• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mockery, Stunts and argument

When I have a strongly held religious/political/philosophical belief, I find ....

  • I am converted by mockery to the point of view of the mocker

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • I am converted by a stunt I initially found to be offensive to the point of view of the stunt-person

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • I am converted by argument to the point of view of the arguer

    Votes: 17 43.6%
  • Banging my head against wall-X is the best way to change my mind

    Votes: 19 48.7%

  • Total voters
    39
I've had a particular debate on this forum a few times. Basically it amounts to: Debate ain't enough. Mockery is the way to convince people. Some kind of stunt -- Quran burning or nailing a wafer.

Mockery doesn't help convert people at all.

Conversion occurs when the target is prone to holding strong beliefs and is convinced that the new set of beliefs is more appropriate (simpler, better organised, more socially acceptable, etc) than the old ones were.

Mockery doesn't come close to accomplishing that goal. If it did then advertisers would stop using animated talking creatures to sell their products. You can convert people a lot quicker by appealing to their self-interest. Use sex, cash, or promises of authority instead.
 
Mockery doesn't help convert people at all.

Conversion occurs when the target is prone to holding strong beliefs and is convinced that the new set of beliefs is more appropriate (simpler, better organised, more socially acceptable, etc) than the old ones were.

Mockery doesn't come close to accomplishing that goal. If it did then advertisers would stop using animated talking creatures to sell their products. You can convert people a lot quicker by appealing to their self-interest. Use sex, cash, or promises of authority instead.

Actually, advertising uses mockery extensively. They mock the hygene problems of those not using their product. They mock their competitors and those who use them.

It's a very popular technique, used for everything from juice to political candidates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KidBZGwXaug&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuuAil2H7xI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e04SjNGlfUo

It's legally problematic for product advertisers to specifically make claims about specific competitors, but "those other guys" or "brand X" is a stock in trade.
 
Of course, what's mean-spirited may be subjective.
I find that Jon Stewart is good natured, but I can imagine that others disagree or dismiss him as a clown. He does the latter himself sometimes: when people say he doesn't ask his guests the tough questions he responds by saying he's on a comedy show not a news show.

I was probably being charitable when I said that good natured, as opposed to mean-spirited mockery would get results. In reality, it's mockery that viewers either identify with, or dislike enough being the target of that get's results.

Hat's aren't strongly held beliefs. I realise you didn't say they were, and are merely pointing out that strongly held beliefs aren't the only beliefs that can be changed. Fair enough, that's true.

Hats can be part of a strongly held belief if, they are, for example, a yarmulke, or an Islamic head scarf. But to pick something stronger, how about the existence of Santa Clause, as briefly mentioned earlier in this thread? Belief in the jolly old Saint Nick is pretty important to kids, and it's practically a right of passage that this is given up either when the evidence mounts (logical) or when public opinion clearly designates belief as childish and ridiculous.
]
 
The OP assumes one is trying to change someone's mind when one mocks, and argues.

If you are thinking of the forum for example, there are other goals/reasons:
Recruiting cheerleaders to feed one's ego is a common reason to mock people, especially with the less mature among us. This is an extension of bullying behavior.
Simply expressing one's reaction without taking the time to think carefully about how it sounds probably accounts for a lot of the mockery.
And valid criticism is often not heard as calm debate regardless of how it is presented, because that is the nature of how humans take evidence that contradicts established beliefs.
 
Is it a noble and kind approach? Absolutely not. Does it have a range of effectiveness? Absolutely.
Sure, most people don't like being mocked. It's hard to judge how much it actually changes opinion rather than merely serving to shut somebody up, though.

Perhaps in the same way as feeding people to the lions, it might make somebody really think carefully about their beliefs.
 
Actually, advertising uses mockery extensively. They mock the hygene problems of those not using their product. They mock their competitors and those who use them.

It's a very popular technique, used for everything from juice to political candidates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KidBZGwXaug&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuuAil2H7xI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e04SjNGlfUo

It's legally problematic for product advertisers to specifically make claims about specific competitors, but "those other guys" or "brand X" is a stock in trade.

Exactly.

Another aspect of advertising that's relevant to this thread is that, like mockery, you're unlikely to prove its effectiveness by looking to self-reporting. We all like to believe that our own beliefs and preferences are determined by good, logical reasons, so we're unlikely to admit that anything else was a factor -- at least not in any one specific case.

