The ManipulationBible - Wladislaw Jachtchenko

["down to their \u201cinspired\u201d stimulus programs. Likewise, if you\u2019re a manager and your team is making fat profits, you can say that it\u2019s thanks to your strategy. Alternatively, if it has been going badly for a long time but you have finally got into the black, you can simply claim that your original measures needed time to bear fruit. If you are a parent and your child is beginning to enjoy success, you can naturally claim the credit: the child\u2019s recent achievements are all because you put the hours in helping them with their homework, ferrying them back and forth to music lessons, and paying for private tuition for them. OceanofPDF.com","12. The Argument from Utility Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. Karl Marx Do people do what is right? Or just what benefits them? When I ask this question, people usually respond along the following lines: \u201cWell, I have my principles and I try to stick to them. And if I have several options, I obviously pick the one that benefits me most.\u201d But is that really the case? I work with people from all walks of life, and my clients let me see behind the scenes. Outwardly, they are all generous, helpful, good people. That much is clear. But what are their true motivations? The answer is pretty sobering: we are utility maximizers in the extreme. Our principles serve as little more than a front to impress others. Our real motives are selfish, and we do as much as we can to suppress them. For instance, let\u2019s take a doctor who only gives each patient a few minutes of his time. If the basic principle of helping the sick really were his top priority (as he claims), he wouldn\u2019t treat them as if they\u2019re on a conveyor belt, dispatching them in three minutes each. But it\u2019s not just doctors who are sometimes guilty of putting profit first.","Some teachers regurgitate the same decades-old lesson plans year on year. If practice-based learning really is their key principle, as they claim, they would be constantly coming up with stimulating new activities with contemporary relevance. But that takes time. And teachers aren\u2019t the only ones who fall victim to expediency. A nurse who works stressful shifts and regular overtime for relatively little money might appear immune from accusations of selfishness. However, when private conversations turn to people\u2019s contributions to society, caregivers will often assert their moral superiority. But it\u2019s not just health sector workers who do this. Every one of us keeps one eye on a particular benefit that surpasses all our other basic needs. And we pursue it selfishly \u2013 sometimes noticeably, sometimes more subtly. If you understand which benefits other people prioritize in their lives, you can sell them almost anything. And by \u201csell\u201d, I don\u2019t just mean products and services, but your ideas too. This is where the argumentum ab utili comes in (from the Latin utilis [\u201cuseful\u201d]), which targets not a person\u2019s intellect, but their will: \u201c\u2026for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence\u201d.124 For it to work effectively, you first need to establish a person\u2019s greatest basic need. You must then package your manipulative message in a way that precisely meets that basic need. As Schopenhauer puts it: \u201cIf you succeed in making your opponent feel that his opinion, if proven true, will compromise his own","interests, he will let it drop like a hot potato, and feel that it was foolish to entertain it.\u201d125 Let\u2019s take a look at people\u2019s most common basic needs. Basic Need 1: Certainty\/Security Some people want certainty and security above all else. Take, for instance, the stereotypical straight-A student who goes on to launch a career in the tax office. Not because it\u2019s exciting. Not because it will win them recognition. But because it is a steady and secure job that makes their life a hundred percent predictable. They stay in one place, with a steadily increasing salary and a manageable workload. Zero risk. To influence this type of personality, you must frame your message in a way that promises maximum security. The appeal to tradition is the most efficient way to achieve this (see p. 164). For instance, if you want to go to Mallorca for the tenth year in a row with your security-oriented partner, emphasize the fact that you already know your way around and know exactly where the quiet spots are and where you can find good food \u2013 none of which would be guaranteed if you went somewhere new. If you want to talk them out of something, you should frame your message in a way that paints their potential future situation as very risky and unpredictable, and likely to lead them into unfamiliar territory. Basic Need 2: Variety Some people want to have as many different experiences as possible. New things are good. Old, familiar things are","boring. Changing cities, partners and jobs is generally the gold standard for this type of person. A suitable bogus argument in this instance would be the so- called argumentum ad novitatem (from the Latin novitas [\u201cnovelty\u201d]), which we have not yet covered. If you want to go to Mallorca for the tenth time in a row with your variety- oriented partner, introduce them to something about the island that they don\u2019t already know. Basic Need 3: Strong Relationships Some people don\u2019t necessarily want to make it to the top and buy a holiday home on the C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur. They care more in life about building strong, lasting relationships. You probably know someone who has given up their job for their partner and\/or moved to the other side of the world just to be near them. The easiest approach with such people is to sell them something that will strengthen that relationship. A suitable bogus argument is the appeal to friendship or love. If you don\u2019t want to go to Mallorca for the umpteenth time, tell your partner that you\u2019ll be too distracted there \u2013 and you\u2019d rather spend your holidays having cozy long conversations at home, not hitting up loud parties. If you frame it like this, your relationship-oriented partner is much more likely to be persuaded. Basic Need 4: Growth\/Personal Development Some people are constantly