CONSTANT VIGILANCE
I came across this while writing one of three of my final papers....and procrastinated by reading most of it. I think it's pretty interesting. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so what do I know? However, I do pay a lot of attention to how people talk and I think that people use these tactics consciously and unconsciously, and in order to be able to defend yourself against them you need to be able to recognize them first.
((here is the link if you want proper emphasis: http://workersect.org/2x205s.html))
In order to avoid being taken in by slick presentations, unsound reasoning and subtle falsehood, it is important to acquire an understanding of the persuasion techniques commonly employed. Listed below are certain methods that have been (and are) used by speakers to convince, and often mislead, individuals and groups. Unfortunately, modern listeners seldom have any educational background in logical criticism or oratorical techniques, and are all too often vulnerable to and unaware of the traps being laid for them. Though this article focuses on developing listening skills, the same critical processes which can be used to analyze the validity of spoken material may also be employed in reading or self examination.
As a listener, it is important to think and apply the same good sense you use in everyday survival to every area of your life. It is tragic that so many choose to set aside their reasoning skills in large, important areas of life and, instead, settle for being manipulated -- for uncritically adopting someone else's pre-packaged viewpoints. It may be easy, comfortable and pleasant to allow others to do your thinking, but it is neither wise nor commendable. Since this is neither a book on logic nor a public speaking primer, the main focus will be on flaws, both on the speaker's part and in the way audiences behave.
Sociologists have conclusively shown in study after study, that people tend to be influenced more by how something is said, than what is actually said. We tend to respond emotionally, instead of logically, particularly when in a group listening situation where there is neither debate, nor opportunity to question.
The main goal of any kind of public speaking is to lead an audience to adopt the speaker's preconceived view, in part or in total. Think about the terms you've commonly heard used to describe polished speakers: "Captivating," "motivating," "mesmerizing," "enthralling," "moving," "charming," "seductive," "enchanting" -- all of which refer to being under the control of the speaker; "Dynamic," "profound," "great," "deep" -- which connote the speaker's authority and superiority with relationship to his audience; "Awesome," "divine," "charismatic," "wonderful," "phenomenal," "spectacular," "amazing," "extraordinary," "marvelous" -- which describe the speaker as having at least superhuman ability; and/or "Fantastic," "unbelievable," "unreal," "fabulous," "incredible" -- the original definitions of which meant to expose the speaker as being too polished to be true or trusted. While many con-artists find rich pickings the use of oratorical and logical tricks, this is not to suggest that every speaker who misleads his/her audience does so intentionally. But, unfortunately, as long as audiences respond to being manipulated, there will be those who will manipulate. Nevertheless, in order to retain any kind of standard of sound thinking, the observant listener must never lose sight of the speaker's objective (whatever his/her motive) and resist being "taken captive." And ideally we should be particularly wary of those speakers with whom we are most inclined to identify and agree.
Although many of the following principles can well be used to identify flaws in the arguments presented in debates or discussions, they should come into play most forcefully and be used as necessary tools, in listening to monologue presentations. Debate and discussion, unless venally contrived, by their very nature tend to present more than one side of issues and air objections to and flaws in the arguments presented. These safeguards are completely lacking when the speech is delivered from the dais, pulpit or rostrum. Monologue oratory inherently raises the speaker to a position of authority, both physically by putting him/her in front of and above the audience (either by standing or on a platform) and psychologically (by the lack of challenge on the part of the "awed" listeners).
Modern society and education have generally neglected inculcating critical listening skills, with results that are everywhere evident and predictable. Politicians no longer debate issues, but react to constituent predispositions and emotions; the religious do not seek or follow God, but rather artful oratory and platitudes; moral standards are discarded in favor of situational ethics; absolute truth has been replaced with circumstantial plausibilities; individuality and independence have mostly become empty cliche‚s, masking conformity and subordination to peer values. And people are content with this garbage! Most members of any audience attend because they expect that what they've come to hear will affirm their basic prejudices, beliefs and values, and that they will get some sort of enjoyment from the process. The lecturer is quite aware of this, and knows that he must please the listeners in order to lead them into accepting his/her propositions. And the fact that people usually operate under the assumption that those who are misled into wrong beliefs are always members of some other group, makes the lecturer's job all the easier. While there is always a great, natural reluctance to question ourselves and those who we allow to take positions of authority over us, lack of examination does not lead us closer to truth, no matter how content we may become in our delusions.
Hopefully, by being aware of some of the methods used, you will be better prepared to defend yourself against those who, intentionally or otherwise, peddle error to the unsuspecting and irresponsible.
Preliminary Questions
Before anyone submits himself/herself to the influence of a speaker, two questions should be answered regarding the reasons for giving up control and the importance of any effects the experience might produce.
1. Do I want to place myself under this speaker's influence ...
* To be entertained?
* Because my interest has been piqued? (advertising)
* To be informed? (authority figure on subject)
* To be emotionally moved?
* Because I'm frugal? (it's a free lecture or I've paid for tickets)
* To avoid reality? (comforted by reaffirmation of your views)
* To be liked? (approval, win friends)
* In expectation of a reward?
* To show solidarity with speaker/leader? (political rally)
2. Do I regard potential import of the experience to affect my life as ...
* Possibly enhancing my life?
* Interesting but trivial?
* Merely amusing?
* A life or death matter?
* Useful, but not vital?
* Perhaps affecting my outlook or relationship with others?
The answers you choose should determine how much control and credulity you are willing to suspend. The more important your reason for attending, the more you must be prepared to critically examine what you are being told. You are placing yourself in a situation where you are allowing others to manipulate you (for good or ill) and must consciously make a point to exercise discernment.
