The ManipulationBible - Wladislaw Jachtchenko

["own \u2013 half an hour late. Eight bosses had to wait for me. When I arrived, I was greeted by eight grumpy faces. And my humorous quips, which had gone down so well with the first group, got a few weary smirks at best. Note: First things first, be very careful about self- deprecating remarks. They can cast you in a negative light \u2013 and everything that follows will be construed to your detriment. Second, if you ever write a book, never mention that you once turned up late. People remember things like that. How to Use the Halo and Horns Effects to Manipulate People It\u2019s important to look good in any situation. Your hair, your posture, your clothes \u2013 it should all be as perfect as possible. Always. Not only at work, but in your personal life too. When you meet new people, always be kind and genial \u2013 and put your best foot forward. People will unwittingly judge what you\u2019re like on the inside based on your external appearance \u2013 whether they mean to or not. Especially if you need it for work, I would urge you to get professional style advice and specialist communication coaching. It costs a fair amount in the short term, but it pays off in the long run. Better \u201cimpression management\u201d (as people call it these days) will take you a big step closer to your goals. It\u2019s been proven time and time again. You\u2019ll learn things that you can use to your advantage for the rest of your life \u2013 so your original investment will be only a fraction of the returns. OceanofPDF.com","11. Authority Bias Most people have no idea what they want, so they act on instinct and authority. Immanuel Kant It\u2019s not that we love authority. It\u2019s more that we need it. Especially when we\u2019re unsure. And we\u2019re often unsure. Because we usually aren\u2019t sufficiently informed about a certain subject and\/or don\u2019t know what to make of it \u2013 and so we rely on the opinions of people who we think possess superior understanding. It\u2019s a good idea for budding manipulators to exude an aura of authority \u2013 and use it to show others the way. The definitive experiment on how far uncertain people will follow an (apparent) authority was first conducted by the psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1961 in New Haven (USA). It ranks alongside the Stanford Prison Experiment as one of the most significant sociopsychological experiments of the 20th century, appearing to prove that we will follow authoritarian instructions even when they conflict with our own conscience. A Lesson in Authority: The Milgram Experiment The test set-up78 is simple. There is a \u201cteacher\u201d \u2013 the test subject. And there is a \u201clearner\u201d \u2013 an actor. Under the watchful eye of a scientist in a white lab coat, the teacher","must administer an electric shock to the learner whenever the learner makes a mistake. The more mistakes the learner makes, the more severe the punishment \u2013 i.e. the electric shock \u2013 becomes. The curious thing about this experiment was Milgram\u2019s original motivation. In the wake of the Nazi era in Germany, it was suggested in some academic circles that \u201cthe Germans were different\u201d \u2013 in the sense of being exceptionally loyal to authority. But Milgram\u2019s experiment, which was first conducted on Americans (and later replicated in many other countries), soon demonstrated that all people, regardless of nationality, will follow a (supposed) authority blindly. So what happened in the experiment itself? When the learner made a mistake, the subject (in the teacher role) was instructed by the scientist to administer an initial electric shock of 45 volts. Upon each subsequent mistake (the learner had to match pairs of words correctly) the teacher was instructed to increase the shock by 15 volts. The maximum shock strength was 450 volts. The electric shocks were actually all faked, but the learner had a set list of behaviors to perform as the voltage increased: \u2022 At 120 volts, the learner cried out in pain. \u2022 At 150 volts, the learner begged to be released, because they could no longer stand it. \u2022 At 300 volts, the learner stopped responding to the teacher\u2019s questions. \u2022 From 330 volts, the learner stopped talking altogether. Crucially, the teacher (the test subject) could terminate the experiment at any time. And most tried to do so. But only","very timidly. The scientists had anticipated these little moral resistances from the teachers. So they had prepared pre-formulated answers to the teachers\u2019 objections. Each time the teacher wanted to stop, the scientist always said the same four sentences. After the first objection: \u201cPlease continue.\u201d After the second objection: \u201cThe experiment requires that you continue.\u201d After the third objection: \u201cIt is absolutely essential that you continue.\u201d And after the fourth objection: \u201cYou have no other choice, you must go on.\u201d The scientists also anticipated that the teacher would ask who would be responsible for possible damage to the learner\u2019s health. So they gave another standard response: \u201cI take responsibility for everything that happens.\u201d And if the teacher asked whether the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury from the electric shocks, the scientist always replied, \u201cAlthough the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.\u201d So, how many subjects stopped part-way through? And how many went all the way to the limit of 450 volts? An unbelievable 26 out of 40 people went all the way to 450 volts. That\u2019s 65 percent of subjects. The other 14 all administered shocks of up to 300 volts \u2013 in other words, every participant carried on until the learner stopped answering, and they had no way of telling if the learner was even alive any more. Not one of the subjects stopped before the 300-volt mark, despite the learner\u2019s blood-curdling screams. Even Milgram himself had not expected the authority effect to be so strong. So he repeated the experiment, with several minor deviations from its original model. The most fascinating version was one in which the teacher and","learner sat in the same room, close enough to touch. In this set-up, you wouldn\u2019t expect anyone to go to the limit \u2013 all the way to 450 volts. But people can surprise you. 30 percent of subjects still administered the maximum electric shock to punish the learner. Another thing worth mentioning: an additional factor was that the experiment took place at the venerable Yale University. It wasn\u2019t just personal authority at play here \u2013 it was institutional authority too. In one of Milgram\u2019s alternative versions of the experiment, the scientist came from the fictitious Research Institute of Bridgeport \u2013 and the premises, according to Milgram, were shabby. In this version, 48 percent of teachers (down from 65 percent) went all the way to 450 volts. Incidentally, other iterations of the experiment showed that it made no difference whether the teacher was male or female. It was also carried out in different cultures \u2013 and there were no significant differences across national borders. Most people obey credible-seeming authorities. It\u2019s irrelevant whether the authority\u2019s instructions inflict harm on other people. What matters is the perceived effect of the authority figure. The Authority Effect in the Office: The Hofling Experiment You might object that the Milgram Experiment has nothing to do with real life, and the situation with the electric shocks is totally unrealistic. So here\u2019s another famous experiment,79 named after the psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling, that played out in a hospital under realistic","conditions. In the hospital, 22 nurses were instructed over the telephone by a fictitious doctor, \u201cDr Smith\u201d, to administer a 20-milligram dose of the (unlicensed) fake medication \u201castroten\u201d to a patient. He told the nurse that he was the doctor responsible for the patient. He promised to supply the necessary signature for the prescription later. The label stated that the maximum dose was 10 milligrams. A nurse is not