Writing and "persuasion"

How does persuasive writing work, when it actually works? Here's my new take on what a successful piece does:

Plant the seed: state a version of the idea that the reader might want to consider believing. This is just a declarative statement of the idea, not an argument for it. It can be wrapped in some excuse to state the idea declaratively, e.g. "Some authors advocating patent reform have proposed the use of prizes as an alternative to patents" (from here).

This is the most important thing; it says "hey, here's something you might want to consider believing." Even if you don't write any more, or (more likely) the reader doesn't read any more, there's a chance that the seed will take hold.

Describe the garden: take the reader on a tour through the worldview surrounding this seed -- the ecosystem of other ideas, arguments, and conclusions that orbit around this idea. If the idea is a good fit for the reader, they should find the garden appealing, and think it might be a good addition to their yard.

This is also a good time to explain how the idea is compatible or incompatible with existing ideas the reader may have. Be delicate with this; don't be fooled into thinking that you can respond to every possible argument, or compel the reader to accept the idea. But if you can anticipate reasons they might think they don't have room for this new idea, or it can't possibly grow in their soil, it's good to address them.

Give it time to grow: this is more of an attitude thing, but -- don't secretly hope that readers will finish the piece and immediately accept the idea. We're planting a seed here.

The underlying theory is that a piece of writing can't itself do the work required to reconcile a new idea with someone's current set of ideas. When a reader senses that the writer thinks they can force the issue, they push back, and defense always beats offense. What a piece of writing can do is plant a seed, and give the reader some reasons to consider nurturing that seed themselves; they'll construct their own arguments as needed, or come back to look for them.

Aside on arguments: what about the kind of people who are convinced by arguments? On the level of truth-finding, I think engagement with arguments tends to lead to much better results; if you're writing e.g. a research report for someone who's going to make some kind of decision, I would much rather see more aggressive use of arguments. For persuasive writing, though, my theory is that people who go for this sort of thing just have an unusual aesthetic for our gardens.