You don't necessarily need to be as certain that a speaker is making accurate, logical and valid statements if your sole purpose is to listen for entertainment (to a comedian for instance) where the import of the experience consists entirely of transitory amusement. On the other hand, if the subject deals with survival skills, religion or your finances, it would be reckless to neglect a careful examination of the truth, logic and quality of the speaker's statements.
If you have decided that it will be profitable to attend a discourse on some important subject, you must be prepared to examine how the main point or points are supported and the validity of each justification given. This implies some knowledge and preparation on your part. Half truths and unsound logic are only acceptable substitutes for facts and sound reasoning in fairy tales or fiction.
Be Wary of Oratorical Techniques
Many of the devices used by speakers can be found in books and courses dealing with propaganda, rhetoric, debate, and public speaking. You may also be able to catch many techniques by dispassionately dissecting advertising materials, political arguments, etc. The following does not purport to be an all-inclusive survey of methods used.
Many of the methods listed below are used (either singly or in combination) by speakers to increase their effectiveness, that is, to more easily convince the audience that the position being promoted is reasonable and true. The problem here is that none of these techniques actually support the validity of any speaker's argument, and in fact, are only used to disguise weaknesses and falsehoods by getting the audience to accept what is said uncritically. Instead of informing and getting truth across, such a speaker settles for inflaming or deceiving the listener. The audience leaves, perhaps thinking that something has been learned and proven, yet in reality, they are probably as ignorant or more ignorant of the truth than when they arrived. Some of the techniques of delivery covered in this section have counterparts under the subsequent heading dealing with logical fallacies. An oratorical trick is used to disarm an audience's exercise of its powers of discrimination. The logical trap is a system to introduce, disguise or justify falsehood.
Sophistry - This is the use of specious, yet ultimately erroneous and/or misleading, argument in a display of the speaker's capacity for ingenious reasoning and ability to manipulate the audience with clever arguments. One who uses sophistic tricks is more concerned with the overall effect produced in the audience than in the accuracy and validity of his or her arguments. An expert "sophist" may be a dazzling, moving speaker; but the message delivered is actually empty or fraudulent.
Pre-empting Objections - This procedure is often used by cults to provide answers to valid criticisms of the position/doctrine. This insulates the cult member from outside influences, and usually helps to alienate the member from those outside the group. Thus dependence on the group represented by the speaker is reinforced.
Citing Established Prejudices and Error as Fact - This identifies the speaker with the audience and often plays to audience insecurities about the validity of their tenets. Assumption that a prejudice or widely believed error is valid may please an audience, but annuls the argument and calls the speaker's integrity into question.
Audience Agreement Solicited - An effective speaker will often research group prejudices and use this information to formulate a series of statements with which the audience will readily agree. Directly or indirectly, some sort of confirmation will be expected (a show of hands, dead silence, an "amen," nodding heads, a laugh, etc.) to reinforce group conformity. This makes it seem to the individual audience member that the speaker has the entire support and agreement of the audience, making it extraordinarily difficult to dissent (see Group Dynamics heading below). Once the speaker has the audience in a pattern of agreement, he/she can easily introduce and peddle controversial or heretical viewpoints that the audience would otherwise be adverse to tolerating. Since it is assumed that the whole group agrees with the speaker, rarely does anyone dare to object, thus strengthening the effect.
Use of "We" - Sometimes referred to as "royal we," this venerable device allows the orator to speak for the audience and imply agreement. The audience usually follows along (see Audience agreement above). When used to excess, this appears slightly dated and ridiculous, but it is still commonly, and very effectively employed when used subtly and in moderation.
Fast Talk - Humans need time to examine what is being said. If one loses ability to apprehend the soundness of the speaker's supporting premises, the tendency is to accept them as valid by default, especially if the speaker has established himself in the eyes of the audience as an authority figure or is perceived as having the agreement of the group.
Ritual - The same sequence of events repeated is known as ritual. This need not have religious overtones, the format of a meeting or how a meal is taken can be considered rituals. This can also be extended to repetitive phrases. Ritual inevitably produces monotony which, over time, exercises an almost hypnotic effect. Most people who drive the same route to work or market have experienced times when they cannot remember if they had stopped at a particular light or noticed other important features during a portion of the trip. This occurs because the routine has become so familiar (a ritual) that the brain slips into an "automatic" mode which trivializes important, repeated occurrences and can make the extraordinary commonplace. The mind in such a situation discards stimuli which it has recorded from past experience. The danger here is the assumption that warning beacons are being noted, when in fact they may not be coming at all into play. Hence, error can slip unnoticed into an individual's conclusions.
Praise/Flattery - Congratulating or praising the group or individual is an effective way of stifling dissent. Most people feel disloyal in criticizing someone who has held them up to high regard, and vaguely sense that condemning a speaker who has praised them publicly will, inevitably, seem to reflect on their own credibility. An example of a listener's thought process might be: The speaker commends me, I accept the commendation, therefore the speaker and I agree. If I criticize the speaker I am criticizing those who agree with the speaker, therefore I am seen to criticize myself. Our vanity predisposes us to take the easy road and dispose with our objections, thus not tainting the praise or the praise-giver.
Stereotyping - This is a useful speaker's tool which is often misused. Reducing complex situations to easily grasped concepts, speakers will often generalize categories and groups as holding characteristics in common. This, at best, falls short of complete accuracy and can easily be used to mislead. Stereotypes should be identified and avoided by the listener, as they almost always set up a false premise. The more important the subject at hand, the more necessary it is to root out these categorizations. Acceptance of a stereotype as being true is known as a prejudice. These generalizations are often used to reinforce group solidarity by setting up agreement in opposing others (usually to whom are attributed "bad" characteristics) who supposedly disagree. This produces an us-versus-them reaction which can be used to slander other tenets supposedly held by the opposition the speaker has invented.
