Can You Make a Persuasive Argument Void of Facts - Sure Politicians Do It All The Time
The other day, I was watching a YouTube video from a very famous business school, the professor is well known, has written many books, and sits on several of the largest corporate boards in America.
He was suggesting that there are far too many gurus of industry and science who are making persuasive argument void of facts.
He believed that everything could be broken down into a mathematical metric for proper corporate management.
Not only that, he also believe that government could do much better in its policy and decision-making if they would just stick to the facts and reality.
Okay, I get that, but I also know that many a politician and political advisor would tell you that it isn't the reality that matters, but the reality you create, that is to say the perception that matters when making political decisions.
I thought this was funny because one of his comments was that "you can't" make a truly persuasive argument void of facts.
Indeed, I think I disagree because politicians do it all the time, and they often get away with it due to simple repetition strategies along with their friends in the media.
If they say it enough times, people believe it, therefore it must be true, and therefore the voters vote on it based on this new created reality or perception.
Is it possible to take a persuasive argument based on nonsense, rearrange the facts, get everyone on the same page, and accomplish the mission anyway merely because everyone got behind it, pointed in the same direction, and they had the power in numbers behind them to make it so? The answer is yes unfortunately, sometimes this works, but generally what we do is we blow up a new bubble, and pay for the unintended consequences in crisis later.
In the interim sure, things work out fine, everything seems to be working, and everyone is living a fantasy.
Take the outgrowth of socialism as it wrestles away the realities of free-market capitalism which has made this country so great.
Socialism has never worked in any nation on earth - that is the fact.
You can't keep printing money, taxing the rich, and taking away the incentive that free-market capitalism delivers to the masses and expect to get 110% productivity out of each and every individual.
A society always gets more of what rewards, and if it rewards people for not working, the productivity goes down, and there is less abundance overall in the civilization and society to allow for the stated objectives of empathetic socialism.
Although the intellectual socialists and their academic purveyors would have you believe that this is a relevant strategy, their arguments are void of fact, even if it sounds like a good idea from their philosophical perspective.
Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
He was suggesting that there are far too many gurus of industry and science who are making persuasive argument void of facts.
He believed that everything could be broken down into a mathematical metric for proper corporate management.
Not only that, he also believe that government could do much better in its policy and decision-making if they would just stick to the facts and reality.
Okay, I get that, but I also know that many a politician and political advisor would tell you that it isn't the reality that matters, but the reality you create, that is to say the perception that matters when making political decisions.
I thought this was funny because one of his comments was that "you can't" make a truly persuasive argument void of facts.
Indeed, I think I disagree because politicians do it all the time, and they often get away with it due to simple repetition strategies along with their friends in the media.
If they say it enough times, people believe it, therefore it must be true, and therefore the voters vote on it based on this new created reality or perception.
Is it possible to take a persuasive argument based on nonsense, rearrange the facts, get everyone on the same page, and accomplish the mission anyway merely because everyone got behind it, pointed in the same direction, and they had the power in numbers behind them to make it so? The answer is yes unfortunately, sometimes this works, but generally what we do is we blow up a new bubble, and pay for the unintended consequences in crisis later.
In the interim sure, things work out fine, everything seems to be working, and everyone is living a fantasy.
Take the outgrowth of socialism as it wrestles away the realities of free-market capitalism which has made this country so great.
Socialism has never worked in any nation on earth - that is the fact.
You can't keep printing money, taxing the rich, and taking away the incentive that free-market capitalism delivers to the masses and expect to get 110% productivity out of each and every individual.
A society always gets more of what rewards, and if it rewards people for not working, the productivity goes down, and there is less abundance overall in the civilization and society to allow for the stated objectives of empathetic socialism.
Although the intellectual socialists and their academic purveyors would have you believe that this is a relevant strategy, their arguments are void of fact, even if it sounds like a good idea from their philosophical perspective.
Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.