Talk:Persuasion technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

The complete pre-refactor article is in m:Persuasion technology. I've been ruthless, probably too ruthless, but when bringing stuff back (some more belongs I'm sure) I hope the two aims of clarity and NPOV will be kept in mind. There is also a little material added.

The text between the two sets of double lines below refers to the article before the refactor. Suggest that talk about the post-refactor article go between this paragraph and the first set, but below the second set would be OK too. Andrewa 07:09 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

New discussion has now started at the bottom. I suggest using section edit to get to it. Andrewa 15:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How far does this go? Isn't brainwashing and terrorist/kamikaze suicide training, and all military boot camp, pretty much persuasion technology?

yes, and that should be dealt with

Draw a line between this stuff and weapons of mass destruction - how?

you can't, and that should be dealt with - a scientist convinced to work on something dangerous by brainwashing is just as much of a weapon as the thing s/he's building
duh? weapons of mass destruction indescriminately kill innocent civilians. i don't see how brainwashing is at all related?

Draw a line between persuasion and what's called collective intelligence. Draw a line between persuasion and what's called artificial intelligence.

did this at the end under 'future potential', sort of. Treated them both as enabling technologies to persuasion

It's hard, since the difference between random nonsense spouted by a computer or communication system, and 'intelligence', is whether you believe in it and act on it. Predictive power in hard sciences might be another criterion, but is it necessarily true that a perfect physics theory that only a computer can calculate is 'persuasion'? Into some nasty/deep cognitive/objectivity issues.

This should be re-written so that it is less of a presuasive article with an implied call to action and more of a codification of the technologies

the codification is more of the technology scenarios, the ways combinations of technologies enable one person over another. The technologies are not really so reducible as the problem, it's the combination of them, their pervasiveness.
maybe the title should be "persuasion VIA technology?" or "BY technology?" if that's unclear?
now alternate titles. perhaps 'presentation technology' is also an alternate, as there seems to be no article on that now
The issues above, relating to AI and CI and such, probably should be dealt with, and that will help to neutralize, drastically, since so many people think those are positive technologies, and the arguments about them are almost glaringly promotional.

and why they generate the asymmetrical playing field in persuasive dialog (if that is the point you are going for...is it?).

'why' is obvious, isn't it?

The constant evoking of Big Brother images hurts the piece, because it illuminates an authorial agenda beyond codification. Kind of ironic given the subject.

Yes, and that's not necessarily bad, because people can read to the end of it and say 'hey, I was just PERSUADED that this exists and that it's a problem... but I can also click away and read other views that say there's NO PROBLEM, and this same technology is helping me do that'. Another take on 'neutrality.

Rewrite to concentrate on the facts.

Better fact concentration at the end, where it's most speculative.
Hard to deal in 'facts' in 'future potential', easier in 'scenario' where that is more or less what's done. Similar to technological singularity in some respects.

If they speak for themselves, the audience will be stirred to act. The Big Brother images just make it look sensationalist; they don't add to its persuasive power.

Um, the article isn't supposed to have "persuasive power", it's supposed to list the various views. Since the view of those who ignore these asymetrical power impacts of technology is "it's no problem, it's the same as having a bigger vocabulary or wallet or whatever", it's hard to really balance as one goes. Fact is, people who think this don't refute these arguments, theyjust ignore them, or think they're indicative of 'survival of the fittest' or something.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the point of the piece...I'm not convinced either way. I'm just trying to help whip the prose into shape. --- User:Williamv1138

It's hard for someone who has a strong point of view to neutralize it when there are literally no intelligent arguments 'pro', at least none we hear from anyone but maybe Bill Gates (and his arguments are more like hand-waving and making strange motions with his lips that make him look like the Salt Monster from Classic Star Trek - you don't get MY SALT BILL!!!!)
Bill won't get Lou Gertner's salt either, nor Scott McNealy's. He got Steve Jobs' though.

