The ManipulationBible - Wladislaw Jachtchenko

["I know that people want honest feedback, but woe to anyone who is 100 percent honest. In my job especially, where I am giving people feedback every day, I know that every word matters when you\u2019re casting judgment on someone\u2019s performance. What you need is not honesty, but a way with words. Your criticisms, if you have any, should only shimmer through from under the surface \u2013 otherwise your feedback will be rejected. And you will be faced with a disappointed client. No matter what you do for a living, the customer is always right. And they want to hear you say it. If you want to steer them in the right direction, start by laying it on thick with the euphemisms. OceanofPDF.com","6. The Word \u201cBecause\u201d Good arguments work like a dream, but not if you\u2019re asking anything of anyone. Bertolt Brecht People love explanations. As children, we are constantly asking our parents, \u201cWhy?\u201d As adults, too, we want explanations. Why didn\u2019t I get the job? Why did the boss prefer the other proposal? Why doesn\u2019t the love of my life want to go out with me? We never stop asking why. But do we pay attention to how good the answer is? Or do we accept any old senseless reason? Some researchers decided to find out. The Copy Machine Experiment and the Senseless \u201cBecause\u201d In the famous \u201ccopy machine experiment\u201d,98 Ellen Langer and her research team instructed actors to ask people queuing to use a photocopier whether they would let them go first. A total of 120 people were asked this favor at a university in New York. There were three different methods of approaching people in the queue: 1. Version 1 (no reason): \u201cExcuse me, I have five pages. May I use the xerox machine?\u201d","2. Version 2 (real reason): \u201cExcuse me, I have five pages. May I use the xerox machine, because I\u2019m in a rush?\u201d 3. Version 3 (senseless reason): \u201cExcuse me, I have five pages. May I use the xerox machine, because I have to make copies?\u201d Version 3 should have performed badly. But here\u2019s what happened: \u2022 Version 1: 60 percent let the person go first. \u2022 Version 2: 94 percent let the person go first. \u2022 Version 3: 93 percent let the person go first. The senseless reason was almost as successful as the good reason. This shows that most people don\u2019t scrutinize the rationale behind the information they are given, and don\u2019t differentiate between good and bad reasons. The important thing is that a reason is cited. In other words, the word \u201cbecause\u201d has magic powers in our minds. The mere presence of this word gives the impression that a request or a statement is justified. The scientists describe this as \u201carational\u201d behavior \u2013 in which reason is totally absent from the decision-making process. The striking thing about the copy machine experiment was that it was not performed in a laboratory, but in a public library. So it is relevant to everyday life. In their report,99 the scientists point to the fact that an individual brought into a laboratory is likely to feel self-conscious, because it feels like an exam situation. But in daily life, they concluded, \u201cpeople very often negotiate their interpersonal environments mindlessly\u201d.","How Can You Use the Word \u201cBecause\u201d to Manipulate People? The Brecht quotation at the beginning of this chapter claims that reasoning won\u2019t get you anywhere if you are making demands of somebody. But the copy machine experiment shows that people will give up their time if you just ask. Note that over half the people in the queue let the actors go first, even when no reason was given. So, conclusion number one is that being bold and just asking the question usually helps. You might be rejected about half the time. But there\u2019s a 50 percent chance you\u2019ll get what you\u2019re asking for. Conclusion number two is that it\u2019s always a good idea to give a reason \u2013 no matter how rational or plausible it is. Imagine that you\u2019re late and have kept people waiting. If you don\u2019t have an excuse, just tell them, \u201cI\u2019m late because I didn\u2019t set off on time.\u201d Don\u2019t expect people to jump for joy. But this meaningless reason will still soothe their tempers a bit. Or perhaps you have to justify a decision. Just say, \u201cI\u2019m doing it like this because I want to.\u201d It\u2019s an utterly vapid reason. But for most people, it\u2019ll be enough to justify your decision. The word \u201cbecause\u201d is not the only way to give a (bogus) explanation. Some great alternatives are causal conjunctions and connectives like \u201csince\u201d, \u201ctherefore\u201d, \u201cconsequently\u201d, \u201cthe reason is\u2026\u201d, \u201cas a result\u2026\u201d, and so on. These will help you manipulate \u201cmindless\u201d people to","your own ends, even if what you\u2019re about to say lacks any kind of substance. OceanofPDF.com","7. The Voice and Its Nuances The tongue can paint what the eyes can\u2019t see. Chinese proverb In any discussion about language, the voice is a vital part of the overall picture. The voice sets our words to music \u2013 and lends meaning to what we say. In the 1960s, Albert Mehrabian discovered that when contradictions arise between content and tone of voice, we are more likely to trust the voice.100 We instinctively assume that people can manipulate their words more easily than their voices. The Galileo Experiment: Man Versus Machine There are some companies, as you may be aware, that no longer conduct first-round interviews in person. Instead, applicants are interviewed by software that analyzes their voices. The software pays no attention to the content of what they say, but detects \u201cums\u201d, \u201cers\u201d, hesitations, repetitions, and measures intonation, among other things. It uses this to build a character profile for the applicant. The employer then reviews the applicant based on this character profile \u2013 and if the software has given them a positive report, they are invited to a second \u201creal\u201d interview. If not, their application is rejected. This voice- recognition software is being used by more and more","banks, insurance companies, recruitment agencies and administrative bodies. The German factual television program Galileo101 set up an experiment: they invited me, as a confident and experienced public speaker, on to the show, to outsmart the software. I played the part of an eloquent applicant, who never said \u201cum\u201d, answered the software\u2019s questions at length, and spoke for more than three minutes each time \u2013 but whose answers were totally irrelevant to the questions. What mattered was that I paused in the right places, elegantly varied my intonation, and didn\u2019t slip up once. The computer asked me various questions about the job and my personal life. One question, for example, was what a typical Sunday looked like for me. I veered off on a tangent about the seven stages of personality development. I answered all the other questions tunefully, eloquently, and completely meaninglessly. The software needed fifteen