Philosophy & Economics

[clyde]

I suppose I could look for some philosophy or economics forum elsewhere, but I enjoy the opinions of Thumbs.

Here is a list of fallacies:

 

The interactive list can also be examined here

 

1 point is awarded to anyone who spots a fallacy in someone else's argument.

3 points are awarded if you spot a fallacy in your own argument before someone else does.

 

 

[clyde]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_5Ue1ivG6Qg

 

This is the best explanation I have seen for the question "What the difference between persuasion and coercion?"

 

 

Edit: also, I have to mention that I love how the icon for the "the fallacy fallacy" is a fractal.

[Sententia]

I don't know if there's any evidence for or against this, but my intuition is that there's a neurological difference in the brain of someone who's being coerced versus someone who's being persuaded.  I assume persuasion will activate the logical and emotional and maybe memory or stress or other parts, while coercion will be specifically causing pain and/or fear.

[clyde]

I'm really interested in persuasion versus coercion because of its implications in the ethics of consumerism. I prefer to consume things that are produced through persuasion rather than coercion. The idea that the difference between the two may be the width of a spectrum of alternatives suggests to me that increasing the available alternatives (for those I suspect are being coerced) could improve my chances of consuming things produced through persuasion. If the difference is whether or not the person is making the decision in fear, then my chances of consuming products produced through persuasion could be increased by ensuring a sense of security for the workers I suspect are being coerced.

[thestalkinghead]

what about terms and conditions, nobody reads them because if you don't agree to them you don't get what you paid for, so you have to agree because there is no other choice, so i would say that was coercion  

[TychoCelchuuu]

I don't know if there's any evidence for or against this, but my intuition is that there's a neurological difference in the brain of someone who's being coerced versus someone who's being persuaded.  I assume persuasion will activate the logical and emotional and maybe memory or stress or other parts, while coercion will be specifically causing pain and/or fear.

Unfortunately for this to be true you must first define the difference between persuasion and coercion. This turns out to be very difficult. People often equate coercion with force or the threat of force, but this seems to fail to capture certain cases of coercion, like when I tell you that I've hidden the medicine you need to survive and I won't give it back until you give me some money. Another popular option is to say a coercive offer is one you would prefer not to be presented with - having been given the offer, you are worse off. Unfortunately this is probably both over and underinclusive - it's overinclusive because there seem to be benign offers that people would prefer not to get, like when someone offers you a donut and now you have to either rudely refuse or eat something unhealthy you don't want, and it's underinclusive because an abusive slave owner who offers to beat a slave less if the slave will do something disagreeable but still better than being beaten is, on this model, not making a coercive offer.

[Reyturner]

I think this is the speech that came before that video above (note the tie). 

 

[Sententia]

Unfortunately for this to be true you must first define the difference between persuasion and coercion. This turns out to be very difficult. People often equate coercion with force or the threat of force, but this seems to fail to capture certain cases of coercion, like when I tell you that I've hidden the medicine you need to survive and I won't give it back until you give me some money. Another popular option is to say a coercive offer is one you would prefer not to be presented with - having been given the offer, you are worse off. Unfortunately this is probably both over and underinclusive - it's overinclusive because there seem to be benign offers that people would prefer not to get, like when someone offers you a donut and now you have to either rudely refuse or eat something unhealthy you don't want, and it's underinclusive because an abusive slave owner who offers to beat a slave less if the slave will do something disagreeable but still better than being beaten is, on this model, not making a coercive offer.

 

It's true that there are difficulties in our current definitions, but I don't think that applies to what I'm saying.  If there is such a neurological difference as I've suggested, then it seems logical to label the one without fear/pain as persuasion and the one including those things as coercion.  That new definition would solve the issue you presented with the slave: she's still being driven by fear of the beatings, ergo still coercion.

 

Thinking about it a bit I believe my exact wording will prove to be off because I'm not an expert on neurology, however I think the answer to separating coercion and persuasion will be found in the brain of the affected persons.

[clyde]

what about terms and conditions, nobody reads them because if you don't agree to them you don't get what you paid for, so you have to agree because there is no other choice, so i would say that was coercion

I would say that the enforcement of the terms and conditions may be coercive, but that the contract is being used to legitimize that coercion.

I suspect that contractual obligation is often used as a way to legitimize coercion. My understanding of "human-rights" is that they are basically things that a person cannot sign away. Even if they do sign their human-rights away, the contract has no illusion of legitimacy.

[thestalkinghead]

i have heard there are lots of things that trigger the same part of the brain that pain does, like being ignored, if that were true you could use ignoring somebody in a way that was coercion

[TychoCelchuuu]

It's true that there are difficulties in our current definitions, but I don't think that applies to what I'm saying.  If there is such a neurological difference as I've suggested, then it seems logical to label the one without fear/pain as persuasion and the one including those things as coercion.  That new definition would solve the issue you presented with the slave: she's still being driven by fear of the beatings, ergo still coercion.

 

Thinking about it a bit I believe my exact wording will prove to be off because I'm not an expert on neurology, however I think the answer to separating coercion and persuasion will be found in the brain of the affected persons.

This is circular, though. If you say "I don't have an independent definition of coercion, I'm just going to scan brains and call anything that causes part to light up as 'coercion'" then your hypothesis that coercion is always accompanied by something special in the brain will be trivially true. You'll be right because you defined coercion according to the brain activity that you think shows up during coercion, and you prove that it shows up during coercion just by making that definition.