Emotional Delivery - Anger/hate/pity/shame/love/fear. Emotions are not facts, yet can be used in place of facts by a skilled speaker. A highly emotional appeal can move individuals and groups to abandon their discrimination. The emotion evoked becomes the "message" and the audience takes in the speaker's points indiscriminately. This can be a particularly effective trap in group situations. Usually, the speaker (who will have already established a pattern of audience agreement) will initiate the response by a verbal display of the desired emotion, counting on the listeners' empathy to reflect his/her prompting. The response is enhanced by fellow audience members. Thus an emotional, not logical, sequence produces the effect and affirmation of the speaker's position. Such contrived, yet shared, emotions often leave the audience with a sense of common purpose or "brotherhood" quite independent of the message delivered. Many wildly popular speakers ranging from television preachers to Adolf Hitler have displayed a well developed talent for producing emotional responses in an audience at will (from compulsion to hysteria).
There is a correct use for emotional content in public speaking, but it has no place in the process of arguing a case or informing. Once the facts have been logically and unimpeachably established, then an emotional appeal can be a powerful motivator to action. It is unfortunate that few speakers limit emotion to its proper place, and instead, substitute it for facts, use it to disguise false or vapid reasoning, or to lull the audience to complaisant acceptance. Substituting propaganda for rational reasoning and emotional appeals for proof is a technique used by speakers who regard the audience as little more than children incapable of understanding, and/or who wish to keep them in an ignorant or deluded state.
Ridicule - Often used (humorously or not) to reinforce stereotypes (see above). Can also be used to suppress dissenters by identifying them with groups holding views antagonistic to those held by the audience. Ridicule, which relies on supposition, prejudice and group influences, is not the same as a logical refutation. Sometimes, ridicule will be slipped into a positive assertion: e.g., "No one in his right mind would support the mayor's expensive highway proposal." In this example, opponents are personally tainted as to their mental competence, when the issue at hand is actually the highway proposal.
Glib Generalities - An assumption that, because one or more premises in an opposing view are wrong -- all the other supporting premises in that view are automatically invalidated, is an easily employed stereotyping device (see above), particularly in monologue situations where rebuttal or defense by a member of the opposition is not allowed. Actually, all that disproving one or more supports shows is that an argument has been shakily constructed. Conversely, just because it has been shown that one or more pillars of a position are unquestionably valid, this of itself does not warrant acceptance of either the position or its other supporting premises. We humans can be lazy thinkers, particularly when we are rushed to form conclusions without adequate examination. It is all too easy to latch onto a proven fallacious support and presume both conclusion and any support for that conclusion are also false.
Rhetoric - A method of speaking and writing characterized by the use of figures of speech, flowery language, and/or exaggeration. As with the sophist, the speaker using rhetorical techniques is more concerned with producing an effect in the audience than with making an accurate and logical presentation.
The Rhetorical Question - A rhetorical question is a device used to produce an effect in the audience, and is not intended to prompt an answer. This ploy is widely used to elicit audience agreement (see above) or an emotional response. Rhetorical questions often presuppose apparent, prejudiced or previously supplied responses on the part of the audience. This allows the audience to feel good about being "right" and the speaker to look good for backing up the audience's viewpoint. Other than show, this ploy adds nothing of substance to the speaker's argument and should be discounted. Unanswered questions say nothing.
Outrageous Statements - A strategy which is used to introduce error or get the audience to accept a "lesser evil." Typically, the outrageous statement will be followed up by a premise the audience would not otherwise be prepared to accept, but couched in vague and/or reassuring terms. Skillfully employed, this causes the audience to lose discrimination and sense of proportion. The outrageous statement itself loses its impact when repeated, and may itself eventually be rendered palatable.
Humor - In approaching strange situations or persons, people are naturally cautious. Humor is a recognized method for getting audiences to drop their natural defensiveness. Amusing anecdotes prompt the audience to identify with the speaker.
Rhyming, Rhythmic and/or Monotonous Style - An ancient mnemonic device which can have much the same effect as ritual (see above) in a shorter time frame. Hypnotists use this device for gaining the confidence of patients and implanting subconscious messages. If the speaker is subtle enough, one may not realize the use of this technique until one detects it in a parody, children's parroting, or a foreign speaker.
Bait-and-Switch - A notorious ploy, which can nevertheless be successful in the hands of a skilled technician, this is to present an attractive proposal the speaker knows is desired by the listeners and then to subtly denigrate it to the point where a less palatable (or less valid) point of view can be accepted by the audience. E.g., Feeding starving children may be the theme of a fund raiser, but the speaker may wish instead to convince the donors to contribute to funding a new organizational headquarters building on the premise that the foundation cannot reach more starving children without the office space.
Rationalization - Explaining away logical errors or weak points detrimental to speaker's case by using invalid comparisons or constructing twisted arguments. Although rationalization can be sold to an audience, its appearance will be avoided by most speakers -- fraudulent proofs usually being more effective, simpler to present and easier to disguise. Having to offer excuses for a position, instead of presenting unassailable supporting facts, is a strong signal that the speaker's case is very seriously flawed.
Jargon - Overloading the audience with undefined concepts and terminology (jargon) is often used in weak portions of an argument. A speaker should avoid use of shorthand terms with which the audience is unfamiliar. When esoteric abbreviations, words or phrases must be used, the speaker has a responsibility to define these usages. Jargon is usually employed sparingly in order to disguise weaknesses (after all, it's hard to refute what you don't understand) or make the speaker look knowledgeable. Over-use is normally avoided as this may cause the audience to become distracted or nod off.