minutes of material to analyze my character. What did the results say? How did the software rate me? It gave me \u201cextremely high scores for word count and fluency\u2026 which sounded almost scripted and therefore not authentic\u201d. Because of the near-perfect tone of my answers, the system collapsed and couldn\u2019t produce a coherent analysis. When the Galileo editor explained to the software developers that it wasn\u2019t scripted, but that a professional public speaker had spoken to the machine, they were astonished that someone had cheated the system. The software was aimed at \u201caverage\u201d people, and failed in the sense that it could not process that an applicant could","speak eloquently to the point of perfection without reading from a script. Does the Voice Affect Your Success at Work? In another experiment,102 a group of salespeople were recorded on audio tape \u2013 and the files were then modified to render the content incomprehensible. All that the test subjects heard was 20 seconds of intonation, pitch, pauses, and volume. They then had to decide which salespeople were friendliest and most successful. The result was astonishing: although the subjects couldn\u2019t understand the content, they correctly guessed the most successful salespeople just from their use of pitch and intonation. The voice alone (detached from content and body language) was enough for the subjects to predict people\u2019s competence. In the second test group, the content was still comprehensible, and once again, subjects correctly differentiated the successful salespeople from the less successful ones. The sufficiency of such short extracts for complete strangers to cast accurate judgments is known in psychology as \u201cthin slicing\u201d.103 In very short periods of time (from a few seconds to around five minutes), people can work out who is a good teacher,104 or who will be a successful applicant.105 The length of the extract \u2013 i.e. three seconds or three minutes \u2013 has no significant impact.106 Seven Handy Vocal Tools","The question is what steps you can take to make a good first impression and set the right tone with your voice. Here are the seven most important vocal tools that you can utilize in your next phone call, as well as in everyday encounters: 1. Enunciation. It\u2019s vital to ensure that you can be instantly understood. So you must enunciate clearly. And it goes without saying that you shouldn\u2019t drop any sounds or syllables. It doesn\u2019t really matter how fast you speak. It\u2019s much more important not to mumble \u2013 especially because people are often afraid to say if they don\u2019t understand. Speaking clearly reduces misunderstandings, and it also implies a good grasp of what you\u2019re saying. 2. Intonation. The next key is not to speak in a monotone (i.e. on a single pitch), but to incorporate highs and lows. A common mistake is to go up at the end of your sentences, which suggests uncertainty, as if you were asking a question. Even if you\u2019re unsure about what you\u2019re saying, it\u2019s best to let your voice glide gently downwards at the end of the sentence. The more varied your intonation, the more interesting people will find what you\u2019re saying. 3. Varied speech tempo. Listening to someone talk at the same speed all the time is exhausting. More dynamic speech rhythms are a sign of liveliness and wit. Even if you\u2019re tired or not bothered about the conversation, you should still make sure that you vary the speed at which you speak. 4. Volume. You shouldn\u2019t speak too loud \u2013 it makes you sound nervous. But not too quietly either \u2013 it sounds","unsure. Everyone in the room should be able to understand you easily. 5. Pauses. Anxious people want to get things over with and don\u2019t take the time to breathe. If you want to emanate competence, confidence and clarity, you should incorporate deliberate pauses \u2013 which will also give the person you\u2019re talking to the chance to ask questions. 6. Avoid embarrassing sounds. \u201cUm\u201d belongs in the weak language category and should be avoided at all costs, to give the impression of perfect preparedness. 7. Dialects and accents. I have already explained the downsides of accents and dialects. Some people might not like it, but the Queen\u2019s English is the best recipe here. Of course, you can also pay a coach to help you refine these seven facets of your voice. Or you can do it yourself, perhaps by using your smartphone to record yourself reading newspaper articles out loud. It is difficult to keep an eye on all seven aspects of your voice at once. Start with just one \u2013 varying your speech tempo, for example. And once you\u2019ve managed that, move on to the next one. If you keep practicing, you\u2019ll make more and more progress as time goes on. OceanofPDF.com","8. Quotations It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations. Winston Churchill You will have noticed that I have prefixed each chapter of this book with a quotation to introduce each new topic. This is no accident. First, quotations suggest erudition and intelligence. Second, they add some color. Third, they often get right to the heart of complex truths in very few words, and fourth, they are useful aide-memoires in our fast-paced world \u2013 as sometimes they are the only thing that you remember from a text that you read in a hurry. Quotations can enhance any speech and any piece of writing. And their effect can hardly be overstated. How to Utilize Quotations Effectively There are countless quotation databases on the internet, where you can search for key words \u2013 and find a pithy quote on almost any topic within a few minutes. There is also the age-old tradition of collated quotations in book form. Either of these are not a bad first step. When making a speech or attending a meeting, it\u2019s an even smarter idea to quote the guest of honor or the most","important person in the room. Imagine that you\u2019re in a meeting with the CEO \u2013 and at some point it\u2019s your turn to speak. You begin by saying, \u201cI\u2019d like to start by echoing the words of our CEO at the beginning of the meeting\u2026\u201d If you do this confidently enough that it doesn\u2019t sound like boot- licking, it will have two advantages for you: first, the boss will remember you \u2013 because who doesn\u2019t like being quoted verbatim? Second, you will seem like an attentive colleague, who isn\u2019t just rattling off a prepared speech, but can be flexible and adapt to what\u2019s been said in the discussion so far. A Quick Latin Course for Show-Offs It\u2019s also impressive to quote in the original language. Depending on your audience, this can score you extra points. Only if your pronunciation is correct, of course, and you deliver it with aplomb and without referring to notes. You might have been lucky enough to learn Latin at school. Either way, it\u2019s time to dig out a couple of classic phrases and keep them up your sleeve for a suitable moment: \u2022 Dies diem docet. \u2013 One day informs the next. \u2022 Repetitio est mater studiorum. \u2013 Repetition is the mother of learning. \u2022 