- Haptics
- Kinesics
- Chronemics
- Paralinguistics
- Proxemics - orientation
Business Gaze v. Social Gaze
Neutralize Head tilting
Mirroring
Nonverbal Messages in Persuasion
The Channels
Business Gaze v. Social Gaze
Neutralize Head tilting
Mirroring
Business Gaze v. Social Gaze
Neutralize Head tilting
Mirroring
Cultural Images and Myths
The Wisdom of the Rustic
Much like The Triumphant Individual, the Wisdom of the Rustic relies on identifying with one who has risen from their humble beginnings. Here the intellectual becomes the brunt of jokes, and the rustic wins over the smart guy. Remember John McCain?
The Possibility of Success
The Coming of a Messiah
The Presence of Conspiracy
The Value of Challenge
The Eternal Return
Reich's Cultural Parables
This depicts America as a beacon light of virtue in a world of darkness, a small island of freedom and democracy in a perilous sea. We are uniquely blessed, the proper model for other peoples' aspirations, the hope of the world's poor and oppressed. The parable gives voice to a corresponding fear: we must beware, lest the forces of darkness overwhelm us. Our liberties are fragile; our openness renders us vulnerable to exploitation or infection from beyond.
It's the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself, and eventually earns wealth, fame, and honor. It's the parable of the self-made man (or, more recently, woman) who bucks the odds, spurns the naysayers, and shows what can be done with enough drive and guts. He's a loner and a maverick, true to himself, plain speaking, self-reliant, uncompromising in his ideals. He gets the job done, not unlike Sergey Bin.
It's neighbors and friends rolling up their sleeves and pitching in to help one another, of self-sacrifice, community pride, and patriotism. It is about Americans' essential generosity and compassion toward those in need.
The fourth parable is about the malevolence If powerful elites, be they wealthy aristocrats, rapacious business leaders, or imperious government officials. The American parable differs subtly but profoundly from a superficially similar European mythology.
Additional Fallacies
1. Hasty/ Sweeping Generalization
Absolute situations are rare. Reality is in degrees.
Avoid: "Everyone has fond memories of high school." "Men are better at sports than women." "All advertising is lies." Be careful with terms like "all", "always", "everybody", "nobody", "none".
2. False Extremes--Either/Or Position
Don't reduce a complex issue to only two possibilities.
Things are seldom black or white. eg. "The department must either raise its grading standards or bury forever the ideal of academic excellence." This is misleading because it ignores the existence of other less extreme possibilities.
3. Straw Man
A straw man argument occurs when you misrepresent an opposing view to make it seem weaker than it is. eg. "Opposition to nuclear weapons testing in Canada is simple anti-Americanism."
4. Circular Reasoning/Vicious Circle
This error occurs when a person restates a generalization as a reason for accepting the same proposition. eg. "Exercise is healthy because your body needs exercise." "The play was popular because the audience liked it"
5. Post Hoc Arguments/Unfounded assumption of cause
This error occurs when a person assumes that because one thing followed another thing the first item caused the second item. or Since 'B' followed 'A', 'A' caused 'B'. eg. "I broke my leg because it was Friday the 13th." "Some students who work part-time fail a course; therefore, working part-time causes students to fail." These are not logical consequences.
6. Two Wrongs
A bad action is not justified by another wrong action. eg. "That chemical company pollutes the river; therefore, we were right to blow it up." "He was a creep, so I will be a creep too."
7. False Analogies
May make strong emotional appeals, but their logic may be weak. Analogy is effective only when there is a basic similarity between compared terms. eg. "University administration argues for new rules because it should be run like a business" But University is not equal to a business.
8. Prediction of Consequences
Be careful when predicting that an act will have positive or negative consequences. ex. 'If you take our course, you too will become rich."
9. False Assumptions
One false assumption can cause all of your arguments following to be invalid. eg. "Without advertising, no cities could exist."
10. Faulty Evidence, Misuse of Authority
Beware or incomplete quotations. eg. The critic said, "Most of the movie was unbelievably bad, but there were a few moments of high comedy." The ad the next day read, "High Comedy"...The Toronto Dispatch.
Watch also for misuse of statistics, skewed samples, and anecdotal information.
11. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Eg. If a famous actress uses Crest toothpaste that has no relation to the quality of the toothpaste. eg. "A man does not beat his wife; therefore, he is a good husband."
12. Begging the Question
When you beg the question you assume the truth of what needs to be proven. eg. A politician says, "Our feeble government, greatly in need of reform must be placed in new hands." eg. A student challenges a "C" grade on the grounds that she is an "A" student. The premise in both of these is what is under question.
13. Ignoring the Question
Sometimes in arguing people raise irrelevant points that distract from the real issue.
A) Red Herring eg. A government defends itself on a charge of corruption by saying that the budget is balanced.