allowed to take instructions over the phone. But 21 of the 22 nurses (95 percent) still followed the instructions of a doctor they\u2019d never heard of, and administered the overdose. How Can You Use Authority Bias to Manipulate People? Everything that lends us authority can be used for manipulative purposes. The more symbols of authority you (ostensibly) have at your disposal, the greater the authority effect will be. An academic title is a great start (see \u201cDr Smith\u201d). Your environment can help too (as in the Milgram Experiment, conducted at the elite Yale University). Not everyone can operate at this level, but letting people know that you studied this or that subject at a famous university will help you enormously. How do I acquire authority for myself? When I was applying for degree courses, I could already see that a university\u2019s reputation was more important than the course content. The law department at LMU Munich had (and still has) the best reputation in Germany \u2013 and so I headed there at 19 without a second thought. Afterwards, I wanted to study for a master\u2019s in political science, so I then faced the question of where to apply for that. My thoughts","instantly turned to the American elite universities \u2013 and I decided on Columbia University in the City of New York. I applied there, was accepted, and conveniently managed to get myself a full scholarship via the German Academic Exchange Service. Was the politics course at Columbia any better or higher caliber than the one at LMU? Not at all. In both Munich and New York, there were good lecturers and bad lecturers. It was just that Columbia University had produced the most Nobel Prize winners \u2013 and was one of the top ten universities in the world. That was the subtle difference in their reputations. To say nothing of the usually hefty tuition fees. When I am introduced at events these days, my two degrees and my master\u2019s at Columbia are naturally always mentioned. Does this have anything to do with my competence as a communication coach and public speaker? Of course not! Does it impress my listeners? You bet! Hardly anyone knows that once you are accepted to an Ivy League university, it\u2019s practically impossible not to pass. No matter how badly you do in the exams. You might not have something like that up your sleeve. But you undoubtedly have other strengths. And it\u2019s your job to shunt these into the foreground. As the German saying goes, \u201cModesty is a virtue, but you get further without it.\u201d As ever, the signal effect provided by your clothes has a key part to play. Think back for a moment to the experiment with the red light and the man in the suit, who more people followed across the road than the averagely dressed man who exuded less authority. Cars have the same power too. Remember the experiment with the luxury car, which the","other drivers were much more patient towards than the cheap car, which people deliberately drove into the back of. Besides your car and clothes, accessories of any kind can make a big difference. For a start, you\u2019ve known since you were a child that branded products impress people. The biggest factor in the authority effect, though, is your bearing \u2013 i.e. how you present yourself: broad gestures, cool eye contact, pauses and intonation; interrupting others, but not letting them interrupt you and disrupt your flow. Note: Bearing, clothing and status symbols are among the principal tools with which we can artificially inflate our own authority. And scientific experiments prove beyond doubt that most people let their behavior be manipulated by authority. OceanofPDF.com","12. The Sunk Cost Fallacy When I was young, I thought that money was the most important thing in the world. Now that I am old, I know that it is. Oscar Wilde Every day, people make investments \u2013 of money and time. Sometimes we invest only our time. In relationships, for example, in the hope that our investment will pay off in the long term. We will help a friend move house so that they will help us back one day \u2013 or because being a good person makes us feel good, and we enjoy the sense of altruism that it brings without asking for anything in return. However, these daily investments expose us to an absolutely fatal trap that makes us keep investing more, even when it is a waste of time or money down the drain. This trap is known as the sunk cost fallacy. Imagine that you have booked to attend a workshop on the subject of \u201cneuro-linguistic programming (NLP)\u201d, forking out 299 dollars for a six-hour NLP crash course. You\u2019re sitting there eagerly, dying to find out all about NLP. The first session begins \u2013 but for whatever reason, you don\u2019t find it very interesting. None of it seems very academically sound. When the teacher begins to explain how eye movements in a particular direction can tell you whether a person is lost in their own thoughts, remembering","something, or thinking about certain sounds, you decide that you\u2019ve had enough of their nonsense. You pluck up the courage to put your hand up and ask the teacher whether there\u2019s any scientific evidence for this trailblazing eye- movement theory. The teacher shrugs. They have no idea. The workshop continues \u2013 and shows no signs of getting any better. What do you do? In this situation, most people would think, \u201cThis workshop isn\u2019t much good. But I shelled out 299 dollars for it. I can\u2019t just leave. I don\u2019t want to have tossed that money out of the window.\u201d And it\u2019s right here that we see the sunk cost fallacy in action. The thought pattern is always the same: if I have already invested money or time in something, I have to see it through, regardless of whether it ultimately helps me. But this is irrational. Because the course fee is already paid. You\u2019re not going to get it back either way. No matter what happens, that money is gone. But there\u2019s one thing that you can still gain \u2013 and that is your time. You can leave the workshop and at least salvage the rest of the day. \u201cLoss Aversion\u201d So why do we cling on to sums of money that we\u2019ve already paid, and that we can\u2019t get back? The answer is that we hate making losses. Or, in scientific terms: we exhibit a tendency towards loss aversion. If we have already paid for the workshop and then just leave, it feels like a loss to us. But if we stay at the workshop, we won\u2019t feel the loss \u2013 because we\u2019ve got what we originally paid for! The earliest research into loss aversion was conducted by the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.","They discovered that people would rather not lose ten dollars than gain ten dollars. They even found out that we attach twice the weight to losses that we do to gains.80 For example, if your bank unexpectedly gives you a five-dollar rebate, you will be relatively happy. But if the bank deducts five dollars without reason, you will get extremely worked up about it and will fire off a strongly worded email to the customer service department. Another similar example: imagine you\u2019re attending a quiz night. The host comes over and gives you a hundred dollars, because you answered a question right. A little while later the host comes over again and asks for the money back, because there\u2019s been a mistake. How will you feel? Bitterly disappointed \u2013 you\u2019ve lost a hundred dollars! But in reality, you\u2019ll leave the quiz with no less money than when you came in. Using The Sunk Cost Fallacy to Manipulate People \u2013 and Protecting Yourself From It Now that we know how much people hate losing out, we need to word our arguments in a way that encourages the other person to avert a loss. How can you do that? Here\u2019s an example: your son wants to drop out of his challenging law or medicine degree after two semesters. What can you do? You can tell him, \u201cYou\u2019ve studied so hard this year. You\u2019ve skipped parties, you\u2019ve memorized so many definitions. If you drop out now, then you\u2019ll be wasting all those hundreds of hours you spent studying! At least take your midterm exams \u2013 then you\u2019ll have something to show for it.