Your mileage may vary, but I do not consider this a concession. Anyone can make an emotional argument.
No, I’m not making an emotional argument. I’m arguing that the subjective feeling of financial security specifically traces to certain hard-to-measure factors that aren’t easily reduced to quantitative metrics.
That’s why many people will look at the argument and say “oh I’m actually not that close to homelessness” or even “I’m basically a millionaire but I don’t feel like one.”
By highlighting the easy-to-measure metrics (net worth of a million dollars, not having a legal right to occupy a residence), it steers the discussion into the quantitatively easy metrics rather than the lived reality of people in the economy, which depends on other less quantitative factors. And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
Perhaps not, but you indicated that the “emotionless language of finance and economics” constitues “conceding ground”.
If you’re not making an emotional argument, then why would emotionless language be a problem? If we have no intention of making emotional arguments, why would we be conceding ground by focusing on “emotionless” disciplines?
And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
I entered this conversation by specifying a target audience. In the same capacity, “winning” depends on who you’re talking to, as does the mappability of the argument onto real life.
If someone already agrees with the same basic principles you do, you can just talk, and they’ll believe you, because people aren’t skeptical of people they agree with.
But I’m not always having a discussion with someone who shares most of my fundamental beliefs. That’s simply not a situation where nuance matters. Just getting them to understand a single basic principle that they disagree with is already hard enough.
Perhaps not, but you indicated that the “emotionless language of finance and economics” constitues “conceding ground”.
If you’re not making an emotional argument, then why would emotionless language be a problem?
I think it is reductive to ignore/deemphasize the factors that cannot easily be quantified, in favor of only talking about the quantifiable factors. The subjective feeling of the people involved is backed by real factors, albeit factors that are difficult to quantify.
So shifting the discussion towards that rigid quantitative numbers is shifting away from where the conversation should be. That’s been my point this whole thread.
So shifting the discussion towards that rigid quantitative numbers is shifting away from where the conversation should be. That’s been my point this whole thread.
You’re implicitly assuming that there’s one place that this conversation should be. MY point this whole thread has been that “where the conversation should be” depends on your audience. To repeat myself, “if your target audience consists of people who already agree with the basic economic principle, then by all means, add as much nuance as you like.” That’s a situation in which you can have “where the conversation should be” wherever you please.
But if someone disagrees with you, and if your goal is to be persuasive, you need more than just being right. OP is not about the pure distillation of facts. OP is about how to be persuasive. And he’s right. That IS something that can be persuasive.
No, I’m not making an emotional argument. I’m arguing that the subjective feeling of financial security specifically traces to certain hard-to-measure factors that aren’t easily reduced to quantitative metrics.
That’s why many people will look at the argument and say “oh I’m actually not that close to homelessness” or even “I’m basically a millionaire but I don’t feel like one.”
By highlighting the easy-to-measure metrics (net worth of a million dollars, not having a legal right to occupy a residence), it steers the discussion into the quantitatively easy metrics rather than the lived reality of people in the economy, which depends on other less quantitative factors. And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
Perhaps not, but you indicated that the “emotionless language of finance and economics” constitues “conceding ground”.
If you’re not making an emotional argument, then why would emotionless language be a problem? If we have no intention of making emotional arguments, why would we be conceding ground by focusing on “emotionless” disciplines?
I entered this conversation by specifying a target audience. In the same capacity, “winning” depends on who you’re talking to, as does the mappability of the argument onto real life.
If someone already agrees with the same basic principles you do, you can just talk, and they’ll believe you, because people aren’t skeptical of people they agree with.
But I’m not always having a discussion with someone who shares most of my fundamental beliefs. That’s simply not a situation where nuance matters. Just getting them to understand a single basic principle that they disagree with is already hard enough.
I think it is reductive to ignore/deemphasize the factors that cannot easily be quantified, in favor of only talking about the quantifiable factors. The subjective feeling of the people involved is backed by real factors, albeit factors that are difficult to quantify.
So shifting the discussion towards that rigid quantitative numbers is shifting away from where the conversation should be. That’s been my point this whole thread.
You’re implicitly assuming that there’s one place that this conversation should be. MY point this whole thread has been that “where the conversation should be” depends on your audience. To repeat myself, “if your target audience consists of people who already agree with the basic economic principle, then by all means, add as much nuance as you like.” That’s a situation in which you can have “where the conversation should be” wherever you please.
But if someone disagrees with you, and if your goal is to be persuasive, you need more than just being right. OP is not about the pure distillation of facts. OP is about how to be persuasive. And he’s right. That IS something that can be persuasive.