The term 'unfairly' in the title could have a question mark, as in

augments conversation 'unfairly'?

that at least is asking, not stating the point


This article is full of weird ideas and editing style reminiscent of "24".

Actually, most of it is entirely orthodox and unobjectionable. It needs a copyedit and some clearer structure, but the basis of the entry is sound. Which are the "weird" ideas? Tannin 14:46 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Persuasion Technology. I tried paring this down to make it clearer some months back. I had hoped the author would take the hint to de-ramble it. Instead, the author immediately restored the original text verbatim without comment. The problem for me is that it is alluding to deep, dark conspiracy more so than describing the mechanics of persuasion technology. If W needs an article about persuasion technology, it should be long on description of the technology and short on polemics. But since my efforts were bluntly discarded, I put the NPOV dispute at the top awhile back and left it alone. Williamv1138 P.S. I didn't do the bulk delete, so don't dog me about it or congratulate me for it.

I believe that the outright removal of the text of this article is disgraceful. Persuasion and the persuasion bias implied by models and technology is an important topic for people interested in effectively communicating. This taking out of the *entire article* simple smacks of the kind of censorship that will eventually ruin Wikipedia if not meaningfully and sustainably addressed. - 209.29.81.120

but, what on earth do you mean by "see talk"

I look at talk, and I see no comment explaining the removal of this article

Though I see quite well that this article is called by several articles ?!? So...how can it not exist at all ???

Tannin also agrees that it is ok, just need some editing !

Bon


Then please write a new article, perhaps with a name that is used by someone else than 24. Persuasive technology comes to mind as a good name. The Anome

OK, OK. I'm on the case. Essentially it will be a heavy-duty copyedit of 24's thing, with (as I see them) the silly bits taken out and the language toned down. (I did study this stuff years ago, though I much prefer to work in other areas these days and I'm rusty.) Please don't delete the page, as the edit history should be retained. Tannin 12:48 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I am glad. It bothered me to see links leading to an empty article. If you studied this stuff some years ago, that's great. Bon

but which difference is there between persuasive and persuasion ?

and why do you yourself object to this article ? I saw comments above stating some others found it sure biased but acceptable with edits...so where is the probem exactly ?

bon

The title is odd, but I see no need to remove the whole article. I'e studied in this area, too; I'll give you a hand if you like, Tannin. -- Stephen Gilbert 13:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen. Knocking 24's stuff into shape is no easy task! Help will be very welcome. I'll do another 20 minutes or so on it, then post the result back - either into the article itself, or else if it's still really rough, here into talk. Tannin 13:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Gahh!! 24's stuff is ridiculously hard to edit! The mix of weird sentence structure and silly stuff with lumps of cold hard reality and bizarre but almost rational switches of topic mid-sentence is enough to drive a man to drink. The frustrating thing about it is that, underneath the ranting, there really is useful and important information. A re-draft of the intro follows. I won't stick this back into the entry proper yet, as it's rough and not (in my view) of publication quality yet. But it's pushing 1:00AM, my brain is getting fuzzy, and I want to do some more bird entries before I go to bed. Tannin

[Tannin text integrated as new introduction, now deleted from talk]

Hmm... I just read it over. Better than I thought. But I'm still going to bed! Over to you, Stephen. Tannin

you really have to emphasize the technology end, and include the spooky stuff... propaganda, neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, drugs;

As it stands, this still seems to me to be more of an essay than an article. The NPOVing of sections hasn't yet changed its basic nature, which IMO was to promote awareness of the dangers of these techniques and render them less effective as a result. The assumption that the world would be a better place without such things may even be one we all agree with, but even if it's a true assumption that doesn't make it something we want in Wikipedia, again IMO.

Hasty of you. The purpose of the article is to list the techniques and discuss their use. If you wish to employ them, you can. Since Wikipedia is itself such a persuasion technology, there is a great need to err in favour of criticism, of not promoting these techniques, as the mere existence and use of online media is an advertisement for their effectiveness. So it's something that must be here to balance m:systemic bias if for no other reason. EofT

At the risk of getting technical, it depends on whether you consider ethical theories knowledge, and having some qualifications in philosophy myself I'd say they are not. We can and should describe such theories, that information is knowledge, but not promote them.