seeking to improve themselves. Their mantra is: if you\u2019re standing still, you\u2019re falling","behind. To influence this type of person, you need to show them how something might help them grow and develop. If you still want to go to Mallorca, you could tell your growth-oriented partner that they\u2019ll have time to polish up their Spanish again, which has got a little rusty in the past year. It\u2019s a smart move to back this up with a compliment \u2013 telling them how great it is that they\u2019re so intellectually curious and how much you like hearing them speak Spanish. Basic Need 5: Self-Fulfillment\/Independence It\u2019s especially important for some people not to feel restricted by rules. Freedom from norms and instructions is their dream scenario. Anyone with a strong urge for freedom can be persuaded by \u201carguments to autonomy\u201d that will supposedly give them greater freedom or choice. Let\u2019s leave the Balearic islands behind this time and take an example from professional life. Imagine that you are interviewing a job applicant who indicates that they prefer working independently. And you want this applicant in your team. The task for you is to spell out that if the company allows it, you will give them their own office, flexible working hours, and permission to work from home. For a freedom-loving person, aspects like these are more important than the money. Basic Need 6: Altruism\/Contribution to Society Like the nurse in the example above, some people\u2019s priority in life is, as they often put it, \u201cto give something back to","society\u201d. They feel better if they\u2019re helping others, and they like to be seen as \u201caltruistic\u201d. Let\u2019s stay in the office for a moment longer. If you have a colleague like this in your team, your job is to use idealistic arguments to show them how society is benefitting from their work. If you\u2019ve tasked them with selling private pension insurance, it\u2019s obviously not about the profits \u2013 it\u2019s about averting sociopolitical collapse by closing the enormous supply gap that will be created by national demographic shifts in the coming decades. Basic Need 7: Attachment\/Belonging to a Group Some people want nothing more than to be part of the group. Whatever it takes. Teenagers dream of hanging out with the cool guys or girls. Adults long to be indispensable members of a department, club, or clique. This is precisely what makes them susceptible to manipulation through the argumentum ad populum (the \u201cappeal to the majority\u201d, see p. 100). It\u2019s your job to show them that the group that they want to belong to do this or that, so they should do it too. For example, a group of colleagues are working overtime, before going for drinks later. One of your colleagues isn\u2019t particularly keen to put the extra hours in, but you emphasize the fact that you\u2019re all going for a beer afterwards \u2013 making them worry that they\u2019ll be missing out if they\u2019re not there. Basic Need 8: Recognition\/Success You probably know some people who need affirmation more than anything. Their goal in life is success. Everything else","is of secondary importance. Here, the appeal to vanity will come in handy (see the chapter on superiority bias. If you have a colleague like this, you should inflate their sense of accomplishment every so often. Overblown job titles do the trick nicely (see the section on using euphemisms to seem friendlier and more important, p. 145). Frequent praise also helps, as do accolades, gifts, and rankings in which their achievements are compared against those of their colleagues, and they come out on top. Sales companies are especially good at this, hanging up weekly charts of their highest performers. Basic Need 9: Conformity Not everyone has a clear vision or key motivation in life. Some people never work out what they really want. So they often conform to authority when making decisions about their personal and professional lives. This type of person is especially susceptible to the argument from authority (see p. 112). If you want to persuade a conformity-oriented colleague to take on a particular task, you can boost your chances by alluding to the company boss. This additional motivation will work in most cases. Basic Need 10: Comfort\/Free Time Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000), also known as \u201cmillennials\u201d, are said to prioritize free time and comfort above all else. There\u2019s a reason why they invented the pleonasm \u201cchillax\u201d (chill and relax). But there are plenty of older people who value comfort and pleasure just as much.","This type of person is most easily reeled in with hedonistic arguments (from the Greek h\u0113don\u00e9 [\u201cjoy, pleasure, sensual desire\u201d]). If you have an employee like this, you can keep them happy by permitting certain games during working hours (table soccer is especially popular in American offices nowadays). This will give the impression that they can keep up their hobbies even at work \u2013 enticing them to work longer hours. Basic Need 11: Profit The final category in this selection is the \u201cmercenary\u201d \u2013 someone who will stop at nothing to increase their earnings. Working overtime, being available around the clock, going into the office at weekends. They are hungry for money, and will work so hard for it that they often don\u2019t have time to spend it. Needless to say, financial arguments are your best bet here. If you have an employee like this, set them targets \u2013 with a bonus or commission guaranteed if they hit those targets. Nothing else will interest them that much. Does the bonus or commission have to be fair? To quote a wise but little- known author: \u201cIn life, you get not what you earn, but what you negotiate.