The Art of Persuasion (Rock Your Conversations with the Bottom Line)

Left, Right, In-BetweenThis Article is For You.

Ladies and gents, in keeping with the notion of providing you all with information that is something entertaining, sometimes newsy, sometimes full of opinion, and always loud and in your face, we wanted to post an article that originally came from DownsizeDC.org that we believe is worthwhile. Most people have very strong opinions in the world of politics. Most either love to bash the opposing side, or they love to argue and try to provide study after study or news report after news report to back their claims, or they are shy, fragile souls that shrink from the fray becayse conflict of any kind shatters their calm. Thus, the following article by Perry Willis is one that provides what we think is great advice for those that love to roll up their sleeves and begin the great political mud dance. Whether you are right, left, or somewhere in betweenthis article is for you. - Will Blesch

How You Can Persuade Anyone without Being an Expert

By Perry Willis Yesterday we explored how most people have to evaluate each issue from scratch, because they fail to use sound heuristics. Remember. A heuristic pronounced hyoo-RIS-tic is a simple principle that leads to quick, accurate decisions. Today well explore a heuristic method you can use for discussing any issue.

This method has only three steps Its easy to remember. It can help you persuade anyone without having to be an expert.

Step One: Stand on the right foundation

Could a scientific study make you favor State coercion? Or do you feel that. The MORAL cost of initiating State violence against innocent people exceeds any alleged benefit. If your true bottom-line is a moral position, then why not just say that? Why try to find a study to refute the Statist study? After all, doesnt the tactic of fighting one study with another study assume that. 1.Evidence can establish or overturn moral principles. 2.We can subject society to scientific testing. 3.We can become experts about how other people should live. Instead, isnt it true that no amount of evidence can

Make 2 + 2 = 5. Turn murder or theft into moral actions. Overturn The Golden Rule or The Zero Aggression Principle.
Its also true that

You cant conduct controlled experiments on whole cultures, so no social science study can ever really prove anything. Its impossible for mere mortals to become experts on how other people should live.
So why not drop the pretense and the complications? If the real basis of your position is a moral principle, then why dont you just say that? The moment you make your stand on moral principles, things become easier.

You need no longer try to master every subject or pretend to an expertise that no human being can possibly have. You need no longer be intimidated when someone else poses as an expert. Your case rests on rules that everyone already follows in their personal lives and simply extends those rules to the government.
So the first step is to make your stand on these principles The Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. Dont treat others as they desire NOT to be treated. The Zero Aggression Principle: Dont initiate harm against others or delegate doing so to the government. If something is wrong for you to do, then its also wrong for a group to do it, and a democratically elected government is merely a group.

Step Two: Dont lose sight of step one

Its easy to slip back into the war of competing studies. Dont do it. Constantly repeat the key heuristics

Evidence can neither establish nor overturn moral principles. They are simply self-evident, like 2+2=4. We cannot conduct controlled experiments on whole cultures, so no social science study can truly prove anything. Its impossible for mere mortals to become experts on how other people should live.
Drive home that last point by doing one thing more. Treat the studies that support you the same way you treat the studies that oppose you.

Constantly say the following I will not use studies that favor my position as justification for making you obey my preferences. For instance: I will not force you to own a gun just because I have studies showing that more gun ownership leads to less crime. Notice the connection to the Golden Rule. You are treating yourself the same way you treat others. You are not privileging your own studies over your opponents studies. Which brings us to

Step Three: Constantly apply The Golden Rule of Ideas

Treat your own ideas the same way you treat opposing concepts. Make your opponent do the same. Statists will try to refute your moral principles using outlandish scenarios. But they always fail to subject their own proposals to the same scenarios. They want the net down when theyre serving and the net up while youre serving. Dont let this happen. Point it out. Doing this will dissolve nearly every scenario intended to justify the initiation of force by The State. Now

Go forth and exercise moral persuasion!

Step One: Base your arguments on The Golden Rule and the Zero Aggression Principle. Step Two: Dont lose sight of step one. Step Three: Apply the Golden Rule of Ideas. Always subject competing ideas to the same standards. If you found this article valuable please share it. You can follow Perry Willis on Twitter

@PerryWWillis
What did you think? Applicable to those times when you wanna have a political (or basically any other) socially relevant discussion? Come Check Out More at: http://www.mastermind-intelligence.com! Leave us some comments. Wed love to hear your thoughts and well check and respond to each and every thing you have to say!

Break out with mastermind intelligence. Think hard.