Persuasiveness means having an awareness for influencing others’ opinions. Rhetoric, as Aristotle famously philosophized, is a means of persuasion. Written and oral rhetoric anticipates the probable outcomes of opinion, given a compelling deliverance of information that particularly relates to the type of audience. There are three categories of rhetoric, epideictic (ceremonial), forensic, and deliberative (political), corresponding to three types of audiences.

Aristotle’s verbatim explanation of the genres of rhetoric:

“In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital interests. There is no need, therefore, [for the persuader] to prove anything except that the facts are what the supporter of a measure maintains they are. In forensic oratory this is not enough; to conciliate the listener is what pays here…” (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Book I, Ch. 1) “Forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody: one or other of these two things must always be done by the parties in a case. The ceremonial oratory of display either praises or censures somebody. These three kinds of rhetoric refer to three different kinds of time. The political orator is concerned with the future: it is about things to be done hereafter that he advises, for or against. The party in a case at law is concerned with the past; one man accuses the other, and the other defends himself, with reference to things already done. The ceremonial orator is, properly speaking, concerned with the present, since all men praise or blame in view of the state of things existing at the time, though they often find it useful also to recall the past and to make guesses at the future.” (Rhetoric, Book 1, Ch. 3)

Persuasiveness can be spontaneous or practiced, possessing either of two qualities: atechnic (inartistic) & entechnic (artistic). Again, persuasion is really just the art of rhetoric as an intuitive technique for compelling desired opinions. The greek word pisteis conceptually represents one’s means of persuasion, and is the umbrella term for rhetoric’s art & effects. The nougat of pisteis contains the trifecta of ethos, logos, & pathos:

Ethos is rhetorical credibility.

Pathos is effectiveness at eliciting audiences’ emotions.

Logos is the rationale of the argument.

An even more ancient Greek, Phaedrus, the character of the ancient text Phaedrus, is discomforted by a concern that opinions are the soul of an argument’s convincingness; that opinions themselves are in actuality just manipulatable game pieces.

And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the truly good or honorable, but only with opinion about them, and that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.

“Persuasive power” hints at a capability of deception. Consider Hitler’s infamy for compelling the German public into the racial purification of Germany.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGhdX1SI3KY&bpctr=1358369794

Aristotle argued that all rhetoric contains logical, pathological, and ethical elements that may appeal specifically to some, but maximum rhetorical potency contains sunbeams of truth. The most convincing arguments are ultimately just coherently organized demonstrations of ideas that transcend the context for persuasion. Compare Hitler’s speech the enduring American civil rights movement, heroically compelled by MLK’s “I have a dream” speech.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

The effects of MLK’s deliberative rhetoric far outstripped Hitler’s, illustrating that the endurance of the ends (the desired outcome of opinion) is proportional to the means. MLK & Hitler’s respective rhetorical means both contained equally potent combinations of the logos, pathos, ethos trifecta. But viability has a shelf-life; at its core is a type of probability. Hitler’s persuasiveness was vested in an acute awareness of his audience’s susceptibility, his method deriving from tapping into the audience’s particular susceptibility. Pre-WWII Germans were in very different straits than they were once Hitler was in full power. As the war pressed on, and the conditions of Germans’ lives, mentalities, & society adjusted, so did the viability of Hitler’s persuasion. Great ideas worth persuading, like solidarity & civil liberty, are able to trot alongside the evolution of contexts; ever-shifting given the inconstancy of historical circumstances and collective attitudes. Without substance, rhetoric otherwise collapses.

Persuasiveness, in sum, does not entirely depend on truth to be compelling and thus effective; many can be jostled into breaking a diet when they’re very hungry, or convinced into a date if already a little interested. But the greatest probability of successful persuasion relates to the rhetoric’s viability beyond the short-ended context of who’s listening, when. Successful rhetoricians not only anticipate appealing to their audiences logically, credibly, and emotionally, but anticipate eventual probabilities as well–the probable long-ended effects of their audiences’ responses. The fact that Hitler was a masterful rhetorician is secondary, permanently, to the abominable outcome of his rhetoric’s deceit.

Socrates proved the case for rhetorical virtue to Phaedrus, as he always does through his awesome Socratic persuasiveness. Aristotle later reinforced it: “Hence the man who makes a good guess at truth is likely to make a good guess at probabilities.” (Rhetoric, Book 1, Ch. 1)