\u201d How to Identify People\u2019s Basic Needs This list of basic needs is all well and good. But the crucial question is: how can we identify these personality types in everyday life \u2013 and how can we determine an individual\u2019s most fundamental needs? In other words, how can we deploy the argumentum ab utili to greatest effect?","The answer is straightforward. It\u2019s admittedly a bit laborious in practice \u2013 but it\u2019s doable. You must gather as much information as possible about your victim, and then draw your conclusions about their dominant needs. Here are a few examples: \u2022 Person A has decked out their inner-city office with slick, ultra-modern furnishings and\/or likes to be addressed as \u201cDr A\u201d: this is a strong indicator of \u201crecognition\/success\u201d as their most basic need. \u2022 Person B works part-time and is proud of it, and\/or has an unusual, outlandish hobby: this is a strong indicator of \u201cself-fulfillment\/independence\u201d as their most basic need. \u2022 Person C is an office clerk with a monotonous job and\/or still lives in the city where they grew up: this is a strong indicator of \u201csecurity\/stability\u201d as their most basic need. \u2022 Person D reads a lot of non-fiction, tells you about interesting sociological experiments, and\/or likes going to workshops: this is a strong indicator of \u201cgrowth\/personal development\u201d as their most basic need. \u2022 Person E talks a lot about what they get up to at the weekends and\/or their travel plans with their partner: this is a strong indicator of \u201ccomfort\/free time\u201d as their most basic need. Make sure you listen carefully, because people tend to give away more about themselves than they realize. It\u2019s your job to pick up on not just one clue, but several at once \u2013 they will probably all point in one direction, leading you back to an individual\u2019s most basic needs. One person generally has","several interests and motivations running in parallel. With a bit of practice, though, you\u2019ll learn to pinpoint their most fundamental need and deploy the appropriate argument. If you hardly know the person, you can do a quick internet search. You can probably find them on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, or in the general search engine results \u2013 there\u2019s information available on a vast number of people. You can use this overview to build a specific profile, most likely establishing clear tendencies. If your search yields two or three potential key interests and you don\u2019t know which is dominant, you should prepare some cunning questions \u2013 either-or questions, for example \u2013 that you can ask them in person to establish their most fundamental need. Even if you have only just met someone \u2013 a new client, for example \u2013 you must listen to them as closely as possible and ask pertinent questions, to work out what their main interests are. Only once you present the perfect outcome for them will they take the bait \u2013 and you get what you want. Note: It is totally irrelevant whether the argument that you use to manipulate someone would convince you. The bait is for the fish, not the fisherman. OceanofPDF.com","13. The Argument from Fallacy You don\u2019t fail when you make mistakes. You fail when your enemies exploit your mistakes. Kurt Tucholsky To conclude this section, let\u2019s look at one more thought- provoking bogus argument: the argument from fallacy, or argumentum ad logicam (from the Latin logica [\u201cthought theory, science of thinking\u201d]). This fallacy consists in exposing a bogus argument made by your opponent \u2013 and using this to denounce their original point as implausible. Although you need to know your stuff to use it, this is still a bogus argument \u2013 because your opponent\u2019s point might still be valid. They might not know how to construct a proper argument, or they might simply have used a bogus argument without realizing it. But that doesn\u2019t matter to you. You can still use this smear tactic to undermine their credibility. This strategy is especially effective in front of an audience or in a meeting. Schopenhauer is right on the money once again: \u201cIt would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when someone used this or that particular trick, they could be at once reproached for it.\u201d126","So there we have it \u2013 the most potent bogus arguments that you can use to manipulate people. But that\u2019s not all! There are many more that you can find in books or on the internet to bolster your rhetorical arsenal. They will help you to become an even better manipulator \u2013 and to expose your opponents\u2019 phony arguments too. OceanofPDF.com","THE (IM-)MORALITY OF MANIPULATION OceanofPDF.com","These are my principles. If you don\u2019t like them, I have others. Groucho Marx When does something become immoral? Is this an immoral book? An incitement to bad behavior? Is manipulation always a dirty word? And is it valid to let everyone follow their own moral compass? Let\u2019s take a closer look at these questions. Defining and Classifying Morality 1. What is Morality? 2. The Moral Stages of Manipulation OceanofPDF.com","What is Morality? When we consider questions of morality, we soon discover that the definition of the word itself is relatively uncontroversial \u2013 but the morality of an action in a specific instance is much more debatable. Let\u2019s start with the easy question: how do we define morality? Most people would broadly agree with the following definition: \u201cMorality is the set of values and norms that determine or should determine the ethical conduct of human beings.\u201d When you apply this to everyday situations, though, things start to get interesting. Fierce debate breaks out over whether one thing or another is \u201cimmoral\u201d. And because nobody can have the final say and the answer is never set in stone, people spend their whole lives confronting moral dilemmas on their own \u2013 developing their own unique moral system over time. Here, religious people might interject that God has the final word, setting in stone the answers to all our moral conundrums. But even if you accept this, there are endless questions that the Bible does not address, and that believers \u2013 even those from identical religious","denominations \u2013 approach very differently. Two examples are the \u201cimmorality\u201d of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and homosexuality. Every priest or pastor interprets the Bible differently, and ancient texts give no clear answers to modern questions in particular. Are the Techniques in This Book Immoral? Let\u2019s examine the following three everyday scenarios, while also scrutinizing the inner motivations of the people involved. What do you make of them? 1. A smoker lights up a cigarette at the bus stop. He knows that passive smoking is harmful to our health. He sees a few people grimacing \u2013 non-smokers, obviously. Our smoker thinks to himself, \u201cIf they don\u2019t like the smoke, they can go and stand somewhere else.