Manus manum lavat. \u2013 One hand washes the other. \u2022 Fas est et ab hoste doceri. \u2013 You should learn even from your enemies. \u2022 Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. \u2013 Firm in principle, gentle in manner. Or to complement our mantra \u201cManipulate others before they manipulate you\u201d: Vivere militare est. \u2013 Life is a battle.","Even if you never learned Latin at school, this ancient language still has a magical effect on us \u2013 and there are heaps of books and internet sites full of lovely Latin quotations on every topic imaginable.107 Alternatively, you might choose to quote in French, Spanish, or any other language. You shouldn\u2019t overdo it, of course. One memorable quotation per speech is quite enough. OceanofPDF.com","9. The Passive One great use of words is to disguise our thoughts. Voltaire An important linguistic trick that is often underestimated is the passive voice. Anyone working in an administrative role knows how handy the passive can be in everyday situations. Let\u2019s look at a few examples that demonstrate how you can use this verb form to manipulate people: \u2022 The subject of a sentence can be anonymized by flipping the sentence from the active into the passive voice. The subject is removed, and the object becomes the grammatical subject of the new sentence: \u201cThis issue was not dealt with early enough.\u201d This sentence does not reveal who failed to deal with the issue. In other words, the passive is a useful way of hiding your mistakes. Note: The passive creates anonymity, ambiguity and a sense of objectivity. \u2022 The passive also implies objectivity: \u201cNo convincing reasons were found as to why X was recommended.\u201d This sentence comes across as strikingly neutral. It sounds as if it was written by an impartial panel or an expert who considered the matter in a totally objective","light. There might have been good reasons for recommendation X, but this sentence sounds so unbiased that it\u2019s hard to question it. \u2022 And finally, the passive creates ambiguity: \u201cAt an employee meeting it was decided that smoking should be banned on company grounds.\u201d This sentence looks unspectacular. But we can\u2019t tell if the employees met voluntarily, nor do we know if the meeting was spontaneous or pre-arranged. It\u2019s also unclear whether the smoking ban was decided by the employees or management. The passive is a gateway to half-truths, which you can use to hide what you\u2019ve done \u2013 or not done. OceanofPDF.com","10. Ten Little Verbal Tricks Refining your style means refining your thoughts \u2013 that\u2019s all there is to it! Friedrich Nietzsche The final item in this second box of tricks is a list of little verbal techniques that can make a big difference. We spout thousands of words every day, and there is always room for improvement in our speaking style. That goes for every one of us. But there are also some little words and phrases that can improve our everyday communication skills in an instant. Here are my top ten: 1. \u201cAnd\u201d instead of \u201cbut\u201d. \u201cBut\u201d prefaces an objection. And people don\u2019t like objections. In 99.9 percent of sentences, you can simply replace a \u201cbut\u201d with an \u201cand\u201d, even when making an objection. It sounds more harmonious, as if it\u2019s just an additional thought \u2013 so it conciliates the other person. And this can help us to win friends and influence people. 2. \u201cI realize\u2026 but\u2026\u201d One-sided arguments aren\u2019t all that popular either. They sound biased. By acknowledging the opposing view, we show that we are aware of the conflicting arguments. Whether we actually have any time for them is another matter. 3. \u201cWe\u201d instead of \u201cI\u201d. \u201cI\u201d sounds egocentric, while \u201cwe\u201d implies that you are also thinking of others and that others support you.","4. \u201cEven if\u2026\u201dIf you have several points to make, \u201ceven if\u201d will help you enormously. If people don\u2019t quite buy your first point, you can slickly lead them onto a totally separate point without having to double down on your opening argument. 5. \u201cSo you\u2019re saying\u2026\u201d Paraphrasing other people\u2019s statements is smart because it gives them the feeling that we are listening carefully to them. \u201cActive listening\u201d increases their appreciation of us \u2013 and our ability to influence them. 6. Repetition. If we repeat a thought several times without being pushy, it slowly but surely takes root in the listener\u2019s mind. Repetition also gives the impression that we are confident in our own opinion. And people trust confident people more than uncertain people. 7. \u201cAn independent study showed\u2026\u201d People like facts. If we start a sentence with this phrase, our listeners will hear it as a strong argument from authority. Whether the study was really independent or representative is anyone\u2019s guess. 8. \u201cI\u2019m not saying that\u2026\u201d You pretend that you don\u2019t want to bring something up \u2013 but you still do it. This rhetorical device (apophasis) dates back to ancient times. I\u2019m not saying that you need to memorize the technical term for this. 9. \u201cMain clause. Main clause. Main clause.\u201d In Advice for a Bad Speaker, the German author Kurt Tucholsky108 remarks that the best way of keeping listeners\u2019 attention is to use main clauses (parataxis). No convoluted boa-constrictor sentences \u2013 just short, easily comprehensible ones. These substantially","increase processing fluency. Once again, it\u2019s Trump who has just about perfected this art. 10. Emphasis: Emphasize important words to make yourself understood. Emphasis (in italics) often changes the meaning: \u2022 Example 1: \u201cWe don\u2019t want him.\u201d \u2013 The focus is on who doesn\u2019t want him. \u2022 Example 2: \u201cWe don\u2019t want him.\u201d \u2013 The focus is on us not wanting him. \u2022 Example 3: \u201cWe don\u2019t want him.\u201d \u2013 The focus is on him not being the person we want. If you are interested to learn more verbal tricks and rhetorical devices, you can find a fascinating glossary on Wikipedia.109 Of course, you don\u2019t need to know what an aposiopesis or a zeugma is. But if I were you, I\u2019d at least add these ten tricks to my repertoire. So, those are the best ways to manipulate people with words. Let\u2019s now turn to logical fallacies \u2013 or, as I like to call them, bogus arguments. OceanofPDF.com","III . Third Box of Tricks: Bogus Arguments Appearances can be deceiving. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Most people have never learned how to argue. At best, they know from their school days that arguments follow the PEE rule: your point, your evidence to illustrate it, and a supporting explanation. But what a coherent and relevant explanation looks like remains a mystery to most. And that\u2019s why it\u2019s so easy to fool people with bogus arguments. In the second trick box, the \u201ccopy machine experiment\u201d exemplified how the word \u201cbecause\u201d alone can satisfy our hunger for explanations, without us checking whether what follows is a genuinely relevant explanation. This third box of dirty communication tricks will probe this notion a little deeper, exploring how we can manipulate people\u2019s powers of reasoning with bogus arguments. Here, we provide an explanation. On the surface, this phony explanation sounds half plausible even when questioned \u2013 and so many people will fall for it. In reality, though, the reason given is usually either irrelevant or false. The earliest systematic analysis of bogus arguments is Aristotle\u2019s Sophistical Refutations. The list has inevitably","grown longer over time \u2013 as our pseudo-explanations have become more and more creative. Some operate on a more emotional level \u2013 others on a more rational one. To manipulate people successfully, you must use the bogus argument that is most likely to work on a specific individual in a specific instance. One more thing to note before we begin: because many bogus arguments date back to antiquity, most of them have Latin names. It\u2019s useful to know these technical terms, so that you can instantly point out when someone tries out a particular bogus argument on you. Once you\u2019ve studied the following chapters, a phrase like, \u201cThe \u2018ad nauseam\u2019 doesn\u2019t work on me!\u201d will come easily to you. And you can take the wind out of your opponent\u2019s sails straight away. Enough preamble. Let\u2019s get stuck in to the thirteen most effective bogus arguments for everyday use! OceanofPDF.com","1. The Irrelevance Technique Life is a constant distraction, that never reveals what it is distracting us from. Franz Kafka As we know from political interviews, you can give a lengthy answer to a question that sounds very slick, but ultimately has nothing whatsoever to do with the question itself. In the earlier chapter on seeming confident when you haven\u2019t got a clue, I briefly mentioned how easy it is to abstract your answer or simply digress. Aristotle first identified this technique, and the Latin translation of his Sophistical Refutations coins it \u201cignoratio elenchi\u201d (literally \u201cignoring refutation\u201d).110 You talk about something other than the issue at hand. In doing so, you make a convincing argument \u2013 it\u2019s just not what you are meant to be arguing about. If you haven\u2019t got a clue or don\u2019t want to be nailed down on something, you can use a torrent of words to bamboozle the questioner until they forget their original question. One of the most famous historical examples of this comes from Senator Ted Kennedy, who back in his day was asked this simple question by a journalist: \u201cWhy do you want to be president?\u201d We can learn from Kennedy\u2019s answer! He said:","\u201cThe reasons that I would run are because I have a great belief in this country, that it has more natural resources than any nation of the world, it has the greatest educated population in the world, the greatest technology of any country in the world, the greatest capacity for innovation in the world, and the greatest political system in the world.\u201d111 What does all that have to do with his wanting to be president? Kennedy didn\u2019t stop there. He went on: \u201cWe are facing complex issues and problems in this nation at this time. But we have faced similar challenges at other times. And the energies and resourcefulness of this nation, I think, should be focused on these problems\u2026 primarily the issues on the economy, the problems of inflation and the problems of energy\u2026 It is imperative for this country to move forward \u2013 it can\u2019t stand still, or otherwise it moves backward.\u201d Sounds plausible, right? Complex problems, energy, inflation, moving forward\u2026 what was the question again? Oh yes, why he wants to be president. Even after listening to his two-minute-long answer, we\u2019re none the wiser. This phony explanation is also known as \u201cnon causa pro causa\u201d (the \u201cfalse cause\u201d fallacy). Right now, in the context of this book, you have been primed to read this in the light of bogus arguments. But when we\u2019re on the receiving end of similarly long and convoluted answers in normal everyday situations, they\u2019re actually much harder to pick up on. And if politicians can get away with it, so can you.","The Irrelevance Technique in the Office Imagine that your line manager wants to ask you about \u201cProject X\u201d, and let\u2019s suppose that you don\u2019t want to talk about Project X. Your boss approaches you and asks you something like, \u201cHow\u2019s Project X coming along?\u201d Following the rules of the irrelevance technique, you could respond along these lines: \u201cProject X is going very well. But Project Y has reached a point where we need to make some adjustments. I want to be there for my team \u2013 and I want to keep it going as well as it has been. We\u2019re working much better with the finance department than we were a few months ago. You\u2019ll be surprised at how good an understanding we\u2019ve reached. Actually, I wanted to ask you: when should we go public with Project Y? Lots of my colleagues think we should send out a press release as soon as possible\u2026\u201d Your boss will most likely notice this deflection. But the average line manager will now be thinking so much about Project Y that they\u2019ll already have forgotten their opening question. The really cunning trick in this example is the question you ask about Project Y \u2013 diverting the focus of their attention onto the other project. A Quick Exercise in Irrelevance Picture this: your partner complains that you work too hard. You don\u2019t want to rise to the bait \u2013 you want to talk about something else to distract them. Put the book down for a moment and come up with at least seven phrases that you can use to dismiss this accusation without responding directly to it.","OceanofPDF.com","2. The Appeal to Tradition Customs, tradition, and fashion are more powerful than the truth. Voltaire \u201cWe\u2019ve always done it this way\u201d is a sentence that you will have heard hundreds of times in your life. It can be used as a killer phrase to stall a conversation. But it can also be meant in earnest. And then it is pretty hard to refute. We can use this bogus argument when we are in the strong position of already having a generally accepted, tried-and- tested method that works. If someone comes to us to suggest a new way of doing things, they are already at a disadvantage. Their new method brings no guarantees that it will work at all \u2013 let alone work better than the tried-and- tested method. So you can simply tell them, \u201cA bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.