Hardly anyone will say "I drink Budweiser because they run lots of commercials with men having fun surrounded by bikini-clad women." Most people will insist that their choice of beverage is all about taste and price and other rational factors. Yet somehow we don't conclude that marketing professionals have no idea what they're doing and that Budweiser is wasting millions of dollars every year and would be much better off running commercials in which someone dryly explains the alleged merits of the product.
 
It would be very interesting, but probably impossible in practical terms, to take groups of people with various ideas on a given topic -- for instance, global warming or Biblical miracles -- and put each of them for an extended time among a group of others (say, in a dorm at a camp for a month) who either confirm or mock the particular belief they hold, and then see if any ideas change.

If ideas do change, I wonder if it would make any difference whether the subject found the mockers to be ignorant or informed on the topic.

Would the type of belief make a difference? What about the strength of the belief? What about the desire of the subject to fit in with the group?

I recently saw a study which found that group opinion does sway others, unless the belief is very firmly held, in which case the dissenter comes to believe even more firmly in his original belief. There's a kind of Cassandra effect, in which the lone dissenter concludes that "the world's gone crazy" and therefore he has to become a beacon for the truth in the darkness.

I've also seen studies in which subjects are put into groups who all argue in favor of an obviously false proposal, and in many cases the subjects convince themselves that the group is right. I wonder what would happen if they tweaked those studies so that some of the groups use (pseudo)logical arguments while others use biting humor, sarcasm, and mockery of the opposing viewpoint.
 
Sure, most people don't like being mocked. It's hard to judge how much it actually changes opinion rather than merely serving to shut somebody up, though.

Perhaps in the same way as feeding people to the lions, it might make somebody really think carefully about their beliefs.

Proof by intimidation... Kind of like how Pythagorus proved that the square root of two was rational, by drowning the guy who proved otherwise!

I should have included that in the poll.

Hardly anyone will say "I drink Budweiser because they run lots of commercials with men having fun surrounded by bikini-clad women." Most people will insist that their choice of beverage is all about taste and price and other rational factors. Yet somehow we don't conclude that marketing professionals have no idea what they're doing and that Budweiser is wasting millions of dollars every year and would be much better off running commercials in which someone dryly explains the alleged merits of the product.

I don't think you could sell vomit-flavoured drinks by showing people having fun and putting a label on it. At least, not for very long. There's a limit.

It's kind of like asking whether pretty women are more attractive. Maybe at first. But the level of attraction can change as you get to know people. Unless you're shallow and superficial. And you're not are you? Are you? ;)
 
I can't answer the poll. I don't have a strongly held religious/political/philosophical belief, and on the one occasion I did, neither of the three options applied to me as I came away from it purely from my own reasoning.
 
It would be very interesting, but probably impossible in practical terms, to take groups of people with various ideas on a given topic -- for instance, global warming or Biblical miracles -- and put each of them for an extended time among a group of others (say, in a dorm at a camp for a month) who either confirm or mock the particular belief they hold, and then see if any ideas change.

If ideas do change, I wonder if it would make any difference whether the subject found the mockers to be ignorant or informed on the topic.

Would the type of belief make a difference? What about the strength of the belief? What about the desire of the subject to fit in with the group?

I recently saw a study which found that group opinion does sway others, unless the belief is very firmly held, in which case the dissenter comes to believe even more firmly in his original belief. There's a kind of Cassandra effect, in which the lone dissenter concludes that "the world's gone crazy" and therefore he has to become a beacon for the truth in the darkness.

I've also seen studies in which subjects are put into groups who all argue in favor of an obviously false proposal, and in many cases the subjects convince themselves that the group is right. I wonder what would happen if they tweaked those studies so that some of the groups use (pseudo)logical arguments while others use biting humor, sarcasm, and mockery of the opposing viewpoint.

I'd be interested in studies like that.
I looked around for some regarding religion in particular. I found this:
http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx

It has some surprising things, like: "Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults [44%] have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once." Also, "among the 56% of the population that currently belongs to the same religion as the one in which they were raised, one-in-six (16%) say there was a time in their life when they had a different faith than they have now."

That obviously still leaves a large correlation between the faith of child and parent, but there's much more conversion than I would have guessed.

I've not finished reading it, but the summary doesn't really give enough detail on reasons for conversion. 'People stopped believing' is a little vague. Maybe a lot of people can't give precise reasons. I suppose that could be understandable if the process took a long time and they weren't pre-occupied with the loss of faith. "The faith of most people who have changed religions was on the wane in the year or two prior to leaving their childhood religion. [...] among both former Protestants and former Catholics who are now unaffiliated, more than seven-in-ten say they just gradually drifted away from their childhood religion."