Wandering Definitions - Words should be used in the same sense of meaning throughout a discourse. When the same term is used to indicate different things or concepts, the audience becomes bogged down as it soon becomes impossible to examine what is being said. E.g., a cleric might use the term "divine" to describe godhood at one point and later refer to Biblical passages in which angels are called "divine beings," confounding the first point.
Use of Invalid Analogy - An analogy should compare two entirely equal cases. Thus the properties of one object can be extrapolated from the actions of an identical object performing under identical conditions. This is terribly easy to abuse. Many objects or conditions which seem the same are often subtly different, thus rendering the analogy false. Be very careful of being persuaded to draw any conclusion from such fault-prone presentations!
Analogy is often used to introduce a pattern of reasoning. The example is not part of the argument, nor is it a proof. It also does not necessarily mean that the subject at hand can be proven in the same manner. Analogy is sometimes used to suggest that reasonable alternatives to certain statements or conditions might exist, without proving that the alternatives represent actual situations or possibilities.
Use of Anecdotal Instead of Hard Evidences - Faulty logic and lack of supporting evidences can be effectively disguised by telling a story in order to produce the same effect in the audience as would the speaker's argument, had it been valid. By introducing a contrived comparison between the faulty argument and a plausible story or example, a speaker avoids exposing the erroneous assertion to examination. Factual arguments should stand on their own logical merit and evidences, not on example stories.
Similarly, a real-life occurrence is often used as evidence to support an argument being true. This is a form of faulty generalization -- arguing that because something occurred when a certain factor was present, that factor must have been instrumental in producing the occurrence. E.g., False medical claims are often based on instances of people feeling better or getting well when they follow a certain regimen. However, to prove that the regimen cured the disease, science demands that rigorous double-blind testing show that more people get better who actually undergo the treatment than get better when undertaking a placebo treatment.
The "Straw Man" Ploy - Setting up a weak opposing view that can easily be destroyed by the speaker is an old debater's trick that sidetracks the audience from the question at hand, and makes the speaker look good. This enhances the speaker's perceived authority and suppresses objections.
Audience Plants - Where institutionalized, this ploy is also known popularly as the "cheerleading section," "amen corner," etc. It is a method of getting audience agreement (see above) where the disposition of the audience may be unknown, skeptical or hostile. It is also used to reinforce solidarity in an audience which is favorably disposed. By instantly providing agreement responses, these agents give the impression of agreement and stimulate others to follow suit. People in group situations are unlikely to object and risk calling down the wrath of any group especially when outnumbered. It is far easier to conform with the perceived speaker/group's ideals. Take note of who starts the applause, the agreeing, etc.
Demagoguery - This ploy is represented by an often emotional, often loud appeal to audience preconceptions, prejudice and emotions (see Audience agreement above).
Red Herring - When a dangerously weak or false position may be vulnerable, a closely related story or subject will be introduced and used to throw the audience off track and lead them onto some other train of thought. The term is derived from the practice of dragging a fish across a trail to divert bloodhounds or hunting dogs from discovering the quarry.
False Humility - Some speakers will cite their poverty, adopt a homey or ignorant demeanor, etc. in an attempt to enable the audience to more readily identify ("relate to") with him/her. The speaker will usually assert an authoritarian tone or attitude later in the presentation in order to drive home the real message.
The Big Lie - This term comes via Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and refers to repeating a grossly false conclusion and its contrived supporting premises so often that they are accepted as factual. At a future point, these newly minted "truths" can be called into play to support actions or even greater lies. This can be seen in cult groups which, despite clear evidence to the contrary that the tenets are false, accept "on faith" tenets which have become ingrained in the members' thinking through "brain washing" techniques. Note, however, that any lie must contain at least a bit of truth, or it will not be seen as plausible -- in fact, a lie can consist entirely of truisms, but stated in a logically twisted way.
Double Talk and Double Speak - This is speech which seems to be meaningful and in earnest, but is actually a conglomeration of sound reasoning, nonsense and contradiction. It is often inflated, ambiguous and intricately constructed.
New Speak - Similar to double talk, this Orwellian term is used for the practice of substituting soothing, positive and/or ambiguous terminology for unpleasant or disturbing fact. The specific object is to prevent opposition and limit the scope of (or prevent) audience thought. E.g., In the 1980's, the Pentagon requested funding, not for neutron bombs, but for "radiation enhancement devices."
Mercenary Statements - Statements that are perfectly true can be used in an illogical fashion to leave the listener with an entirely false impression. In itself, this type of statement is useless unless the listener inserts the desired connotation. E.g., "Last month Susan didn't steal anything at all." -- implying that she is used to stealing. Or how about "Our church doesn't condone human sacrifice" -- implying others do.
Interpretation - It is nearly impossible in restating someone else's point of view not to insert a different emphasis or twist the meaning. It should be obvious that reference should be avoided to any statement that cannot stand on its own logic and factualness. If a statement attributed to another is soundly framed and factual, it should be allowed to stand as is. To interpret it is to put words in another's mouth. A speaker who gives his/her version of what someone (another authority) has said is committing a couple of logical errors up front (trying to avoid proving the position to be proved, and/or citing that person's opinion in an excerpted, bastardized form which does not permit audience examination of the validity or truth of the original argument). In any case, the interpretation prejudices the audience to adopt a certain view or reading as to what the original actually said (see Pre-empting objections above).