B) Attack The Man/Woman eg. "I'm a liar...so are you." "I'm a crook, well you're a racist." "Your mother wears army boots."
14. Stereotypes
Watch out for any stereotypes. eg. "People such a you..." Ex. "A nurse must check her patients."
15. Argument to Ignorance
Watch out for these types of claims:
It must be true if it hasn't been proven false.
It must be false it hasn't been proven true.
16. Loaded, Leading Question/Fallacy of the Complex
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" This demands a yes or no answer and both are answers may be wrong. Lawyers sometimes try to use these questions.
17. Gambler's Fallacy
"It hasn't happened for a long time; therefore it's bound to happen." or "It keeps happening ; therefore, it will keep happening."
Absolute situations are rare. Reality is in degrees.
Avoid: "Everyone has fond memories of high school." "Men are better at sports than women." "All advertising is lies." Be careful with terms like "all", "always", "everybody", "nobody", "none".
2. False Extremes--Either/Or Position
Don't reduce a complex issue to only two possibilities.
Things are seldom black or white. eg. "The department must either raise its grading standards or bury forever the ideal of academic excellence." This is misleading because it ignores the existence of other less extreme possibilities.
3. Straw Man
A straw man argument occurs when you misrepresent an opposing view to make it seem weaker than it is. eg. "Opposition to nuclear weapons testing in Canada is simple anti-Americanism."
4. Circular Reasoning/Vicious Circle
This error occurs when a person restates a generalization as a reason for accepting the same proposition. eg. "Exercise is healthy because your body needs exercise." "The play was popular because the audience liked it"
5. Post Hoc Arguments/Unfounded assumption of cause
This error occurs when a person assumes that because one thing followed another thing the first item caused the second item. or Since 'B' followed 'A', 'A' caused 'B'. eg. "I broke my leg because it was Friday the 13th." "Some students who work part-time fail a course; therefore, working part-time causes students to fail." These are not logical consequences.
6. Two Wrongs
A bad action is not justified by another wrong action. eg. "That chemical company pollutes the river; therefore, we were right to blow it up." "He was a creep, so I will be a creep too."
7. False Analogies
May make strong emotional appeals, but their logic may be weak. Analogy is effective only when there is a basic similarity between compared terms. eg. "University administration argues for new rules because it should be run like a business" But University is not equal to a business.
8. Prediction of Consequences
Be careful when predicting that an act will have positive or negative consequences. ex. 'If you take our course, you too will become rich."
9. False Assumptions
One false assumption can cause all of your arguments following to be invalid. eg. "Without advertising, no cities could exist."
10. Faulty Evidence, Misuse of Authority
Beware or incomplete quotations. eg. The critic said, "Most of the movie was unbelievably bad, but there were a few moments of high comedy." The ad the next day read, "High Comedy"...The Toronto Dispatch.
Watch also for misuse of statistics, skewed samples, and anecdotal information.
11. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Eg. If a famous actress uses Crest toothpaste that has no relation to the quality of the toothpaste. eg. "A man does not beat his wife; therefore, he is a good husband."
12. Begging the Question
When you beg the question you assume the truth of what needs to be proven. eg. A politician says, "Our feeble government, greatly in need of reform must be placed in new hands." eg. A student challenges a "C" grade on the grounds that she is an "A" student. The premise in both of these is what is under question.
13. Ignoring the Question
Sometimes in arguing people raise irrelevant points that distract from the real issue.
A) Red Herring eg. A government defends itself on a charge of corruption by saying that the budget is balanced.
B) Attack The Man/Woman eg. "I'm a liar...so are you." "I'm a crook, well you're a racist." "Your mother wears army boots."
14. Stereotypes
Watch out for any stereotypes. eg. "People such a you..." Ex. "A nurse must check her patients."
15. Argument to Ignorance
Watch out for these types of claims:
It must be true if it hasn't been proven false.
It must be false it hasn't been proven true.
16. Loaded, Leading Question/Fallacy of the Complex
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" This demands a yes or no answer and both are answers may be wrong. Lawyers sometimes try to use these questions.
17. Gambler's Fallacy
"It hasn't happened for a long time; therefore it's bound to happen." or "It keeps happening ; therefore, it will keep happening."
Logical Appeals in Persuasion
Review: Warrants
Reasoning and their Fallacies
Parallel Reasoning - More often called an analogy, it's used for comparison. Since similar circumstances may have similar outcomes, parallel reasoning leads one to assume or predict outcomes.
Generalization - Sometimes drawn from extended parallel reasoning, generalizations involve making predictions, classifications and descriptions. It's also called reasoning by example.
Reasoning by Definition - Breaking down something by what it means, a deductive process.
By that definition that would make me a tree-hugging, post-polygamous swine.