That view is insane in the view of the majority of people on this planet, who do in fact consider ethics in the sense of a moral code to be more real than what you see and hear. What percentage of people practice religion? Why? The point of view of philosophy is itself a minority view, and not the one accepted by the vast majority. There is no promotion of any theory here, I think, just a fairly bald-faced statement that persuasion technology is taken for granted, too often. But the news establishes that things like Photoshop for instance are not morally neutral, but create problems just by existing. EofT

The key, then, to the much-needed rewrite is to give the information, without attempting persuasion. There's a superb irony here. As it stands, the article itself is guilty of the very thing it seeks to discourage. This point is made above but obliquely I think.

The balance in what is there seems hard to replicate. Rather than "seek to discourage", it seems to make clear in its structure what it cannot easily make clear in its text: that to trust online knowledge is itself to be subject to persuasion. So any "guilt" or "cause" is assigned by your own reading. It is of course a "superb irony", it was seemingly designed as one, judging by the above. Perhaps it can be designed no other way. The trash which has several times been written here by vandals to try to replace it, has so far failed to stick, because the tone of the article seems to be a necessary part of its message - to avoid persuading, it takes a harsh critical view of exactly what it is doing: using persuasion technology (Internet, Web, Wikipedia) to warn of the dangers of using persuasion technology. That is necessarily an irony. EofT