\u201d Then your son will think twice about whether he can accept this \u201closs\u201d of a whole year of study.","Another example: you are selling a service \u2013 let\u2019s say that it\u2019s Facebook advertising. Your customer has already invested a thousand dollars \u2013 and hasn\u2019t made any of it back. They now want to cancel the contract. How do you respond? You phrase it in a way that emphasizes the risk of loss: \u201cThe thousand dollars you invested has enabled us to collate fantastic insights and data that we can use to improve our Facebook adverts. If we stop now, your initial investment was all for nothing.\u201d The customer will in all likelihood try to avert the loss, thinking, \u201cOf course I don\u2019t want to lose the thousand dollars I\u2019ve invested. I\u2019ll keep going for a few months \u2013 it\u2019ll all work out in the end!\u201d The silly thing about this trap is that we fall into it without being pushed. So we need to take special care to protect ourselves from it. Imagine a woman who is unhappy with her partner. She\u2019s invested so much time explaining fundamental things to him \u2013 like manners, hygiene, and gender equality. And although he\u2019s hardly got any better and is still behaving as selfishly as ever, the woman thinks to herself how senseless it would be to break up with him. She\u2019s put so much into the relationship! If she leaves him now, all those exhausting conversations will have been in vain. But beware: those exhausting conversations are \u201csunk costs\u201d. Our well-meaning woman is never going to get that time back. At times like this, with cognitive bias pushing her towards mindless perseverance, she should consider how likely it is that her partner will change his behavior in the long run. And forget how much she has invested in him in the past. In negotiations, we can threaten to break off a business relationship, strategically presenting it as a loss. Our negotiating partner will want to avoid this, and will soon","start dancing to our tune. For our part, we must always take care to ensure that irretrievable investments don\u2019t interfere in our decision-making. OceanofPDF.com","13. The Reciprocity Trap Do ut des. \u2013 I give, so that you may give. Roman Legal Aphorism People never give just for the sake of it. They give because they expect something in return. Such exchanges do not have to see money or possessions changing hands. Ideas and feelings can also be exchanged. Reciprocity and mutuality reign supreme. In Ancient Rome, do ut des was originally used to describe sacrificial rites. People sacrificed things to the gods, and expected something in return: rain, mercy, health, and so on. We now live in a world where the gods\u2019 best days are behind them \u2013 in western culture, at least. But mutual exchange is still the foundation of most relationships. People exchange money for knowledge when they attend a workshop or a training session. They exchange money for affection when they press money into their grandchild\u2019s hand, or make use of an escort service. They exchange their skills for money when they go to work each morning. They exchange attention for attention when one friend tells another about all their problems, and then it\u2019s the other\u2019s turn. In exchange for bringing up their children, parents expect respect and a degree of care in their old age. And some stay with a partner they don\u2019t love for the sake of the","children or the mortgage. These are all exchanges of one kind or another. Exchange is so ubiquitous that we have to ask: are we ever not doing it? We are constantly giving in order to get something back. Even the selfless voluntary English teacher for refugees is doing it to see her pupils progress, which makes her feel good. Because we make dozens of exchanges throughout the day, exchange and reciprocity seem like the most natural thing in the world. So what\u2019s the trap here? When Does Reciprocity Become A Trap? If A gives something to B, an imbalance arises: A has expended resources \u2013 and B has benefitted from it. Both parties are aware of this process. And B automatically feels a psychological pressure and moral obligation to redress the balance. Here are a few everyday examples: Peter invited me to his birthday party, so I must invite him back. My colleague bought me lunch yesterday, so next time it\u2019s on me. A business partner procured a lucrative contract for me, so I must try to make sure that they land one too. These examples don\u2019t appear to have anything to do with manipulation. But what if the \u201cgiver\u201d consciously \u201cinvests\u201d something in order to get something specific in return? What if you exploit a particular social situation, using a \u201cgift\u201d or your \u201cspecial attentions\u201d to induce specific behavior? Then it becomes clearly manipulative. In one classic reciprocity experiment,81 each test subject evaluated a series of pictures. They did so alongside another participant called Joe, who was in cahoots with the","scientists. In a break during the experiment, Joe did the subject a small favor: he spontaneously bought them a soft drink. At the end \u2013 and this is where it gets interesting \u2013 Joe asked the subject for a favor: would the subject buy some cheap lottery tickets off him, at 25 cents each? The more, the better. In a parallel experiment, Joe didn\u2019t buy the subject a drink \u2013 but still asked the same favor at the end. The result: in the version in which the subject had received a \u201cgift\u201d earlier in the day, the subject bought twice (!) as many lottery tickets. Another interesting detail was that in a subsequent variation of the experiment, Joe was friendly in some instances and unfriendly in others. Astonishingly, the unfriendly Joe who bought the drink sold more lottery tickets (an average of 1.6) than the friendly Joe who didn\u2019t buy the drink (an average of 1 ticket sold). Which indicates that reciprocity is a more effective tool than friendliness. The best performer, of course, was the friendly Joe who bought the drink (an average of 1.9 tickets sold). How to Exploit the Reciprocity Trap in a Professional Context Just giving something is too easy. It also matters how you give it. This can significantly alter the result. In another classic reciprocity experiment,82 a waiter gave his customers candies at the end of a meal \u2013 before the check had been paid. Version 1 of the experiment brought no surprises: the waiter brought a candy with the check, without mentioning it. The candy increased the tip just a little \u2013 by an average of 3 percent. Version 2 of the experiment was much more rewarding. Here, the waiter brought two candies, asking the guests if anyone would like a candy. This time, the tip increased by 14 percent. In","version 3, the waiter was even craftier: he brought a few candies with the check, then went away and reappeared after a moment, saying, \u201cHere\u2019s an extra candy for being such nice customers!\u201d \u2013 and the tip increased by 23 percent. You probably aren\u2019t a waiter, and you probably don\u2019t spend your time rating pictures and buying drinks for strangers. But you should certainly have a think about the little gifts you can give from day to day that will encourage others to reciprocate. It\u2019s easiest for people who are selling a product. Free samples are the perfect ploy. Not only will the customer be able to try the product \u2013 they will also feel a bit guilty and will want to buy something as a result. A while back, I went to M\u00e1laga. One day, I went into a shop selling roasted nuts, and tried samples of three different varieties. As I was about to leave, I thought to myself, \u201cI\u2019ve eaten quite a few of their nuts \u2013 I can\u2019t just cut and run!