NOM

I read somewhere here or on r/Exmormon that if a friend leaves your religion it is more influential on you than if family does. I apologize for not finding the reference. But it reminded me of a persuasive speaking class I took in college where they used a model for persuasion where the three pillars of persuasion are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

Ethos - credibility of the speaker
Pathos - emotional reasons to agree with the speaker
Logos - logical reasons to agree with the speaker

A logical argument including a story that induces emotions that agree from a speaker someone considers credible will likely persuade that a reasonable person. If any of those are missing the persuasion falls flat. It would be difficult for Hillary Clinton to give away an assault rifle to a member of the NRA because she has deeply negative credibility.

The TBM has been trained well to defend against these things. Credibility about spiritual things is tied to how TBM someone is. So if someone shows non-TBM tendencies then their credibility diminishes. Cognitive dissonance is typically considered to be a negative emotion and TBMs are trained that negative emotions mean something is false or worse, the spirit of contention is of the devil. And church teachings have created a box outside of which logic should not go. Not everything that's true is useful.

I think the reason friends have more influence than family is because friends may be as close or closer to your identity than the church. A truly close friend may not lose their credibility when they leave the church and that may be enough to break through the TBM defenses. With family there can be too much baggage, we know too much about each other and it can be easier to lose credibility with family.

For my DW I lost my credibility fairly early in our marriage. My disaffection only confirmed her negative views of me and further diminished any positive views. Even if I had good credibility to begin with it would be an uphill battle against the TBM training, but I have no hope with my poor credibility.

Linked wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:36 pm Ethos - credibility of the speaker
Pathos - emotional reasons to agree with the speaker
Logos - logical reasons to agree with the speaker

A logical argument including a story that induces emotions that agree from a speaker someone considers credible will likely persuade that a reasonable person. If any of those are missing the persuasion falls flat. It would be difficult for Hillary Clinton to give away an assault rifle to a member of the NRA because she has deeply negative credibility.

The TBM has been trained well to defend against these things. Credibility about spiritual things is tied to how TBM someone is. So if someone shows non-TBM tendencies then their credibility diminishes. Cognitive dissonance is typically considered to be a negative emotion and TBMs are trained that negative emotions mean something is false or worse, the spirit of contention is of the devil. And church teachings have created a box outside of which logic should not go. Not everything that's true is useful.

I found this useful, thank you. In considering this I need to decide when to try to even have the discussion. I think a lot of the time the answer is to not have the discussion, because one of the three won't work.

Most interesting. If listed on a multiple choice test, I would have guessed that Ethos, Pathos, and Logos were either the Three Musketeers or else the Three Nephites. Otherwise, it seems rather Greek to me.

moksha wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 8:43 am Most interesting. If listed on a multiple choice test, I would have guessed that Ethos, Pathos, and Logos were either the Three Musketeers or else the Three Nephites. Otherwise, it seems rather Greek to me.

I was thinking Shadthos, Methos and Abedlogos.