I don't think we have to call persuasion a physical force. Propaganda attempts to manipulate us with misinformation (wrong information, suggestions, lies, partial truth, etc.). How surreptitious propaganda is depends on the thoroughness of information control. If one has only propaganda as information, then one can certainly be manipulated surreptitiously.

Nazi Germany banned listening to the BBC, or any other non-authorized broadcast, because they wanted no information leaks INTO occupied territory (including Germany). Nazi propaganda strove to define the reality of Germany in the world ub the war. Propaganda wasn't just made up lies; it was controlled information, metered out to serve specific purposes. Enough of it had to match reality for the propaganda to work. (Nazis were not inhibited by a sickly inability to use force. People who were caught listening to the BBC would get at least a beating by the Gestapo and maybe worse.)

Citizens of the United States (and numerous other places) are deluged with propaganda, and while it is possible to obtain diverse and discordant information from other places, it does require effort and discernment. Without discernment (which requires skill, education, practice...) it is hard to tell whether what one is viewing on various media is true or false.

Lots of people do not have the skills to parse out what is true and what is malarky.

There are several ways of persuasion available to us that have nothing to do with force or manipulation. The problem with force and manipulation is that they will lead to resentment once people realise what's going on.

Here's some methods to persuade:

We can argue if someone is susceptible to argument (We'd better do A because X, Y and Z)
We can urge if someone is open to it (Give me another push up!)
We can use compliments if someone is receptive to them (You're really good at A, would you do it again?)
We can assert ourselves if someone values their relationship with you (I really want you to do A)
We can emphasis cooperation if someone has a benefit to do so (We both have an interest in X, if we both do A that would be good for X)
We can take the initiave and lead by example if someone is inclined to help or follow
We can paint a (realistic and) bright future if someone shares your vision (I had a dream and in this dream....)

Of course, you cannot do these things if you do not listen, condense and ask follow up questions from those people you're trying to persuade because without doing that you won't be able to ascertain which mode of persuasion works best.

You also need to be able to easily switch between the different forms if you want to become effective and between hard and soft messages, from empathy to your own motives and from accepting to being perservering. And you mustn't forgot your own authenticity, sincerity, daring, trust in others, inspiration and belief in the solutions you're suggesting and have fun doing all this.

No discussion of Bernays, especially with reference to Nazism, should be absent of Hitler's own statement about effective propaganda:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating mass of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hated, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.
Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side.
The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."
- Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler (Berlin, 1928)

While Bernays did present propaganda as a positive force in advertising to help people, for example, like eating margarine instead of butter, the other side of his method has had equal force in driving hatred.

Perhaps in rational communities, you would be right. But with respect to the kind of persuasion Hitler is describing, there is NO PERSUASION. It is an OUTRIGHT STATEMENT OF SIMPLE BINARY FALSITY, repeated sufficiently that no one can escape thinking of the falsehood in association with the target. As Hitler, says, there is no objectivity in it. It's brainwashing. It has nothing to do with argument at all. A lot of people seem to miss that.

Perhaps in rational communities, you would be right. But with respect to the kind of persuasion Hitler is describing, there is NO PERSUASION. It is an OUTRIGHT STATEMENT OF SIMPLE BINARY FALSITY, repeated sufficiently that no one can escape thinking of the falsehood in association with the target. As Hitler, says, there is no objectivity in it. It's brainwashing. It has nothing to do with argument at all. A lot of people seem to miss that. — ernestm

For starters this discussion really depends on what we mean with persuasion. I think persuasion is about getting others to do what I want them to do in a manner that is respectful and equitable. The difference between persuasion and manipulation/force is that I can repeat persuasion as many times as I want, because I'm not (ab)using the other. That said, I agree that Hitler's propaganda was not about persuasion; once the theater of it becomes clear, you cannot repeat it because your "victims" do not trust you anymore. I don't believe we are in disagreement here.

I offered examples as alternatives to force/manipulation as real examples of persuasion as I see it, as juxtaposition to what the OP offered as forms of persuasion.

And although there is a certain science to persuasion and we can practise these skills, I don't agree with your characterisation that "rationality" is a pre-requisite for persuasion to be effective. Only one of the methods involves directly appealing to a persons rationality by offering arguments. This is mostly used in the West and used almost automatically by anyone with an education and is the worst method of all those available to us. Arguing to get your way is mostly ineffective and we only truly persuade people if we can persuade them on an emotional level. Try a rational argument with your partner when you're having a fight about doing household chores; it isn't going to work. ;)

Arguing to get your way is mostly ineffective and we only truly persuade people if we can persuade them on an emotional level. — Benkei

Yes, this seems to be the case. Well said.

A lot of us 'heady males' like to argue--I certainly do. And if that's our specialty, we probably come up short in the 'emotional intelligence' department--I certainly do, at times.

Thanks for pulling that quote. I like to begin every day with a slice of Hitler on toast.