\u201d So I turned around, bought a little packet of nuts and stopped feeling guilty. Not until two hours later did it strike me that I\u2019d walked right into the reciprocity trap. But even if you\u2019re not selling anything, you can put down a little deposit in just about any situation. Imagine that your colleague from another department asks you something over email. Instead of sending them a short reply a week later, you could (if you think the colleague could prove useful in future) reply to their query with a friendly, well- structured and thoroughly exhaustive answer. They will remember your kind and painstaking response for a long time to come \u2013 because most people write short emails full of spelling mistakes, and don\u2019t take the time to address every point. A few days or weeks later \u2013 don\u2019t leave it too long, in case they forget \u2013 you can ask your colleague for","some information about something in return. And it\u2019s likely that they will want to reciprocate your kindness, and will send you a detailed response. Note: The more opportunities you take in everyday life to give small gifts, the more you will get in return. Reciprocity is like a compliment: it costs little, but achieves a lot! OceanofPDF.com","14. The Scarcity Trap Praise, like gold and diamonds, owes its value only to scarcity. Samuel Johnson People value things that are scarce. Anything in short supply seems valuable to us. And the reverse also applies: things that are widely available appear worthless to us. From an economic point of view, the scarcity principle seems totally reasonable: rare things can\u2019t be shared between everyone, which creates competition for scarce goods. And as soon as more comes on the market, the price drops. The Scarcity Principle Is Hardwired Into Us An experiment83 with toddlers has proven that even two- year-olds respond to scarcity. The little ones were taken into a room in which there was one toy in front of a Perspex screen, and another toy behind the screen. Both toys were equally appealing. If the barrier was low enough that the child could reach the toy without any problems, they showed no preference, spending equal time playing with each toy. But if the Perspex screen was too high for the toddler to be able to touch the toy behind it, they made a special effort to go around the screen, spending an average of three times longer playing with the toy behind the barrier.","Robert Cialdini, whose book Influence brought the scarcity principle into mainstream social psychology, cites an experiment84 in which scarcity is employed twice, with even more extreme results. Customers were sold beef using the following three strategies: \u2022 Strategy 1: Standard presentation. \u2022 Strategy 2: Standard presentation, also mentioning that supplies of imported beef will fall in the coming months. \u2022 Strategy 3: Standard presentation, also mentioning that supplies of imported beef will fall in the coming months and also that this intelligence about limited beef stocks is not widely known, but comes from the business\u2019s special contacts. In strategy 3, it was not only the product\u2019s availability that was limited, but also the information about it. The results? Strategy 2 saw customers buy double as much as strategy 1, and strategy 3 led them to buy six times as much. Some businesses have perfected the art of scarcity. Take, for instance, the major global company Groupon. If a customer buys one of their vouchers, the offers are not only time-limited, but the customer sees a clock displaying how many more days, hours, minutes and seconds the offer remains valid for. Like a countdown. This naturally motivates the customer to seize their chance before time runs out. The success of this billion-dollar business is all thanks to its marketing department. Reactance: A Related Psychological Effect","Incidentally, the scarcity principle is related to another psychological effect called reactance (from the Latin reagere [\u201cresist, counteract\u201d]). Simply put, it means that if someone can\u2019t have or do something, they want it all the more. Some classic examples: if you forbid a child from doing something, they want it more than ever. Songs and films that are age-restricted or banned enjoy even greater popularity among young people. And if we can\u2019t buy a particular piece of clothing in our size, it\u2019s suddenly the only thing that we want \u2013 and we won\u2019t settle for anything else. We all know the feeling. The nifty thing about reactance is that you can use it to manipulate people. Defiance and the \u201cappeal of the forbidden\u201d are hardwired into our brains just like the scarcity principle, so we can strategically say the opposite of what we actually mean \u2013 and end up getting exactly what we want. In my coaching sessions, if I simply tell my client, \u201cPlease do X as your little bit of homework for next time,\u201d around two in ten people will do it. But if I say, \u201cSome homework for next time would be sensible but I\u2019m sure that, like most people, you won\u2019t have time to do it,\u201d then they will protest, \u201cYes I will! Of course I will! If it won\u2019t take too long, I\u2019ll definitely do it.\u201d And in my experience, around seven in ten clients really will do it. This inconspicuous-looking sentence actually triggers reactance in two ways. It first provokes the thought, \u201cActually, I do have time,\u201d and second, \u201cI\u2019m not like most people.\u201d How To Use Scarcity to Manipulate People The instinctive human assumption that \u201cscarce\u201d means \u201cvaluable\u201d can be exploited by manufacturing a shortage. Typical examples in commerce are slogans like \u201cOffer ends","23 May\u201d, \u201cSign up today and never miss out on our latest offers\u201d, and \u201cOnly 2 left in stock\u201d. Our economy is riddled with scarcity traps. But people feign scarcity in their personal lives too. If they receive a WhatsApp message, they don\u2019t answer straight away, but leave it a few hours or days instead. This is a way of implying their own importance: their schedule is so packed, or they are so in demand, that they can\u2019t reply straight away. One female friend confirmed this for me: \u201cAs a woman, I have to play hard to get. If a man gets the impression that I\u2019m always available, he\u2019ll quickly lose interest.\u201d Due to the scarcity principle, she hides the fact that she actually has plenty of time and would rather reply straight away, so she can see her Romeo sooner. And it works. In your personal life, as well as delaying your responses to messages, you can stop turning up so often to events, give gifts less regularly, invite people to your home less frequently, be sparing with compliments\u2026 Even if you\u2019re just passing round a plate with two chocolate biscuits on it, they will taste better to your guests than if you dish out ten at once. Impossible? Nope, scientifically proven.85 OceanofPDF.com","II . Second Box of Tricks: Verbal Tricks The limits of my language are the limits of my world. Ludwig Wittgenstein I don\u2019t want to delve too far into the intricacies of poststructuralist thought, but one thing is certain: we use our language not only to depict reality, but to create it. We think our thoughts in words and concepts. And each of us has a different range at our disposal. One person\u2019s active vocabulary will span a thousand words, another person will use ten thousand. Some will use even more. And the more eloquent and virtuosic we are, the more precisely we can describe and explain our world. Words pass judgment. Words interpret. Words betray a speaker\u2019s attitude towards a subject \u2013 or disguise it. Everyone knows that you can use your vocabulary to impress people. With borrowed foreign expressions, for instance, and prudent quotations. It\u2019s just that most people don\u2019t know how to pull it off \u2013 so they leave it to politicians and other silver-tongued types who are privileged enough to have had training in that sort of thing. But why squander the chance to finesse your speaking skills, and earn more","recognition? In the following chapters, I will reveal the nine most important verbal tricks to know, before presenting you with a list of the top ten little verbal devices that you can use to influence people. It isn\u2019t hard. Let\u2019s begin! OceanofPDF.com","1. Technical Terms and Foreign Words It appears that people conceived language not to disguise their thoughts, but to disguise the fact that they don\u2019t have any thoughts. S\u00f8ren Kierkegaard Technical terms and foreign words can be used as a smokescreen, to create an illusion of competence