\u201d Is the smoker in the right? 2. A student is struggling with her dissertation. Due to fits of depression, she has hardly managed to write a page. She hires an agency to write her dissertation for 3,000 dollars. She thinks to herself, \u201cI know that it\u2019s illegal. But it isn\u2019t immoral. I\u2019m not hurting anyone by hiring a ghostwriter.\u201d Is she in the right? 3. A husband has been cheating on his wife with another woman for weeks. He knows that it would break his wife\u2019s heart if she found out, and that she would end the marriage straight away (they also have a child together). So he thinks, \u201cShe\u2019ll never find out. It\u2019s worked alright for the last ten years.\u201d What\u2019s more, he believes that it is a positively moral decision not to tell her, so that she and the child are spared the emotional damage. Is he in the right?","If I put these cases to my coaching clients, something interesting happens: everyone assesses the scenarios differently for their own reasons. Because everyone has developed their own moral standards over the course of a lifetime. And everyone\u2019s moral compass points in a slightly different direction. When casting moral judgment on a specific scenario, self- interest also plays a critical role alongside your personal system of morality. Smokers judge example 1 differently from non-smokers. Someone who constantly cheated at school and in university exams will judge example 2 differently from someone who never has. And love cheats \u2013 which according to several studies is about two thirds of our society (with no significant difference between men and women) \u2013 judge example 3 differently from faithful partners. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to judge the morality of an action from the relative viewpoint of the person involved. Where would that leave us? Looking at it logically, the idea of morality would become hollow and arbitrary if anyone could define it as they liked. And almost everyone (save moral relativists) can see this. So we must try to find a minimum consensus on \u201cmorality\u201d in order to preserve the meaning of the term \u2013 and establish a collective moral bedrock for society. The Minimum Definition of Morality So, what might this minimum consensus look like? Well, in most cultures the so-called golden rule serves as the minimum:","\u201cDo not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.\u201d Similar maxims can be traced back as far as the 7th century BCE, appearing in philosophical texts from Ancient Egypt, India, China, Persia, and Ancient Greece. The golden rule also appears in one form or another in all the major world religions \u2013 Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. In the Bible, it takes the following form: \u201cDo unto others as you would have others do unto you\u201d (Matthew 7:12). One of our greatest thinkers, Immanuel Kant, took the golden rule one step further. His categorical imperative rendered it in universal terms, resolving some of its philosophical problems in the process. For instance, the golden rule invokes a system of subjective desires. It assumes that individuals pursue only positive outcomes for themselves, which is not necessarily true. Another problem with the golden rule is that it defines our actions in negative terms, without establishing any positive obligations towards our fellow human beings. The categorical imperative invokes reason instead of the pleasure principle, because the pursuit of pleasure is not necessarily a universal phenomenon. Schopenhauer concedes that the categorical imperative arguably remains negative in its wording, letting us establish universal principles based on egoism disguised as reason \u2013 but that\u2019s a philosophical discussion for another book entirely. The golden rule is universally accepted, and that\u2019s all that matters to us. Here\u2019s Kant\u2019s version of it: \u201cAct as if the maxims of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.\u201d127","This rule provides a fairly reliable test of our moral principles. For instance, if someone says that it\u2019s morally acceptable to cross the street at a red light if you\u2019re in a rush \u2013 and you universalize this rule \u2013 you are putting yourself and every motorist and pedestrian out there in danger. It cannot be a desirable universal law. We know all this instinctively without having to touch Kant. Inflicting harm on other people is immoral. So now it\u2019s time to turn this general principle to the issue at hand: is everyday manipulation immoral? OceanofPDF.com","The Moral Stages of Manipulation The general answer will be clear by now: if manipulation inflicts harm on others, it is immoral. The degree of morality or immorality depends not only on the extent of the harm inflicted, but also on how conscious the manipulator is of the damage that they are causing. Note: The moral degeneracy of our actions is determined by the extent of harm inflicted and consciousness of wrongdoing. The first aspect is simple: the greater the harm inflicted, the greater the immorality of manipulative behavior. If I steal ten dollars from someone, it is less reprehensible than if I steal everything that they own. This aspect is also known as actus reus (the physical elements of the offence). The conscience of the perpetrator \u2013 or mens rea (the mental elements of the offence) \u2013 plays an equally vital role in the assessment of morality. Jurisprudence, which has been arbitrating guilt and innocence since time immemorial, has developed a sophisticated system for pinpointing the severity of guilt. We have all heard of \u201cintent\u201d and \u201cnegligence\u201d: in everyday language, intent","means inflicting harm deliberately, while negligence means harming someone unintentionally \u2013 essentially because you weren\u2019t paying attention. But there are important distinctions between different degrees of consciousness or subjective responsibility. The graphic below illustrates this. Graph illustrating the (im-)morality of manipulation","This