I would like to see a system where arguments could be analyzed and tagged to identify the specific cognitive biases used.
The book Influence science and practice by Robert Cialdini seems to me to identify six main heuristics for which I have made a mnemonic Friendship and liking Opportunity of a scarce nature Reciprocity Commitment and consistency Expertise and authority Social proof *FORCES of mental gravity aka cognitive bias
Here is an example John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
For <-- Because could be substituted for the word for and according to Cialdini because is a trigger word we like reasons and explanations god <-- authority so <-- commitment loved <-- friendship & liking
the world <-- social proof ( look around god loves everyone! yes everyone! no mater how bad you or they may have been god can still love you if you believe) that he gave <-- reciprocity obligation to repay in kind with equal value his only begotten Son <-- scarcity in some versions “his one and only” doubling of scarcity
that whoever believeth in him should have <-- reciprocity you give faith he owes you life
believeth <-- commitment & consistency which produces behavior in the actor and social proof in the observer. Questioning and uncertainty and doubt lead to death because they are not belief which is the required state should not perish <-- loss aversion fear but have everlasting life <-- reciprocity life=high value gift = large debt obligation
It seems to me to me that many world view belief systems which are not supported by empirical fact would likely require cognitive biases to move and hold emotion
I would like to see a system where arguments could be analyzed and tagged to identify the specific cognitive biases used.
The book Influence science and practice by Robert Cialdini seems to me to identify six main heuristics for which I have made a mnemonic Friendship and liking Opportunity of a scarce nature Reciprocity Commitment and consistency Expertise and authority Social proof *FORCES of mental gravity aka cognitive bias
Here is an example John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
For <-- Because could be substituted for the word for and according to Cialdini because is a trigger word we like reasons and explanations god <-- authority so <-- commitment loved <-- friendship & liking the world <-- social proof ( look around god loves everyone! yes everyone! no mater how bad you or they may have been god can still love you if you believe) that he gave <-- reciprocity obligation to repay in kind with equal value his only begotten Son <-- scarcity in some versions “his one and only” doubling of scarcity that whoever believeth in him should have <-- reciprocity you give faith he owes you life believeth <-- commitment & consistency which produces behavior in the actor and social proof in the observer. Questioning and uncertainty and doubt lead to death because they are not belief which is the required state should not perish <-- loss aversion fear but have everlasting life <-- reciprocity life=high value gift = large debt obligation
It seems to me to me that many world view belief systems which are not supported by empirical fact would likely require cognitive biases to move and hold emotion
May the FORCES be with you ;)