and intelligence. Most people claim to loathe \u201ctechnical jargon\u201d. And yet we are always dazzled by it. What would you think of a person who told you, \u201cI am unapologetically aporetic\u201d? Many people wouldn\u2019t understand it \u2013 and would have no way of knowing whether the statement made sense or was pure nonsense. But that isn\u2019t important. What matters is the sentence\u2019s effect. If you hear someone say something like that, you\u2019ll know that they\u2019re probably not the most sympathetic and approachable type. You might think that they are just showing off. But most people will still instinctively assume that they are highly intelligent and competent. Incomprehensible = Competent?","In an experiment,86 scientists staged a court case, asking the tests subjects to evaluate a statement by a claimant. The claimant alleged to have been exposed to a dangerous chemical at work, which had caused them to develop cancer. One group of subjects listened to a purported expert, Professor Fellon, elucidate the issue in simple language. He explained that the chemical concerned \u201ccauses liver cancer, several other diseases of the liver, and diseases of the immune system\u201d. Another group listened to the same Professor Fellon, but this time the pseudoscientist was talking in complex language. He told the second group that the chemical concerned led to \u201ctumor induction as well as hepatomegaly, hepatomegalocytosis, and lymphoid atrophy of the spleen and thymus\u201d. The results of the study showed that the supposed expert convinced twice as many subjects (!) when he spoke in incomprehensible jargon. What If I Don\u2019t Know Many Technical Terms or Foreign Words? Most people use standard language, and have a few common foreign words in their active vocabulary. That\u2019s a good start. But you should keep expanding your repertoire of foreign words if you want to impress people with them. This brings the added benefit of enabling you to identify other tricksters if they\u2019re smart enough to try out this trick on you. Buying yourself a dictionary of foreign loan words is an obvious first step \u2013 although relentlessly cramming lexemes won\u2019t be everyone\u2019s idea of fun. In my final year at school, I got hold of an enormous tome and started studying it. It quickly paid off. When I put my hand up in class to prattle on about \u201cantithetical parallelism\u201d and \u201cManichaean","dualism\u201d, I was setting myself up to get full marks. Did my choice of words make my ideas any clearer? Probably not. Did the teacher understand me? Certainly not always. But instead of interrogating me, my teachers often preferred to feign understanding and keep their mouth shut. Ideally, you should know the precise definitions of these technical terms and foreign words. And their etymology too. Because it\u2019s even more impressive if you can explain a word\u2019s Latin or Ancient Greek root. And your colleagues and clients will respond in the same way as my teachers at the time: they won\u2019t get much of it \u2013 but they\u2019ll be very impressed by your apparent competence. But back to the original question: how do you build up a rich vocabulary if you don\u2019t fancy trawling through a dictionary? Well, here\u2019s a simpler method: every time you read an article on the internet or watch a TV program and a word crops up that you don\u2019t know, do a quick internet search to find out what it means. And don\u2019t stop there! Copy this term and its definition into a word document on your desktop, and start building up a long list of smart- sounding words. Look over this list at least once a week, and gradually learn every one of them off by heart. And one final step: make a conscious effort to integrate certain words from your passive into your active vocabulary. The more often you use a word, the quicker you will memorize it. Here are three little lists of ten words each, for you to look up right now. Just off the top of my head, in alphabetical order. If you like, you can add these (if you don\u2019t know them already) to your new foreign word document:","\u2022 Nouns: autopoiesis, d\u00e9nouement, dialectic, heteronomy, heuristics, misanthropy, polysemy, prolepsis, schadenfreude, utopia \u2022 Adjectives: apodictic, idiosyncratic, incommensurable, Kafkaesque, nonchalant, pejorative, preternatural, rhizomatic, stoic, ubiquitous \u2022 Verbs: conflate, connote, disavow, dissemble, educe, expedite, infantilize, oscillate, prepossess, regale Fill your lists with more unfamiliar words, memorize them \u2013 and gradually integrate them into your everyday language. Over time, it\u2019ll get easier and easier. OceanofPDF.com","2. Weak Language and Power Talking It may be true that power corrupts, but powerlessness corrupts too. Willy Brandt Certain words and sounds make us sound helpless and unsure. \u201cMaybe\u201d, \u201cactually\u201d, \u201cum\u201d, \u201cright?\u201d \u2013 here are just four examples of verbal softeners that make people sound unsure of themselves. The fatal thing is that people get used to their own speech patterns. People who talk like this do it constantly and unwittingly \u2013 and it spoils their image. Let\u2019s rewind for a moment. About 40 years ago, a linguist called Robin Tolmach Lakoff set out to prove for the first time how women\u2019s patterns of speech went hand in hand with their powerlessness and insignificance in the world. She pointed out clear linguistic differences between masculine \u201cpower talking\u201d and feminine powerless talking. Of course, the characteristics of powerless language are equally reliable indicators of weakness in men. For Lakoff, what does powerless language look like? Here are a few criteria.87 First, uncertain people use more verbal softeners and filler words, such as the following: \u2022 um","\u2022 er \u2022 rather \u2022 actually \u2022 sort of \u2022 just \u2022 somehow \u2022 you see \u2022 almost \u2022 so to speak \u2022 perhaps A confident person who knows exactly what they want to say won\u2019t need these filler words. \u201cUm\u201d is a particular nuisance that is especially pronounced in some people. Good speakers will take pains to avoid fillers of any kind. Toastmasters, an organization that promotes \u201ccommunication, public speaking and leadership\u201d,88 has a useful tradition to combat this. They have a so-called \u201cAh- Counter\u201d, whose sole responsibility is to count the number of times you say \u201cah\u201d, \u201cum\u201d and \u201cer\u201d. And it helps: if you concentrate on a particular filler word (take them one at a time), you\u2019ll get better at avoiding it. Second, uncertain people make more frequent use of so- called tag questions to express their uncertainty, such as: \u201cHarry is here, isn\u2019t he?\u201d or \u201cYou support this idea, don\u2019t you?\u201d It would sound more confident just to ask, \u201cIs Harry here?\u201d or \u201cDo you support this idea?\u201d \u2013 and according to Lakoff, it\u2019s women who are most prone to using these tags. The straight questions risk being met with a resounding no,","while tag questions help to soften the blow. But running away from rejection makes you sound timid and weak. Tag questions also give the impression that the speaker is desperate for affirmation. Strong personalities never crave approval. So you should refrain entirely from this linguistic no-go. Third, uncertain people word their questions ultra-politely, to show that they don\u2019t want to get in anyone\u2019s way. For instance: \u201cIf it\u2019s not too much to ask, could you\u2026?\u201d or, \u201cMay I ask if it\u2019s ok with you\u2026?\u201d These questions are like velvet gloves \u2013 they are a means of treating people with extra-special care and shying away from outright confrontation, as if from fear of rejection. It would sound more confident just to ask, \u201cCould you do this\u2026?\u201d Fourth, uncertain people apologize when it\u2019s not strictly necessary: \u201cExcuse me, but I don\u2019t quite see it like that\u2026\u201d or \u201cSorry to interrupt, but couldn\u2019t you say\u2026?