This post was apparently too large, so I have to put it into two. I used all three to/too/twos in that last sentence. And that last one also, but I expect it doesn't count.
One more day of classes and just one more test after that....
((here is the link if you want proper emphasis: http://workersect.org/2x205s.html))
In order to avoid being taken in by slick presentations, unsound reasoning and subtle falsehood, it is important to acquire an understanding of the persuasion techniques commonly employed. Listed below are certain methods that have been (and are) used by speakers to convince, and often mislead, individuals and groups. Unfortunately, modern listeners seldom have any educational background in logical criticism or oratorical techniques, and are all too often vulnerable to and unaware of the traps being laid for them. Though this article focuses on developing listening skills, the same critical processes which can be used to analyze the validity of spoken material may also be employed in reading or self examination.
As a listener, it is important to think and apply the same good sense you use in everyday survival to every area of your life. It is tragic that so many choose to set aside their reasoning skills in large, important areas of life and, instead, settle for being manipulated -- for uncritically adopting someone else's pre-packaged viewpoints. It may be easy, comfortable and pleasant to allow others to do your thinking, but it is neither wise nor commendable. Since this is neither a book on logic nor a public speaking primer, the main focus will be on flaws, both on the speaker's part and in the way audiences behave.
Sociologists have conclusively shown in study after study, that people tend to be influenced more by how something is said, than what is actually said. We tend to respond emotionally, instead of logically, particularly when in a group listening situation where there is neither debate, nor opportunity to question.
The main goal of any kind of public speaking is to lead an audience to adopt the speaker's preconceived view, in part or in total. Think about the terms you've commonly heard used to describe polished speakers: "Captivating," "motivating," "mesmerizing," "enthralling," "moving," "charming," "seductive," "enchanting" -- all of which refer to being under the control of the speaker; "Dynamic," "profound," "great," "deep" -- which connote the speaker's authority and superiority with relationship to his audience; "Awesome," "divine," "charismatic," "wonderful," "phenomenal," "spectacular," "amazing," "extraordinary," "marvelous" -- which describe the speaker as having at least superhuman ability; and/or "Fantastic," "unbelievable," "unreal," "fabulous," "incredible" -- the original definitions of which meant to expose the speaker as being too polished to be true or trusted. While many con-artists find rich pickings the use of oratorical and logical tricks, this is not to suggest that every speaker who misleads his/her audience does so intentionally. But, unfortunately, as long as audiences respond to being manipulated, there will be those who will manipulate. Nevertheless, in order to retain any kind of standard of sound thinking, the observant listener must never lose sight of the speaker's objective (whatever his/her motive) and resist being "taken captive." And ideally we should be particularly wary of those speakers with whom we are most inclined to identify and agree.
Although many of the following principles can well be used to identify flaws in the arguments presented in debates or discussions, they should come into play most forcefully and be used as necessary tools, in listening to monologue presentations. Debate and discussion, unless venally contrived, by their very nature tend to present more than one side of issues and air objections to and flaws in the arguments presented. These safeguards are completely lacking when the speech is delivered from the dais, pulpit or rostrum. Monologue oratory inherently raises the speaker to a position of authority, both physically by putting him/her in front of and above the audience (either by standing or on a platform) and psychologically (by the lack of challenge on the part of the "awed" listeners).
Modern society and education have generally neglected inculcating critical listening skills, with results that are everywhere evident and predictable. Politicians no longer debate issues, but react to constituent predispositions and emotions; the religious do not seek or follow God, but rather artful oratory and platitudes; moral standards are discarded in favor of situational ethics; absolute truth has been replaced with circumstantial plausibilities; individuality and independence have mostly become empty cliche‚s, masking conformity and subordination to peer values. And people are content with this garbage! Most members of any audience attend because they expect that what they've come to hear will affirm their basic prejudices, beliefs and values, and that they will get some sort of enjoyment from the process. The lecturer is quite aware of this, and knows that he must please the listeners in order to lead them into accepting his/her propositions. And the fact that people usually operate under the assumption that those who are misled into wrong beliefs are always members of some other group, makes the lecturer's job all the easier. While there is always a great, natural reluctance to question ourselves and those who we allow to take positions of authority over us, lack of examination does not lead us closer to truth, no matter how content we may become in our delusions.
Hopefully, by being aware of some of the methods used, you will be better prepared to defend yourself against those who, intentionally or otherwise, peddle error to the unsuspecting and irresponsible.
Preliminary Questions
Before anyone submits himself/herself to the influence of a speaker, two questions should be answered regarding the reasons for giving up control and the importance of any effects the experience might produce.
1. Do I want to place myself under this speaker's influence ...
* To be entertained?
* Because my interest has been piqued? (advertising)
* To be informed? (authority figure on subject)
* To be emotionally moved?
* Because I'm frugal? (it's a free lecture or I've paid for tickets)
* To avoid reality? (comforted by reaffirmation of your views)
* To be liked? (approval, win friends)
* In expectation of a reward?
* To show solidarity with speaker/leader? (political rally)
2. Do I regard potential import of the experience to affect my life as ...
* Possibly enhancing my life?
* Interesting but trivial?
* Merely amusing?
* A life or death matter?
* Useful, but not vital?
* Perhaps affecting my outlook or relationship with others?
The answers you choose should determine how much control and credulity you are willing to suspend. The more important your reason for attending, the more you must be prepared to critically examine what you are being told. You are placing yourself in a situation where you are allowing others to manipulate you (for good or ill) and must consciously make a point to exercise discernment.
