The Persuasive Power Of Supporting Evidence
It's likely embarrassing to admit, but you might have done something without realizing it that is actually harmful. You can’t always trust the people around you, so why not trust an expert with thousands of hours of experience? Studies show that this strategy yields more effective results than other approaches. So before trying to convince someone of your point, be sure to back your argument up with supporting evidence.
In his book The Truth , James Patterson presents the intriguing idea that some people want to be lied to. This can easily be verified by a Google search, which yields hundreds of thousands of results suggesting that most people associate lying with honesty. Patterson illustrates how this can be harmful: “If you’re always honest, people might not trust you” (22). As it turns out, though, honesty does not only have destructive consequences. Some of the most effective persuasive strategies involve deceiving the person being persuaded. How so?
There are four different types of evidence that can be used to persuade someone to believe something: facts, expert opinions, logical reasoning and testimony from authorities or peers (Lilienfeld & Lynn). These different types of evidence must be used carefully in order to avoid lying, otherwise you would be using a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning, and using a fallacy is contradictory to being honest. However, when these four types of evidence are used correctly, they can make an argument more persuasive, because they are effective at convincing the person being persuaded that he or she should believe something.
Another interesting finding is that some studies show that it is easier to convince someone when presenting them with supporting evidence than without (Lilienfeld & Lynn). So before trying to persuade someone of your point be sure to back up your argument with strong supporting evidence.
For a more in-depth look at the persuasive power of supporting evidence, you can watch the following TED-Ed video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQxDjKfkPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment 12: How to use fallacies so that you become more believable to others?
This assignment requires you to read two chapters from the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim N. Taleb and answer questions in your own words. If you need help reading the chapter or answering questions, ask me via email or check out this page on University of Virginia web site: http://www.virginia.edu/~kanas/teaching/nassim-taleb.html
Suggested reading:
"Fooled By Randomness : The Hidden Role Of Chance in Life and in the Markets" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2004, Houghton Mifflin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please let me know if any of you have found this page useful or fun. Thank you for taking time to read it! I hope that you will understand and be able to utilize the information learned by reading this page. Also, don't forget to check the student blog for more examples of persuasive arguments, or any other exercises or helpful resources that you may have missed. This is located on the main PSYC 311 web page. If you have any questions about this assignment or how to write a persuasive argument, feel free to contact me at: kosehong@uncc.edu.
Nation's schools hope to avoid cheating
(CNN) -- After allegations of rampant grade tampering rocked Atlanta public schools, educators and students nationwide are asking how widespread the problem is and what, if anything, can be done about it.
...
Susan Lassman, professor of education at Showa Women's University in Tokyo, said administrators in Japan have always been very strict about teachers giving students tests or grades that are not deserved. The practice is called "majime. ...
"
- http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/28/cheating.ap/index.html
--------------------------------------------------
What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one? You might say that the former is supported by good evidence and the latter is not. This seems to be a plausible answer but it's wrong, as we shall see in this essay (which is adapted from a chapter in my book The Art of Argument ). In fact, evidence is often superfluous to the point of being irrelevant. Bad arguments tend to be immune to evidence or to distort it once it is presented. Hence their internal coherence and persuasiveness are unaffected.
Let me give two examples. Imagine a chain of argument that begins with the assumption that alcohol consumption leads to crime and concludes that eliminating alcohol would result in a decrease in crime. Suppose we wanted to prove this and provide evidence for our case but found ourselves overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task. If so, we could adopt an attitude described by Stephen D UNE (1989, 121):
"Our object is not to establish some true proposition; everything else being equal, we shall settle for any plausible falsehood. We are not concerned with the truth or falsity of our claim; what matters is the coherence and persuasiveness of our argument."
Another example: We might try to support the claim that red lights cause traffic accidents by poking holes in some counterargument. If our aim is merely to demolish an opponent's arguments, we might well need evidence. But if it is instead to dispense with those arguments altogether, we will rarely find it necessary to offer any evidence at all.
Consider the following two examples:
The first consists of a series of propositions whose validity can be tested by applying them to particular cases. Red lights cause accidents, JANE AUSTIN writes in her text on psychology. Red lights cause accidents, steve ADAMS says in his argument against the use of red lights. Photographs of red lights cause accidents, I believe it is argued by KATE BODEN.
The second example starts with the assumption that there is a single truth and its negation, and then proceeds to demonstrate that there is no such thing. Red light causes accidents, john DOUGHERTY writes in his pamphlet on traffic safety. Red light does not cause accidents, anne LIVINGSTON claims in her text on psychology. Photographs of red light do not cause accidents, Margaret THOMPSON will argue in her forthcoming volume on photography.
These two examples illustrate what I mean by "substitutable arguments. " There are a large number of propositions that could be substituted for those given in the first example. So if we were convinced by evidence-based arguments, we could replace red lights with stop signs or speed bumps, photographs with video cameras, etc. It is inconceivable that these would not yield the same conclusion in the second example. In both instances there is no need to refer to evidence because the argument does not concern what is true or false but what can be substituted for it: red lights can be replaced by stop signs, photographs by videoscopes or even digital cameras or road markings, etcetera. Therefore arguments of this kind are immune to evidence .
Conclusion
"Arguments that maintain their own internal coherence, do not require disconfirming evidence, and are immune to evidence are the ideal arguments. " -- Stephen D UNE
I have been teaching argumentation for over a decade. My students have learned through practice what I have learned from experience: arguments tell us when we are wrong, which helps us change our minds; arguments can be shown to be persuasive even if they contain false assumptions or fallacious reasoning (otherwise known as "memes" ); and arguments can be shown to be persuasive even if they contain no false assumptions or fallacious reasoning (otherwise known as "sets").