X-Message-Number: 1630 Date: 17 Jan 93 01:24:06 EST From: Charles Platt <> Subject: CRYONICS Mentioning the unmentionable To: Cryonet Thomas Donaldson says we have to confront people with unpalatable aspects of cryonics, because people have already heard about this stuff; so if we don't mention it, we'll seem to be evasive. He writes: "Not only have they heard about cryonics, but they've also at least heard hints about immortality and neuro-suspension too." First, I disagree. Most people I talk to have NOT heard hints about immortality or neurosuspension. They have a very vague general idea about cryonics, which they have picked up from LA Law or the new Mel Gibson movie. They have not thought about it in depth, and have not applied it to themselves. In any case, even if someone does already know a few things about cryonics, this still does not mean I am forced to confront this person with all the toughest facts right at the start. On the contrary; it merely means I am in the same position as any salesman dealing with a partially informed customer--selling life insurance, for instance. Would Thomas claim that because most people have heard a bit about life insurance, there is no point in emphasizing the best aspects of it first? Should I, instead, begin by itemizing all the circumstances under which the insurance company would try to avoid paying out on a claim? Somehow, I doubt I would sell much insurance that way. Please note: I am not suggesting we should withhold information or deny that neurosuspensions take place. Thomas used the word "deny"; I didn't. I am merely suggesting that it's in our best interests to lay out the easy concepts and the advantages first, establish some common ground with the potential new member, and proceed in small steps, since a substantial amount of reorientation is usually involved. I think the real problem here is that Thomas distrusts the idea of ANY kind of calculated "sales pitch" where cryonics is concerned. If that is the case, I think he is fooling himself. We all use some degree of "salesmanship" when we want to change a person's mind, whether we are aware of it or not. I prefer to be conscious of this, so that I can measure what I'm doing. That way, I am better able to decide what seems ethical and what doesn't. Thomas has not addressed my point that Brenda Peters has been phenomenally successful (relatively speaking) at persuading people to sign up who have hesitated for years (in some cases). And these are people who are FULLY informed about cryonics. Why has Brenda succeeded where others have failed? Maybe she presents the case better. Maybe we could learn from her. But to do so, we have to accept the principle that the content and style of a presentation are important. I feel that Thomas has not replied to the question that I posed in my last message. To reiterate: There is a whole literature on the process of argument, and another large literature dealing with strategies for converting people to different points of view. (Much of this stuff was written by libertarians.) Thomas Donaldson seems to be saying that it doesn't apply here, because cryonics is a special case. Why should this be so? --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1630