You don't necessarily need to be as certain that a speaker is making accurate, logical and valid statements if your sole purpose is to listen for entertainment (to a comedian for instance) where the import of the experience consists entirely of transitory amusement. On the other hand, if the subject deals with survival skills, religion or your finances, it would be reckless to neglect a careful examination of the truth, logic and quality of the speaker's statements.
If you have decided that it will be profitable to attend a discourse on some important subject, you must be prepared to examine how the main point or points are supported and the validity of each justification given. This implies some knowledge and preparation on your part. Half truths and unsound logic are only acceptable substitutes for facts and sound reasoning in fairy tales or fiction.
Be Wary of Oratorical Techniques
Many of the devices used by speakers can be found in books and courses dealing with propaganda, rhetoric, debate, and public speaking. You may also be able to catch many techniques by dispassionately dissecting advertising materials, political arguments, etc. The following does not purport to be an all-inclusive survey of methods used.
Many of the methods listed below are used (either singly or in combination) by speakers to increase their effectiveness, that is, to more easily convince the audience that the position being promoted is reasonable and true. The problem here is that none of these techniques actually support the validity of any speaker's argument, and in fact, are only used to disguise weaknesses and falsehoods by getting the audience to accept what is said uncritically. Instead of informing and getting truth across, such a speaker settles for inflaming or deceiving the listener. The audience leaves, perhaps thinking that something has been learned and proven, yet in reality, they are probably as ignorant or more ignorant of the truth than when they arrived. Some of the techniques of delivery covered in this section have counterparts under the subsequent heading dealing with logical fallacies. An oratorical trick is used to disarm an audience's exercise of its powers of discrimination. The logical trap is a system to introduce, disguise or justify falsehood.
Sophistry - This is the use of specious, yet ultimately erroneous and/or misleading, argument in a display of the speaker's capacity for ingenious reasoning and ability to manipulate the audience with clever arguments. One who uses sophistic tricks is more concerned with the overall effect produced in the audience than in the accuracy and validity of his or her arguments. An expert "sophist" may be a dazzling, moving speaker; but the message delivered is actually empty or fraudulent.
Pre-empting Objections - This procedure is often used by cults to provide answers to valid criticisms of the position/doctrine. This insulates the cult member from outside influences, and usually helps to alienate the member from those outside the group. Thus dependence on the group represented by the speaker is reinforced.
Citing Established Prejudices and Error as Fact - This identifies the speaker with the audience and often plays to audience insecurities about the validity of their tenets. Assumption that a prejudice or widely believed error is valid may please an audience, but annuls the argument and calls the speaker's integrity into question.
Audience Agreement Solicited - An effective speaker will often research group prejudices and use this information to formulate a series of statements with which the audience will readily agree. Directly or indirectly, some sort of confirmation will be expected (a show of hands, dead silence, an "amen," nodding heads, a laugh, etc.) to reinforce group conformity. This makes it seem to the individual audience member that the speaker has the entire support and agreement of the audience, making it extraordinarily difficult to dissent (see Group Dynamics heading below). Once the speaker has the audience in a pattern of agreement, he/she can easily introduce and peddle controversial or heretical viewpoints that the audience would otherwise be adverse to tolerating. Since it is assumed that the whole group agrees with the speaker, rarely does anyone dare to object, thus strengthening the effect.
Use of "We" - Sometimes referred to as "royal we," this venerable device allows the orator to speak for the audience and imply agreement. The audience usually follows along (see Audience agreement above). When used to excess, this appears slightly dated and ridiculous, but it is still commonly, and very effectively employed when used subtly and in moderation.
Fast Talk - Humans need time to examine what is being said. If one loses ability to apprehend the soundness of the speaker's supporting premises, the tendency is to accept them as valid by default, especially if the speaker has established himself in the eyes of the audience as an authority figure or is perceived as having the agreement of the group.
Ritual - The same sequence of events repeated is known as ritual. This need not have religious overtones, the format of a meeting or how a meal is taken can be considered rituals. This can also be extended to repetitive phrases. Ritual inevitably produces monotony which, over time, exercises an almost hypnotic effect. Most people who drive the same route to work or market have experienced times when they cannot remember if they had stopped at a particular light or noticed other important features during a portion of the trip. This occurs because the routine has become so familiar (a ritual) that the brain slips into an "automatic" mode which trivializes important, repeated occurrences and can make the extraordinary commonplace. The mind in such a situation discards stimuli which it has recorded from past experience. The danger here is the assumption that warning beacons are being noted, when in fact they may not be coming at all into play. Hence, error can slip unnoticed into an individual's conclusions.
Praise/Flattery - Congratulating or praising the group or individual is an effective way of stifling dissent. Most people feel disloyal in criticizing someone who has held them up to high regard, and vaguely sense that condemning a speaker who has praised them publicly will, inevitably, seem to reflect on their own credibility. An example of a listener's thought process might be: The speaker commends me, I accept the commendation, therefore the speaker and I agree. If I criticize the speaker I am criticizing those who agree with the speaker, therefore I am seen to criticize myself. Our vanity predisposes us to take the easy road and dispose with our objections, thus not tainting the praise or the praise-giver.
Stereotyping - This is a useful speaker's tool which is often misused. Reducing complex situations to easily grasped concepts, speakers will often generalize categories and groups as holding characteristics in common. This, at best, falls short of complete accuracy and can easily be used to mislead. Stereotypes should be identified and avoided by the listener, as they almost always set up a false premise. The more important the subject at hand, the more necessary it is to root out these categorizations. Acceptance of a stereotype as being true is known as a prejudice. These generalizations are often used to reinforce group solidarity by setting up agreement in opposing others (usually to whom are attributed "bad" characteristics) who supposedly disagree. This produces an us-versus-them reaction which can be used to slander other tenets supposedly held by the opposition the speaker has invented.
