[NEW VIDEO] In a society of free choice and free ideas, persuasion is the only alternative to violence. -Professor Deirdre McCloskey #freespeech #liberty #nonviolence
Jason Gray whoever you were talking to seems to have deleted their comments but I thought yours stand on their own quite well. I don't know why people feel the need to deny the holocaust, it's much simpler to just accept it and say you don't care.
Learn Liberty Is this video an antibiotic smoking ad? Holy crap the voice. She's right and all, but wow. She's also probably really nice and I'm sorry. I'm also a white supremacist, so ye...
We have to have a way to sort through all the persuasion we would encounter in a free society--that way is understanding that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human conscious.
"I can change at least your actions, if not your mind by drawing out my .37 which I keep in my purse." "A Free society is a speaking rather than violent society."
Another issue I see with advertising is the reason I don't have a television. Almost everything we can see on TV is delivered in such short, nicely edited packages that there's almost no way anything we see can help us make an informed decision about anything. Even, and especially, politics! They now have 5 minutes 'debates' on issues as complicated as abortion, or national offense (aka 'defense'). I've read somewhere that Pres. Lincoln debated for hours in the streets with his opponent; they had a lunch break and went back to debating! And this wasn't even for his presidency; it was for whatever position he held before his presidency. So, the first lesson to learn in free speech seems to be that everything we see on TV is highly paid for, and for a reason. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that money will always 'win' in that realm.
One thing I think is missed in the free speech argument is the fact people hear things differently. How many come away from a speech, lecture, movie with different impressions? 1A is (perhaps) as much about freedom to listen.
Based on some of the comments here, it seems that many people are either narrowing or expanding the professor's definitions, which seemed rather broad. It's clear from the graphics and the synchrony of the professor's speech that the particular definition of persuasion she used includes communicating information with symbols. I think one of the few safe assumptions I can make, based on the prof's rhetoric, is that many different forms of symbolism fall under the definitional umbrella of "persuasion." Let's not take ourselves too seriously, now.
Love, Love, Love! What a simple and clear way to explain the fundamental alternative to Free Speech! She even gave me a justification to understand why even advertising has a place as part of free speech. As a member of a society, I want the ability to persuade someone of my point of view. And I need to extend it reciprocally to all others, so that they get a shot at persuading me too. Even if I do not agree with what they are trying to convince me of. This then becomes one of the fundamentals of a free society (plus Rule of Law and other things.)
Sad to see how many schools and other institutions seek to limit discussion to just those views with which they believe. Talking beats fighting all day ,everyday and it is far more likely to lead to a shared conclusion to the debate. The word rhetoric most assuredly has been corrupted from when it was one of the three Rs "reading, reckoning and rhetoric." Unfortunate but symptomatic of a living, changing, growing language.
It' not advertising that pisses people off - it's subliminal and dishonest advertising. I can make a choice about a rational proposition, but when that rational proposition is wrapped in sounds and imagery designed to circumvent my conscious, then it becomes dangerous and dishonest.
subliminal advertising as people know it is bullshit. We communicate through subliminal messages all the time like body language, voice tone or the faces we made so is impossible to ask for advertising without subliminal messages. According to neurologist all the decisions we made are like 85% unconscious, which is something good since the source of happiness is not on the cortex (the thinking brain), is actually on the limbic and reptilian brain (the ones in charge of feelings and instinct reactions).
gerardollp No, it's not bullshit, and especially not in advertising. That's why certain types of subliminal advertising are illegal, such as "blipverts". As you correctly point out, all decisions are made by the unconscious brain, so deliberately sending signals to that part of the brain that are designed to trick it into making erroneously positive associations with the product, are the essence of subliminal advertising. Happy background imagery, invigorated music, images of friendship, sunny days, etc,are all designed to trick you into believing that the product will do more for you than it possibly can.
Mat Broomfield Not entirely true, is not all about tricking you into buying stuff you don't need. Let suppose I have 2lt of the same yogurt and I put 1lt on a blank container and I just give it to you; and the 2nd lt I put it into a container with colors which makes you remember healthy stuff, the person who gives it to you is an athlete and you just saw a kid eating that yogurt and enjoying it, even if the yogurt of both containers are the same the taste of the second one would be better and that is thanks to the subliminal messages of the 2nd lt I put on it and is not like I make you think the 2nd taste better, the 2nd one DID taste better because that is the power of the brain over our senses. Now, let suppose I have 2 different kind of yogurt, one with bad quality and the 2nd one with good one, if I sell you the one with bad quality with good advertising (believe me on this one) and you taste both yogurts your unconscious brain would feel betrayed and from now on will use that memory to relate that advertising with bad quality. Our unconscious brain may be irrational almost all the time but is not stupid, a good sell comes with a good product with good advertising, you can't choose just one, prestige is also subliminal (by a lot) and that only comes with good quality on your products.
It might be more appropriate to say the alternative to rhetoric and persuasion is sanction. It need not be physical violence, which does indeed fall under the category of sanction, but shame, censorship and arrest are also sanctions that limit speech.
Transparency is the part so often left out though. But either way. I agree wholeheartedly in preserving our rights to speak freely, even advertisers (though we could do more to boycott products from unscrupulous, non-transparent pushers).
For the most part, I agree with this video; it is clearly prefereble to live in a rhetorical society than in a violent one. The problem socialist like myself have with advertising is not that in engages in precisely the same inevitable linguistic activities as all other areas of human communication (i.e. rhetoric), but that a disproportionate quantity of society's resources are used up to do it, and that the messages conveyed are messages in the interests of far fewer persons than the quantity of money spent on them would suggest. I don't argue for a 'democritisation' of rhetoric - such step would effectively abolish rhetoric itself. I argue that everyone should have the same formal capacity to enunciate their ideas; this is not the case in a world in which square metres of visible space and hours, days, weeks, month and years of airspace can be bought and sold on a market. In a rhetorical society based upon material inequality, the rhetoric you hear will be the rhetoric of the rich.
(1) I know socialists assume otherwise, but I might as well start at the beginning: those aren't society's resources. (2) How do you calculate "disproportionate" and "far fewer persons"? The best way to determine those is via a free market. (3) But what if people don't want to hear the rhetoric of the poor? That would most certainly be a waste of resources.
***** Absolutely. I have no idea how someone can be a socialist. How can they willingly admit they want me to work for their cause, their ideas, and not have my own freedom, my own choices? How on Earth can they want to control me?
Persuasion is appealing to emotions, and is often required when the portion of falsehood in what one is trying to promote surpasses what is allowed to convince a purely logical person; this includes violence, no? So they aren't 2 separate entities. The other option is truth, which is appealing to intellect, and is so because truth is what we perceive to be right when logic combines with observation.
I don't get it as well. How is violence the only alternative to rhetoric or persuasion? Can't people or corporations provide objective information? Not all people are clever, you know and some believe what they are told, even if they are lies.
+takakyoma Actually, that's like saying can't musicians just write their feelings rather than sing them or add background music to them. The business wants you to feel a certain kind of way about their product, just like a speaker wants you to be moved by his or her speech. That doesn't mean they will or will not lie, corporations aren't meant to be our parents, we have a mind and critical thinking that we are supposed to use to defend ourselves from such things. If people choose not to engage in critical thinking when they see ads or get exposed to any form of speech whatsoever, they primarily have themselves to blame, because they are entrusting their survival in the hands of another person to do their thinking for them.
There's nothing inherently wrong with persuasion, but that comes in many forms. A con man persuades his marks to give them what they want, but clearly that isn't a just exchange. Advertisers get a bad rep because they persuade with half truths and lies by omission, at least as far as the law allows them to. Persuasion is a great tool when both parties have all the facts and then agree, but that's rarely the case. So it's not cut and dry at all.
I would like this a lot more if she also pointed out that to think that we can become victims of rhetoric is to imply that we, at least some of us, are mentally incapable to judging rhetoric, and should therefore be protected from our own incompetence. But she does make a great point, which I've only heard previously from Ayn Rand.
+Kevin Douglas The original point was made by Aristotle in criticism of Plato. Plato was actually against free speech or rhetoric (which is why in his utopia, art and poetry were to be banned), because he said it did not guarantee truth or it's pursuit. Aristotle's argument was that man needed to persuade each other in politics and in life, and that the way to protect himself from bad reasoning or lies was through the knowledge and detection of logical fallacies or what we loosely call today "critical thinking." So when people say that rhetoric is dangerous, they are more times than not, indirectly admitting that they do not have confidence in the public's ability or potential to engage in critical thinking to defend themselves from possible manipulation.