Reasoning by Sign - what I call symptomatic reasoning. Recognizing how artifacts or actions are associate with related events. Summativity v. nonsummativity. Inductive reasoning, very close to causal reasoning.
Causal or Cause to Effect Reasoning - leads to . Much can go wrong with this type of reasoning.
Reasoning from a Dillema - It's the either/or position of reasoning. If you're not for us, you're against us.
Arguing from Authority - takes an authority's opinion, states their qulifications and then states what the authority said.
Syntax includes in the words of, as was established by, according to, research shows, studies show...
Not all sources are valid authorities.
There's always room to question even the brightrest in the field - QUESTION AUTHORITY
Blind obedience to authority is not cirtical thinking - don't get me started on this.
The fallacy is the appeal to authority, using celebrity to persuade is an example of this - take John Voight for example.
- They explain why the grounds prove the point and analyze and summarize the grounds.
- The warrant is the "because" statement.
- When it is evident that the evidence proves the point, it's called the implied warrant.
- Inductive reasoning - working from specific evidence to a general understanding.
- Deductive reasoning - working from a generalized body of evidence to reach a specific example or understanding.
- An error in reasoning is called a fallacy.
Reasoning and their Fallacies
Parallel Reasoning - More often called an analogy, it's used for comparison. Since similar circumstances may have similar outcomes, parallel reasoning leads one to assume or predict outcomes.
- This is used to compare and contrast as well, using what we know to help others understand what they don't
- Parallel reasoning uses literal analogies and figurative analogies.
- Syntax may include like, as, similar, resembles, compared to, by contrast...
- This becomes fallacious reasoning when the analogy is false (false analogy), the apples to oranges mistake.
- Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
- Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
- Construction workers use blueprints to guide them as they build. Doctors use X-rays and MRI images as diagnostic aids. Therefore, presenters should use PowerPoint slides as teleprompters during live-audience presentations. This argument, of course, is the fallacy of "False Analogy". Why? Blueprints and MRIs are created as visual aids for the construction worker and doctor. A presenter's visual aids are intended for the audience. The comparison, therefore, is invalid.
- Subsidized healthcare is socialism.
Generalization - Sometimes drawn from extended parallel reasoning, generalizations involve making predictions, classifications and descriptions. It's also called reasoning by example.
- Generalization is indiscriminitive, reasoning that what is true about one member of a group is true about the rest.
- Syntax includes we have concluded, it is generally so, usually so, normally so...
- This becomes a hasty generalization when there are too few cases counted toward the generalization, so one jumps to conclusions.
- All Mormons are polygamists.
- All men are pigs.
- All democrats are tree-huggers.
Reasoning by Definition - Breaking down something by what it means, a deductive process.
- Syntax includes it follows that, its necessarily so, so by definition...
- This becomes a sweeping generalization when the definition is too rigid in include relevant exceptions.
- fallacious syntax includes always, never, in every case, certainly, necessarily, categorically...
By that definition that would make me a tree-hugging, post-polygamous swine.
Reasoning by Sign - what I call symptomatic reasoning. Recognizing how artifacts or actions are associate with related events. Summativity v. nonsummativity. Inductive reasoning, very close to causal reasoning.
- Sytnax includes language that deals with factors.
- This becomes a false sign when the link between the indications and the correlating events fails. Supersititions are typical false signs.
Causal or Cause to Effect Reasoning -
- A causal link has to be proved with a specific agent of cause.
- Syntax includes causes, leads to, produces, activates, provokes, geneerates, brings about, results in...
- There could be mulitple causation, where the arguer has to sort and prioritize most influential causes.
- However, there can also be unrelated events that contribute to the issue.
- This becomes oversimplification where one ignores other causes, eliminating others to promote their own agenda of cause.
- Correlation v. Causation - connecting two events due to proximity.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, meaning before
, therefore because of , just because somehting happened before something else does not mean it is the casue of the outcome.
- Slippery Slope propses a series of events was caused by one event (the Butterfly effect) without ever showing how it's linked. I had two debaters that no matter what the resolution linked their warrant to total mutual nuclear destruction.
Reasoning from a Dillema - It's the either/or position of reasoning. If you're not for us, you're against us.
- Syntax includes either, or, must choose betwee, pros/cons, costs/gains...
- The fallacy is in forcing the dichotomy, not everything is for or against the proposition. When you make it seem there are only two choices when in fact there are more to consider, you are guilty of forcing the dichotomy.
- The complex question is an example of this when there is a major hidden presumption - Have you stopped beating your wife?
Arguing from Authority - takes an authority's opinion, states their qulifications and then states what the authority said.
Syntax includes in the words of, as was established by, according to, research shows, studies show...
Not all sources are valid authorities.
There's always room to question even the brightrest in the field - QUESTION AUTHORITY
Blind obedience to authority is not cirtical thinking - don't get me started on this.
