A lens through which to assess the arguments in the node debate:
Whenever someone makes an argument, they utilize three modes of persuasion - they appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos.
• ethos=credibility
• logos=logic
• pathos=emotion
Great orators and writers strike the right balance in their appeals to these three modes.
When someone relies too heavily on one of them, that’s usually a red flag, and it usually causes them to lose members of their audience.
If your argument is purely logic-based, it might be boring, and, depending on topic (e.g., if you’re discussing something super technical) it might go over the heads of many readers/listeners, which makes your argument less effective.
If you rely too heavily on ethos in your argument (e.g., I’m a developer who has done this, this, this and I’ve been doing it for “x” years so you must/should listen to me), then you sound condescending, which also isn’t effective, as people don’t want to be talked down to.
Relying too much on pathos tends to have a polarizing effect. The members of your tribe will usually applaud you for it, while those who don’t agree with you will only dig in deeper - and more emotionally - to counter what you’ve said or written.
I’m going to dive in a little deeper on pathos here, because I think it goes without saying that there’s been a lot of emotion in people’s arguments, and understandably so, as we’re talking about the future of a network and asset that many have much of their wealth locked up in.
“If we don’t do ____, then ____ will happen” is an appeal to pathos that we’ve seen a lot of in the debates. (I’m not using actual examples/posts from the node debate so to be neutral and make certain points without alienating anyone reading this thread.)
I bring up this example because it’s an appeal to pathos disguised as an appeal to logos…(and both sides have used it to varying degrees).
If a post with this sort of phrasing isn’t grounded in concrete evidence, it’s an appeal to pathos, though it seems like an appeal to logos, especially to those who are new to the space. And the more dramatic the statement, the more emotional people will get. If you’re partaking in absolute statements like this that aren’t backed by evidence, then you are deeply distorting reality for the sake of manipulating people, especially those who don’t really understand the Bitcoin protocol or how nodes work.
And this sort of manipulation goes on in more subtle ways. For instance, some have made statements like “Bitcoiners wouldn’t/shouldn’t do ____.” Again, this comes across to some as a form of logos, the impact of which is potentially heightened depending on the real or perceived credibility of the person saying it.
The reality is, though, that there is no such thing as a “Bitcoiner.” It’s a made up term that doesn’t have one universal definition. Trying to persuade people that it’s anything but a term that can have various meanings in efforts to employ it in something disguised as a form of logic is also deeply manipulative. If you consider yourself a “Bitcoiner” beware of those who try to convince you that there’s a prescribed way to act. (I’ll admit that I’ve even used this term in manipulative ways in my arguments, and I apologize for that.)
Finally, being dismissive or condescending in general, especially if you are a well established figure in the Bitcoin space (i.e., you have some amount of credibility), will usually cause fewer people to listen to your argument - especially those who you might be trying to convince. And this cuts in both directions: Bitcoin OGs talking down to newbies is one form of it, and newbies approaching conversations with a lack of humility is another form of it.
I could write much more on this, but I’ll wrap it here because ain’t nobody got time to read posts that just go on and on.
I share all of this because I’d like to see the animosity deescalate. This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t make their arguments or express their points of view. All of that is healthy. What’s not healthy is manipulating people with appeals to pathos disguised as appeals to logos, especially if you have any sort of real or perceived credibility. Before believing something you read, think twice about how balanced the writer or speaker’s rhetoric is. If it feels unbalanced, at least make a mental note of the red flag before reacting or responding.
Thanks for reading.
