When and Why is Persuasion Hard? A Computational Complexity Result

Overview

• This paper explores the computational complexity of persuasion, examining when and why it is difficult to persuade someone.
• The researchers provide a formal result showing that persuasion can be computationally hard in certain scenarios, even with full information about the target's beliefs.
• The paper discusses the implications of this finding for real-world persuasion challenges, such as convincing someone to change their mind on a political issue.

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores a fundamental question: when is it hard to persuade someone, even if you have complete information about their beliefs and preferences? The researchers provide a formal mathematical result showing that in certain situations, persuasion can be a computationally difficult problem.

Imagine you're trying to convince a friend to change their mind on a political issue. You might think that if you had complete information about their beliefs, it would be easy to find the right arguments to persuade them. But the paper shows this is not always the case. In some scenarios, the task of finding the right arguments to change someone's mind is mathematically complex and challenging, even with full information.

The researchers use tools from computer science, such as complexity theory, to analyze the inherent difficulty of persuasion. They show that for certain types of belief structures, the problem of finding the most effective persuasive arguments is what's called "NP-hard" - a technical term meaning it's an intrinsically difficult problem that becomes increasingly challenging as the scale increases.

This finding has important implications for real-world persuasion challenges, such as trying to change someone's mind on a political issue or convince a skeptical audience to adopt a new idea or product. It suggests that in some cases, persuasion may be fundamentally hard, regardless of the specific arguments or information used. Understanding these computational limits can help us better navigate the challenges of persuasion in our personal and professional lives.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a formal computational complexity result on the difficulty of informational persuasion. The researchers consider a scenario where a sender (the persuader) has full information about the beliefs and preferences of a receiver (the target of persuasion). The goal is for the sender to find the most effective way to change the receiver's beliefs, given this complete information.

The key result is that for certain belief structures, the problem of finding the optimal persuasive arguments is NP-hard. This means that as the size of the problem increases, the computational effort required to solve it grows exponentially, making it an inherently difficult problem to solve.

The researchers prove this NP-hardness result by showing a reduction from a well-known NP-hard problem in computer science, called "set cover." This establishes that the persuasion problem is at least as hard as this canonical difficult problem, and thus cannot be solved efficiently in general.

The implications of this result are that even with full information about a receiver's beliefs, there are cases where it is computationally intractable to find the optimal persuasive arguments. This suggests fundamental limits on the ability to persuade in certain real-world scenarios, such as changing someone's mind on a political issue or convincing a skeptical audience to adopt a new idea or product.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides an important theoretical result on the computational complexity of persuasion, but it is important to consider the limitations and caveats of this analysis.

First, the result only applies to a specific model of "informational persuasion," where the sender has full knowledge of the receiver's beliefs and preferences. In real-world scenarios, persuaders often have incomplete or uncertain information about their target's beliefs, which could make the problem even more challenging.

Additionally, the NP-hardness result establishes a worst-case complexity bound, but does not preclude the existence of efficient persuasion strategies in certain restricted settings or for particular belief structures. Further research is needed to understand the range of belief structures and persuasion scenarios where efficient persuasion is possible.

It is also worth considering how this theoretical result relates to the practical challenges of persuasion in the real world. While the computational complexity analysis provides insights into the inherent difficulty of the problem, other factors, such as cognitive biases, emotions, and social dynamics, may also play a significant role in the success or failure of persuasive efforts.

Conclusion

This paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of the computational complexity of persuasion. By showing that persuasion can be an inherently difficult problem, even with full information about the receiver's beliefs, the researchers highlight the fundamental challenges involved in trying to change someone's mind.

These findings have implications for a wide range of real-world persuasion challenges, from political debates to marketing and product adoption. They suggest that in some cases, persuasion may be a computationally hard problem, and that simply having the "right" information or arguments may not be enough to overcome this intrinsic difficulty.

Understanding these computational limits can help us develop more realistic expectations and strategies for persuasion, and inspire further research into the cognitive, social, and algorithmic aspects of this fundamental human activity.