+Jevioso Orishas the particular point that I originally read in Rand is that our only fundamental alternatives in how we deal with other people are persuasion or violence (Rand would say reason or physical coercion).
Kevin Douglas I'm familiar with the Rand saying and I agree with it. I think it's mostly a parentalistic/altruist worldview that makes people say that "persuasion" is bad, because they don't think people should be obligated to use their reason to make judgments. I.e. people shouldn't have to think critically about advertisements and whether or not they are selling something beneficial or not to a person. But then again, the parentalistic worldview on the art of persuasion, is Platonic/religious in origin, so I'm not very surprised that people would misinterpret it. But i feel anyone whose ever had to sell anything to people or people who have grown up around flea markets either here or elsewhere, know that this is human nature at it's best.
Hey, if someone is dishonest in advertising then they get discredited. I'd argue the best way to persuade someone is with an argument that is consistent and without few to no holes. You need good principles and maybe science - or at least a studied subject.
There is nothing about the act of persuasion that requires subjective value judgments, or prohibits the use of rigorous proofs. Showing someone that the Pythagorean Theorem is indeed true using mathematical proofs is exactly what persuasion is. It is not "more than persuasion", it is exactly persuasion.
Apparently, McCloskey transitioned from male to a female, and had voice surgery that didn't go exactly as planned. That's what my Google search revealed anyway.
What we humans always have to distinqish is between that is persuavion trough reason/evidence/logic and that one which relies on sophism and charm "alone." Never say charm or adverts are bad inherently, however dishonesty and fraud is.
She didn't really challenge my view (as this was already my opinion on free speech), but I know there are a lot of people out there that thinks that it is an abuse of free speech to insult others, which it of course isn't. Many countries (also Western) even have laws against blasphemy, which is clearly an offense to the freedom of speech. The right to free speech includes the right to insult others, to say whatever I have to say about other people/organizations/political parties/countries/religion/etc.
There's are good ways to get information about things. Advertising just isn't one of those good ways. If you see anything wrong with a politician repeating talking points instead of more fully addressing the pros and cons of an issue you have just agreed that being advertised to isn't the best way to get informed about things.
Just because its not the best way, doesn't mean it isn't a way that should be used. There are many ways advertising can benefit the consumer, if the consumer is smart about it. Is it bad for you that a business advertises that its going to have goods 50% off? Sometimes, I'll see an advertisement for something I didn't even know existed. That doesn't mean I buy it, but knowing about it gives me an opportunity to look it up and see if it something I'm willing to buy. I'd say, advertising as a stand alone method of information is awful, but advertising can also be beneficial. Plus, you wouldn't get many things televised or available for free on the internet without it.
***** Lying is bad, whether its for political or business reasons. The problem is, that to get rid of it you'd have to decide what is right and what is wrong. That means someone has to make a decision. The historical examples of that would be Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc. The elimination of false hoods will eventually transform into the elimination of the truth when the wrong people get into power. The only hope we have as a society is that we can persuade people to the truth.
There are different kinds of persuasion. Some involve emotional appeals, fallacies, twisting the truth and psychological manipulation, others involve honest logic, reason and evidence.
Agree for the most part. However, if a company is selling a product that does harm in any way to people's habitats or larger ecological damage then that is violence and having language as a tool to justify that violence is still just that...violence.
I'm with hybridmcgee on this one. Ironically, the professor uses a rhetorical device, false dichotomy, to try to convince us that persuasion and violence are the only options. There is at least one other choice: critical thinking. I cover this in my book Don't Get Fooled!.
Well, and what about being a good example to other people? We can call it also a way of persuasion if we want to. But I think that violence is not the only one alternative. I think that a lot of people today changed other people by acting in a good way, by being a good example - somebody who you would also like to be.
When we say "challenge your perspective" we don't necessarily mean turn anti-free speech advocates into pro-free speech advocates. Just looking at the issue in a different light. If this is already the way you thought about it, then great! Thanks for watching.
Learn Liberty of course. I agree with probably 99% of Learn Liberty's contents. Thanks for putting together such awesome videos. Sorry if my first post came across as me being a dick lol
I'm glad she keeps her .38 for counter-violence. Somebody's got to do it, and if you want something done right.... But I wouldn't say persuasion & violence are the only choices. Coercion of other means, other than violence, like blackmailing. Bribing is a popular one in politics. Favor trades, might get into semantics, but they seem to be different than the context of the examples given, by pure persuasion.
The thing that persuades people other than speech is facts. People believe in god even if it's a lie because they are told to. Others don't believe in god because they searched for the facts.
Hold on. The word "persuade" implies there is an argument. We use facts in our argument, they aren't the argument themselves. Arguments say something about a fact or facts.
Alternatively, there are those who did not believe in God because they were told not to (like me). Then find through searching of the Truth that there is one God, Lord and creator of all, and he loves us.
This isn't so much a "challenge" to free speech, but a support for free speech, because the theme is "either persuasion or violence", assuming that persuasion will always be the more appealing alternative to violence. Now, is violence actually to be avoided at all costs? While I have observed the common reaction to be "Yes," answers may vary... My only outstanding criticism is that the speaker's voice sounds almost demonic from the modulation. Granted there was probably a request for anonymity, but still, there is something about it that I find mildly intimidating.
Good video. I feel like some science minds might take it as "You are implying that the only way to ever learn something is by another person". Of course this is just silly conjecture but all the same.
Yes, people lie, that's not new. But guess what people? All of you are free to CHOOSE if you believed them or not and I would rather deal with that instead of having a gun telling me what I should believe. A lot of people really missed the point of this video.
Free speech is not about persuading which product is better. Free speech is about taking on the goverment and not being jailed or killed for speaking out.
Bringing up Math as an example for persuasion is not a good one. You don't need to be persuaded. There are no arguments about Math. You can calculate it for yourself. You can put a ruler to the side of the triangles, measure them and find the relation.
Interesting, but not getting how anyone is persuaded to agree with the Pythagorean formula..It doesn't require persuasion, it's a mathematical statement.
"if there was something other then persuasion to get us to the "Truth"" What car you will drive, what you think about a company. I feel as if this is a very hollow argument, of course communication is done thru language but not only, what about the music in the background? does it not try to persuade a thoughtfulness? there are many ways of persuasion, pointless to go on on that point. Can persuasion be bad? OF COURSE! persuasion is a sales man seeking you out and employing a method to the words which may be deceptive. When a child goes to the library and seeks out a book, not because he was persuaded by friends or teachers, but by wonder, yes there will be persuasion in the authors opinions. But the persuasion methods and tactics of a author that to a salesman / politician will be much more open the the perceivers judgement. I feel the speakers misses individual human motives and thinks all things said are truths which is not the case. Persuasion has a bad rap because of Deceptions and depending to much on words as truths. Actions are truths? actions draw attention? words are spoken, written, remembered.
Well, let's say you are lied to and are not just given half truths... wouldn't you be able to cancel a contract that was written due to it being based on a lie?
I don't see the hollowness you do. She's not saying there is only one way to persuade, but speaking is by far the greatest, because it causes us to learn things about this store, or that car, which we won't. Music is used in addition to affect emotions, because people base most of their decisions based on feelings, not on words or what people say. Which is why people don't always buy something, if they don't feel comfortable with the sales person, even if he's saying some great things. :)
Colonel Veers Very good points! I love people who can debate an issue without attacking the other person. A few times now people just started hurling names at me, maligning my character, and they don't even know me.
lol Reeks of Friedman. She forgot demonstration, evidentiary analysis, convergent results, mutual non-interaction. Leave it to an economist to posit that there are only two options, violence or advertising. Nobody could ever achieve anything without violence or advertising because only by inflicting your will against others (and it is still an infliction of your Specific Will against another Specific Will to coax another agent into agreement through persuasion), unless of course the world is full of rational agents.
The world of ideas is a Marketplace. Like all marketplaces, you can debate, you can jib and jab, you try to convince a third party, prospective customers that you are selling the best wares and that it's convenient for them to buy from you. You don't slander your opponent, you don't take direct action against them or the prospective customers. The latter can get you a lawsuit or a punch in the nose.
K... this didn't really change my perspective on anything. The only SHOCKER was that I was "persuaded" to understand that pythagorean theorem?? So the proof doesn't speak for itself? Then who "persuaded" Pythagorus in the first place?? She/he thinks there's only 2 ways to get to the truth, persuasion or violence... uh... how bout just being told the truth in the first place? or discovering it for yourself? There's seems to be a few options missing here.
@stiqula, Thanks for the comment. Prof. McCloskey is really talking about the relationship between an individual and other people - not saying that every peaceful individual human action is a form of persuasion.