graph elucidates the moral classification of manipulative actions. The horizontal axis measures the \u201cphysical elements\u201d of manipulation \u2013 i.e. how much it benefits or harms other people. The vertical axis represents the \u201cmental elements\u201d of manipulation \u2013 i.e. how conscious the manipulator is of their manipulative behavior and its consequences. The top step \u2013 intentional manipulation to benefit others \u2013 is the most \u201cmoral\u201d form of manipulation. The bottom step \u2013 intentional manipulation to harm others \u2013 is the least moral form of manipulation. Let\u2019s take a closer look. Manipulation with Intentional Benefits This is the most moral form of manipulation, in which the manipulator attempts to bring benefits to someone else as well as themselves, and succeeds. You might ask: why do you need to manipulate someone if they will ultimately profit from what you are trying to achieve? Here are a few potential reasons. One possible scenario is that the upright manipulator does not have enough time to get into wide-ranging discussions and long-winded arguments, because a decision has to be made as quickly as possible. So they use a fast-working manipulation technique instead. Another possible scenario is that they are out of favor with the other person, who rejects everything that comes out of their mouth. But the manipulator still wants to be helpful, so they use covert means instead. Imagine a teenager who does exactly the opposite of what their parents want, just to spite them. The manipulator could use this reactance (see","p. 125) to their advantage by suggesting the opposite of what they want for their child. There are many other plausible scenarios. If a well- meaning manipulator knows far more than the other person, but their knowledge is too complex for the other person to understand, the argument from authority will work wonders instead (argumentum ad verecundiam. Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B to invest a modest sum in a financial product, knowing for certain that B will make a profit from it. A is happy about the commission that they earn, but is also happy to have helped B. Negligent Manipulation with Unintentional Benefits The \u201csecond most moral\u201d form of manipulation is when the manipulator unintentionally benefits the victim. From an objective point of view, both parties gain an advantage (a win-win situation). Subjectively, however, the manipulator is only interested in helping themselves. In this instance, it is important to emphasize that the manipulator must know for sure that the other person will definitely not come to harm. They imagine that the other person will either be unaffected by or benefit from the situation. Further theoretical possibilities include benefitting others despite conscious negligence, benefitting others with conditional intent, and benefitting others with direct intent. These could be added to the diagram above, but the differences in morality between these variants are marginal, so they have been left out. (Theoretically, you","might contend that moral actions must always be deliberate and intentional. But I think that someone who can rule out harm to other people, leaving open only the possibilities of a positive or neutral outcome for them, is still essentially moral. That said, you might argue that in such scenarios, the \u201cgood\u201d outcome is only a byproduct of selfish behavior \u2013 so it is not moral in any sense.) Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B to invest in a financial product, not knowing whether B will make a profit from it. But A does know that B will not lose money. B ultimately chalks up unexpectedly large profits from the investment. A is happy about the commission that they\u2019ve earnt, and is indifferent about B\u2019s success. \u201cNeutral\u201d Manipulation with No Consequences Another plausible scenario is that someone manipulates another person for their own benefit, without benefiting or harming their victim \u2013 and with full awareness of what they\u2019re doing. In principle, this behavior is morally \u201cneutral\u201d. Example: Person A (intentionally or unintentionally) uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A does not know, to invest in a financial product, knowing that B will make neither a profit nor a loss from it. A is happy about the commission that they earn from the deal. Negligent Manipulation with Harmful Consequences Negligent manipulators have no sense of their own wrongdoing, but they should do. The culprit \u201cfails to do due","diligence\u201d, as lawyers so aptly put it, and inflicts unintentional and unexpected harm on the victim. Example: Person A unintentionally uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A does not know, to invest in a financial product, not knowing that B will make a loss from it. If A had scrutinized the financial product more closely, A would soon have realized that B was certain to make a loss from it. But A was too lazy to check. Note: It is important to differentiate between conscious and unconscious manipulators, but we must also not forget that the extent of the harm that they inflict (actus reus) plays a critical role in how we assess the morality of their actions. There are conceivable cases in which someone acts on base motives, but the outcome is only slightly negative. Conversely, it\u2019s also plausible for someone to be only slightly negligent, but with hugely harmful consequences for the victim. Consciously Negligent Manipulation with Harmful Consequences Going further down the morality scale, we arrive at consciously negligent manipulation. Here, the culprit knows that there is a possible risk of harm, but hopes that it will not occur. Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A does not know, to invest in a financial product, supposing that B will probably make a loss from it \u2013 but A thinks, \u201cI\u2019m sure it\u2019ll all turn out fine!\u201d","Harmful Manipulation with Conditional Intent Someone who manipulates with conditional intent (dolus eventualis, from the Latin dolus [\u201cbetrayal, trickery, deceit\u201d] and eventualis [\u201cpossible, eventual\u201d]) is more conscious of their wrongdoing. They acknowledge the possible harmful consequences, and act with reckless disregard for them. This applies when the culprit presses ahead with their plans despite clear danger, with no certainty of a positive outcome, and it is left to chance whether the danger will be realized or not. Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A does not know, to invest in a financial product, expecting that B will almost certainly make a loss from it \u2013 but A thinks, \u201cWhatever!\u201d Harmful Manipulation with Direct Intent It is even more immoral to manipulate with direct intent (known as \u201cdolus directus in the second degree\u201d), i.e. with full certainty of the danger. In this instance, the manipulator is absolutely positive that the victim will come to harm \u2013 though the manipulator might not necessarily want to inflict this harm. Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A does not know, to invest in a financial product, knowing with a hundred percent certainty that B will make a loss from it. A does not necessarily want to ruin B, but wants to get rich on the commission. Harmful Manipulation with Deceitful Intent","The most reprehensible course of action is to intentionally manipulate someone in order to do them deliberate harm (in criminal law, this is known as \u201cdolus directus in the first degree\u201d). Here, the manipulator not only knows that they are inflicting damage on someone, but this is exactly what they want. Example: Person A uses cognitive biases, bogus arguments and verbal tricks to convince Person B, who A hates, to invest in a financial product, knowing with a hundred percent certainty that B will make huge losses from it \u2013 and that is exactly what A is after. A wants B to be financially ruined. Note: Contrary to the widespread demonization of manipulative techniques, manipulation is only immoral when the manipulator, who is always acting in their own interests, simultaneously causes another person harm through negligence or intent. Manipulation can also be morally \u201cneutral\u201d or even virtuous, if it has no impact or only positive effects on others. OceanofPDF.com","Conclusion: Manipulate Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere Nice guys finish last. Proverb Honesty is often exploited. And so is being nice. There\u2019s often a genuine correlation: the nicer someone is, the more danger they are in of being taken advantage of. To those people I say, being nice is so yesterday! The way to avoid this, of course, is to manipulate others before they manipulate you. Deceit is not a modern invention, and it knows no geographical bounds either. Before I give you my three final tips, I want to briefly illustrate how culturally entrenched manipulation is across the globe. In Ancient Greece, there was already a stark conflict between morality and efficient manipulation techniques. Plato and Aristotle were in favor of honesty \u2013 urging people to refrain from lying and strive for truth instead. Their opponents, the sophists, were generally more pragmatic, championing the view that rhetorical devices were the best","way forward. Protagoras prided himself on his ability to make the weaker argument appear the stronger using his powers of speech \u2013 and Georgias is said to have been able to make people believe implausible things and vice versa using the art of rhetoric alone. Homer\u2019s \u201cwily Odysseus\u201d has become iconic thanks to his resourcefulness and the deceitful methods that he employed to outwit his enemies and cannily circumvent danger. Manipulation techniques were also a popular topic in ancient China. The Thirty-Six Stratagems, attributed to the Chinese general Tan Daoji (5th century BCE), are a collection of crafty manipulative tricks to outwit your opponents with. They are still widely known in China today, and are a set text for school pupils in many provinces. Here\u2019s a small selection of Chinese stratagems: \u2022 \u201cWait at leisure while the enemy labors.\u201d \u2022 \u201cLoot a burning house.\u201d \u2022 \u201cMake a sound in the east, then strike in the west.\u201d \u2022 \u201cHide a knife behind a smile.\u201d \u2022 \u201cRemove the ladder when the enemy has ascended to the roof.\u201d128 Of course, the entire canon of world literature throughout the ages is packed with intrigue, deceit and manipulation. Whether it\u2019s Boccaccio\u2019s Decameron, Flaubert\u2019s Madame Bovary, Goethe\u2019s Faust, Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet, or Dostoyevsky\u2019s Crime and Punishment, rampant egoism and mutual manipulation are a constant leitmotif of the most famous books in the world. However, there are two works about manipulation that stand head and shoulders above the rest: Machiavelli\u2019s The","Prince and Schopenhauer\u2019s The Art of Always Being Right. Machiavelli\u2019s book offers tips on how a prince should attain, consolidate, and increase his power in a hostile political world. Here are two of Machiavelli\u2019s observations that are pertinent to our themes of manipulation and morality: \u2022 \u201cPeople are so na\u00efve, and so dependent on their momentary impressions, that anyone who wants to deceive others will always find people to deceive.\u201d129 \u2022 \u201cPeople judge things by their success. Everyone sees what you appear to be, nobody senses what you really are.\u201d130 Schopenhauer, who I have already cited several times, speaks of the \u201cwickedness of the human race\u201d, and makes the general observation that \u201cpeople speak before they think \u2013 and even if they notice in hindsight that they were wrong, they make out that the opposite is true.\u201d131 The earliest successful how-to book of last century, Dale Carnegie\u2019s How to Win Friends and Influence People, offers tips on how to build quick rapports with people. And even though Carnegie strives for authenticity, many of his techniques are clearly manipulative, such as: \u2022 \u201cSmile. Smiles are free to give and have an amazing ability to make others feel wonderful.\u201d \u2022 \u201cRemember that a person\u2019s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.\u201d \u2022 \u201cTalk in terms of the other person\u2019s interest. If we talk to people about what they are interested in, they will feel valued and value us in return.