On rhetoric

Brian Tracy has three questions for understanding motivations.

What would you do differently if you won the lottery?
What would you do if you learned you only have six months to live?
What would you dare to dream if you knew you could not fail?

This is key to any persuasion/seduction/rhetoric. The answers to these questions correspond to:

What you really need (id)
What you really want (ego)
What you may have been put on earth to accomplish (superego)

People who don’t have the luxury of integrating their personalities by expressing all three aspects within high-functioning jobs have, by necessity, decoupled their needs, wants, and morals. This is extremely inefficient but also a necessary evil of specialization within civilization. And SCALE produces more of what people truly need and want, by the logic of natural selection. Cro magnon beats neanderthal.

However, the inefficiency of this system for the unfavored classes also produces a perpetual desperation. People aren’t getting the community or nutrition they need. They’re binging on the fake versions of these things in a desperate gamble to make it through the next day, hoping the environment will have changed to offer a new hope. So in their insanely limited free time and with even less energy, people spiral into more and more of the addictions as their need increases and their ability deteriorates.

Most low-agency parents truly want to raise their kids, but they will watch TV and eat pizza instead to remain sane and alive for another 14-hour shift at the AIDS clinic. A similar story can be told of NEETs and other undesirables, but we’ll stick with the white trash example for now.

Returning to the original three questions then, how do you appeal to such a parent to change his life? If he had only six months to live, he’d quit the AIDS clinic and spend the time with his kids, no question. But he can’t make that leap for a long-term gamble. The prospect of failure, grinding poverty, starvation, and shame doesn’t bear consideration. So if you say “Spend more time with your kids” he’s going to agree, then stick with it for about a week, then go nuts the first time it’s truly hard because he’s already on the edge. Real relationships have a lot of negative feedback. They’re very hard! And so he’ll retreat to the TV, and the kid will get jaded, and the whole thing’s a bust.

This is why you never appeal to a person’s better nature in a sale. You appeal to self-interest. The key is the answer to the id question: What would you do differently if you won the lottery?In human terms, this is vacuum free energy. Easy money. If you can make a show that parents can watch with their kids and have a shared interest to talk about with just the tiniest change of habit (and if not for Jewish gatekeepers), you’d be a billionaire overnight.

The commercial for the show wouldn’t even be about the show. It would show excited families racing to gather around the TV set after dinner (together at the dinner table), laughing and talking about what happened on yesterday’s episode. Junior quips the protagonist’s signature line in a cowboy accent “Yeh ain’t dead, pardner, so yeh might as well pick up an dust off.” Dad laughs and agrees “Damn straight, that’s how we do it in America, son.”

The sale here is in covertly appealing to self-interest, what dad truly needs (TV), while selling him on it by appealing to his ego, what he wants. Implicitly promise the need, explicitly promise the want. Sell the slightly less crummy reality with the fantasy. Once you understand this dynamic and the real needs and wants of the audience, the rest of persuasion is simple arbitrage.

So, let’s bring this around. What would individuals in Edenism do if they won the lottery? In the Alt-Right? What would Aeoli Pera do? Etc. The answer is always the fully actualized form of the way people already spend their free time. If you can answer this question about yourself and your persuasion target, with a real sense of empathy. you will win 1,000 culture wars without fail.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to On rhetoric

  1. bicebicebice says:

    I thought that todays parents would play video and have tv-nights basically every night, my generation, because I don’t remember once anyone complaining about what we enjoyed, especially compared to the trash they have been putting out for the last 10 years. Itz just entertainment to wind down with after your day and chore is up,but instead it became serious business tools of indoctrination and status, which again makes it even stranger that my generation does not give a shit. I thought they were good people but they were just sapes all along.

    In fact, it seems to be the opposite effect. Itz almost as if all children born after 2000 were born out of desperate wanting.

    Good post will comment again

  2. Pingback: Hypothetical approach for general disorder | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s