Emotional Delivery - Anger/hate/pity/shame/love/fear. Emotions are not facts, yet can be used in place of facts by a skilled speaker. A highly emotional appeal can move individuals and groups to abandon their discrimination. The emotion evoked becomes the "message" and the audience takes in the speaker's points indiscriminately. This can be a particularly effective trap in group situations. Usually, the speaker (who will have already established a pattern of audience agreement) will initiate the response by a verbal display of the desired emotion, counting on the listeners' empathy to reflect his/her prompting. The response is enhanced by fellow audience members. Thus an emotional, not logical, sequence produces the effect and affirmation of the speaker's position. Such contrived, yet shared, emotions often leave the audience with a sense of common purpose or "brotherhood" quite independent of the message delivered. Many wildly popular speakers ranging from television preachers to Adolf Hitler have displayed a well developed talent for producing emotional responses in an audience at will (from compulsion to hysteria).
There is a correct use for emotional content in public speaking, but it has no place in the process of arguing a case or informing. Once the facts have been logically and unimpeachably established, then an emotional appeal can be a powerful motivator to action. It is unfortunate that few speakers limit emotion to its proper place, and instead, substitute it for facts, use it to disguise false or vapid reasoning, or to lull the audience to complaisant acceptance. Substituting propaganda for rational reasoning and emotional appeals for proof is a technique used by speakers who regard the audience as little more than children incapable of understanding, and/or who wish to keep them in an ignorant or deluded state.
Ridicule - Often used (humorously or not) to reinforce stereotypes (see above). Can also be used to suppress dissenters by identifying them with groups holding views antagonistic to those held by the audience. Ridicule, which relies on supposition, prejudice and group influences, is not the same as a logical refutation. Sometimes, ridicule will be slipped into a positive assertion: e.g., "No one in his right mind would support the mayor's expensive highway proposal." In this example, opponents are personally tainted as to their mental competence, when the issue at hand is actually the highway proposal.
Glib Generalities - An assumption that, because one or more premises in an opposing view are wrong -- all the other supporting premises in that view are automatically invalidated, is an easily employed stereotyping device (see above), particularly in monologue situations where rebuttal or defense by a member of the opposition is not allowed. Actually, all that disproving one or more supports shows is that an argument has been shakily constructed. Conversely, just because it has been shown that one or more pillars of a position are unquestionably valid, this of itself does not warrant acceptance of either the position or its other supporting premises. We humans can be lazy thinkers, particularly when we are rushed to form conclusions without adequate examination. It is all too easy to latch onto a proven fallacious support and presume both conclusion and any support for that conclusion are also false.
Rhetoric - A method of speaking and writing characterized by the use of figures of speech, flowery language, and/or exaggeration. As with the sophist, the speaker using rhetorical techniques is more concerned with producing an effect in the audience than with making an accurate and logical presentation.
The Rhetorical Question - A rhetorical question is a device used to produce an effect in the audience, and is not intended to prompt an answer. This ploy is widely used to elicit audience agreement (see above) or an emotional response. Rhetorical questions often presuppose apparent, prejudiced or previously supplied responses on the part of the audience. This allows the audience to feel good about being "right" and the speaker to look good for backing up the audience's viewpoint. Other than show, this ploy adds nothing of substance to the speaker's argument and should be discounted. Unanswered questions say nothing.
Outrageous Statements - A strategy which is used to introduce error or get the audience to accept a "lesser evil." Typically, the outrageous statement will be followed up by a premise the audience would not otherwise be prepared to accept, but couched in vague and/or reassuring terms. Skillfully employed, this causes the audience to lose discrimination and sense of proportion. The outrageous statement itself loses its impact when repeated, and may itself eventually be rendered palatable.
Humor - In approaching strange situations or persons, people are naturally cautious. Humor is a recognized method for getting audiences to drop their natural defensiveness. Amusing anecdotes prompt the audience to identify with the speaker.
Rhyming, Rhythmic and/or Monotonous Style - An ancient mnemonic device which can have much the same effect as ritual (see above) in a shorter time frame. Hypnotists use this device for gaining the confidence of patients and implanting subconscious messages. If the speaker is subtle enough, one may not realize the use of this technique until one detects it in a parody, children's parroting, or a foreign speaker.
Bait-and-Switch - A notorious ploy, which can nevertheless be successful in the hands of a skilled technician, this is to present an attractive proposal the speaker knows is desired by the listeners and then to subtly denigrate it to the point where a less palatable (or less valid) point of view can be accepted by the audience. E.g., Feeding starving children may be the theme of a fund raiser, but the speaker may wish instead to convince the donors to contribute to funding a new organizational headquarters building on the premise that the foundation cannot reach more starving children without the office space.
Rationalization - Explaining away logical errors or weak points detrimental to speaker's case by using invalid comparisons or constructing twisted arguments. Although rationalization can be sold to an audience, its appearance will be avoided by most speakers -- fraudulent proofs usually being more effective, simpler to present and easier to disguise. Having to offer excuses for a position, instead of presenting unassailable supporting facts, is a strong signal that the speaker's case is very seriously flawed.
Jargon - Overloading the audience with undefined concepts and terminology (jargon) is often used in weak portions of an argument. A speaker should avoid use of shorthand terms with which the audience is unfamiliar. When esoteric abbreviations, words or phrases must be used, the speaker has a responsibility to define these usages. Jargon is usually employed sparingly in order to disguise weaknesses (after all, it's hard to refute what you don't understand) or make the speaker look knowledgeable. Over-use is normally avoided as this may cause the audience to become distracted or nod off.
