>
What about empirically proving that something works instead? Like in serious professions.Imagine going to a doctor and the doctor saying: "The cure to your illness is eating a big warm turd every morning. I know you will object but turn it into a goal and you'll see its value".
What the doctor says is exactly "empirically proving that something works" -- that's what "you'll see its value" means.
And one can only suppose that the doctor has already proved it in other tries, which is why they suggest it.
>Better to use guru status and force people to use an objectionable idea (turn objections into goals) until they are invested in it and hence start to find value in it. This is Machiavellism 101. Once you get invested you get emotional and you will defend it, no matter if its shit.
That's a jump to conclusions there.
First, where it's written that they'll "defend it no matter if its shit"? How about empirically proving that that they will do that?
Second, it's merely asking (nobody's "forcing" anybody).
Third, the whole "once they've tried it and are invested in it it's too late for them to see it's not good", is your addition, not some logical deduction. And it's surely not some ...machiavellian plan from the author.
I'd put what the author says thusly:
"yeah, you might find what I say objectionable, but try it and give it a try and you'll see that it has value".
Whether someone will try it, see it doesn't works, and still continue to support it, is not something I expect to happen, unless that someone is stupid to begin with. But then again, the same can be said for any suggestion to try something.