When one considers the amount of propaganda we receive every day in the form of advertising for products and the lifestyle that the products allegedly offer, much of which false, it's no wonder that we have no brains left to think with.

a vacillating mass of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.

Should I get an iPhone or a Samsung? Butter is better but Smart Balance margarine has omega-3 fatty acids, and that's good, right? Oh, omega-3 is out, natural animal fat is back in--what to eat, what to eat... Lees or Levis? LLBean or Walmart? VW or Mazda?

Your Rand quote is a piece of propaganda. That it is not even half true is not something that is worth arguing about. Rather, ask why someone would want us to think it, and Bernays answers "...to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it". Nobody made you all vote for Trump/Brexit/another war/mass death/the end of human rights, because Rand says so. It must be what you want, then. And if you don't want it, you are a traitor to the masses and antidemocratic.

And this is more propaganda, that to oppose the dominant propaganda message is anti-democratic. The people have spoken, like a well-trained parrot, and when they have said what we taught them to say, we are their beloved leaders.

The Argument: Persuasion can be a kind of physical force in the Randian sense. Bernays, through persuasion---the manipulation of neurons (unconscious desires)---gets his way, alters the behavior, emotional and ideative patterns of his subjects.

The manipulation of neurons constitutes a surreptitious use of physical force. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This isn't an argument. This is what I call nitpicking. Are we really that bored on this forum?

It would seem to me that the correlation your are trying to establish falls on it's face when you read the part at the end of your Rand quote:

...establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If someone is unaware of some intent to control them by some other group, does that make their choices voluntary?

If someone is unaware of some intent to control them by some other group, does that make their choices voluntary? — Harry Hindu

A difficult question, but I’ll offer that our choices under such circumstances are nevertheless voluntary—at least as a general rule.

If I like Vermeer paintings and the “manipulator” wants me to approach X—with X being in the manipulator’s long-term advantage and not in my own—then my approaching the Vermeer poster on a wall (let’s say) doesn’t of itself become less voluntary--nor is there lost any of the aesthetic value/truth I find in the illustration (i.e., nor does my motive in so approaching become in any way wrong). This even though my decision to approach the given wall now gets me trapped, impoverished, killed, or whatever.

I find the same often occurs with manipulation at the level of masses. For one example, the democratic ideal being a good could—at least hypothetically speaking—be used to ensnare us as masses into utterly non-democratic social structures of politics and economy (such as via Orwellian propaganda). With all the various context-specific details of this hypothetical overlooked, at the end of the day, one’s volition to uphold democratic ideals shouldn’t in and of itself be interpreted by us as itself an act of manipulation … hence as an activity that we now ought to denounce (thereby getting us to no longer uphold the ideals of democracy).

Since no one is omniscient, we can all become manipulated by that which we voluntarily choose. This, at least, in principle. Our choices are nevertheless voluntary. And just because we can be tricked via our choices by others does not then mandate that the motives for our choices were, in and of themselves, wrong.

Having presented that side of the coin, there is also the other side in which greater wisdom in discernment better prevents us from being manipulated into ends we do not seek. We manipulate fish into being caught on fishing lines; this does not make the fish’s biting of food which we alone know to be bait no longer voluntary; but, obviously, were the fish endowed with greater wisdom of discernment, it would stand a lesser chance of being so caught. (It’s an offbeat analogy—but it does illustrate this other side of the coin somewhat.)

A lot of us 'heady males' like to argue--I certainly do. And if that's our specialty, we probably come up short in the 'emotional intelligence' department--I certainly do, at times. — Bitter Crank

Lucky you, because you can learn these skills although I find them a million times easier to apply in a work environment than at home. It really starts with attentive listening and asking open questions, although even that has a time and place. "Honey, I can see you're pissed but can you explain why exactly?" doesn't go down very well when he/she is still venting.

My wife's user manual is still a work in progress. I hope to get it done before divorce becomes inevitable. :-x

no wonder that we have no brains left to think with. — Bitter Crank

that's exactly how I feel about myself 99% of the time. I feel like all the thinking I have was actually inserted into me by other people. Some have tried to dissuade me of that, but the feeling persists!

For starters this discussion really depends on what we mean with persuasion. — Benkei

Well, that was what I was trying to say. Rational persuasion makes no difference in methods of 'brainwashing,' and all propaganda is about brainwashing. It takes a love or hatred in a situation, and a possibly unrelated condition, then it repeats that the condition causes the love or hatred in all situations, based on the example situation.

After sufficient repeating, the brain is conditioned to associate the feeling with the condition. It's purely Pavlovian.

It has nothing to do with persuasion.

Well, that was what I was trying to say. — ernestm

Would you agree with my definition then or would you add or change something?

This and the OP implies that in order to be truly free then we shouldnt interact with anyone ever for fear of being manipulated by others. It would seem to me that you both are unwittingly agreeing with Rand that individual liberty (libertarianism) is more favorable to being a socialist.