\u201d This is another instance of us not wanting to tread on other people\u2019s toes, and being too cautious to give direct criticism. It would sound more confident to voice your criticisms in a reasonable but firm manner, without resorting to empty phrases. Fifth, uncertain people voice their opinions less often, as they usually want to avoid laying themselves open to criticism and landing in the middle of an argument. Look around you: I bet your colleagues\u2019 contributions to meetings are mostly mundane. But your colleagues will still make a good impression if they speak up often. It suggests that they have something useful to say.","What\u2019s more, we tend to credit good ideas to talkative types in hindsight. If your boss can\u2019t remember which of your colleagues it was who suggested this one great idea, the most vocal contributor will be the first one that comes to mind. Quiet workers vanish from their colleagues\u2019 memories. For us, this means that we must always be present in discussions. Even if you don\u2019t have the most inspired idea, pipe up and make sure that your voice is heard! How to Combat Weak Language So, your first job is to banish the hallmarks of weak language from your active vocabulary. You can\u2019t take on all your bad habits at once. So set yourself weekly targets. You can make your favorite filler word \u201cthis week\u2019s opponent\u201d and ask your friends and colleagues to call you out if you use it. Another week you can focus on whether, and how often, you apologize to people \u2013 and if it was really necessary. And in week three, you can make sure you contribute something to every meeting. This sort of verbal hygiene is an absolute necessity to avoid sounding uncertain. Of course, confident body language and tone of voice play an equally vital role (see the chapter on dazzling people with your appearance, p. 17). How can you possibly influence people if your language exudes weakness and insecurity? Good manipulators will, um, do a little bit to, er, stop themselves, so to speak, from basically, ah, relying almost all the time on certain kinds of words, don\u2019t you think? Using Power Talking to Manipulate People","Avoiding verbal softeners \u2013 i.e. cutting out all the hallmarks of weak language \u2013 is only the first step towards \u201cpower talking\u201d. The next step is to use more \u201cstrengtheners\u201d in speech. So, what does power talking sound like in practice? Take a few minutes now to look up world leaders on YouTube. No matter who you listen to, you\u2019ll find identical speech patterns. First, the leaders of this world speak slowly, clearly and decisively. Because of this, they rarely get muddled \u2013 and they always sound calm and thoughtful. It\u2019s not only presidents who speak slowly and clearly. Businesspeople do the same. Listen to Marc Zuckerberg or Bill Gates: they are always careful with their words and don\u2019t let anyone rush them. Second, leaders congratulate themselves for their own successes. Even if those successes are modest or non- existent. And they never criticize their own actions. Every president in the world will issue a glowing report of their reforms after their first hundred days in office. Trump even went as far as to declare his the most successful in US history. Not much in the way of modesty there! But it\u2019s not just politicians who act like this. Anyone in a management role will inflate even the tiniest success to make it sound like an enormous achievement. Third, leaders speak as if they know it all. They never admit ignorance. Leaders always have a clear plan and a clear vision for their country or company. Obviously, there\u2019s no way they can know it all. But what powerful people are so good at is seeming confident when they haven\u2019t got a clue. And you know all about that from earlier in the book.","OceanofPDF.com","3. Framing The frame makes the picture. Anonymous The framing effect describes how identical content can have different impacts when presented in different ways. We can establish different interpretative frameworks to influence people\u2019s decision-making without them noticing. For instance, it makes a huge difference whether a yoghurt is described as \u201c99 percent fat-free\u201d or \u201c1 percent fat\u201d. The content is the same. But \u201c99 percent fat free\u201d sounds much better to most people \u2013 and is a much more effective advertising strategy. The wording is key. Framing is not about telling half-truths or lies. It is a conscious shift of focus onto a specific, pre-existing, true aspect, which is given greater prominence for strategic or ideological reasons. The most famous example of framing comes from the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.89 They propose the following scenario: \u201cThe USA is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been","proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows: 1. If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. 2. If Program B is adopted, there is 1\/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2\/3 probability that no people will be saved.\u201d Which program would you choose? A or B? Most people (72 percent) chose Program A, in which 200 people would definitely be saved. Only 28 percent chose Program B. The results changed completely when the solutions were reworded as follows: 1. If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. 2. If Program D is adopted, there is 1\/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2\/3 probability that 600 people will die. Programs C and D reproduce the same content with the same probabilities as Programs A and B. But this time round, only 22 percent chose to save 200 lives (Program C), where 72 percent had opted for the identical solution in Program A. And 70 percent were now in favor of Program D \u2013 when only 28 percent had supported the identical plan in Program B. The results were completely reversed just by rewording the solutions. Note that Programs C and D expressed the results in terms of losses \u2013 and Programs A and B in gains. What can we learn from this? If we know that the person we\u2019re talking to likes to feel safe, i.e. is risk-averse, we should present our favored","option as a risk-minimizer. They are sure to take the bait. And if the person we\u2019re talking to is a risk-taker, we must present our preferred option in a positive manner, as a win. We\u2019ll have them in our pocket soon enough. How Framing Works in Politics Politicians and political activists naturally seek to frame their views in a positive light. Let\u2019s take the controversial topic of abortion. In the USA, it has been the subject of fierce debate for decades. It\u2019s interesting to note what the respective camps call themselves. Supporters of the right to abortion call themselves \u201cprochoice\u201d, while opponents call themselves \u201cpro-life\u201d. Both camps are for something. Both camps use so-called gain frames, i.e. perspectives from which there is something to be won. And each camp places the emphasis on completely different issues. The prochoice movement foregrounds the freedom of the mother. They position her as the decisive player in the abortion debate, and their arguments revolve around her: a woman, as an autonomous human being, should be allowed to decide for herself what happens to her body, and should have the right to choose. For opponents of abortion rights, the frame is the unborn child. The focus is on the child\u2019s right to life, which \u2013 whether God-given or not \u2013 is considered no less important than the mother\u2019s rights. Pro-life activists contend that because the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, it trumps the mother\u2019s right to choose. In this light, abortion is branded as \u201cinfanticide\u201d. So Who Is Right?","It\u2019s like asking, \u201cIs the glass half full or half empty?