The fallacy is the appeal to authority, using celebrity to persuade is an example of this - take John Voight for example.
Motivational Appeals
The Tools of Motivation and Emotion
Process premises target the psychological process that provide impetus for most people, from the most basic to the most sophisticated.
Needs - The First Process Premise
Packard's "Compelling Needs"
- Emotional Security
- Reassurance of Worth
- Ego-Gratification
- Creative Outlets
- Love Objects
- Sense of Power
- Sense of Roots
- Immortality
- Self-actualization
- Esteem
- Belonging
- Safety
- Physiologitcal
Emotions - The Second Process Premise
- Fear
- Guilt
- Anger
- Pride
- Happiness/Joy
Attitudes - The Third Process Premise
Attitudes, Beliefs and Opinions
The Functions of Attitudes
- Cognitive influences
- Emotional influences
- Behavioral influences
Consistency - The Fourth Process Premise
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Sources of Dissonance
- Loss of Group Prestige
- Economic Loss
- Loss of Personal Prestige
- Uncertainty of Prediction
Sources of Consonance
- Reassurance of Security
- Demonstration of Predictability
- The Use of Rewards
Compliance Gaining
Marwell & Schmitt's Taxonomy of 16 Influence Tactics
Reward
I'll reward you if you do it. "I'll throw in a pair of speakers if you buy it today." "Thanks! I'll make certain your manager knows how helpful you were."
Punishment
I'll punish you if you don't do it. "If you don't buy it today, I won't be able to offer you this special incentive price again." "If I can't get it at that price tomorrow, then I'll take my business elsewhere."
Positive Expertise
Speaking as an authority on the subject, I can tell you that rewards will occur if you do X, because of the nature of reality. "If you start working out at our gym regularly, you'll find that people are more attracted to you physically."
Negative Expertise
Speaking as an authority on the subject, I can tell you that punishments will occur if you do Y, because of the nature of reality. "If you don't buy it today, you may never get another chance--our stock is almost sold out."
Liking, Ingratiation
Getting the prospect into a good frame of mind "Gosh you look nice today. I just love that hat you're wearing! Should we order dessert before we look over the contracts?"
Gifting, Pre-giving
Giving something as a gift, before requesting compliance. The idea is that the target will feel the need to reciprocate later. "Here's a little something we thought you'd like. Now about those contracts . . ."
Debt
Calling in past favors. "After all I've done for you! Come on--this time it's me who needs the favor."
Aversive Stimulation
Continuous punishment, and the cessation of punishment is contingent on compliance. "I'm going to play my classical music at full volume if you insist on playing your rock music at full volume. When you turn yours down, I'll turn mine down."
Moral Appeal
This tactic entails finding moral common ground, and then using the moral commitments of a person to obtain compliance. "You believe that women should get equal pay for equal work, don't you? You don't believe that men are better than women, do you? Then you ought to sign this petition! It's the right thing to do."
Positive Self-feeling
You'll feel better if you. "If you join our club today, you'll feel better about yourself because you'll know that you're improving every day."
Negative Self-feeling
You'll feel bad if you. "If you don't return it to him and apologize, you'll find it hard to live with yourself."
Positive Altercasting
Good people do. "Smart people tend to sign up for the year in advance, because that's how they can get the best weekly rate."
Negative Altercasting
Only a bad person would do. "You're not like those bad sports that whine and complain when they lose a game."
Altruism
Do-Me-A-Favor. "I really need this photocopied right away, can you help me out?" (An extremely common influence tactic and in wide use among friends and acquaintances).
Positive Esteem of Others
Other people will think more highly of you if you. "People respect a man who drives a Mercedes."
Other people will think worse of you if you
Negative Esteem of Others
Audience and Proof
No message can be considered and produced without regard to the audience, not a new idea, it's one whose truth was comprehensively brought to light by Aristotle. "The orator has therefore to guess the subjects on which the hearers really hold views already, and what those views are, and then must express, as general truths, these same views on these same subjects."No small task. This is where it comes in handy to do two things; find your own standpoint, and be open to others, seemingly a juxtaposition in task.
That's why so many resources are devoted to market research, demographic study, opinion polls, even swiping your Albertson's card. This data provide paradigms by which advertisers, evangelists and politicians can craft their messages.
Feeling vulnerable? If you're using Google's Gmail for instance, watch the relevance of the ads posted alongside the messages in your in box. Watch how these ads change in relevancy and content while you compose your next message, or open a new message. Audience analysis on a virtual intelligent level, though it's just matching terms and proper nouns, though it's working well enough to make Google billions.
Aristotle held that there are common ideas, values that give us motivation, impetus to respond based on how we feel, how strongly we're connected, how thoroughly we're convicted. Family, security, wealth, health, sex, wisdom, longevity, properity...
What are yours? What is your standpoint?
Proofs
Pathos, Logos and Ethos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)