"Honey, I can see you're pissed but can you explain why exactly?" doesn't go down very well when he/she is still venting. — Benkei

Have you tried "I'm so sorry, I know it's all my fault, I'm lucky you haven't left me long ago. I wish I could be more worthy of you."?

too subservient and therefore off-putting in her view. Complicated woman...

Nothing wrong with being off-putting, when someone is, well pissing on you, to use your term.

I think your definition of persuasion is a good start. As I tried to explain, I don't think it has anything to do with propaganda.

The Argument: Persuasion can be a kind of physical force in the Randian sense. Bernays, through persuasion---the manipulation of neurons (unconscious desires)---gets his way, alters the behavior, emotional and ideative patterns of his subjects.

The manipulation of neurons constitutes a surreptitious use of physical force.
— ZzzoneiroCosm
This isn't an argument. This is what I call nitpicking. Are we really that bored on this forum?

It would seem to me that the correlation your are trying to establish falls on it's face when you read the part at the end of your Rand quote:
...establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.
— ZzzoneiroCosm
If someone is unaware of some intent to control them by some other group, does that make their choices voluntary? — Harry Hindu

The error is Rand's. That's my point. She seems to assert that, apart from physical force, only reason, persuasion, discussion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement are left to us. She fails to note the forcelike anima of a surreptitious manipulation of neurons via propagandic phenomena.

In short, she asserts a dyad of force and reason. Propagandic phenomena falls either nowhere in her dyad or on the side of force.

My wife's user manual is still a work in progress. I hope to get it done before divorce becomes inevitable. :-x — Benkei

Perhaps the problem is that you see her as being something to be used. ;)

You didn't answer my question.

..it's worthwhile to arm oneself with as many anti-Randian tropes as time and nausea allow. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What's the threat? Does Rand's statement make sense even?

It might be worthwhile to note, however, that by pretending to take Rand seriously Ryan & Co appear to understand something that their opponents don't, and thus cannot criticise, or their criticisms can be arbitrarily dismissed as "misunderstandings".

Let me rephrase your question for clarity's sake: If someone is unaware that their emotional complexes and habits-of-thought have been created or reconfigured by a self-serving manipulative agent, should we consider these complexes and habits---and all resulting physical and psychical activity---voluntary?

The answer is no. (If you want to pivot to a dusty discussion of free will, count me out.)

Here "propagandic phenomena" is defined as "that phenomena by which a self-serving manipulative agent creates or configures the emotional complexes and habits-of-thought of a given subject."

If you accept that the answer is no, you seem to concur that Rand's dyad insists we situate propaganda in the "force" camp.

That which is chosen involuntarily has by definition been infected with force.

Do you agree that Rand asserts a reason-force dyad?

The threat arises typically in the context of a political discussion at a family dinner or at a fashionable soiree and may well spread as a political infection to pestilize the heart of the nation. Every fashionable absurdity is a threat. Fad and fashion are at the heart of the bulk of these strongarm political rumors: Randianism. (It's too ridiculo-emetic to call it Objectivism! It evokes the (bilewaft) dianoetic laugh. "The laugh laughing at the laugh...," that's Beckett.)

Play Doctor of the Heart of the Nation and arm yourself against the politically absurd.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits." — ZzzoneiroCosm

My stance on that is that in order to buy that speech, text, etc. can amount to force to particular actions, beliefs, etc., we'd need to demonstrate, in a set of controlled experiments, that barring some highly unusual defense against it, particular speech actually does causally entail particular beliefs or actions in all subjects.

We can do the above with physical force a la, say, stabbing people with a knife. It's going to have similar effects in every subject barring some highly unusual defense against it. So I'd require the same for speech, otherwise something else is at play.

The quote is Bernays. X-)

Why all subjects? You only need one subject to use force.

To demonstrate in a controlled experiment that speech can be causal. You can't just run the experment once and reach a conclusion.

What about 10% of subjects? 20%? And why?

What if 63,000,000 people voted for Trump and as of March only 3% regret it? Is that enough to say force as defined above was applied? Or was it reason that got us Trump?

What about 10% of subjects? 20%? And why? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Because the way that causality works, if x is causal to y, then unless something unusual is interceding, when x happens, y will follow. If that doesn't happen in 100% of cases without there being evidence of something highly unusual interceding, it's not evidence of x being causal to y. Something else is causal to y in that case.

Again, take stabbing people for example. Unless there's something very unusual interfering in a given case, in 100% of our test subjects, thrusting a knife into their stomach is going to have a particular sort of effect. That's how we know that the action of the knife is causal to the cuts they wind up with. If thrusting the knife were only followed by the cuts in 20% of cases, then it wouldn't make sense to say that the knife is causal to the cuts. Because clearly you can thrust the knife into someone's stomach and the cuts do not occur. Something else would be going on.

The stabbing knife analogy doesn't seem useful to me.

You spoke of x and y. In this case because every mind has a unique configuration there is no y at all, only a and b and c and d and so on.

So we draw our line somewhere and begin to look at percentages to ascertain what a and b and c and d and so on have in common.