Very curious about this, not afraid to read a lot, so will accept published papers.
Posted Nov 7, 2018, 12:06 PM UTC
ENTJ you've got to get something big something that looks expensive something that they are going to use or something they just really love looking at, make sure it looks more expensive than you sell it for. If the Logo is just something they really like it'll help it sell.
Hm, I’ll speak for myself, and it may reflect the opinions of EXTPs.
Ethos: Ethos doesn’t work too well against me and I always keep in mind that no matter how expert someone is on a matter, there’s always the possibility of a hidden agenda or bias. That and a lack of innate respect for people’s character based on position. It’s impressive, yes, to be the head of a large company or governmental organization, but it doesn’t say anything about their personal philosophy or general understanding of something.
Ethos likely works best against XSXJs, mostly XSTJs.
Pathos: It may just be me and not other EXTPs, but I’ve never been swayed by those commercials with the sad dogs and sick children. It’s not that I don’t care about them, but it circles back round to the suspicion of hidden agenda. I don’t know every given organization’s practices, and for all I know, they could be detrimental to their needy’s living conditions, which I wouldn’t want to help fund.
Pathos likely works best against XNFXs, with slightly more XNFJs being drawn to it than XNFPs.
Logos: Logos works the best for me, personally, and is the argument style of the EXTP. I slip into pathos occasionally, but the main strategy I employ personally is to tie up logical loose ends that could lead to an argument, particularly by using interesting analogies. I think logos is a very clean and hard-to-argue-with persuasion style and works wonders.
Logos likely works best against XNTXs, but is all around effective for thinkers.
Yeah. Ethos and pathos have no bearing on me whatsoever. It's either appeal to reason or go somewhere else.
Like most Rationals here will say, I never really liked pathos, because it's a step away from a straight ad misericordiam fallacy. I don't see the appeal of emotion in a debate. Furthermore, I'm more neutral about ethos, but ethos could also be easily abused by perverting it to a false authority or an ad hominem fallacy. Thus, logos is my preferred form of rhetoric. There's a reason why most scientific theses or philosophical treatises uses logos.
To be honest, I don't think that anyone is going to openly declare that they like pathos. As debates are inherently logical in nature, logos is the default mode of rhetoric. Pathos is simply the additional spice that some people fall for.
I've always responded horribly to pathos for what it's worth. Only if it's somebody I really care about will I even listen to an emotion-based argument. In general, thinkers would probably prefer logos and feelers would prefer pathos, with ethos being fairly neutral.
Same for me
If someone is making an emotionally based argument, I immediately suspect them of either extreme manipulation or of them desperately trying to hide something.
If you want to reason me into something, you need to, well, reason.