+stiqula You should read Aristotle's rhetoric...logic which is the root of proof is an aspect of rhetoric, which is nothing but a synonym for persuasion. Not only that, there is enough evidence in the history of man, to know that even in the midst of proof, people can still reject knowledge if they don't want to accept it.
This is wrong. We have two ways of making choices in life, the logical way and the emotional way. Our way of reacting to the world depends on how intelectualy lazy we are at the moment. Our intelectual endurance goes up and down all the time, making us some times even contradict our self. How this curve looks from a perspective depends much on who we are as persons, how the norm of the society we live in apears and how we adjust our selfes to this norm (again a question of personality). Retorics have two purpouses, which is clarity in language and the ability to apeal to peoples emotional side. The other purpouse is the bad, because it is the ability to trick people in to believe in things with as litle argumentation as possible. If you apeal to much to your emotional side, you are bound the fooled by corrupt companies and politicians. To justify your apeal to you emotional side as something good is the dying of the critical thinking. Question everything, even me!
Don't buy the insurance and don't pay the fine, and when they come to kidnap you for not doing so, resist. and see exactly how non-violence "legislation" is.
In the example she gave (Coke, General Motors,) she doesn't at all address what the actual problem people feel comes from advertising, and that is that you have these companies totally sugar-coating their products and policies. Coke is bad for your health, and you easily figure that out by circumventing the rhetoric about it and doing a little research. However, when you have such aggressive campaigns aimed at teaching the public falsehoods instead of facts related to their products and hiding from the people the hidden harms of what they manufacture, and you PROTECT their right to shroud their company in secrecy, then you can see where that leads. A fat, over-consuming, ignorant and violent society.
Maybe I missed a point somewhere, was she trying to say that advertising counts as a company exercising free-speech? Because I don't agree with her on that. I understand companies are complicated-you have a lot of people fulfilling a lot of different roles, but ultimately whoever it is that designs the dishonest coke advertisement has no choice in what they're saying, because the person who's profits are on the line, I assume, wouldn't tolerate any representation of what they do if it would mean less profits (even if it is a true representation.)
Cary Cocuzzi Well it's not like you can't punish crime, right? That's not actually infringing freedom of speech. So if a company lies about it's product it should definitely be held accountable for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do think freedom of speech should be protected, and privacy also shouldn't be infringed upon in general, I just think that deceitfulness in conjunction with selling a product or providing a service shouldn't count as free speech, but then again it's probably more complicated than I'm assuming. On a side note, ever notice how ridiculous commercials are nowadays? Like watching Will Ferrel humor, they're all totally nonsensical. Now, I saw a Yahoo article a while back claiming that research into the falling attention-spans of Americans is being used to formulate new commercials better suited to people with mild A.D.D.. In other words, we're dumb, so they might as well make dumb commercials! I think the truth is more complex, I think with all the documentaries and internet info on the harms of certain products, it's reaching a point where commercials can't say anything meaningful about their products without being caught in a lie, so instead they just do the silliest and most hypnotic shit possible onscreen with the product mixed in somewhere and hope the accompanying catchy-tune will reemerge in our heads at the store and we'll buy that shit! (My little far-fetched theory.)
It's hard to speak calmly with someone if they are trying to violate my rights, whether it be a crook on the street or a district attorney that wants to convict me of murder for trying to save myself from the crook with deadly force. Maybe I'm reading into this wrong but being pacifist is probably not the best way to live because I want to defend by rights and beliefs even if they clash with someone else's.
Skinnymarks I don't believe it's right not to respond or retort against something one says that is counter to my beliefs. I believe as a person I have a natural right to call someone or a group out on issues they believe in that might harm me or others. There's an old saying that the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If I say nothing I risk losing something important to me or society. I don't want to see a loss of freedoms on the internet if Google announces they are coming up with a program to make internet searches for child porn come up empty because of the risk that this country or others could use it to control the media. Places like China already do that to a degree and considering how "border-less" the internet is I don't want to see a situation where one government or a coalition of governments starts deciding what I can or cannot see or do on the internet.
i have no idea how you came to this conclusion, your comment seems completely off topic to me. this is trying to teach about the relation between free speech and advertising. its against the law for me to point a gun at you and tell you what to do, but i can hold up a Fancy sign and hopefully you will freely do what you want, which happens to be what i want. if we did not have free speech and did not live in a free society then i could take away your rights and kick your door down and force you.
So this is her argument ? "There has to be advertisement, or else, the only alternative would be violence" ? Naha, didn't work. Sorry to disappoint. This, folks, is a false dilemma, a fallacy of presumption. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy There IS another way: it is called transparency. Honesty. I don't need advertisers to keep shoving their lies down my throat so that I can decide if a product benefits me or not. They only have to let me know the EXACT effects of the products, how it was manufactured, and let ME decide if I want it. I'm an adult, I can think for myself, thank you very much. But of course, advertisers don't care about honesty and integrity. No, they only care about profit. Just check out what George Carlin has been talking and writing about for the most part of his life, it is all explained. I find it amusing that she mentions - and even praises - rethoric, as Sophists, righteous and benevolent gentlemen in Ancient Greece who spent their time and energy spreading knowledge in a non-profit manner and who have absolutely not resorted to using the same fallacies as she did to get money for their "services", greatly contributed in developing rethoric. The explanation given by this "Prof" is deceitful and aims to mislead you guys into believing advertisements are the only way. This is ridiculous, my bullcrap-meter is off the charts.
Or as I might put it - Quash someone's ideas at your own risk. Next time instead of persuasion, they might bust a lead pipe over your head to get their point across!
Of course persuasion is the only alternative to violence. Reason and evidence based research totally don't exist. All that stuff is for nerds and people who like to know things. I just want things.
I'm not entirely sure the point you are trying to make. All I got from what she said is that there is only persuasion or violence for options in human interaction. She makes references to rhetoric and Pythagoras, but doesn't seem to have read Plato.
The problem with the sort of "freedom of speech" that she's talking about is that, certain individuals or entities have so much more resources to "persuade" than the rest of the society. For example, tobacco companies can spend millions of dollars to advertise that tobacco does not affect health negatively (this actually happened in the past). If they are free to advertise (in the tobacco companies' case, falsely), common people who is on the receiving end of the ads have no way of verifying the ads' true value because they don't have the resources to do so. Our government's interference on such matters makes sure that the monopolies like these cannot abuse the situation stated above, by providing an equally powerful counter-balance.
We are all born naked into the world, and money is only a symbol. You would be hard pressed, in your example, to find a smoker who believes that smoking is healthy.
smokers don't watch tobacco ads, they are already addicted. the ads are more targeted towards young people who have little to no experience. and btw money is not the only resources those companies have.
Wei Zhou "targeted towards young people who have little to no experience." Please provide an example of this. And even if were true, where are the children guardians? The state cannot replace parents.
many high school kids and first or second year college students become tobacco addicts because they are no longer under their parents guidance. although many schools offer education on harm of tobacco, it is not enough to balance out the ads bombardment from the media. Tobacco question aside, the fundamental to thus discussion is that, using freedom of speech to justify false statement and lying is not correct. She says manipulation is OK, which I agree with. but deception is not. And this is when government comes into play, as they have more power and resources to identify deception than an individual like you or me. And for the government to exercise this power, some forms of freedom of speech needs to be sacrificed. Some of our government sometimes do go overboard, though.
Wei Zhou The idea that we need government to "identify deception" is baloney. In a truly free market, sellers who deceive their customers would be driven out of business in no time. In fact it is the existence of government agencies claiming to protect us that lulls people into a state where they don't check things out for themselves or seek out unbiased recommendations. "Surely the government wouldn't let them sell a dangerous product!" is the mindset. In a free market, consumers would not be on their own in evaluating products. Entrepreneurs would see a demand for this service and they would compete to provide it because they want to earn the highest profit possible. Unlike government agencies, which are always corrupted by the big corporate players in the industry being regulated, private companies would not be able to stay in business for long if they didn't provide honest, accurate evaluations of products that consumers could have confidence in.
I agree with everything the professor said. However, the issue comes when a government accepts money from huuge corporations and ends up 'helping' them out with their powers rather than pushing our depressing educational system forward. So, we end up with a seriously uneducated public, buying more sh*t they don't need (because of what else than ignorance?) because of the loss of our government being, well, our government. They've become business men and bankers instead. This is why our founders were very careful about banker, and other outside interest, in to government, right? Anywho, back to the point.