\u201d Your way stands for safety and continuity \u2013 making the tradition-breaking suggestion look dangerously risky. The \u201cargumentum ad antiquitatem\u201d (from the Latin antiquus [\u201cold\u201d]), as the appeal to tradition is also known, can be used to fob off a surprising number of people. This is a classic example of \u201closs aversion\u201d. As you know, this type of argument is a phony one because there it contains two potentially false hidden assumptions. First, that you\u2019ve always done things a certain way for good reason. But the reason might not have been good. And","second, that no better suggestion has ever been put forward. That is not necessarily true either. Alternative Phrases The phrase \u201cWe\u2019ve always done it this way\u201d is pretty hackneyed these days, and many people are wise to it. So it\u2019s best to reword it like so: \u2022 \u201cLet\u2019s stick to what we know.\u201d \u2022 \u201cNever change a winning formula.\u201d \u2022 \u201cBetter safe than sorry.\u201d \u2022 \u201cLet\u2019s not jeopardize our progress.\u201d Using the Appeal to Tradition at Work Imagine that your colleague has a new idea that they want to implement. They\u2019ve brought figures, data and facts to the meeting to support their innovative proposal. What can you say if you\u2019re not convinced by their plans, or see potential drawbacks for yourself? Here\u2019s one thing that you can say to shut down the discussion in most instances: \u201cWith all due respect, these figures are based on very optimistic projections. What if things don\u2019t go so well? What if this new idea falls flat with our customers? We don\u2019t want to go down this road and end up in the red. Better to be consistent than to run the risk of burning money. And that way we can be sure of continued success. Let\u2019s not compromise our chances.\u201d A Quick Exercise in Appealing to Tradition","Picture this: you and your partner have been going to the same place for your summer holidays for years. This year, they want to try something new. But you don\u2019t. You\u2019d rather go back to your old creature comforts. Put the book aside for a moment and come up with at least seven phrases that you can use to counter this suggestion, presenting your annual tradition as something to cherish. OceanofPDF.com","3. The Personal Attack Words wound more easily than they heal. Johann Wolfgang Goethe The argumentum ad hominem (literally \u201cargument to the person\u201d) \u2013 the technical term for an attack on someone\u2019s personal circumstances or character \u2013 comes in three different forms: insults, poisoning the well, and the \u201ctu quoque\u201d. Insults The classic form of personal attack is to insult someone. We\u2019ve already looked at insults and how they helped Trump to the presidency. The effect of a calculated insult cannot be underestimated. Most people react very emotionally to them and are knocked off their stride. Very few manage to remain focused and indifferent. There are many reasons for this, but the most common ones are a lack of confidence and dependence on other people\u2019s opinions. Schopenhauer calls the insult \u201cargumentum ad personam\u201d. He adds that it embitters people all the more when you don\u2019t just insult them, but \u201ccalmly show them that they are wrong and have bad judgment\u201d.112 That said, we don\u2019t always have a superior counterargument at the ready. As a result, the \u201cargumentum ad hominem\u201d or \u201cad personam\u201d is","not always the best device available to you \u2013 but it is the easiest. Poisoning the Well Another form of attack is what\u2019s known as \u201cpoisoning the well\u201d. This image dates back to antiquity: when enemy soldiers were preparing to attack a town, citizens would poison their own well to cripple their future occupiers. The purpose of this bogus argument is to discredit the originator of a piece of information. Instead of expressing your own view, you denigrate the source \u2013 the person who proposed a disagreeable idea. For instance: \u201cAndrew is in a cult, so we can\u2019t trust his opinion on this.\u201d The fallacy here is that anyone who is in a cult is fundamentally irrational and can\u2019t have any sensible reasons for anything that they say or do. Of course it\u2019s possible to be right on some issues \u2013 even if you\u2019re in a cult, a member of the flat earth society, or work in the tobacco industry. You can also poison the well by accusing someone of selfishness or bias. If you\u2019re feeling mean, you can float the idea that someone\u2019s suggestions serve only their own interests. Egoism is a serious accusation in our world of do- gooders \u2013 and it certainly won\u2019t be easy for the other person to prove their own impartiality. The \u201cTu Quoque\u201d Another variation is the so-called \u201ctu quoque\u201d (Latin for \u201cyou too\u201d). Here, you accuse someone of not sticking to their own principles \u2013 and weaponize their inconsistency to discredit them and what they say. A classic example: a","father who is a smoker catches his teenage son with a cigarette. The father tells him that smoking is unhealthy and that the son should quit (a classic performative contradiction). And the son points out, \u201cBut you smoke too!\u201d The \u201ctu quoque\u201d is a bogus argument because the principle that the person has laid down can still be right despite their own contradictory behavior. But most people fall into this trap, purely because they feel guilty about their own hypocrisy. It works in the office too. Imagine that your colleague accuses you of immoral behavior in a certain situation. And assume that they\u2019re right in this instance. If you don\u2019t want to admit it \u2013 let alone justify it \u2013 it\u2019s useful to know of a faux pas that they once committed, which you can accuse them of in return. You can use literally any past mistake that they\u2019ve made \u2013 it doesn\u2019t have to have anything to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps they were uncooperative about last year\u2019s holiday allocations, or they\u2019ve been leaving the office earlier than permitted, or they\u2019ve been sending private emails during working hours, or they frequently eat meat from battery farms, or they don\u2019t give to charity \u2013 any moral failing is fair game when you want to discredit a moralizer. Your colleague will most likely respond by defending their own behavior, turning them into the target. OceanofPDF.com","4. The Circular Argument Morality is when you are moral. Georg B\u00fcchner, \u201cWoyzeck\u201d You\u2019ll remember my favorite manipulative expression, those five little letters that can end almost any argument: \u201c\u2019Strue [It\u2019s true!]\u201d This is a form of circular argument, also known as a \u201cpetitio principii\u201d, which is Latin for \u201cassuming the premise\u201d (or \u201cbegging the question\u201d). In a circular argument, the point and the explanation are identical. You don\u2019t prove anything \u2013 you just turn in a circle. If you do it well, though, nobody will notice. Circular Arguments in Everyday Life Here are three examples that I encountered just this week: 1. \u201cConstantly punishing yourself is sick, because it can\u2019t be good for you.\u201d 2. \u201cWe can all keep a check on our negative emotions, because our emotions aren\u2019t beyond our control.\u201d 3. \u201cYou can trust us because we are extremely reliable.\u201d And religion serves up another classic circular argument: \u201cThe Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible.\u201d","The best way to disguise circular arguments is to avoid using the same words in your point and explanation, using synonyms instead. This will hide the fact that both statements contain identical information.113 If the first example sentence read, \u201cConstantly punishing yourself is sick, because it\u2019s sick,\u201d the repetition would instantly stick out.114 Circular Arguments in Politics Political arguments are also strewn with circularities. Here are three further examples: 1. \u201cWe need a tougher justice system, because our current sentences aren\u2019t harsh enough.\u201d 2. \u201cWe should introduce a cap on refugee numbers, because the system won\u2019t work unless we set an upper limit.\u201d 3. \u201cWomen should be able to choose whether to have an abortion. So abortion should be legal.\u201d In the final example, no reason is given as to why women should be able to choose to abort a child. But the conclusion is still that it should be legal \u2013 a classic circular argument. Note: Circular arguments assume what they set out to prove. In political debates, note how rarely politicians give real explanations \u2013 and how often they simply reword and repeat their own propositions. And pay attention to your colleagues and relatives too. They do the same. Not necessarily because they have studied manipulative","techniques, but because their circular arguments are never called into question \u2013 and they have instinctively figured out that circular arguments work. Philosophers Use Circular Arguments Too But it\u2019s not only in politics and daily life that we come across circular arguments. Even philosophers use them. One of the most famous examples is Ren\u00e9 Descartes\u2019s \u201cI think, therefore I am\u201d. Here, the philosopher assumes that only living things can think. Simply put: because a thinking being is a being, it exists. Descartes assumes the being\u2019s existence in his premise, even though that\u2019s what he\u2019s meant to be proving. The recent rise of artificial intelligence has shown us that computers can think too \u2013 and modern AI is already able not just to carry out commands, but to develop complex concepts and solutions of its own.115 But we still wouldn\u2019t consider an independently thinking computer program as a living being. So thinking and being are not necessarily connected. Here\u2019s an example of a circular argument from John Locke: \u201c\u2018Where there is no property, there is no injustice\u2019 is a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid; for the idea of property is a right to something, and the idea of injustice is the invasion or violation of that right.\u201d116 Locke defines both property and injustice in such a way that his definitions assume his conclusions. He skillfully compares his own \u201cproof\u201d with Euclid\u2019s mathematical proofs \u2013 a comparison designed to lend his argument greater credence. Sneakily done, Mr Locke! (Property and injustice are not necessarily connected, as proven by Communist societies, in which property rights are abolished, but injustices remain \u2013 such as murder, for instance. So Locke\u2019s","definitions of property and injustice do not necessarily add up.) As you can see from these two philosophical examples, circular arguments are not always transparent. Which makes it even more useful to know how to use this type of bogus argument. OceanofPDF.com","5. The Slippery Slope Just when you think it can\u2019t get any worse, it can. Nicholas Sparks The slippery slope is about convincing people that we will be opening Pandora\u2019s box or setting a dangerous precedent if we make the smallest of compromises. We claim that the suggestion we are rejecting is just the beginning of a \u201cslippery slope\u201d. The Slippery Slope in Politics For years, the legalization of gay marriage has been fiercely debated in many countries. And the slippery slope frequently rears its head. For example, in 2015 a German minister railed against the expansion of the definition of marriage: \u201cIf we open up this definition to include any long-term partnership between two adults, we can\u2019t rule out calls for further change, like marriage between close relatives or between more than two people. Is that really what we want?\u201d117 First comes gay marriage, then comes the legalization of incest and polygamy\u2026 who\u2019d want that? But you don\u2019t have","to stop there. The conservative talk-show host Bill O\u2019Reilly \u2013 a hugely popular figure among Republicans until his sacking in April 2017 following allegations of harassment \u2013 took the argument much further. In a radio interview, he claimed: \u201cThe secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don\u2019t want it, because it is not diverse enough\u2026 But now, you know, the poly-amorphous marriage, whatever they call it, you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck. Why not? If you\u2019re in love with the duck, who is the society to tell you you can\u2019t do that?\u201d118 By making the slippery slope argument, you\u2019re suggesting that people are meeting trouble halfway. The worse the supposed consequences, the more you will deter them. And the more likely it is that people will agree not to take this first (small) step. It is often difficult to test the validity of slippery-slope arguments and their hypothetical consequences. Only those present can judge whether the arguments and counterarguments hold water. Slippery-slope predictions are always vague, avoiding concrete lines of argument. We are not dealing in certainties here: because the issue at stake is usually complex, it is rarely possible to come to compelling logical conclusions. The Slippery Slope in Everyday Scenarios Now that you know the principle and its persuasive power, the next question is how you can use it to manipulate people in everyday life. It\u2019s easy, of course. First you must establish what it is that you\u2019re against \u2013 and then gradually","develop this idea to the point of absurdity. Imagine that your boss has instructed you to learn the ropes of Facebook advertising. And you don\u2019t want to. This slippery-slope argument can help you out straight away: \u201cIf we invest in Facebook ads now, we have to invest in Google and YouTube ads too. That\u2019s already quite an outlay. But then our competitors will see that we\u2019re advertising on social media, and they\u2019ll start doing it too \u2013 they\u2019ll probably pour even more money into it than us. Then our advertising will be totally ineffectual, and we\u2019ll be losing money that we could have spent elsewhere!\u201d Your argument will be even more effective if you have a concrete alternative suggestion of how the money could be better spent. Then their attention will be completely diverted from the original topic. OceanofPDF.com","6. The Appeal to Common Sense Common sense isn\u2019t very common. Voltaire This technique dates back to ancient times, invoking a hypothetical human instinct towards rationality. The appeal to common sense (\u201cargumentum ad iudicium\u201d) is an entreaty to our powers of judgment (the Latin iudicium means \u201cjudgment\u201d). You present something as totally obvious, requiring no further explanation. Certain adverbs (or adjectives) serve to reinforce this effect: \u2022 \u201cObviously my neighbor is correct.