\u201d As with all controversial issues in life, it depends on the frame, and which perspective you give precedence to. The important thing to note is that both camps are right within their own system of thought. And because there is no such thing as objective truth, people cling instead to their own value judgments \u2013 and dialogue between politically opposing camps breaks down. Almost every political dispute has a strong ideological slant. Whether it\u2019s the debate around data protection (right to privacy versus effective crime control), circumcision (parents\u2019 freedom of religion versus children\u2019s physical integrity) or drugs (right to party versus risk of addiction) \u2013 framing is everywhere in politics. How You Can Use Framing to Manipulate People Imagine that you\u2019re a doctor prescribing a drug. And assume that the drug has a 10-percent chance of inducing strong side-effects. You now have the following two frameworks to choose from: 1. Positive frame: \u201cGood news! For nine in ten people, this new drug has positive results and no side-effects. So there\u2019s a good chance it will all be fine.\u201d 2. Negative frame: \u201cBad news. Only nine in ten people can take this new drug without experiencing side- effects. So there\u2019s a significant chance of you suffering strong side-effects.\u201d There\u2019s no factual difference between the information presented. But the perspective on the 10-percent figure is totally different. Even if you\u2019re not a doctor, every job","presents possibilities of projects succeeding or failing. And you can frame these possibilities to your advantage. If you are selling a product that is high-end and expensive, emphasize its quality. If you are selling something that is shoddy but cheap, emphasize the unbeatable price. If you have taken a long time to finish a project at work and your boss wants to know why it\u2019s taken so long, tell them, \u201cBecause I did a really thorough job.\u201d Then your diligence is suddenly in the spotlight: Rome wasn\u2019t built in a day. And if your colleague asks how you finished a task so ridiculously quickly, when it needed more thought, tell them confidently, \u201cBecause I was efficient.\u201d The focus instantly shifts to what a productive worker you are. Using Framing to Manipulate Yourself Of course, you can also use framing to manipulate yourself in a positive sense. This is what sportspeople do when they lose a final. They haven\u2019t \u201cmissed out on gold\u201d \u2013 they\u2019ve \u201cwon silver\u201d instead. You don\u2019t necessarily have to see irritating colleagues as a negative \u201cdisturbance\u201d at work. You can frame them as comeback training instead. In my comeback training sessions, I start throwing verbal attacks at participants at an unexpected moment. They must have an answer at the ready \u2013 and they pay for the privilege. Why not use your constantly critical colleagues as free brain training in how to keep your cool? And if things aren\u2019t going well at work, framing can help you make the best of the situation. As the famous inventor","Thomas Alva Edison so eloquently put it: \u201cI have not failed. I\u2019ve just found 10,000 ways that won\u2019t work.\u201d90 The IBM founder Thomas J. Watson agrees: \u201cIf you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.\u201d91 The ability to see things in life in a positive light induces greater stress resistance, heightened activity and vitality, and even increases the likelihood of financial success, physical health and happy relationships.92 Even the slightest choice of wording can make a big difference. In one study,93 people who wanted to lose weight had to repeat sentences like \u201cI don\u2019t eat ice cream\u201d or \u201cI don\u2019t skip my workouts\u201d. Another group had to say, \u201cI can\u2019t eat ice cream\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t skip my workouts\u201d. The result was striking: the don\u2019t group found it much easier to establish healthy habits and break unhealthy habits. This is because a can\u2019t frame deprives us of agency, implying that we don\u2019t have things under control. The don\u2019t frame, meanwhile, suggests that we are masters of ourselves, and follow our own principles. I constantly hear people describe themselves in negative terms. Most of my clients tell me, \u201cI\u2019m no good at comebacks\u201d \u2013 and this inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, they should say something like, \u201cI don\u2019t know any comeback techniques\u201d \u2013 which implies that they can learn to have a retort at the ready when they need it. Framing yourself and your life in a positive light is a smart move, because it motivates you to keep improving. Personally, I am very careful about the frames I use in my head. And even if I\u2019m only learning one new Spanish word per day, I repeat my favorite motto: \u201cCada d\u00eda un poco","m\u00e1s!\u201d (\u201cA little more each day\u201d \u2013 also known as CIP: continual improvement process.) OceanofPDF.com","4. Metaphors Nomen est omen. \u2013 A name is a sign. Plautus We don\u2019t always realize it, but we live in a language full of metaphors.94 We describe many situations, consciously or unconsciously, using figures of speech. And an image can manipulate our opinion about an issue in a very specific direction. A recent example of this is the refugee crisis. New arrivals are variously described as a \u201cstream of refugees\u201d, a \u201cwave of refugees\u201d, or a \u201ctide of refugees\u201d. These terms automatically trigger associations in our heads: for instance, that we must hold back this \u201ctide\u201d to avert catastrophe. Otherwise our country will be flooded. Some claim that \u201cthe boat is full\u201d (or that we\u2019ve \u201creached our limit\u201d). These flooding metaphors sound dangerous \u2013 and critics of refugee policy use them without a second thought. Refugee supporters take a different approach. They speak of refugees as \u201cguests\u201d who should be welcomed (promoting \u201cwelcoming culture\u201d and slogans like \u201crefugees welcome\u201d). People with migration backgrounds have previously been known under the blanket term of \u201cguest workers\u201d (though this is still a controversial phrase) \u2013 and","guests are supposed to be looked after. From this perspective, refugees have a right to hospitality, and we should be good hosts. These guest metaphors sound essentially positive, and are invitations to help \u2013 which is why refugee supporters use them. You might think that such metaphors are totally irrelevant to the judgments we make about refugees. But the 2,000- year-old maxim \u201cnomen est omen\u201d, attributed to the Roman playwright Plautus, has since been proven right by psychologists: the name we give to things defines our attitude towards them. Names program us. And metaphors have an astonishingly powerful impact on our thinking. How Metaphors Shape Our Judgment A few years ago, scientists set out to answer the question of how far metaphors shape people\u2019s thinking. In an experiment,95 they described criminals in one report as \u201cbeasts\u201d \u2013 and in another report, presented to another group, as a \u201cvirus\u201d. The label applied to the offenders had a significant influence on which political measures the readers of the report favored in order to combat the problem. The first group were presented with the following text: \u201cCrime is a beast ravaging the city of Addison. Five years ago Addison was in good shape, with no obvious vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, in the past five years the city\u2019s defense systems have weakened, and the city has succumbed to crime\u2026 In your opinion what does Addison need to do to reduce crime?