Hope this helps. Andrewa 18:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It does, a bit, in that it elaborates a wrong view, that of philosophy, which is of course itself another persuasion technology but a primitive one that works only on those educated into stupidity. The incoherency argument about this is that it is incoherent to criticize a medium in that medium itself, and so, a good deal of irony is the best you can get. EofT
Hmmm. I'm tempted to reply to some of these points, but I don't think this is the place for it. Some others I agree with. I certainly agree with the comment made in the summary line that philosophers don't define reality, and disagree with the suggestion that we should be purged (although it would save me a lot of time and bandwidth).
Overall these comments just strengthen my opinion that as it stands, this is not an article, it's still an essay assuming and promoting a particular POV, just less coherently than it once did. I think an article on the subject is possible, even desirable, but I see enormous problems in NPOVing this one.
I certainly wouldn't delete it. There is content in it that does belong in an article. The rest all belongs in the Meta, as it's relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is itself a persuasion technology, which then has some relevance to NPOV and similar issues.
I don't even think it matters a lot if it stays where it is. I think the POV of it is obvious and nobody will be fooled into thinking otherwise. So the only problem I see is that it violates the policy of NPOV. Andrewa 07:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Seems more to point out a flaw in NPOV, that being, no one is asking the Internet, the web, the browser, Wikipedia, or English to justify themselves as neutral statements, regardless of how much they may alter the conciousness of the reader. But, if you think it is more advocacy than it should be, why not wrap around the introduction by Tannin above, which was more to the liking of some? That should have been done long ago. Or as with predicted effects of invading Iraq divide clearly the pro and con arguments made by promoters and detractors. There are lots of ways to create neutrality. EofT
The 'flaw' in NPOV is simply that you don't want to abide by it. Until this is resolved, I see no point in risking an editing war to save this otherwise worthwhile article.
You are assigning NPOV powers it does not have. There are plenty of issues with NPOV and meta: exists to discuss them. But do a thought experiment first: If you ignore my caution and rewrite this to give equal time to pro-Internet, pro-web, pro-technology views in general, the fact that it is presented on the Internet on the web, via browser technology, and the emotional desire all people have to believe what they are doing is good and that their own judgement is unbiased, will negate the balance - the net effect of the article will be to promote persuasion technology. It is this effect that the original author seem to have tried to avoid, by writing transparently a critique (counting on the medium itself to balance), and in doing so the article acquired a good deal of irony, which you noticed. If you attempt what you are describing without this same attitude, you will fail, and the end result will be somewhat biased. Peraps not unsaveably so. But note that Tannin tried above and then failed to push it to completion. Neutrality is not simply a matter of attributing statements. It's a state of mind. Do as you feel necessary. But don't be surprised if the end result acquires an NPOV dispute tag again. EofT
More progress. There's no point criticising NPOV here. As you rightly say, that discussion belongs in the Meta, as does most of this talk page, much of the article, and also the summary line of your last update 'NPOV is not magic'. That's true but irrelevant. Here NPOV is a given.
If it did not require serious human creativity to balance articles, we would be able to do it by program. On the contrary, we must ruthlessly criticize NPOV, in order to find its limits, or order not to do stupid things in its name (which is *often* the case here, in fact, explicit mention of NPOV may well be more likely when justifying something stupid or hasty than something wise).EofT
(Whew, eight indents deep!) Still more progress. Yes, quoting NPOV can be a tactic or excuse to put your own POV, obviously, and this happens. It can easily happen unintentionally (inevitably does, and I've certainly fallen foul of this myself on occasions), and sometimes I suspect is quite intentional. Again, I don't think this is the place to develop these ideas. Here, NPOV is an ideal, and a given.
In summary, it's good to use talk to discuss NPOV issues in particular articles. It's bad to be personal about it. It's not the place to criticise or discuss the ideal of NPOV.
Hmmm. I'm thinking hard about what needs to happen now. I wouldn't like to lose any of this, but in a Wiki losing things is almost impossible anyway. My opinion is still that eventually, this article needs a merciless refactor, addressing not only POV but also jargon and obscurity. The poetry, irony, and other more subtle non-linear thinking patterns used here should all be preserved, but elsewhere, as should the discussion of NPOV, linear and otherwise. The Meta is the obvious place.
If you wish to write a new article, by all means move the one there now in its current form to meta, with a link from here if you like. I agree there is subtlety to this piece that has been hard to reproduce, but also that this is no reason to fear improvements. Why not start, though, by getting jargon and obscurity out where you can, and see if it is these, not the POV, that is the real issue? Again, you can start from Tannin's analysis which is sane enough, and introduce in those terms, make a simple note at the top which says 'it is inherently ironic to criticize technology using that same technology, and inherently promotional to present essays about technology using that technology, so text may err in favor of criticism to balance these inherent systematic biases'. Or something like that. EofT
Hmmm, well put about the irony. This point has already been made in several places, but not that clearly. I'm still not altogether comfortable with this phrasing for the article. Not easy.
Not a new article, just a ruthless refactor, with no benefit of the doubt given to things that seem obscure or POV or both. I think it's best to address both at once. Successful clarifying will make POV more obvious.
I'm not yet convinced I'm the one to do this. It needs a lot of time and TLC spent on it, and by someone who can stay cheerful when their careful craftsmanship seems to be trashed. I'll see when I'm in a strong mood. I note Tannin's work and at least one offer of help above, perhaps we could get both of these writers interested again.
That would make four of us. It could work. Andrewa 22:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not for the fainthearted, obviously. Andrewa 14:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Currently its main value is the amusement of a few. On one hand I don't personally mind this at all. My most treasured possesion at age five was a copy of The Book of Knowledge (1954, Waverly) whose eight volumes contain all sorts of articles including fiction, beautifully illustrated and clearly distinguished from the factual content. But it's against Wikipedia policy, and IMO it's also getting in the way of writing the accurate, factual article that Wikipedia exists to provide.
Not sure accuracy, or lack of facts, is the issue here. It's more the judgemental adjectives and counter-persuasive stance. Something more explicitly ironic would be better. EofT
That's the reason for the policy.
Are you quite sure you're not yourself one of the 'philosophers' you want purged? Andrewa 18:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Having just written the entry for ethicist, maybe I'm one of those. But I don't consider that the same as being a philosopher, as that article clly states. But in case I am one, maybe I should purge myself from this rewrite. EofT

[edit] Post-refactor discussion

"Job applicants have long been advised to wear navy rather than brown suits, to make the better personal impression. This use of colour, even if effective, is not persuasion technology. By way of contrast, the use of certain colours and colour combinations in fast food outlets because they have been scientifically shown to encourage people to eat more is persuasion technology."

