Is Hope or Fear More Persuasive?

Hope is as extravagant as fear.

Both can be exploited to infinity.

But one creates a pleasurable existence. The other creates a displeasurable existence.

Common sense, then, irresistibly suggests more people want to live in a pleasurable experience than a displeasurable one.

Thus, the truly MOST effective method of persuasion is through hope:

The bonds are tighter, the everyday more sweet, and loyalty is greatest.

So despite wielding equal power, one is prefered by the masses in the long run.

A good example of this are the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Both were populist campaigns.

But Bernie's campaign ran on hope. Trump's dominantly ran on fear.

Both had massive followings.

In the end, the movement centered on fear... won.

Why did this happen?

Let's look at this from the point of view of CROWD THEORY:

There is an infinite power in fear. The same way there's an infinite power in hope.

But they don't have equal impact.

There's only an infinite potential in each.

But one punch of fear does not equal one punch of hope.

In fact, 1 bit of fear equals 3 bits of hope.

This is an approx. aesthetic guideline I came up with amalgamating research-studies on psychology, crowds, & advertising; older texts from Renaissance masters; and observation.

So the lesson of the 2016 campaign is: intensity.

In other words, the charisma of the crowd - or the emotion.

Think about your own life.

When somebody says something negative, it can really drag you down.

But a compliment is easier to miss. It might take a few to register.

That explains how an incoherent movement predominantly centered around hatred & fear ("build the wall" "lock her up" "rapists" "pizzagate pedophile ring" etc) won the White House when there was an equal movement only months before embodied via Bernie Sanders.

Bernie lost the Democratic nomination BECAUSE his movement was equal to Trump's.

Hope needs to impact 3x harder to breakthrough.

In order for a message of HOPE to beat a message of FEAR it has to be 3x bigger.

3x more intense.

3x more tactile.

3x more visceral.

3x more emotional.

3x as powerful.

3x as innovative.

3x the crowds.

This is when the message of HOPE breaks through the noise of self-deception irrational members of a FEAR movement impose on themselves to resist the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. The self-evidence of the greater numbers also helps persuade undecided voters.

This is the point when the emotional impact of Hope hits our conscious awareness.

Because it's so easy to dismiss a good feeling.

But a bad feeling freaks us out ASAP.

Rage actually goes viral before joy does.

There's biological reasons for this. It's known as the negativity bias.

That's why, with Hope, you gotta knock them out!

One could even argue the Trump campaign was a message of hope to his followers when contrasted with Hillary Clinton's message of fear: to fear Donald Trump.

His movement was 3x bigger than hers.

And he won.

The failure of the Bernie Sanders campaign wasn't because of his crowds.

He got the biggest crowds of the election.

The 2016 debacle results from a complex interaction of multiple factors.

But in the future, if the message of Hope intends to win, it must be AT LEAST 3x more impactful than the simultaneously available message of Fear.

You can chart this through social media, believe it or not.

Because if Hope's campaign is weak, FEAR WILL WIN AGAIN.

Mark my words.

So...

Is Hope or Fear More Persuasive?

Hope & Fear are equally persuasive.

Ah.

But which one's more powerful?

Hope, baby.

Hope.

The Machiavellian Loophole

Infinite Confidence