\u201d 71 percent of the subjects presented with this text thought that the criminals should be hunted down and put behind","bars \u2013 and above all, that the \u201cbeasts\u201d should face harsher penalties. The second group were presented with exactly the same text, but with the word \u201cbeast\u201d replaced by the word \u201cvirus\u201d. This time, only 54 percent were in favor of harsher penalties. The second group were much more likely to recommend crime-fighting measures such as establishing the root causes of criminality, improving education, and eradicating poverty. A single metaphor had totally transformed people\u2019s perceptions of identical content. At the end of the experiment, participants also had to evaluate the factors that most influenced their judgment. The majority were firmly convinced that the facts were the only thing that affected them. Only 7 percent recognized that the metaphors used in the text had manipulated their judgment. Note: A carefully chosen metaphor can cast any issue in the light that you want \u2013 enabling you to subtly manipulate people\u2019s decisions. How Politicians Use Metaphors to Manipulate Us Successful politicians have absolutely mastered this art. They deploy visual imagery that most vividly justifies their actions. They consciously seek out metaphors that trigger associations in us, leaving us no choice but to agree with them. This was perfectly exemplified by the former German finance minister Peer Steinbr\u00fcck in his speech during the financial crisis of 2007-08. He made the case for supporting","the banks with bail-outs worth millions of euros, by painting this picture of a sick person: \u201cAs with a patient suffering from acute circulatory problems, the absolute priority when managing an acute crisis like this financial crisis is to prevent a collapse. We must stabilize the vital processes and functions that are restricted, or that may cease to function in situations of stress.\u201d96 This image appeals to listeners\u2019 sympathy and solidarity, encouraging them to endorse and accept the proposals. You could make the reverse argument using an alternative metaphor from Adam Smith: the \u201cinvisible hand\u201d will unconsciously advance the common good and regulate financial markets by itself. Weak banks will collapse, strong banks will survive; the taxpayers shouldn\u2019t be responsible for any losses; and banks who gamble away money should pay the price for their speculative undertakings. How Can We Use Metaphors to Manipulate People? The simple answer is that we should use positive images to describe ideas and projects that we support. And negative ones for those we reject. It sounds easy in theory. But how can we make it work on a day-to-day basis? Imagine that your colleague is putting together an alternative project proposal that is diametrically opposed to your own. Only one of the proposals can win. The whole team, manager included, are listening to both, and will give the green light to one of them afterwards. It\u2019s you or your colleague.","You know that metaphors have a powerful effect on your audience. So you don\u2019t make generalized criticisms of your opponent\u2019s arguments, but use figures of speech like the following: \u2022 I\u2019m afraid there are big holes in my colleague\u2019s reasoning, such as\u2026 \u2022 My colleague is on very shaky ground with the figures cited here, because\u2026 \u2022 This proposal makes assumptions that collapse like a house of cards when you consider that\u2026 You might not make a firm friend of your colleague, but that\u2019s a different matter. Further Examples of Manipulative Metaphors It\u2019s not always easy to come up with a metaphor on the spot. Thankfully there are plenty of idioms out there as well. Much like sayings, they are usually packed with metaphors that will get under people\u2019s skin much more quickly than abstract statements: \u2022 Instead of saying, \u201cThis issue is no longer relevant to our business,\u201d say, \u201cThat\u2019s water under the bridge now.\u201d \u2022 Instead of saying, \u201cThe expenditure doesn\u2019t balance out with the low returns, so this proposal wouldn\u2019t be worth the effort,\u201d say, \u201cIt sounds like we\u2019re looking for a needle in a haystack.\u201d \u2022 Instead of saying, \u201cI think it\u2019d be a good idea to organize a brainstorming session to collate constructive suggestions about this issue, as I get the feeling that","you\u2019re holding back some of your thoughts,\u201d say, \u201cIt\u2019s time to break the wall of silence and speak our minds.\u201d \u2022 Instead of saying, \u201cI think we\u2019ve spent enough time on this issue and should make a decision today,\u201d say, \u201cLet\u2019s fish or cut bait.\u201d Metaphors create a type of cognitive shortcut that enables us to quickly shape other people\u2019s thoughts. That\u2019s why it\u2019s worth buying yourself a book of idioms and sayings and, alongside your foreign words, building up your armory of metaphors, piece by piece. OceanofPDF.com","5. Loaded Language There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare This philosophical quotation from Hamlet essentially means: nature just exists the way it is. There are no rights or wrongs in nature. Only our expectations and moral attitudes create value judgments. You can deliberately steer thoughts and judgments in people\u2019s minds, by using loaded language to provoke agreement or refusal. Schopenhauer writes that to manipulate people, you must use words that neatly condense your own view (euphemisms) or that describe the opposite view in the most spiteful terms possible (dysphemisms). For example:97 \u2022 \u201cprotestant\u201d versus \u201cheretic\u201d \u2022 \u201ctake into custody\u201d versus \u201clock up\u201d \u2022 \u201cindiscretion\u201d versus \u201cadultery\u201d \u2022 \u201cexert one\u2019s influence\u201d versus \u201cbribe\u201d The phenomenon of loaded language was drawn to my attention by my law professor in the first semester of my law degree in Germany. He asked what you call it when someone takes their own life. I automatically answered,","\u201cSelbstmord\u201d (literally \u201cself-murder\u201d) \u2013 the most common German word for suicide. The professor replied, \u201cIf you call it that, you are describing it in unequivocally negative terms, as it contains the word \u2018murder\u2019. Does anyone know a more positive term for taking your own life?\u201d Another student chimed in, \u201cFreitod\u201d (literally \u201cfree death\u201d). It sounds very positive by comparison. The idea of \u201cfree death\u201d suggests that it is an act of individual choice. In English, we bypass this problem with the more neutral term \u201csuicide\u201d. Using Euphemisms to Seem Friendlier and More Important Employers constantly overstate job titles and job descriptions with disingenuous spin to keep their employees happy. They know that what people really want is to feel important. And important people naturally have important titles. Here\u2019s a little selection: \u2022 \u201caccount manager\u201d instead of \u201ccustomer advisor\u201d \u2022 \u201cdirector of human resources\u201d instead of \u201crecruiter\u201d \u2022 \u201cbilling manager\u201d instead of \u201caccountant\u201d \u2022 \u201cfirst level support\u201d instead of \u201ccomplaints\u201d \u2022 \u201coffice manager\u201d instead of \u201csecretary\u201d \u2022 \u201cfacility manager\u201d instead of \u201cjanitor\u201d Euphemisms in business include the following: \u2022 \u201ccreative accounting\u201d instead of \u201caccounting fraud\u201d \u2022 \u201cinvestment\u201d instead of \u201cprice\u201d \u2022 \u201cbusiness park\u201d instead of \u201cindustrial area\u201d","\u2022 \u201clet go\u201d instead of \u201cfire\u201d \u2022 \u201csuboptimal\u201d instead of \u201cbad\u201d \u2022 \u201cchallenge\u201d instead of \u201cproblem\u201d Last but not least, a little selection of euphemistic personality descriptions: \u2022 \u201cextroverted\u201d instead of \u201crude\u201d \u2022 \u201cstrong-willed\u201d instead of \u201cstubborn\u201d \u2022 \u201cassertive\u201d instead of \u201cbossy\u201d \u2022 \u201celoquent\u201d instead of \u201cverbose\u201d \u2022 \u201cprecise\u201d instead of \u201cpedantic\u201d \u2022 \u201cuneducated\u201d instead of \u201cstupid\u201d How to Use Loaded Language to Manipulate People In my daily workshops and coaching sessions, I use endless euphemisms, and avoid dysphemisms in favor of whole sentences. I do this to make my clients feel better. And anything I can do, you can do too: \u2022 Instead of \u201cWrong!\u201d I say, \u201cInteresting take,\u201d or, \u201cI used to think that too.\u201d \u2022 Instead of \u201cThat\u2019s irrelevant,\u201d I say, \u201cThat\u2019s a good point to mention,\u201d or, \u201cThanks for drawing my attention to that.\u201d \u2022 Instead of \u201cYou performed badly,\u201d I say, \u201cGiven that it was a spontaneous exercise, you did really well,\u201d or, \u201cWhen I did that for the first time, I was a lot worse than you!\u201d"]