\u201d132","As we approach the end of this short overview, let\u2019s not forget the countless communication, negotiation and sales courses taught by coaches like me, which are available across the globe and which are open to anyone. They will teach you to present yourself more confidently, speak more eloquently, answer back more quickly, and be a better negotiator and salesperson \u2013 so that you can influence people more effectively and fight off the competition more successfully. I explained in the introduction how we manipulate people every single day, from the moment we are born. This backward glance through time shows that it has always been true. And I am not sticking my neck out by saying that it will stay that way for ever. People are always trying to influence each other. And so it is only reasonable to use the manipulation techniques in this book to outmuscle them each day. To conclude, I would like to share three final tips with you. First, I recommend that you start compiling a list of personal failures. Because you learn best from your own mistakes. And given that you now know the most effective manipulation techniques, you can at least realize in hindsight when you have fallen into a trap. Just as chess masters retrospectively analyze the matches that they have lost, to work out how they might have drawn or even checkmated their opponent, you should use this list to review your personal failures in everyday situations when you have been manipulated by someone. Take note of the following: \u2022 When, where, by whom, and with which technique were you manipulated?","\u2022 Why did this technique work so well on you at that moment? \u2022 What can you do to avoid falling into the same trap again? The longer the list of your personal failures, the better prepared you will be the next time someone tries to manipulate you. Second, you mustn\u2019t overdo it with manipulation. You now know the most pertinent cognitive biases, verbal tricks and bogus arguments out there. But the more frequently you use them, the more likely it is that you will get busted. So I advise you to be essentially honest \u2013 which will build up your credibility. And then you can manipulate someone at a vital moment. Remember the old saying: \u201cpick your battles wisely\u201d. This isn\u2019t an original English proverb \u2013 it dates back to the Chinese general Sun Tzu, who lived in the 6th century BCE and penned the famous treatise The Art of War.133 In it, he writes that if the battle cannot be won, you should not fight. And not every situation is worth pushing through. Note: Manipulate people as often as necessary, but as little as possible. Third, I advise you to take a look online for videos and tips to broaden your knowledge of manipulation even further. All it takes is a quick search \u2013 there is a vast amount of material out there. And if you have manipulative ideas of your own, or encounter manipulation in your everyday life, feel free to share them with me by visiting my website: www.argumentorik.com\/en.","The human imagination knows no bounds, and there are endless ways of influencing other people for your own benefit. So keep expanding your manipulative repertoire \u2013 and stay ahead of the pack! OceanofPDF.com","Notes 1 Aristotle\u2019s On Sophistical Refutations (Aeterna Press, 2015), dating back more than 2,300 years, identifies this trick of drawing \u201cirrelevant conclusions\u201d. In the Latin translation it is known as \u201cignoratio elenchi\u201d. See the section on bogus arguments. 2 Mehrabian\/Wiener: \u201cDecoding of Inconsistent Communications\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, pp. 109\u2013114 (1967); Mehrabian\/Ferris, \u201cInference of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels\u201d, in: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, pp. 248\u2013252 (1967). 3 BBC Interview with Mehrabian, 14.8.2009, on the program \u201cMore or Less\u201d. 4 See Dion\/Berscheid\/Walster: \u201cWhat is beautiful is good\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, pp. 285\u2013290 (1972). The term \u201chalo effect\u201d was coined by Edward Thorndike in the early 1900s. 5 Thorndike: \u201cA constant error in psychological ratings\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (1), pp. 25\u201329 (1920). 6 Todorov\/Mandicodza\/Goren\/Hall: \u201cInferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes\u201d, in: Science, 308, pp. 1623\u20131626 (2005).","7 Rosenthal\/Jacobson: \u201cTeachers\u2019 expectancies: Determinants of pupils\u2019 IQ gains\u201d, in: Psychological Reports, Harvard University, 19, pp. 115\u2013118 (1966). 8 Hemsley\/Doob: \u201cThe Effect of Looking Behavior on Perceptions of a Communicator\u2019s Credibility\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, pp. 136\u2013144 (1978). 9 Erickson\/Lind\/Johnson\/O\u2019Barr: \u201cSpeech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting. The Effect on Powerful and Powerless Speech\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, pp. 266\u2013279 (1978). 10 Kraus\/Mendes: \u201cSartorial symbols of social class elicit class-consistent behavioral and physiological responses\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143 (6), pp. 2330\u20132340 (2014). 11 Lefkowitz\/Blake\/Mouton, quoted in Cialdini, Influence. The Psychology of Persuasion, HarperBusiness, p. 227 (2007). 12 Doob\/Gross, quoted in Cialdini, op. cit., p. 229. 13 Cuddy\/Wilmuth\/Carney: \u201cThe Benefit of Power Posing Before a High-Stakes Social Evaluation\u201d, in: Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 13\u2013027 (2012). See also Amy Cuddy\u2019s Ted Talk \u201cYour body language may shape who you are\u201d, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Ks-_Mh1QhMc (accessed: 30.3.2018). Interestingly, researchers are divided on whether power poses really affect hormone levels; see Ranehill\/Dreber\/Johannesson: \u201cAssessing the Robustness of Power Posing: No Effect on Hormones","and Risk Tolerance in a Large Sample of Men and Women\u201d, in: Psychological Science, 26 (5), pp. 653\u2013656 (2013). But even critics admit that high power poses at least make people feel more confident. And that is a definite advantage. 14 Cuddy\/Wilmuth\/Carney, op. cit. 15 Kraus\/Mendes, op. cit. 16 Burger\/Messian\/Patel\/del Prado\/Anderson: \u201cWhat a Coincidence! The Effects of Incidental Similarity on Compliance\u201d, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, pp. 35\u201343 (2004). 