写作与思考2021unherd.com
正在消亡的说服艺术
The Dying Art of Persuasion
导读
文章认为，那种靠理性、讲道理、愿意被说服的古典说服术正在衰落。对写作者来说，它值得一读，因为它迫使我们思考：自己的论证到底是在追求真理，还是在表演“我很理性”。评论区的反驳同样有价值：说服并没有死，死掉的可能只是某种被美化的历史想象。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
先替反方把最强的论点说出来，再回应它，这样读者才会把你的论证当作善意的而不是操纵性的。
- 02
说服是一种信任博弈：读者信不信你，不取决于你说得多严密，而取决于你过去是否一贯讲理。
- 03
别在文章开头就揣测并迎合读者的既有立场，那会让不同意你的读者立刻合上页面。
- 04
说服不只发生在评论文章里：政治动员、商业推销、投票倡议都是说服，写作者要研究这些渠道怎么影响人。
HN 评论精选
说服的关键是让读者相信你讲理，而非真的讲理；可用“如果反方能直接接在文末会怎样”来检验一篇文章的善意。
我觉得 Scott Alexander 这类人在表达自己相信的观点时，比 Paul Graham 更擅长呈现最佳的反方论证，但这本质上是一场信任博弈。我认为《纽约时报》真正懂的是：说服的艺术并不是做到理性、批判，而是让别人相信你已经做到了理性和批判。我不是在一般意义上为《纽约时报》辩护，只是觉得他们明白：善意的说服文章也可能是恶意说服的入口。恶意说服的存在和威力在法庭上最明显——这个制度实际上要求你以恶意的方式行事（律师不会这么说，但明知有缺陷仍去论证就是恶意），而律师极具说服力。可如果没有对抗制的法庭，律师几乎是和水晶球一样糟糕的求真手段。一个合理但并非万无一失的判断标准是：想象一下，如果反方论证能在获得足够支持后被插入文末，这篇文章会变得多不一样。
ouid查看英文原文
I think that Scott Alexander or whatever his name is, does a much better job than say, Paul Graham, at presenting the best counterargument whenever he presents something that he believes, but it's intrinsically a game of trust. I think what the New York Times intrinsically understands is that the art persuasion is not actually the art of being rational and critical. It is the art of convincing someone else that you have been rational and critical. I am not generally defending the New York Times, I just think that they do understand how good faith persuasive essays can be gateways to bad faith persuasive essays. The existence and effectiveness of bad faith persuasion is nowhere clearer than in court, where you are essentially obligated by the system to act in bad faith (lawyers would not describe it this way, but presenting an argument that you know to be flawed is bad faith), and lawyers are very convincing. However without an adversarial court system, lawyers are about as good a way of getting to the truth of the matter as crystal balls. A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the essay would look if counterarguments could be inserted after reaching some threshold of support by the general population. The aggregate problem remains, however. Persuasive essays maintain a shared credit score which is extremely problematic for the process of truth-seeking. Even essays from the same author, can operate on wildly different points on the good/bad faith spectrum. I guess my point is that the solution is not "more rational essayists", but rather provably adversarial comment systems, in which authors are not advantaged.
文章把说服窄化为评论文章里的理性论辩，但政治动员、公投和销售中的说服从未消失。
这篇文章对说服的看法相当狭窄，是一种浪漫化的版本。广义上的说服依然非常活跃。想想过去一年那些大规模政治示威：是谁说服这些人在疫情期间离开家、聚集起来？想想大麻乃至其他毒品的快速去罪化：是谁说服选民改变了法律？想想那些依赖销售团队说服客户认可其价值并签约的新创公司和生意？说服显然还活得好好的。
quirkot查看英文原文
This presents a fairly narrow view of persuasion, a romanticized version. Broadly defined persuasion is alive and well. Consider the massive political demonstrations that have occurred in the last year, who persuaded these people to leave their homes and congregate during the middle of a pandemic? Consider the rapid decriminalization of marijuana and even other drugs. Who persuaded these voters to change the law? Consider all the new start-ups and other business that rely on a sales force to persuade customers of their value and to sign up? Persuasion is very much still alive
文章假设历史上存在过理性辩论的黄金时代，但黄色新闻、麦卡锡主义和煽动性政论都是反例。
文章立了一个稻草人：仿佛过去我们都留着胡子，进行冷静、理性、讲道理的辩论，然后据此决定正确的行动。我可以举几个反例：赫斯特报系与“黄色新闻”；麦卡锡主义；独立战争时期的社论（例如托马斯·潘恩的《美国危机》）。
pnathan查看英文原文
The article asserts a strawman, that we had, in the past, cool, rational, reasoned debates that we all stroked our beards and decided what the right choice of action would be. I would suggest several counter examples: * Hearst Newspapers and "Yellow Journalism" * McCarthyism * Revolutionary War era op-eds (e.g., https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-American-Crisis-by-Thomas-Paine-.pdf )
很多文章开头先假定读者的立场，这让不同立场的读者直接被劝退。
我注意到美国媒体有一个越来越明显的趋势：标题或开头几段大致揣测了作者的立场，读者可能持有什么信念，而文章很大部分都建立在这些信念之上。对我个人来说，这让我很难继续读下去，无论我是否同意标题和前几段。
kop316查看英文原文
I've noted an increasing trend in US papers that the headline or the first few paragraphs sort of level where the author expects your beliefs will be, and much of the article is precicated on such beliefs. For me personally, it makes trying to read the rest of the article, whether I agree with the headline/first few paragraphs or not, much more difficult.
同类还值得读
不要想好再写，要写来思考
Don’t think to write, write to think
这篇短文主张不要把写作当成思考完成后的记录，而要把写作本身当作思考的工具：动笔的过程会逼出想不清楚的地方。
写作与思考2022 · 553 分 · 145 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作即思考：学会自信地写作
Writing Is Thinking: Learning to Write with Confidence
这是一篇讲“写作即思考”的博客：作者认为写作不是把想好的东西誊写出来，而是借助写作本身把想法想清楚，因此写作者应当建立信心、敢于先写烂稿。
写作与思考2019 · 529 分 · 83 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何用写作来思考
How to think in writing
这篇文章讨论的是「用写作来思考」：作者认为写作不只是把想清楚的东西表达出来，更是想清楚本身的工具——文字落在纸上，你才有机会看见自己思路里的跳跃、含混和漏洞。
写作与思考2024 · 424 分 · 120 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作，帮你逃离默认的人生设置
Write to Escape Your Default Setting
文章的核心主张就写在标题里：写作是帮你逃离「默认设置」的手段——日常的思维和表达都有惯性默认的默认模式，而落笔能逼你跳出来，重新看清自己到底在想什么、要说什么。
写作与思考2025 · 407 分 · 93 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作就是思考
Writing is thinking
文章以“写作即思考”为题，讨论写作不只是把已有想法记录下来，而是帮助澄清、组织和推进思考的过程。
写作与思考2025 · 330 分 · 128 评4 条写作要点编辑精选