Ah. Well, if your goal is to gain credibility through the use of persuasive elements… hm.
Generally I would consider that a good strategy. Using persuasive elements on humans has a high probability of increasing trust.
That said, the format is common among sales people and con artists, and a person savvy to these techniques will actually feel less inclined to trust IF they recognize the technique. (Which requires they know the techniques and recognize them: normally a low-probability event)
I could go on about evaluating the audience of LW, of the risk/reward ratio of such manipulations and how you calculate the payoff, but if I take you at face value then there is no reason for you to have thought that far ahead. I will just note that when someone realizes that what you are doing is trying to persuade them, it often has the opposite effect. (A notable exception includes advertising, but that may have more to do with the ubiquitous nature of manipulative advertisements.) It is often far better to simply present the method and let it speak for itself.
Yes, I think this is partly what I’m looking at with the response to the posts. It seems that I underestimated LW’s tendency to notice this, and/or their general opposition to such approaches. (I’m unfortunately not that familiar with the online LW community, as I normally only read promoted posts without the comments.) It’s worth noting that a persuasive argument can also be a valid argument, and not all attempts to create beliefs in others are attempts to create false beliefs. But these attempts nonetheless look suspicious (for good reason) and while the upcoming posts have fewer such elements already, I’m going to go and clear some of them out.
Ah. Well, if your goal is to gain credibility through the use of persuasive elements… hm.
Generally I would consider that a good strategy. Using persuasive elements on humans has a high probability of increasing trust.
That said, the format is common among sales people and con artists, and a person savvy to these techniques will actually feel less inclined to trust IF they recognize the technique. (Which requires they know the techniques and recognize them: normally a low-probability event)
I could go on about evaluating the audience of LW, of the risk/reward ratio of such manipulations and how you calculate the payoff, but if I take you at face value then there is no reason for you to have thought that far ahead. I will just note that when someone realizes that what you are doing is trying to persuade them, it often has the opposite effect. (A notable exception includes advertising, but that may have more to do with the ubiquitous nature of manipulative advertisements.) It is often far better to simply present the method and let it speak for itself.
Yes, I think this is partly what I’m looking at with the response to the posts. It seems that I underestimated LW’s tendency to notice this, and/or their general opposition to such approaches. (I’m unfortunately not that familiar with the online LW community, as I normally only read promoted posts without the comments.) It’s worth noting that a persuasive argument can also be a valid argument, and not all attempts to create beliefs in others are attempts to create false beliefs. But these attempts nonetheless look suspicious (for good reason) and while the upcoming posts have fewer such elements already, I’m going to go and clear some of them out.