I feel like she just tried to brain wash me into accepting that it's ok for corporations, Governments and politicians to lie and that I should just be thankful that they aren't persuading me with violent action. Maybe not... but it was the way she chose to phrase everything that bothers me. Her evil Fem-Vader voice doesn't help either. xD
Advertising is not, in my opinion, free speech when it is imposed on us in every venue, without solicitation. I open my email....junk from advertisers, I try to watch a news video, I'm forced to sit through ads, I go to my mailbox, flier after flier no matter what do not send lists I've registered on, I answer my phone, it's an advertiser, I drive down the highway, it's billboards. It's intrusive, aggressive, and unsolicited noise in my life. I make a mental note NOT to buy their products. And I click off internet pages that force me to sit through ads. There is something drastically wrong with a "consumer" society which manufactures "need", wastes resources, and everyone ends up empty anyhow and buys the "advertised" drugs as a final recourse to their fullness of "things", but poverty of the soul.
Mystics of spirit (religionists) and mystics of muscle (socialists, fascists, communists) consider REASONING to be manipulation. The only thing they trust is faith and force, accepting the proposition that end justifies an unjustifiable means.
So when does advertisement become propaganda? Is propaganda bad? Is it okay for psychologists to use their knowledge of human mind & behavior for the intents of creating profit? Or pushing certain ideas and ideals? Where is the line drawn? It can even be argued that our society indoctrinates us to believe and think certain things. Is this better than violence and coercive enforcing of things?
Good video, but awful title. Don't start using Upworthy-style titles to tell me what to think about the video before I even watch it. You guys are better than that.
My problem with 'Free Speech' is that people use it to mean 'You cannot question what I am saying or argue with me' when it means the exact opposite. Free Speech means you have the right to say what you want AND I have the right to tell you you are full of BS and to point out why (Or not, Free Speech does not require logical argument). People need to stop using 'Free Speech' to try to avoid others opposing their views. If you want that you are anti-free speech, not pro.
If I present an argument or a product or a service to you and all I simply do is lay a sheet of paper in front of you with the "pro's" on one side and the "cons" on the otherside and then simply stand back and allow you to make up your own mind on the subject(answering questions honestly as they arise both for and against the product/service/argument) am I being persuasive or violent? It seems to me that the most important of all the ways we can make up our minds or come to conclusion is ignored in this video: The human trait of coming to our own conclusions! I don't need to be persuaded or threatened with violence to know that injecting heroine into my body is bad for me. I can be objective and look at all the data for myself and come to my own conclusion. I don't need commercials on tv telling me what vehicle or blender to buy either. I can test drive the car and play with the buttons on the blender myself and if I want to do more research, I can find sources of information that are non biased for or against the product to assist me in making up my mind.
Philosophy and in particular the philosophy of advertising which currently persists encourages us not to think about the importance of science in getting at the truth. A more complete understanding of what science is and the processes and strengths of science would allow us (or someone on our behalf) to compare objects and substances that are for sale and choose something that really suits US. The manufacturer does not want you to compare products except to claim [without fair testing] that their product is better than all others. This lady did not persuade me to swallow the shallow truths of the advertising Industry. I am suspicious of anyone that says there is only one way to do something. They have a vested interest in something undemocratic. Business is currently anti democratic. Sorry America ! Scientists of course accept that one will never get to the complete truth only approach its perfection.
I guess honesty and reasoning are just backup plans to shooting and advertising. By being in your face, advertising really does care and considers all of your options in life because it is so understanding. Lying is just a myth because reality is so elastic when money is involved. Needlessly scaring others for one's self-glorification has never happened in rhetoric like it has with violence. Get outta here with this trash. It's dishonest on so many levels. How utterly weak it is to tell people that the power of persuasion has nothing to do with someone choosing to be persuaded right or wrong, and someone doing the persuading right or wrong. Almost 3 minutes avoiding any of those aspects of rhetoric and persuasion. After all, "it's just a brief synopsis." Yeah, a revisionist's version.
What you are saying implies people are stupid sheep unable to determine for themselves the merits of other people's persuasion. Is it somehow possible to be honest with someone without persuading them that you are being honest, or reason with someone without persuading them that you are reasonable? The thing is being honest alone doesn't cut it. For example Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might not agree on much, and I don't agree with either man on everything, but I honestly believe both men believe everything or most everything they say, that sure as hell can't be said about Barack W. Romney. That doesn't mean that I or anyone else should necessarily agree with either man on anything only to respect them for not kowtowing to their parties. Point is, being honest and reasonable isn't enough. Ultimately some terrible people out there are right about some things and some good people can make very reasonable arguments that they believe with all their hearts and souls that are utterly wrong. And of course a billion shades in between. Everyone is going to try to persuade you. To sell you stuff and get you to see things their way. They are going to tell you lies, half truths, and stuff and it falls on each and every person to do research and decide for himself what is right. In the end the only other option is violence.
grantcivyt And you can think what you want. If you have a counter argument, feel free to make. It might mean something more than useless jabs but that's not really up to me.
Fraud and lying are forms of violence themselves, as they are just variations of theft. The only alternative to speech is violence. So I guess your use of fraud, trying to confuse lying with free speech is consistent with your alternative of using explicit violence as a form of persuasion.
So lying is violence now? Everyone lies so then does that mean everyone is violent? And if everyone does it mean that violence is ok? Fraud and certain types of lying [such as false advertising and slander] are already illegal, not sure anyone is defending them. Not sure what you are arguing against to be honest. Could you please be more clear? [text is tone neutral, this paragraph is meant in a friendly way but I can see it not coming across as such]
amazing how now'n days this sort of view point on civil liberties is the ratical view at least on the left or far left rather... so far that one might fall off the edge of the world and of course the far right doesnt get a pass either.
The point is great but, you can actually prove Pitagora's theorem to anyone age 9+ but you can not really prove which candidate is the best to vote for because the evidence are in the future - not in present and persuasion is how Hitler got elected XD. I am not kncocking down persuasion as such but it is the only thing we got, but people are uneducated about politics, most would hate if you talk politics any other time except maybe when it's all in the media and that is when elections come up. So 4 years people live in dark about politicians and politicss and in 30 days they have to make the best possible choice? To make matter worse, in the US you chose 1 or the other, there is no third choice!! All you get to choose from is the diffrences they themselves propse and try to argue about but you can not really challange things both party agree on, can you? As for advetisers, the most meanningless things - which color tootpaste to pick etc. etc. people get to hear over and over again...
[NEW VIDEO] In a society of free choice and free ideas, persuasion is the only alternative to violence. -Professor Deirdre McCloskey
#freespeech #liberty #nonviolence
Jason Gray whoever you were talking to seems to have deleted their comments but I thought yours stand on their own quite well. I don't know why people feel the need to deny the holocaust, it's much simpler to just accept it and say you don't care.
I like that prof! She's ALL gangsta!
"I'll pull out my .38 - THAT I KEEP IN MY PURSE!" LOLOL!!!
Learn Liberty Is this video an antibiotic smoking ad? Holy crap the voice. She's right and all, but wow. She's also probably really nice and I'm sorry. I'm also a white supremacist, so ye...
Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric (better known as the Trivium) should be brought back into our school system.
I don't get it. She didn't challenge my perspective on free speech one iota.
I think it's between speaking and action, not violence. Not all action is bad, and not all speaking is good.
We have to have a way to sort through all the persuasion we would encounter in a free society--that way is understanding that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human conscious.
"I can change at least your actions, if not your mind by drawing out my .37 which I keep in my purse."
"A Free society is a speaking rather than violent society."
Another issue I see with advertising is the reason I don't have a television. Almost everything we can see on TV is delivered in such short, nicely edited packages that there's almost no way anything we see can help us make an informed decision about anything. Even, and especially, politics! They now have 5 minutes 'debates' on issues as complicated as abortion, or national offense (aka 'defense'). I've read somewhere that Pres. Lincoln debated for hours in the streets with his opponent; they had a lunch break and went back to debating! And this wasn't even for his presidency; it was for whatever position he held before his presidency. So, the first lesson to learn in free speech seems to be that everything we see on TV is highly paid for, and for a reason. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that money will always 'win' in that realm.
One thing I think is missed in the free speech argument is the fact people hear things differently. How many come away from a speech, lecture, movie with different impressions? 1A is (perhaps) as much about freedom to listen.
Based on some of the comments here, it seems that many people are either narrowing or expanding the professor's definitions, which seemed rather broad. It's clear from the graphics and the synchrony of the professor's speech that the particular definition of persuasion she used includes communicating information with symbols.
I think one of the few safe assumptions I can make, based on the prof's rhetoric, is that many different forms of symbolism fall under the definitional umbrella of "persuasion."
Let's not take ourselves too seriously, now.
I like these videos, because they follow their original premise with supporting facts.
