intensely when people are suffering or in need. That's a very strong motivator for me on the personal, social and societal levels - I think suffering demands action. It's precisely because I feel so strongly for people that I think decisionmaking should be based firmly on reason: I think we should choose the course that will best achieve our goals in helping people, not the course with the best salesman. When people are suffering or in need they deserve no less than our smartest efforts, in addition to our most vigorous efforts and our most passionate efforts.