Narrative shorthand pseudo-explanations seem to be the default form of primate social signalling.

Going beyond that to deliberate reality-testing (even to some limited extent) seems to be an optional stage of development.

Effectively it's a meta-narrative ('question what you're told and what you believe') that fills the space that's usually filled up with default signalling.

It's also a question of how safe the surrounding environment is perceived to be. If surroundings are safe, mistakes and exploration are acceptable and you'd expect narrative systems to reflect that.

If the environment is threatening, mistakes are potentially fatal, and narratives are more likely to converge on much simpler ideas of right and wrong.

proof in the scientific science (sense?) is not enough if you are not in a mythical scientific world

Right, but it's not quite what I meant. Most people in the cultures we live in (and with whom we would wish to communicate) are, to some extent, in a mythical scientific world. They have notions to do with "proof", "facts", "observation", they share a narrative about science's ability to deal with these things (even if the narrative is relatively sketchy). In some cases they may believe in science in a quasi-religious manner. So that kind of narrative may be persuasive.

But I was asking, with the word "proof", about rational discourse that does not demand a leap of faith. The free market ideology offers a belief system: invisible hand, wheels within wheels, immutable laws calling for purity of application to produce magical outcomes. This narrative works, people go along with it. If you tell them, look, reality is complex, there are all kinds of problems with asymmetric information and influence, not to speak of plain power, that skew things so the pure market narrative is inapplicable, you'll be followed by a small number who were probably already thinking that anyway.

So I was wondering, do people really prefer to be asked to believe? Is a leap of faith attractive?

I think I can say from my own experience, having lived part of my life in a very religious setting, that a leap of faith offers relief. People speak of their happiness that a burden has rolled away from their backs. In the Christian narrative, that burden is explained as sin, but I think it's the burden of existence as an individual with the responsibility of making choices; the leap of faith is abandonment to predetermined choices, to a complete explanatory narrative of what you must do each day, to a new belonging to a collective existence (the body of believers). Those who find that hugely satisfying may have psychological weaknesses of the kind exploited by cults... But still, one can see the kind of pleasurable emotions the leap of faith can bring about.

Does an attractive/persuasive narrative (seductive, to use tbg's term), have to offer some or all of these elements, even in an attenuated form?

By asking people to accept a narrative that we call reality or fact-based, are we at risk of producing anxiety?

How far are we willing to think in terms of a new progressive narrative that entails a leap of faith?

Or does any complete narrative, anyway, call for the suspension of disbelief?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

For example we do not adscribe feelings with state of movements.. or states of objectsa s other people do... or consider humans to be "all  bout emotions".

We also have a strong mythology about humans being necessarily affective which makes by the way any scientific analysis of emotions almost impossible to carry on given the strong cutlrual baggage stating that all emotions are universal..even when they evidently are not.

So I could not agree more with you. It is within a framework about emotions.. and with a way of looking at the world.. and understanding injustice that we are left-wing... and it is this narrative and explanation that drives us... And I am personally proud of it.

Demonstration comes later on.. and absolutely.. and only becasue we value proof if we adquired and assmilated the "scientific imagianry" (which by the way it is clearly not universal in western societies sicne you can live perfectly without understanding science as a mere status generator).

Dead on.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

But people still persist in trying to persuade others using pseudo-rational narratives. And sometimes they even succeed.

I think values like justice and equality are already narrative statements. The emotional roots for the soft left probably come down to empathy, curiosity and inclusiveness.

The hard left seems more likely to be driven by jealousy, and a desire for revenge against parental figures.

The right seems to live on a dominance/submission axis, where the prize for dominance and 'success' is the right to live out your instincts with only minimal guilt.

(This is maybe one reason they prefer authoritarian values. They know how dangerous they are - they assume everyone else is just as dangerous and can't be trusted without external control.)

You can't map these root emotions into each other. Left and right narratives make no sense to other side, because they literally lack the emotional make-up that gives them a foundation.