Love, Love, Love! What a simple and clear way to explain the fundamental alternative to Free Speech!
She even gave me a justification to understand why even advertising has a place as part of free speech.
As a member of a society, I want the ability to persuade someone of my point of view. And I need to extend it reciprocally to all others, so that they get a shot at persuading me too. Even if I do not agree with what they are trying to convince me of.
This then becomes one of the fundamentals of a free society (plus Rule of Law and other things.)
The only time violence is necessary is when you are at risk or at harm by another person.
Sad to see how many schools and other institutions seek to limit discussion to just those views with which they believe. Talking beats fighting all day ,everyday and it is far more likely to lead to a shared conclusion to the debate.
The word rhetoric most assuredly has been corrupted from when it was one of the three Rs "reading, reckoning and rhetoric." Unfortunate but symptomatic of a living, changing, growing language.
First video I see. Already won my subscription. Great!
It' not advertising that pisses people off - it's subliminal and dishonest advertising. I can make a choice about a rational proposition, but when that rational proposition is wrapped in sounds and imagery designed to circumvent my conscious, then it becomes dangerous and dishonest.
subliminal advertising as people know it is bullshit. We communicate through subliminal messages all the time like body language, voice tone or the faces we made so is impossible to ask for advertising without subliminal messages. According to neurologist all the decisions we made are like 85% unconscious, which is something good since the source of happiness is not on the cortex (the thinking brain), is actually on the limbic and reptilian brain (the ones in charge of feelings and instinct reactions).
gerardollp No, it's not bullshit, and especially not in advertising. That's why certain types of subliminal advertising are illegal, such as "blipverts".
As you correctly point out, all decisions are made by the unconscious brain, so deliberately sending signals to that part of the brain that are designed to trick it into making erroneously positive associations with the product, are the essence of subliminal advertising. Happy background imagery, invigorated music, images of friendship, sunny days, etc,are all designed to trick you into believing that the product will do more for you than it possibly can.
Mat Broomfield Not entirely true, is not all about tricking you into buying stuff you don't need. Let suppose I have 2lt of the same yogurt and I put 1lt on a blank container and I just give it to you; and the 2nd lt I put it into a container with colors which makes you remember healthy stuff, the person who gives it to you is an athlete and you just saw a kid eating that yogurt and enjoying it, even if the yogurt of both containers are the same the taste of the second one would be better and that is thanks to the subliminal messages of the 2nd lt I put on it and is not like I make you think the 2nd taste better, the 2nd one DID taste better because that is the power of the brain over our senses.
Now, let suppose I have 2 different kind of yogurt, one with bad quality and the 2nd one with good one, if I sell you the one with bad quality with good advertising (believe me on this one) and you taste both yogurts your unconscious brain would feel betrayed and from now on will use that memory to relate that advertising with bad quality.
Our unconscious brain may be irrational almost all the time but is not stupid, a good sell comes with a good product with good advertising, you can't choose just one, prestige is also subliminal (by a lot) and that only comes with good quality on your products.
All the subliminal manipulation in the world will not compel me to buy products I don’t want
It might be more appropriate to say the alternative to rhetoric and persuasion is sanction. It need not be physical violence, which does indeed fall under the category of sanction, but shame, censorship and arrest are also sanctions that limit speech.
Transparency is the part so often left out though. But either way. I agree wholeheartedly in preserving our rights to speak freely, even advertisers (though we could do more to boycott products from unscrupulous, non-transparent pushers).
For the most part, I agree with this video; it is clearly prefereble to live in a rhetorical society than in a violent one. The problem socialist like myself have with advertising is not that in engages in precisely the same inevitable linguistic activities as all other areas of human communication (i.e. rhetoric), but that a disproportionate quantity of society's resources are used up to do it, and that the messages conveyed are messages in the interests of far fewer persons than the quantity of money spent on them would suggest. I don't argue for a 'democritisation' of rhetoric - such step would effectively abolish rhetoric itself. I argue that everyone should have the same formal capacity to enunciate their ideas; this is not the case in a world in which square metres of visible space and hours, days, weeks, month and years of airspace can be bought and sold on a market. In a rhetorical society based upon material inequality, the rhetoric you hear will be the rhetoric of the rich.
(1) I know socialists assume otherwise, but I might as well start at the beginning: those aren't society's resources.
(2) How do you calculate "disproportionate" and "far fewer persons"? The best way to determine those is via a free market.
(3) But what if people don't want to hear the rhetoric of the poor? That would most certainly be a waste of resources.
*****
***** Absolutely. I have no idea how someone can be a socialist. How can they willingly admit they want me to work for their cause, their ideas, and not have my own freedom, my own choices? How on Earth can they want to control me?
Persuasion is appealing to emotions, and is often required when the portion of falsehood in what one is trying to promote surpasses what is allowed to convince a purely logical person; this includes violence, no? So they aren't 2 separate entities. The other option is truth, which is appealing to intellect, and is so because truth is what we perceive to be right when logic combines with observation.
I don't get it as well. How is violence the only alternative to rhetoric or persuasion? Can't people or corporations provide objective information? Not all people are clever, you know and some believe what they are told, even if they are lies.
+takakyoma Actually, that's like saying can't musicians just write their feelings rather than sing them or add background music to them.
The business wants you to feel a certain kind of way about their product, just like a speaker wants you to be moved by his or her speech. That doesn't mean they will or will not lie, corporations aren't meant to be our parents, we have a mind and critical thinking that we are supposed to use to defend ourselves from such things. If people choose not to engage in critical thinking when they see ads or get exposed to any form of speech whatsoever, they primarily have themselves to blame, because they are entrusting their survival in the hands of another person to do their thinking for them.
Words are everything; and ideas matter.
There's nothing inherently wrong with persuasion, but that comes in many forms. A con man persuades his marks to give them what they want, but clearly that isn't a just exchange. Advertisers get a bad rep because they persuade with half truths and lies by omission, at least as far as the law allows them to. Persuasion is a great tool when both parties have all the facts and then agree, but that's rarely the case. So it's not cut and dry at all.
I would like this a lot more if she also pointed out that to think that we can become victims of rhetoric is to imply that we, at least some of us, are mentally incapable to judging rhetoric, and should therefore be protected from our own incompetence. But she does make a great point, which I've only heard previously from Ayn Rand.
+Kevin Douglas
The original point was made by Aristotle in criticism of Plato. Plato was actually against free speech or rhetoric (which is why in his utopia, art and poetry were to be banned), because he said it did not guarantee truth or it's pursuit. Aristotle's argument was that man needed to persuade each other in politics and in life, and that the way to protect himself from bad reasoning or lies was through the knowledge and detection of logical fallacies or what we loosely call today "critical thinking." So when people say that rhetoric is dangerous, they are more times than not, indirectly admitting that they do not have confidence in the public's ability or potential to engage in critical thinking to defend themselves from possible manipulation.
+Jevioso Orishas the particular point that I originally read in Rand is that our only fundamental alternatives in how we deal with other people are persuasion or violence (Rand would say reason or physical coercion).
Kevin Douglas I'm familiar with the Rand saying and I agree with it. I think it's mostly a parentalistic/altruist worldview that makes people say that "persuasion" is bad, because they don't think people should be obligated to use their reason to make judgments. I.e. people shouldn't have to think critically about advertisements and whether or not they are selling something beneficial or not to a person.
But then again, the parentalistic worldview on the art of persuasion, is Platonic/religious in origin, so I'm not very surprised that people would misinterpret it. But i feel anyone whose ever had to sell anything to people or people who have grown up around flea markets either here or elsewhere, know that this is human nature at it's best.
Hey, if someone is dishonest in advertising then they get discredited. I'd argue the best way to persuade someone is with an argument that is consistent and without few to no holes. You need good principles and maybe science - or at least a studied subject.
This indeed changed my views. I am now pro free speech.
Communication (or discourse) ethics can also be used, a la Hoppe, to provide a powerful justification for libertarian philosophy.
Well done. That was awesome and very clear..
Pythag's theorem can be proved (in multiple ways) it is more than "persuasion" in that it relies on no subjective value judgements.
There is nothing about the act of persuasion that requires subjective value judgments, or prohibits the use of rigorous proofs. Showing someone that the Pythagorean Theorem is indeed true using mathematical proofs is exactly what persuasion is. It is not "more than persuasion", it is exactly persuasion.
Edward Burroughs & most economic theories can be proven, yet only one side of the political aisle agrees with them
Is she a cyborg?
i was looking for this comment
Apparently, McCloskey transitioned from male to a female, and had voice surgery that didn't go exactly as planned. That's what my Google search revealed anyway.