[Sententia]

That would be true if I claimed not to have an independent definition of coercion but that's not what I'm saying, I'm talking about redefining.  You pointed out with the slave example there's a problem, we think that situation is coercive but by our current definition it isn't, ergo something must be wrong.  This provides a solution to that issue, by basing it on what's happening in a brain instead of the actions of a person.

[Reyturner]

What if coercion was defined as "leveraging a power imbalance to force acquiesce".

[TychoCelchuuu]

That would be true if I claimed not to have an independent definition of coercion but that's not what I'm saying, I'm talking about redefining.  You pointed out with the slave example there's a problem, we think that situation is coercive but by our current definition it isn't, ergo something must be wrong.  This provides a solution to that issue, by basing it on what's happening in a brain instead of the actions of a person.

Well I don't see why I'd ever redefine coercion to match splotches that you think (without any evidence) are going to show up in peoples' brains sometimes rather than what I might otherwise think coercion is. I mean, how would we even pick which splotches to define coercion as, assuming (as I think is not at all the case) that certain splotches are going to light up at certain times?

What if coercion was defined as "leveraging a power imbalance to force acquiesce".

Because then if you give someone a choice instead of forcing them ("give me all your money or I'll kill your child") you're not coercing them. In fact lots of people want to define coercion as when you don't force something because they think actually resorting to force is different from coercion.

[clyde]

I can't figure out if I am persuaded to go to my job and perform my duties on a regular schedule or if I am coerced to do so.

[Sententia]

Well I don't see why I'd ever redefine coercion to match splotches that you think (without any evidence) are going to show up in peoples' brains sometimes rather than what I might otherwise think coercion is. I mean, how would we even pick which splotches to define coercion as, assuming (as I think is not at all the case) that certain splotches are going to light up at certain times?

 

I see your point, and maybe it's true that modern methods of direct brain interpretation aren't capable of differentiating the relevant thought processes.  I'd still present my intuition (evidence-less, as you and I both stated) that coercion is an effect on the brain of the person being coerced, and that you could find it even in the cases you presented that seem counter-intuitive to our current definition.

 

Assuming it's untestable it's not useful though, so it's irrelevant to the current discussion.  When I'm 80 years old and this comes to light I'll be all "I totes called it yo!"

[TychoCelchuuu]

But how would we ever know you're right? You're just telling us to use the word "coercion" to describe a certain phenomenon in the brain. What would we get from calling this phenomenon "coercion" rather than "schmoercion" or any other word?

[Sententia]

Well I assume we'd get a reasonable and consistent distinction between what qualifies as coercion and what just goes under the umbrella of persuasion, which would be useful in all the same situations it's useful currently, plus some that our current definition doesn't seem to cover well.  I guess I chose that word because it seems the most similar to the concept I'm describing, of being persuaded alongside some means of negative or harmful action.

 

Let's say you're right though and it doesn't fit as well as I think it does, it doesn't cover all the gaps of current coercion and actually ends up with its own inconsistincies.  What word do you think is more appropriate for it?

[TychoCelchuuu]

We could make up a word.

[Sententia]

TychoCity

[osmosisch]

Sententia, in your case coercion is defined as 'the person being coerced feels coerced (albeit possibly subconsciously)' which is accurate to a certain degree but too vague to be really usable.

I think 'force' definitely has a place in any honest definition of coercion by the way. Whether the force is physical or circumstantial has no bearing on the coercive aspect if you ask me.

[Roderick]

Friedman is clear to make the distinction that coercion employs physical force only, and then elaborates that most cases of psychological coercion have at their root a physical threat behind them.

 

Personally, I find the whole argument a little strange to wrap my head around, since the term 'persuasion' has always been a positive force in my lexicon. It is altering the minds and opinions of others based on either good argument, charm, or anything other than violence. The difference with coercion, therefore, couldn't be bigger. I feel the difference, rather than being able to succinctly detail it in words.

 

A good example: last night Osmosisch and I were invaded by an enemy phantom in Dark Souls, who employed coercion in an attempt to steal our lives. We persuaded him otherwise by the logical argument that he could not beat us, and the charm of our edgy blades.

[Gormongous]

Friedman is clear to make the distinction that coercion employs physical force only, and then elaborates that most cases of psychological coercion have at their root a physical threat behind them.

 

Personally, I find the whole argument a little strange to wrap my head around, since the term 'persuasion' has always been a positive force in my lexicon. It is altering the minds and opinions of others based on either good argument, charm, or anything other than violence. The difference with coercion, therefore, couldn't be bigger. I feel the difference, rather than being able to succinctly detail it in words.

 

"Force" feels a bit Weberian to me. Maybe the threat of harm, instead? Many subtler forms of what I would consider coercion invoke some kind of harm that does not always reside in and originate from the coercer.

[Roderick]

I agree. There is little difference between a threat backed up by violence from the coercer and violence by a third party that may or may not even be under their control. The aim is the same: to bend someone else to their will through the fear of repercussion.

 

"This is his claim, his threatening and my message." - Duke of Exeter, Henry V

[osmosisch]

I've always operated under these broad definitions:

Persuasion: getting someone to do something by convincing them that there is a benefit to them.

Coercion: getting someone to do something by convincing them there will be harm to them (usually originating with the coercer) if they don't.