Wandering Definitions - Words should be used in the same sense of meaning throughout a discourse. When the same term is used to indicate different things or concepts, the audience becomes bogged down as it soon becomes impossible to examine what is being said. E.g., a cleric might use the term "divine" to describe godhood at one point and later refer to Biblical passages in which angels are called "divine beings," confounding the first point.
Use of Invalid Analogy - An analogy should compare two entirely equal cases. Thus the properties of one object can be extrapolated from the actions of an identical object performing under identical conditions. This is terribly easy to abuse. Many objects or conditions which seem the same are often subtly different, thus rendering the analogy false. Be very careful of being persuaded to draw any conclusion from such fault-prone presentations!
Analogy is often used to introduce a pattern of reasoning. The example is not part of the argument, nor is it a proof. It also does not necessarily mean that the subject at hand can be proven in the same manner. Analogy is sometimes used to suggest that reasonable alternatives to certain statements or conditions might exist, without proving that the alternatives represent actual situations or possibilities.
Use of Anecdotal Instead of Hard Evidences - Faulty logic and lack of supporting evidences can be effectively disguised by telling a story in order to produce the same effect in the audience as would the speaker's argument, had it been valid. By introducing a contrived comparison between the faulty argument and a plausible story or example, a speaker avoids exposing the erroneous assertion to examination. Factual arguments should stand on their own logical merit and evidences, not on example stories.
Similarly, a real-life occurrence is often used as evidence to support an argument being true. This is a form of faulty generalization -- arguing that because something occurred when a certain factor was present, that factor must have been instrumental in producing the occurrence. E.g., False medical claims are often based on instances of people feeling better or getting well when they follow a certain regimen. However, to prove that the regimen cured the disease, science demands that rigorous double-blind testing show that more people get better who actually undergo the treatment than get better when undertaking a placebo treatment.
The "Straw Man" Ploy - Setting up a weak opposing view that can easily be destroyed by the speaker is an old debater's trick that sidetracks the audience from the question at hand, and makes the speaker look good. This enhances the speaker's perceived authority and suppresses objections.
Audience Plants - Where institutionalized, this ploy is also known popularly as the "cheerleading section," "amen corner," etc. It is a method of getting audience agreement (see above) where the disposition of the audience may be unknown, skeptical or hostile. It is also used to reinforce solidarity in an audience which is favorably disposed. By instantly providing agreement responses, these agents give the impression of agreement and stimulate others to follow suit. People in group situations are unlikely to object and risk calling down the wrath of any group especially when outnumbered. It is far easier to conform with the perceived speaker/group's ideals. Take note of who starts the applause, the agreeing, etc.
Demagoguery - This ploy is represented by an often emotional, often loud appeal to audience preconceptions, prejudice and emotions (see Audience agreement above).
Red Herring - When a dangerously weak or false position may be vulnerable, a closely related story or subject will be introduced and used to throw the audience off track and lead them onto some other train of thought. The term is derived from the practice of dragging a fish across a trail to divert bloodhounds or hunting dogs from discovering the quarry.
False Humility - Some speakers will cite their poverty, adopt a homey or ignorant demeanor, etc. in an attempt to enable the audience to more readily identify ("relate to") with him/her. The speaker will usually assert an authoritarian tone or attitude later in the presentation in order to drive home the real message.
The Big Lie - This term comes via Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and refers to repeating a grossly false conclusion and its contrived supporting premises so often that they are accepted as factual. At a future point, these newly minted "truths" can be called into play to support actions or even greater lies. This can be seen in cult groups which, despite clear evidence to the contrary that the tenets are false, accept "on faith" tenets which have become ingrained in the members' thinking through "brain washing" techniques. Note, however, that any lie must contain at least a bit of truth, or it will not be seen as plausible -- in fact, a lie can consist entirely of truisms, but stated in a logically twisted way.
Double Talk and Double Speak - This is speech which seems to be meaningful and in earnest, but is actually a conglomeration of sound reasoning, nonsense and contradiction. It is often inflated, ambiguous and intricately constructed.
New Speak - Similar to double talk, this Orwellian term is used for the practice of substituting soothing, positive and/or ambiguous terminology for unpleasant or disturbing fact. The specific object is to prevent opposition and limit the scope of (or prevent) audience thought. E.g., In the 1980's, the Pentagon requested funding, not for neutron bombs, but for "radiation enhancement devices."
Mercenary Statements - Statements that are perfectly true can be used in an illogical fashion to leave the listener with an entirely false impression. In itself, this type of statement is useless unless the listener inserts the desired connotation. E.g., "Last month Susan didn't steal anything at all." -- implying that she is used to stealing. Or how about "Our church doesn't condone human sacrifice" -- implying others do.
Interpretation - It is nearly impossible in restating someone else's point of view not to insert a different emphasis or twist the meaning. It should be obvious that reference should be avoided to any statement that cannot stand on its own logic and factualness. If a statement attributed to another is soundly framed and factual, it should be allowed to stand as is. To interpret it is to put words in another's mouth. A speaker who gives his/her version of what someone (another authority) has said is committing a couple of logical errors up front (trying to avoid proving the position to be proved, and/or citing that person's opinion in an excerpted, bastardized form which does not permit audience examination of the validity or truth of the original argument). In any case, the interpretation prejudices the audience to adopt a certain view or reading as to what the original actually said (see Pre-empting objections above).
This post was apparently too large, so I have to put it into two. I used all three to/too/twos in that last sentence. And that last one also, but I expect it doesn't count.
One more day of classes and just one more test after that....