User:Mydogategodshat writes: I do not understand this paragraph. Why do you consider the use of colour to persuade people to buy a hamburger different from the use of colour to persuade someone to hire you? Both are persuasive activities. Both involve technology in the process. One involves a clothes manufacturing technology, the other a decorating and printing technology. The only difference is that one is presented on a body whereas the other is presented on a building. Are you claiming that one is persuasive because it has been researched, but the other is not persuasive because, even though it works, there has been no formal study to prove that it works?
I agree. I don't see the difference. 65.95.163.163
Neither do I. Maybe he feels one is more scientific, and the other is merely anecdotalNostrum 01:56, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The distinction would have to be the proof that one is a technology and the other is not. 65.95.163.163
Very good questions. I admit I struggled with this a bit. Where would you draw the line? Or don't you think it's helpful to even try to?
I agree that the issue is that one is a technology, the other is not. That's exactly what I was trying to get across. If someone were to use science to develop an interview-friendly cloth for suits, that would be persuasion technology. Do you really think that the old advice not to wear brown suits to interviews was technology at all? I don't.
My view is that unless we can provide some clear, NPOV idea of what does and doesn't qualify as Persuasion Technology, the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. As there was some strong support for it to stay, I thought it was worth having a go. But whether it should stay at all is still an open question IMO.
Of course we "can". Read the excellent text by Tannin above. It is quite clear: "Persuasion technology is a general term for presentation technology and technologies used in any area that involves changing people's minds, notably advertising. Any technology designed and deployed for those purposes can be considered a persuasion technology." To the degree clothes change minds, they are an example of same. EofT 15:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Quite so. The issue is more whether the use of navy suits as described is technology at all. But come on fellas, be bold. I don't want the last word on this. Andrewa 21:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Note also that meta:persuasion technology has a similar definition. There is agreement among people who know the field, what this means. It is the layman's objections that are sabotaging this article. For instance, various attempts in the above to rename it, simply proved this is the only title possible. EofT
Have a look at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html for some more recent input on this topic, although it's no help with this specific issue as it doesn't actually use the term "Persuasion Technology". Andrewa 15:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It is about PowerPoint specifically, and is dealt with there. But this is only one example of such a technology.
True. Andrewa 21:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 - citations missing

Is it me, or is it odd that the external link to Stanford is actually to a project about web-content credibility???? The examples of behavior at IBM and Sun are interesting, but are they true? --Mereda 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that citations are seriously lacking. It is unclear to me how much of this article has any basis in controversy for which there exist citations.

As for the link to the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. I am a researcher there, but did not add the link -- and the link seems to point to our specific project on web credibility, rather than our lab homepage, which covers the study of persuasive technology more broadly.

I'm unconvinced that this article as it stands has much basis. I'd be happy to be involved in work on a revised version that connects more directly to research that I am aware of. First of all, I think the article should be called 'Persuasive technology'. Just one point in favor of this: Google has 101,000 results for 'persuasive technology', but only 15,800 for 'persuasion technology'; Google Scholar has 430 documents for 'persuasive technology', but only 11 for 'persuasion technology'.

What do you all think? --Theswampman 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


More to add here: I'm unclear that this article should exist. This does not seem to be a category of technologies that sees significant use at all -- whether by scholars, journalists, or practitioners. I would like to suggest removing this article. An alternative would be merging content elsewhere, or renaming it "persuasive technology" and rewriting it entirely.--Theswampman (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title

Why does this article have the wrong title template at the top? --Eleassar my talk 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)