@@rescuetruth6332 YOU ARE SO RIGHT
What we humans always have to distinqish is between that is persuavion trough reason/evidence/logic and that one which relies on sophism and charm "alone." Never say charm or adverts are bad inherently, however dishonesty and fraud is.
She didn't really challenge my view (as this was already my opinion on free speech), but I know there are a lot of people out there that thinks that it is an abuse of free speech to insult others, which it of course isn't. Many countries (also Western) even have laws against blasphemy, which is clearly an offense to the freedom of speech. The right to free speech includes the right to insult others, to say whatever I have to say about other people/organizations/political parties/countries/religion/etc.
There's are good ways to get information about things. Advertising just isn't one of those good ways. If you see anything wrong with a politician repeating talking points instead of more fully addressing the pros and cons of an issue you have just agreed that being advertised to isn't the best way to get informed about things.
Just because its not the best way, doesn't mean it isn't a way that should be used. There are many ways advertising can benefit the consumer, if the consumer is smart about it. Is it bad for you that a business advertises that its going to have goods 50% off? Sometimes, I'll see an advertisement for something I didn't even know existed. That doesn't mean I buy it, but knowing about it gives me an opportunity to look it up and see if it something I'm willing to buy. I'd say, advertising as a stand alone method of information is awful, but advertising can also be beneficial. Plus, you wouldn't get many things televised or available for free on the internet without it.
***** Lying is bad, whether its for political or business reasons. The problem is, that to get rid of it you'd have to decide what is right and what is wrong. That means someone has to make a decision. The historical examples of that would be Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc. The elimination of false hoods will eventually transform into the elimination of the truth when the wrong people get into power.
The only hope we have as a society is that we can persuade people to the truth.
There are different kinds of persuasion. Some involve emotional appeals, fallacies, twisting the truth and psychological manipulation, others involve honest logic, reason and evidence.
A very nice channel.
Agree for the most part. However, if a company is selling a product that does harm in any way to people's habitats or larger ecological damage then that is violence and having language as a tool to justify that violence is still just that...violence.
BEAUTIFULLY put! unapologetic because theres no reason to apologize! deconstructed all the BS grievances of the anti-free speech crowd.
I'm with hybridmcgee on this one. Ironically, the professor uses a rhetorical device, false dichotomy, to try to convince us that persuasion and violence are the only options. There is at least one other choice: critical thinking. I cover this in my book Don't Get Fooled!.
Well, and what about being a good example to other people? We can call it also a way of persuasion if we want to. But I think that violence is not the only one alternative. I think that a lot of people today changed other people by acting in a good way, by being a good example - somebody who you would also like to be.
Didn't really challenge my opinion of free speech. I already had that view.
When we say "challenge your perspective" we don't necessarily mean turn anti-free speech advocates into pro-free speech advocates. Just looking at the issue in a different light. If this is already the way you thought about it, then great! Thanks for watching.
Learn Liberty of course. I agree with probably 99% of Learn Liberty's contents.
Thanks for putting together such awesome videos. Sorry if my first post came across as me being a dick lol
5 years later , and we are still waiting on what your
"opinion of free speech" is. ...
I'm glad she keeps her .38 for counter-violence. Somebody's got to do it, and if you want something done right....
But I wouldn't say persuasion & violence are the only choices.
Coercion of other means, other than violence, like blackmailing.
Bribing is a popular one in politics.
Favor trades, might get into semantics, but they seem to be different than the context of the examples given, by pure persuasion.
The thing that persuades people other than speech is facts. People believe in god even if it's a lie because they are told to. Others don't believe in god because they searched for the facts.
Hold on. The word "persuade" implies there is an argument. We use facts in our argument, they aren't the argument themselves. Arguments say something about a fact or facts.
Alternatively, there are those who did not believe in God because they were told not to (like me). Then find through searching of the Truth that there is one God, Lord and creator of all, and he loves us.
This isn't so much a "challenge" to free speech, but a support for free speech, because the theme is "either persuasion or violence", assuming that persuasion will always be the more appealing alternative to violence. Now, is violence actually to be avoided at all costs? While I have observed the common reaction to be "Yes," answers may vary...
My only outstanding criticism is that the speaker's voice sounds almost demonic from the modulation. Granted there was probably a request for anonymity, but still, there is something about it that I find mildly intimidating.
I agree with you about the modulation sound, but how can it be for anonymity, if they show her face?
I think she is wearing some kind of modulator, probably to replace the function of her degraded vocal cords, around her neck.
Mark Stouffer Yeah I think that's really how she sounds.
smoker.
About her voice: it's a side effect of her sex change operation.
Last time I checked to fraud and swindle was also violence. You can always persuade people with the truth.
Good video. I feel like some science minds might take it as "You are implying that the only way to ever learn something is by another person". Of course this is just silly conjecture but all the same.
jmw150 Glad you liked it! I think you may have psychic abilities. =)
She's right but that doesn't mean advertisers aren't lying outright to you.
Free speech in my opinion means any speech is legal. And you can't be arrested or jailed. Free speech is to avoid authority to interferre.
And then there is the Affordable Care Act which is imposed on me through threat of violence.
Yes, people lie, that's not new. But guess what people? All of you are free to CHOOSE if you believed them or not and I would rather deal with that instead of having a gun telling me what I should believe.
A lot of people really missed the point of this video.
Seriously, that is most fucked up voice in human history.
As long as there are law......it is NOT liberty!
Free speech is not about persuading which product is better. Free speech is about taking on the goverment and not being jailed or killed for speaking out.
Freedom is the absence of coercion.
free speech is challenging any dogma without inciting violence or having it incited against you
Were you persuaded by her rhetoric? :) apply what she said to what she espouses.
Someone is bound to comment about cigarette companies "manipulating" this person into smoking. So I'll go ahead and do it. lol
they dont need to manipulate anyone, all their customers are addicts which makes for an easy profit line.
Bringing up Math as an example for persuasion is not a good one.
You don't need to be persuaded. There are no arguments about Math. You can calculate it for yourself. You can put a ruler to the side of the triangles, measure them and find the relation.
Im not sure how my perspective was challenged? It all makes sense and isnt really too "mind blowing" of an idea
only problem with free speech is when you apply it to public ground which is contradictory.
Interesting, but not getting how anyone is persuaded to agree with the Pythagorean formula..It doesn't require persuasion, it's a mathematical statement.
"if there was something other then persuasion to get us to the "Truth"" What car you will drive, what you think about a company. I feel as if this is a very hollow argument, of course communication is done thru language but not only, what about the music in the background? does it not try to persuade a thoughtfulness? there are many ways of persuasion, pointless to go on on that point. Can persuasion be bad? OF COURSE! persuasion is a sales man seeking you out and employing a method to the words which may be deceptive. When a child goes to the library and seeks out a book, not because he was persuaded by friends or teachers, but by wonder, yes there will be persuasion in the authors opinions. But the persuasion methods and tactics of a author that to a salesman / politician will be much more open the the perceivers judgement. I feel the speakers misses individual human motives and thinks all things said are truths which is not the case. Persuasion has a bad rap because of Deceptions and depending to much on words as truths. Actions are truths? actions draw attention? words are spoken, written, remembered.
Well, let's say you are lied to and are not just given half truths... wouldn't you be able to cancel a contract that was written due to it being based on a lie?
ilovetoeatoff you would, unless that information is also lost in the lie, but hopefully through experience it wont happen again.
I don't see the hollowness you do. She's not saying there is only one way to persuade, but speaking is by far the greatest, because it causes us to learn things about this store, or that car, which we won't. Music is used in addition to affect emotions, because people base most of their decisions based on feelings, not on words or what people say. Which is why people don't always buy something, if they don't feel comfortable with the sales person, even if he's saying some great things. :)
Colonel Veers Very good points! I love people who can debate an issue without attacking the other person. A few times now people just started hurling names at me, maligning my character, and they don't even know me.
lol
Reeks of Friedman.
She forgot demonstration, evidentiary analysis, convergent results, mutual non-interaction. Leave it to an economist to posit that there are only two options, violence or advertising. Nobody could ever achieve anything without violence or advertising because only by inflicting your will against others (and it is still an infliction of your Specific Will against another Specific Will to coax another agent into agreement through persuasion), unless of course the world is full of rational agents.
The world of ideas is a Marketplace. Like all marketplaces, you can debate, you can jib and jab, you try to convince a third party, prospective customers that you are selling the best wares and that it's convenient for them to buy from you. You don't slander your opponent, you don't take direct action against them or the prospective customers. The latter can get you a lawsuit or a punch in the nose.
