There are people I can talk to, where all of the following statements are obvious. They go without saying. We can just “be reasonable” together, with the context taken for granted.
And then there are people who…don’t seem to be on the same page at all.
This is saying, through framing, “If you do not agree with the following, you are unreasonable; you would be among those who do not understand What Goes Without Saying, those ‘who…don’t seem to be on the same page at all.’.” I noticed this caused an internal pressure towards agreeing at first, before even knowing what the post wanted me to agree with.
Maybe it’s because I’ve read other posts like this, but I read it as expressing the unspoken assumptions of a particular group, not trying to get others to adopt them. That is, I took the scare quotes around “be reasonable” as actually self-effacing. I mean, it’s obvious that the author does think these are good things, but the post came across to me as descriptive. If the post were written so as to imply that some people actively endorse the opposite of these things, eg, “pointless busywork is cool” then that would be obnoxious, but it seems worthwhile to me to point out that many people don’t pay much attention to busywork either way and it’s not a factor in their evaluation or decisionmaking.
I may also be biased because I love hearing about how different implicit assumptions and perspectives lead to different experiences, so that’s what I went in wanting to read (and was satisfied).
So it’s good persuasive writing? I mean the point of this article seems to be both an attempt to persuade the reader of a certain point of view combined with an exploration of the realisation that not everyone thinks the same way?
Looking at the points of view espoused, they seem to be quite positive for their adherents.
I believe that persuasion should happen on merits of arguments, and that trying to activate the social biases of the reader is defecting[1] from that norm (even if it’s normal writing practice elsewhere).
Looking at the points of view espoused, they seem to be quite positive for their adherents.
There’s no way to ensure this would be only done with positive views, because many authors think their beliefs would be positive to spread.
This is saying, through framing, “If you do not agree with the following, you are unreasonable; you would be among those who do not understand What Goes Without Saying, those ‘who…don’t seem to be on the same page at all.’.” I noticed this caused an internal pressure towards agreeing at first, before even knowing what the post wanted me to agree with.
Maybe it’s because I’ve read other posts like this, but I read it as expressing the unspoken assumptions of a particular group, not trying to get others to adopt them. That is, I took the scare quotes around “be reasonable” as actually self-effacing. I mean, it’s obvious that the author does think these are good things, but the post came across to me as descriptive. If the post were written so as to imply that some people actively endorse the opposite of these things, eg, “pointless busywork is cool” then that would be obnoxious, but it seems worthwhile to me to point out that many people don’t pay much attention to busywork either way and it’s not a factor in their evaluation or decisionmaking.
I may also be biased because I love hearing about how different implicit assumptions and perspectives lead to different experiences, so that’s what I went in wanting to read (and was satisfied).
So it’s good persuasive writing? I mean the point of this article seems to be both an attempt to persuade the reader of a certain point of view combined with an exploration of the realisation that not everyone thinks the same way?
Looking at the points of view espoused, they seem to be quite positive for their adherents.
I don’t understand your objection.
I believe that persuasion should happen on merits of arguments, and that trying to activate the social biases of the reader is defecting[1] from that norm (even if it’s normal writing practice elsewhere).
There’s no way to ensure this would be only done with positive views, because many authors think their beliefs would be positive to spread.
(by some amount; not a binary)