\u201d \u2022 \u201cOf course Will\u2019s suggestion is far better than Matt\u2019s.\u201d \u2022 \u201cNaturally we can base our invoices on X plc\u2019s figures.\u201d The effect is even stronger if you can make people believe that no rational person would doubt what you say. For example: \u2022 \u201cEvery fifth grader knows that\u2026\u201d \u2022 \u201cIt will be immediately apparent to any reasonable person that\u2026\u201d \u2022 \u201cOnce you\u2019ve thought about it properly, the only possible answer is\u2026\u201d These latter sentences are reliable winners because people don\u2019t like being seen as irrational. But even if you don\u2019t","resort to smear tactics (as in the first set of examples), most people won\u2019t think critically about statements you present as obvious. Which usually makes this a very useful tool for convincing people to go along with your plans. OceanofPDF.com","7. The Appeal to Emotion Half our mistakes in life arise from feeling where we ought to think, and thinking where we ought to feel. John Churton Collins The appeal to emotion, or \u201cargumentum ad passiones\u201d (from the Latin passio [\u201cpassion\u201d]), is a rhetorical device appealing to the listener\u2019s feelings in order to convince them, rather than using arguments to prove something as fact. Many people prefer to rely on gut instinct rather than being guided by rational explanations. And it is these people who are especially susceptible to appeals to emotion. Aristotle identified the evocation of emotions (\u0113thos) \u2013 alongside argument (logos) and the speaker\u2019s character (pathos) \u2013 as one of the three modes of persuasion. Aristotle describes the speaker\u2019s character and the evocation of emotions as \u201cbonuses\u201d, positing argument as the core of rhetoric (Rhetoric, Book 1, Chapter 1). There are as many ways of appealing to emotions as there are emotions themselves. You can appeal to fear (ad metum), to envy (ad invidiam), to vanity (ad superbiam), to spite (ad odium), to moderation (ad temperantiam), to anger (ad iram), to awe (ad verecundiam) \u2013 but also to","positive feelings like love, friendship, gratitude, and so on. We have already covered some of these earlier in the book. The question is which emotional appeal you should use in concrete individual cases. And the answer is that certain appeals will work better than others, depending on your victim\u2019s personality. For simplicity\u2019s sake, let\u2019s assume that people can be divided into four groups, as defined by Hippocrates of Kos: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic and sanguine. Each of the four will be susceptible to different types of emotional appeal: 1. Choleric people are generally irritable, unbalanced and liable to fits of rage. If you provoke them to anger or hatred, they will quickly lose their composure and become more prone to mistakes. When someone gets angry, you know that you\u2019ve found their weak spot.119 And once you know where a person\u2019s Achilles heel is, you\u2019ve got them in the palm of your hand. 2. Melancholic people are generally gloomy types, pensive and extremely sensitive. But because they are also faithful, loyal and have a strong sense of justice, the appeal to sympathy (see p. 23) and the foot in the door technique (see p. 87) will work especially well on them. 3. Phlegmatic people are generally lethargic, calm and shy. They are also friendly and diplomatic, making them particularly vulnerable to supposedly good compromises, and, because they are anxious and hesitant, to appeals to fear (see p. 47). 4. Sanguine people are generally lively, upbeat and optimistic, extroverted and chatty. Their positive disposition makes appeals to positive emotions your best bet, as these will resonate best with their","personality. The appeals to friendship (see p. 46) and vanity (see p. 48) and the optimism trap (see p. 103) are very good options here. Of course, these four groups are ideal types, and rarely appear exactly as described. Every person consists of a unique mix of them. But good manipulators are good at reading people, assessing them in no time and finding the most effective emotional appeal to their dominant personality type. Aside from Hippocrates\u2019s four-type model, there are other ways of categorizing personalities. In recent decades, Frank M. Scheelen\u2019s four-color model has won popularity, as has the OCEAN (big five) model, which forms the basis of modern personality tests. OceanofPDF.com","8. The Endless Repetition The tenth time you say it, people will like it. Horace The argumentum ad nauseam (\u201cnauseating repetition\u201d) has already been mentioned as a way of ending disagreeable conversations (see p. 62). But repetition can also consolidate a point, even if the point itself is not entirely truthful. Here\u2019s the classic way to do it: \u201cI\u2019ve told you a thousand times that you shouldn\u2019t do that, because\u2026\u201d The simple fact that someone has said something several times before is obviously no proof that their point and explanation are correct. But constant repetition still has three effects that influence us all. First, they are persuasive in the sense that sooner or later we will just give up, because we\u2019ve had enough of hearing it. Second, if someone expounds their view with such vigor and evident conviction, we will begin to believe that they are right. Third, we get used to the thought over time \u2013 and eventually it stops sounding so farfetched as it did on first hearing. I still remember how my Latin teacher at university always used the same words at the end of each lecture to tell us to do our homework. He always said the same thing. \u201cEven if you don\u2019t want to \u2013 do your homework, just because!\u201d","At first, this seemed senseless to me. Why should I do anything \u201cjust because\u201d? That isn\u2019t a proper reason. But after a few weeks of him saying the same thing each time, I got used to the idea \u2013 and back at home I started thinking, I\u2019ll do my Latin translation just because. You might know of Cato the Elder\u2019s \u201cceterum censeo\u201d, with which he supposedly concluded all of his speeches in the Roman senate: \u201cFurthermore, I propose [ceterum censeo] that Carthage is to be destroyed.