K... this didn't really change my perspective on anything. The only SHOCKER was that I was "persuaded" to understand that pythagorean theorem?? So the proof doesn't speak for itself? Then who "persuaded" Pythagorus in the first place?? She/he thinks there's only 2 ways to get to the truth, persuasion or violence... uh... how bout just being told the truth in the first place? or discovering it for yourself? There's seems to be a few options missing here.
@stiqula, Thanks for the comment. Prof. McCloskey is really talking about the relationship between an individual and other people - not saying that every peaceful individual human action is a form of persuasion.
+stiqula You should read Aristotle's rhetoric...logic which is the root of proof is an aspect of rhetoric, which is nothing but a synonym for persuasion. Not only that, there is enough evidence in the history of man, to know that even in the midst of proof, people can still reject knowledge if they don't want to accept it.
This is wrong. We have two ways of making choices in life, the logical way and the emotional way. Our way of reacting to the world depends on how intelectualy lazy we are at the moment. Our intelectual endurance goes up and down all the time, making us some times even contradict our self. How this curve looks from a perspective depends much on who we are as persons, how the norm of the society we live in apears and how we adjust our selfes to this norm (again a question of personality).
Retorics have two purpouses, which is clarity in language and the ability to apeal to peoples emotional side. The other purpouse is the bad, because it is the ability to trick people in to believe in things with as litle argumentation as possible. If you apeal to much to your emotional side, you are bound the fooled by corrupt companies and politicians. To justify your apeal to you emotional side as something good is the dying of the critical thinking. Question everything, even me!
so is govt coercion forcing us to purchase insurance we dont want a method or "violence" through legislation? I'm still not persuaded
Don't buy the insurance and don't pay the fine, and when they come to kidnap you for not doing so, resist. and see exactly how non-violence "legislation" is.
In the example she gave (Coke, General Motors,) she doesn't at all address what the actual problem people feel comes from advertising, and that is that you have these companies totally sugar-coating their products and policies. Coke is bad for your health, and you easily figure that out by circumventing the rhetoric about it and doing a little research. However, when you have such aggressive campaigns aimed at teaching the public falsehoods instead of facts related to their products and hiding from the people the hidden harms of what they manufacture, and you PROTECT their right to shroud their company in secrecy, then you can see where that leads. A fat, over-consuming, ignorant and violent society.
Right the problem is dishonesty. Doesn't mean you alter free speech, though.
Maybe I missed a point somewhere, was she trying to say that advertising counts as a company exercising free-speech? Because I don't agree with her on that. I understand companies are complicated-you have a lot of people fulfilling a lot of different roles, but ultimately whoever it is that designs the dishonest coke advertisement has no choice in what they're saying, because the person who's profits are on the line, I assume, wouldn't tolerate any representation of what they do if it would mean less profits (even if it is a true representation.)
Cary Cocuzzi
Well it's not like you can't punish crime, right? That's not actually infringing freedom of speech. So if a company lies about it's product it should definitely be held accountable for it.
Peter Konrad Konneker
I do agree with you btw. She does gloss over the problematic areas of free speech, haha.
Don't get me wrong, I do think freedom of speech should be protected, and privacy also shouldn't be infringed upon in general, I just think that deceitfulness in conjunction with selling a product or providing a service shouldn't count as free speech, but then again it's probably more complicated than I'm assuming. On a side note, ever notice how ridiculous commercials are nowadays? Like watching Will Ferrel humor, they're all totally nonsensical. Now, I saw a Yahoo article a while back claiming that research into the falling attention-spans of Americans is being used to formulate new commercials better suited to people with mild A.D.D.. In other words, we're dumb, so they might as well make dumb commercials! I think the truth is more complex, I think with all the documentaries and internet info on the harms of certain products, it's reaching a point where commercials can't say anything meaningful about their products without being caught in a lie, so instead they just do the silliest and most hypnotic shit possible onscreen with the product mixed in somewhere and hope the accompanying catchy-tune will reemerge in our heads at the store and we'll buy that shit! (My little far-fetched theory.)
It's hard to speak calmly with someone if they are trying to violate my rights, whether it be a crook on the street or a district attorney that wants to convict me of murder for trying to save myself from the crook with deadly force. Maybe I'm reading into this wrong but being pacifist is probably not the best way to live because I want to defend by rights and beliefs even if they clash with someone else's.
You could always just not listen.
Skinnymarks
I don't believe it's right not to respond or retort against something one says that is counter to my beliefs. I believe as a person I have a natural right to call someone or a group out on issues they believe in that might harm me or others. There's an old saying that the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If I say nothing I risk losing something important to me or society. I don't want to see a loss of freedoms on the internet if Google announces they are coming up with a program to make internet searches for child porn come up empty because of the risk that this country or others could use it to control the media. Places like China already do that to a degree and considering how "border-less" the internet is I don't want to see a situation where one government or a coalition of governments starts deciding what I can or cannot see or do on the internet.
i have no idea how you came to this conclusion, your comment seems completely off topic to me. this is trying to teach about the relation between free speech and advertising. its against the law for me to point a gun at you and tell you what to do, but i can hold up a Fancy sign and hopefully you will freely do what you want, which happens to be what i want. if we did not have free speech and did not live in a free society then i could take away your rights and kick your door down and force you.
So this is her argument ? "There has to be advertisement, or else, the only alternative would be violence" ?
Naha, didn't work. Sorry to disappoint.
This, folks, is a false dilemma, a fallacy of presumption.
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
There IS another way: it is called transparency. Honesty.
I don't need advertisers to keep shoving their lies down my throat so that I can decide if a product benefits me or not. They only have to let me know the EXACT effects of the products, how it was manufactured, and let ME decide if I want it. I'm an adult, I can think for myself, thank you very much.
But of course, advertisers don't care about honesty and integrity. No, they only care about profit. Just check out what George Carlin has been talking and writing about for the most part of his life, it is all explained.
I find it amusing that she mentions - and even praises - rethoric, as Sophists, righteous and benevolent gentlemen in Ancient Greece who spent their time and energy spreading knowledge in a non-profit manner and who have absolutely not resorted to using the same fallacies as she did to get money for their "services", greatly contributed in developing rethoric.
The explanation given by this "Prof" is deceitful and aims to mislead you guys into believing advertisements are the only way.
This is ridiculous, my bullcrap-meter is off the charts.
I saw it right away, seems we are the few, everyone else keeps wondering how it challenges free speech, not noticing the real message.
we Do not persuade ppl to believe in mathmatical truths and shouldnt have to with scientific facts.
Stop smoking
Try to be more persuasive
fruitgh0st get the 38 out and say “I want you to believe in not smoking!”
Or as I might put it - Quash someone's ideas at your own risk. Next time instead of persuasion, they might bust a lead pipe over your head to get their point across!
"Awaken my child, and embrace the glory that is your birthright"
The valued file distinguishes between he who speaks to enlighten and he who speaks to deceive
Where's the challenge
Of course persuasion is the only alternative to violence. Reason and evidence based research totally don't exist. All that stuff is for nerds and people who like to know things. I just want things.
Read some Plato, specifically the Gorgias and the Protageras. There is more than just rhetoric and violence. False dilemma.
I'm not entirely sure the point you are trying to make. All I got from what she said is that there is only persuasion or violence for options in human interaction. She makes references to rhetoric and Pythagoras, but doesn't seem to have read Plato.
Haha Don The Ad Man I see what you did there! She makes great points however.
The problem with the sort of "freedom of speech" that she's talking about is that, certain individuals or entities have so much more resources to "persuade" than the rest of the society. For example, tobacco companies can spend millions of dollars to advertise that tobacco does not affect health negatively (this actually happened in the past). If they are free to advertise (in the tobacco companies' case, falsely), common people who is on the receiving end of the ads have no way of verifying the ads' true value because they don't have the resources to do so. Our government's interference on such matters makes sure that the monopolies like these cannot abuse the situation stated above, by providing an equally powerful counter-balance.
We are all born naked into the world, and money is only a symbol. You would be hard pressed, in your example, to find a smoker who believes that smoking is healthy.
smokers don't watch tobacco ads, they are already addicted. the ads are more targeted towards young people who have little to no experience. and btw money is not the only resources those companies have.
Wei Zhou
"targeted towards young people who have little to no experience."
Please provide an example of this. And even if were true, where are the children guardians? The state cannot replace parents.
many high school kids and first or second year college students become tobacco addicts because they are no longer under their parents guidance. although many schools offer education on harm of tobacco, it is not enough to balance out the ads bombardment from the media. Tobacco question aside, the fundamental to thus discussion is that, using freedom of speech to justify false statement and lying is not correct. She says manipulation is OK, which I agree with. but deception is not. And this is when government comes into play, as they have more power and resources to identify deception than an individual like you or me. And for the government to exercise this power, some forms of freedom of speech needs to be sacrificed. Some of our government sometimes do go overboard, though.