Pew Study said:
Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, [from later: "nearly six-in-ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality, about half cite concerns about Catholic teachings on birth control and roughly four-in-ten name unhappiness with Catholicism's treatment of women"] and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions. Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition.

[...] Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.

[...] In contrast with other groups, those who switch from one Protestant denominational family to another (e.g., were raised Baptist and are now Methodist) tend to be more likely to do so in response to changed circumstances in their lives. Nearly four-in-ten people who have changed religious affiliation within Protestantism say they left their childhood faith, in part, because they relocated to a new community, and nearly as many say they left their former faith because they married someone from a different religious background.

[...] Former Catholics who are now unaffiliated are much less likely than lifelong Catholics to have attended Mass regularly or to have had very strong faith as teenagers.

[...] Former Protestants who are now unaffiliated are less likely to have regularly attended worship services as a child and even less likely to have attended regularly as a teenager. They also are much less likely to report having attended Sunday school or having had very strong religious faith as a child or a teenager.

[...] the most common reason for leaving Catholicism cited by former Catholics who have become Protestant is that their spiritual needs were not being met (71%)

So we have:
--Stopped believing (in God or other teachings)
--didn't like co-religionists (And 'fewer than 3/10' regarding the child-abuse preists might be misleading because the table says 3%)
--Moved to a new community and joined (local, presumably) faith
--changed to faith of spouse
--less involvement in faith as children
--religious needs not met by original faith

Science wasn't a factor. Which surprises me, because Dawkins site includes quite a few references to things like evolution. But I suppose it's natural that such people would congregate there. So I shouldn't be surprised that source seems to be filled with self-selected contributors.

Pew Study said:
The survey finds that religious change begins early in life. Most of those who decided to leave their childhood faith say they did so before reaching age 24, and a large majority say they joined their current religion before reaching age 36. Very few report changing religions after reaching age 50.

Regarding those who started unaffiliated:

PewStudy said:
At the same time that the ranks of the unaffiliated have grown, the Landscape Survey also revealed that the unaffiliated have one of the lowest retention rates of any of the major religious groups, with most people who were raised unaffiliated now belonging to one religion or another. Those who leave the ranks of the unaffiliated cite several reasons for joining a faith, such as the attraction of religious services and styles of worship (74%), having been spiritually unfulfilled while unaffiliated (51%) or feeling called by God (55%).
 
Last edited:
I can't answer the poll. I don't have a strongly held religious/political/philosophical belief, and on the one occasion I did, neither of the three options applied to me as I came away from it purely from my own reasoning.

OK, I'd need more details to be really sure.
But, if I can hijack the line "No man is an island", then I'll say that it's unlikely your reasoning was not influenced by other people. Even when you're talking to yourself, you can be influenced by other people's ideas.
 
OK, I'd need more details to be really sure.
But, if I can hijack the line "No man is an island", then I'll say that it's unlikely your reasoning was not influenced by other people. Even when you're talking to yourself, you can be influenced by other people's ideas.
Yeah, I suppose so. When someone says "Queen is a satanic band - they burn their records inside pentagrams. This has been testified by people who came out of the band." that tends to influence the way I think about that person.
 
I don't think you could sell vomit-flavoured drinks by showing people having fun and putting a label on it. At least, not for very long. There's a limit.

So what's your point?

Calm, rational argument unaccompanied by mockery won't convince people to drink vomit-flavored drinks either. There's a limit. So what?

It's kind of like asking whether pretty women are more attractive. Maybe at first. But the level of attraction can change as you get to know people. Unless you're shallow and superficial. And you're not are you? Are you? ;)

Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
 
So what's your point?

Calm, rational argument unaccompanied by mockery won't convince people to drink vomit-flavored drinks either. There's a limit. So what?

Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.


I don't think you're going to get a meaningful analogy out of FireGarten. In my experience, his "analogies" make it almost impossible to have a sensible discussion with him.
(Sorry, FG, but that is my conclusion from that other thread)
 
So what's your point?

Calm, rational argument unaccompanied by mockery won't convince people to drink vomit-flavored drinks either. There's a limit. So what?

Actually, I think you got the point and countered well enough.

Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

People say that first impressions last. Adverts try to make that first impression. But you can easily be disillusioned.


You've never had a Bud, have you?

Never even tempted. What's uuuuuuuuup with that?
 

Back
Top Bottom