Hank Green has an interesting take on the scientific method: We advance because scientists work to persuade others that they’re correct. Every paper, statistical analysis and experiment is nothing but an argument designed to persuade an intelligent critic.
The method of argument is determined by the audience–if they require double-blind studies and useful statistical models, then that’s what you’ll need to use to change their minds.
Priya Parker’s new book is about fighting. It’s useful to realize that signing up for listening to what works and then doing it more is an argument toward better.
Positive argument is the generous act of approaching someone on their terms to persuade them to move forward.
The upside of free market capitalism (and the marketing that goes with it) is that every product and every campaign is an argument. An argument to win over customers, to solve problems in a new and better way. Different cultures require different arguments, but that’s what we do to grow.
The most effective form of marketing isn’t an ad, it’s a better product.
And thus one of the key problems with monopolies: they don’t have to argue! The customer has no choice. The monopoly stops listening, innovating and working for improvement, because they don’t need to.
The same is true for democracy vs autocracy. The despot has no need to make an argument, so they don’t.
Find a place where positive arguments are welcome, and use them to make things better by making better things.