\u201d Cato is said to have used the phrase even at senate sittings that had nothing to do with the city in modern Tunisia. As the saying goes: constant dripping wears the stone. And what happened in the end? In the year 150 BCE, the senate finally agreed to Cato\u2019s proposal, beginning the Third Punic War that ended with the destruction of Carthage. Advertising uses the same principle of constant repetition \u2013 sometimes to a genuinely nauseating degree \u2013 to influence us. Media professionals know that even good commercials have to be seen multiple times by viewers before they will buy the product. Every salesperson knows that you must call or write to potential customers multiple times before they buy the product. Some do it twice, some three times \u2013 and the most successful salespeople up to ten times. But it\u2019s always the same advert for the same product. OceanofPDF.com","9. The Faulty Generalization \u201cAlways\u201d and \u201cnever\u201d are two words you should always remember never to use. Wendell Johnson A faulty generalization, or argumentum ab exemplo (from the Latin exemplum [\u201cmodel\u201d, \u201cexample\u201d]) transforms one or more unrepresentative examples into a supposedly general rule. The absolute classics are common assumptions like \u201cAll politicians are liars\u201d, \u201cAll men are cheats\u201d, \u201cWomen are bad at parking\u201d, or \u201cAmericans are superficial\u201d. Most people form prejudices on the basis of one or more experiences, which we store in our memories and universalize over time to help us find our way in the world. But how can you use this mechanism to manipulate people? The Example Trick No matter what you want to persuade someone of, all that you need is a good, memorable, and ideally incontestable example. Then you can act as if this example proves that something always, or at least very often, turns out as it did in this single instance. You can gloss over all the other times when it doesn\u2019t turn out that way:","\u2022 You are an insurance agent trying to sell disability insurance to a contact. To convince them, you find an example of when someone in their profession, and ideally also roughly their age, bought disability insurance, was later declared unfit for work, and now gets a fat monthly payout from it. \u2022 You don\u2019t want to go to Cyprus with your girlfriend in May. But she wants to go that month because she can take three consecutive weeks\u2019 holiday then. Find a friend who can tell you both how cold and windy it was when they went on holiday to Cyprus in May. Of course it\u2019s silly to infer that it would be the same every year. But your friend\u2019s \u201cfirst-hand experience\u201d will undoubtedly influence her. You can also invent an example, of course. But if you look for long enough, you can find real-life examples of just about anything. It doesn\u2019t have to be representative \u2013 it just has to sound plausible. The Counterexample Trick You can shoot down other people\u2019s generalizations with a counterexample. A single counterexample doesn\u2019t prove anything \u2013 it could just be an exceptional case. But this isn\u2019t a competition in fairness. You only have to act as if the example disproves the rule: \u2022 A smoker living into old age? \u2013 Winston Churchill. \u2022 A college-dropout millionaire? \u2013 Bill Gates. \u2022 A writer rejected by a dozen publishers, before finally getting a big break? \u2013 J.K. Rowling.","\u2022 A visionary enjoying financial success in multiple sectors? \u2013 Elon Musk. The list could go on for ever. It has never been as easy as it is today to find the perfect counterexample to anything and everything \u2013 you just have to spend long enough playing around on a search engine. OceanofPDF.com","10. The Cum Hoc Fallacy Correlation does not imply causation. Anonymous Just because events occur simultaneously or things crop up in the same place (coincidence), this does not mean that there is any causal relationship between them. But the \u201ccum hoc ergo propter hoc\u201d fallacy (\u201cwith this, therefore because of this\u201d) would have us believe that this is the case \u2013 for instance, by inferring a causal relationship between a rising birth rate and the simultaneously rising stork population. A classic example in politics is the debate around banning so-called \u201cshoot-\u2019em-up\u201d games for children and adolescents. Because some mass murderers have played these games, many politicians assume that these first- person shooter games are (partially) responsible for their killing sprees. But no causality has been scientifically proven. Correlations are a dime a dozen. Some are utterly bizarre. It\u2019s astonishing how certain statistics can display the same trajectory over years, by pure coincidence. For instance, the number of people who die from falling into swimming pools correlates closely with the number of films that Nicolas Cage has appeared in each year.120","This fallacy makes a mockery of smart-sounding statistics. But you can also use the trick for your own purposes. For instance, if you want to persuade your partner or child to eat less junk food, you can find a statistic online that shows a strong correlation between burger consumption and hospital patients. Or let\u2019s imagine that you like a drink now and again. You don\u2019t want to have to keep justifying your habits \u2013 you\u2019d rather make a kind of pre-emptive defense that successful people like a sip now and again. Just saying it won\u2019t sound very convincing unless you back it up. So how about finding an academic study online that reveals a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and professional success?121 Seeking out correlations and dubious statistics is one way of doing things. Another method is to present statistics in a way that paints a distorted picture of reality. As Mark Twain once said, \u201cGet your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.\u201d122 There are a multitude of fascinating books on manipulating statistics that will tell you all you need to know.123 Your manipulative strategies can include being selective with the timeframe, getting creative with units, stretching axes, pre- sorting samples, touching up graphics, using colors to provoke certain emotions, and much more. Thanks to the huge quantities of data available online, it won\u2019t take you long to find a convenient correlation and use it to craft a nice-sounding statistic. And then all you need to do is claim that it demonstrates a causal relationship. OceanofPDF.com","11. The Post Hoc Fallacy There are many reasons for divorce, but the main one is the wedding. Jerry Lewis While the cum hoc (\u201cwith this\u201d) fallacy concerns two events that occur simultaneously, the post hoc (\u201cafter this\u201d) fallacy concerns a past incident that is presented as the purported cause of subsequent events. A wedding is a conditio sine qua non \u2013 a necessary precondition \u2013 that always precedes a divorce. But that does not mean the wedding is the sole condition of it. Spot the post hoc fallacy at work in the following example: \u2022 Premise 1: Many married people go to marriage counselling following periods of conflict. \u2022 Premise 2: These people often end up getting divorced. \u2022 Conclusion: Going to marriage counselling therefore increases the likelihood that you will get divorced. The counselling is certainly not the cause here \u2013 at most, it is simply a catalyst for a long overdue separation. Because most couples only start going to marriage counselling once the situation has reached boiling point. Politicians show us how to use the post hoc fallacy for our own benefit. If the economy is booming, for instance, it\u2019s all"]