Lawrence wrote:
>
> In any debate there is the 45% hard core on one side and
> the 45% hardcore for the other side and the 10% in the middle who can still
> be influenced. And all debate is basically aimed at that 10% in the middle.
I would divide each 45% into X% and (45-X)%, the X% being those who are not as hardcore as they might be. Debate is mostly aimed at firming up that X%. Actual change (whether from the 10% in the middle or from the opposition has to have its grounds in social events, not argument. I dare say that is what usually happened when you found yourself adopting a hated idea -- the ensemble of social relations that you are underwent transformations which opened you up to different ideas -- or, more accurately, which required new ideas to make sense.
An anecdote Bruce Franklin told me back in 1970 or so. It seems some pacifists had been picketing a Napalm plant somewhere in the Bay area, and some of the workers had been beating them up. Bruce and friends showed up one day carrying baseball bats determined to prevent any further beatings. The reaction (from some of the plant employees): Hey, we didn't know you were serious. Let's talk.
There is also a very old joke that catches this. A man was beating his mule, when an observer objected that he should use reason. O.K., the man said, he's yours. The new owner picked up a 2x4 and hit the mule a wallop over the head. I thought you were going to use reason, the old owner objected. I am, the new owner said, but first I have to attract its attention.
Carrol