Wei Zhou The idea that we need government to "identify deception" is baloney. In a truly free market, sellers who deceive their customers would be driven out of business in no time. In fact it is the existence of government agencies claiming to protect us that lulls people into a state where they don't check things out for themselves or seek out unbiased recommendations. "Surely the government wouldn't let them sell a dangerous product!" is the mindset.
In a free market, consumers would not be on their own in evaluating products. Entrepreneurs would see a demand for this service and they would compete to provide it because they want to earn the highest profit possible. Unlike government agencies, which are always corrupted by the big corporate players in the industry being regulated, private companies would not be able to stay in business for long if they didn't provide honest, accurate evaluations of products that consumers could have confidence in.
Hello Jordan Peterson 5000
I agree with everything the professor said. However, the issue comes when a government accepts money from huuge corporations and ends up 'helping' them out with their powers rather than pushing our depressing educational system forward. So, we end up with a seriously uneducated public, buying more sh*t they don't need (because of what else than ignorance?) because of the loss of our government being, well, our government. They've become business men and bankers instead. This is why our founders were very careful about banker, and other outside interest, in to government, right? Anywho, back to the point.
I feel like she just tried to brain wash me into accepting that it's ok for corporations, Governments and politicians to lie and that I should just be thankful that they aren't persuading me with violent action. Maybe not... but it was the way she chose to phrase everything that bothers me. Her evil Fem-Vader voice doesn't help either. xD
No Duh!
how is this Challenging?
Advertising is not, in my opinion, free speech when it is imposed on us in every venue, without solicitation. I open my email....junk from advertisers, I try to watch a news video, I'm forced to sit through ads, I go to my mailbox, flier after flier no matter what do not send lists I've registered on, I answer my phone, it's an advertiser, I drive down the highway, it's billboards. It's intrusive, aggressive, and unsolicited noise in my life. I make a mental note NOT to buy their products. And I click off internet pages that force me to sit through ads. There is something drastically wrong with a "consumer" society which manufactures "need", wastes resources, and everyone ends up empty anyhow and buys the "advertised" drugs as a final recourse to their fullness of "things", but poverty of the soul.
Mystics of spirit (religionists) and mystics of muscle (socialists, fascists, communists) consider REASONING to be manipulation. The only thing they trust is faith and force, accepting the proposition that end justifies an unjustifiable means.
Why does she sound like she's two people talking...
So when does advertisement become propaganda? Is propaganda bad? Is it okay for psychologists to use their knowledge of human mind & behavior for the intents of creating profit? Or pushing certain ideas and ideals? Where is the line drawn? It can even be argued that our society indoctrinates us to believe and think certain things. Is this better than violence and coercive enforcing of things?
Her voice is like Kerrigan's. But you know Kerrigan looks more zergish.
They make robots so life like these days.
Good video, but awful title. Don't start using Upworthy-style titles to tell me what to think about the video before I even watch it. You guys are better than that.
no she won't, she made the assumption that only speech or violence can alter peoples actions. That is not true
So we should not say certain things to stupid people?
nice metamorphosis
I-is she a cyborg?
My problem with 'Free Speech' is that people use it to mean 'You cannot question what I am saying or argue with me' when it means the exact opposite. Free Speech means you have the right to say what you want AND I have the right to tell you you are full of BS and to point out why (Or not, Free Speech does not require logical argument). People need to stop using 'Free Speech' to try to avoid others opposing their views. If you want that you are anti-free speech, not pro.
If I present an argument or a product or a service to you and all I simply do is lay a sheet of paper in front of you with the "pro's" on one side and the "cons" on the otherside and then simply stand back and allow you to make up your own mind on the subject(answering questions honestly as they arise both for and against the product/service/argument) am I being persuasive or violent? It seems to me that the most important of all the ways we can make up our minds or come to conclusion is ignored in this video: The human trait of coming to our own conclusions! I don't need to be persuaded or threatened with violence to know that injecting heroine into my body is bad for me. I can be objective and look at all the data for myself and come to my own conclusion. I don't need commercials on tv telling me what vehicle or blender to buy either. I can test drive the car and play with the buttons on the blender myself and if I want to do more research, I can find sources of information that are non biased for or against the product to assist me in making up my mind.
Philosophy and in particular the philosophy of advertising which currently persists encourages us not to think about the importance of science in getting at the truth.
A more complete understanding of what science is and the processes and strengths of science would allow us (or someone on our behalf) to compare objects and substances that are for sale and choose something that really suits US.
The manufacturer does not want you to compare products except to claim [without fair testing] that their product is better than all others.
This lady did not persuade me to swallow the shallow truths of the advertising Industry. I am suspicious of anyone that says there is only one way to do something. They have a vested interest in something undemocratic.
Business is currently anti democratic. Sorry America !
Scientists of course accept that one will never get to the complete truth only approach its perfection.
This didn't change my mind, had nothing new or interesting to say and didn't address the effects of or appropriate reactions to lying
i can't fucking hear her, i got her on full blast
I pressed the CC button to turn on Closed Captioning.
did you feel it necessary to drop the "f" bomb on your one liner?
yes I did, like you felt it was necessary to comment my comment, because people like you
I guess honesty and reasoning are just backup plans to shooting and advertising.
By being in your face, advertising really does care and considers all of your options in life because it is so understanding. Lying is just a myth because reality is so elastic when money is involved. Needlessly scaring others for one's self-glorification has never happened in rhetoric like it has with violence.
Get outta here with this trash. It's dishonest on so many levels. How utterly weak it is to tell people that the power of persuasion has nothing to do with someone choosing to be persuaded right or wrong, and someone doing the persuading right or wrong.
Almost 3 minutes avoiding any of those aspects of rhetoric and persuasion. After all, "it's just a brief synopsis." Yeah, a revisionist's version.
You say this as though advertising is inherently dishonest and unreasoning. I think you miss the mark.
What you are saying implies people are stupid sheep unable to determine for themselves the merits of other people's persuasion.
Is it somehow possible to be honest with someone without persuading them that you are being honest, or reason with someone without persuading them that you are reasonable?
The thing is being honest alone doesn't cut it. For example Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might not agree on much, and I don't agree with either man on everything, but I honestly believe both men believe everything or most everything they say, that sure as hell can't be said about Barack W. Romney. That doesn't mean that I or anyone else should necessarily agree with either man on anything only to respect them for not kowtowing to their parties.
Point is, being honest and reasonable isn't enough. Ultimately some terrible people out there are right about some things and some good people can make very reasonable arguments that they believe with all their hearts and souls that are utterly wrong. And of course a billion shades in between.
Everyone is going to try to persuade you. To sell you stuff and get you to see things their way. They are going to tell you lies, half truths, and stuff and it falls on each and every person to do research and decide for himself what is right. In the end the only other option is violence.
grantcivyt And you can think what you want. If you have a counter argument, feel free to make. It might mean something more than useless jabs but that's not really up to me.
Fraud and lying are forms of violence themselves, as they are just variations of theft. The only alternative to speech is violence. So I guess your use of fraud, trying to confuse lying with free speech is consistent with your alternative of using explicit violence as a form of persuasion.
So lying is violence now?
Everyone lies so then does that mean everyone is violent?
And if everyone does it mean that violence is ok?
Fraud and certain types of lying [such as false advertising and slander] are already illegal, not sure anyone is defending them. Not sure what you are arguing against to be honest. Could you please be more clear? [text is tone neutral, this paragraph is meant in a friendly way but I can see it not coming across as such]
Is she naturally autotuned?
amazing how now'n days this sort of view point on civil liberties is the ratical view at least on the left or far left rather... so far that one might fall off the edge of the world and of course the far right doesnt get a pass either.
The point is great but, you can actually prove Pitagora's theorem to anyone age 9+ but you can not really prove which candidate is the best to vote for because the evidence are in the future - not in present and persuasion is how Hitler got elected XD.
I am not kncocking down persuasion as such but it is the only thing we got, but people are uneducated about politics, most would hate if you talk politics any other time except maybe when it's all in the media and that is when elections come up.
So 4 years people live in dark about politicians and politicss and in 30 days they have to make the best possible choice?
To make matter worse, in the US you chose 1 or the other, there is no third choice!!
All you get to choose from is the diffrences they themselves propse and try to argue about but you can not really challange things both party agree on, can you?
As for advetisers, the most meanningless things - which color tootpaste to pick etc. etc. people get to hear over and over again...