This is only true at simulacra level 1 [1], when communication is focused on objective facts. This is not a good way to understand communication in business relationships, social media, traditional news media, or politics. I like talking with my friends who communicate this way, but it's not the only way that people communicate, and pretending that it is will lead to confusion.
There are other ways to persuade: You could lie about the facts of the argument, you could convince others you're in their group or that your opponent is in a group opposed to them, or you could say whatever you think they want to hear and sprinkle your message in among it.
I agree with all of that. The context for my comment is discussions involving good-faith arguments intended to change hearts and minds (more or less object-level or simulacra level 1 arguments).
The parent commenter wrote that "good-faith arguments don't scale". I don't agree with that, because good-faith arguments do scale with social capital. People often run afoul of several problems that make it seem like they don't:
- Their reach exceeds their grasp: they want to persuade strangers, but don't have enough social capital to pull it off.
- They think they're involved in a good-faith discussion or argument, but the other participants are competing for status or trying to entertain themselves (or others).
In other words, I don't think good-faith arguments are the only way to persuade people, but if that's your preferred technique, you have to develop credibility, respect, and trust - on top of building an audience, which is a whole different matter.
There are other ways to persuade: You could lie about the facts of the argument, you could convince others you're in their group or that your opponent is in a group opposed to them, or you could say whatever you think they want to hear and sprinkle your message in among it.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...