17 For anyone interested in lie detection, I highly recommend the American series \u201cLie to me\u201d, in which a team of experts detect liars from their micro- expressions. The series is based on Paul Ekman\u2019s research. 18 Cited from https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewin sky_scandal (accessed: 23.7.2021). 19 Freedman\/Fraser: \u201cCompliance without pressure\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2), pp. 195\u2013202 (1966). 20 Cialdini: Influence, op. cit., p. 39 f. 21 Kelves: \u201cHuman Chromosomes \u2013 Down\u2019s Disorder and the Binder\u2019s Mistakes\u201d, in: Engineering and Science, 48 (5), pp. 8\u201327 (1985). 22 The M\u00fcnchhausen trilemma is a modern abbreviated reimagining of the \u201cFive Tropes of Agrippa\u201d, by","Agrippa the Skeptic, an ancient philosopher who lived in the 1st century BCE or AD. The two problems missing from the M\u00fcnchhausen trilemma are dissent (there are differences of opinion about everything) and relation (your argument changes in relation to your point of view). 23 It is also possible that this quotation is not from Rousseau, but from Fran\u00e7ois F\u00e9nelon. But the important thing here is the idea, not its original source. If people want to spend their time arguing about the source of every quotation in this book, that\u2019s up to them. 24 The Latin accusative rem has the nominative form res (\u201cthe thing\u201d). And hominem is the accusative of homo (\u201cthe person\u201d). 25 Lee\/Quealy: \u201cThe 329 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List\u201d, in: New York Times, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2016\/01\/28\/upshot \/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0 (accessed: 11.5.2017). 26 Schopenhauer: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten [The Art of Always Being Right], Area Verlag, \u201cLast Device\u201d (38) (2007). 27 Ibid., cited from https:\/\/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/The_Art_of_Being_Right, tr. Thomas Bailey Saunders (accessed: 19.7.2021), \u201cControversial Dialectic\u201d. 28 I highly recommend Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape. How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press","(2010). 29 The term dates back to a popular science book by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger on this subject, see https:\/\/de.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dunning- Kruger-Effekt (accessed: 20.3.2018). 30 Cited from https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/author\/quotes\/36556.Ren_ Descartes (accessed: 16.5.2021). 31 Cited from https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/quotes\/266696 (accessed: 16.5.2021). 32 Cited from https:\/\/www.brainyquote.com\/quotes\/richard_p_feynma n_137642 (accessed: 16.5.2021). 33 Swann\/Read: \u201cSelf-Verification Processes. How we sustain our self-conceptions\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17 (4), pp. 351\u2013372 (1981). 34 For more on this, see Chabris\/Simons: The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuition Deceives Us, HaperCollins (2011). There are various versions of the video online, for instance https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY (accessed: 18.5.2021). 35 Cited from https:\/\/de.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kognitive_Dissonanz (accessed: 20.3.2018). 36 Cited from http:\/\/read.gov\/aesop\/005.html (accessed: 18.5.2021).","37 Festinger\/Carlsmith: \u201cCognitive consequences of forced compliance\u201d, in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, pp. 203\u2013210 (1959). 38 Cialdini\/Cacioppo\/Basset\/Miller: \u201cLow-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (5), pp. 463\u2013476 (1978). 39 Kraut, cited in Cialdini, op. cit., p. 77. 40 See for instance https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Stanford_prison_experime nt (accessed: 24.5.2021). 41 Strack\/Martin\/Schwarz: \u201cPriming and Communication: The Social Determinants of Information Use in Judgments of Life Satisfaction\u201d, in: European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 (5), pp. 429\u2013442 (1988). 42 Bargh\/Chen\/Burrows: \u201cAutomaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), pp. 230\u2013244 (1996). 43 Bargh\/Pietromonaco: \u201cAutomatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (3), pp. 437\u2013449 (1982). 44 Stajkovic\/Locke\/Blair: \u201cA first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), pp. 1172\u20131180 (2006).","45 Cited from https:\/\/www.azquotes.com\/quote\/453692 (accessed: 31.5.2021). 46 Jacowitz\/Kahneman: \u201cMeasures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks\u201d, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, pp. 1161\u20131166 (1995). 47 Tversky\/Kahneman: \u201cJudgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases\u201d, in: Science, 185 (4157), pp. 1124\u20131131 (1974). 48 Northcraft\/Neale: \u201cExperts, Amateurs, and Real Estate: An Anchoring-and-Adjustment Perspective on Property Pricing Decisions\u201d, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, pp. 84\u201397 (1987). 49 Englich\/Mussweiler: \u201cSentencing under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (7), pp. 1535\u20131551 (2001). 50 Asch: \u201cEffects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment\u201d, in: Guetzkow (ed.): Groups, Leadership and Men, Carnegie Press (1951). 51 Cialdini: \u201cHarnessing the science of persuasion\u201d, in: Harvard Business Review, 79 (9), pp. 72\u201379 (2001). 52 Lee: \u201cThe Multiple Source Effect and Synthesized Speech\u201d, in: Human Communication Research, 30 (2), pp. 182\u2013207 (2004). 53 Cited from https:\/\/www.brainyquote.com\/quotes\/mark_twain_1223 78 (accessed: 3.6.2021).","54 Cited from https:\/\/de.wikiquote.org\/wiki\/Mehrheit (accessed: 21.3.2018). 55 Cited from https:\/\/www.aphorismen.de\/zitat\/8378 (accessed: 21.3.2018). 56 Harris: \u201cSufficient grounds for optimism? The relationship between perceived controllability and optimistic bias\u201d, in: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15 (1), pp. 9\u201352 (1996). 57 Chapin\/Coeleman: \u201cOptimistic Bias: What you think, What you know or Whom you know?\u201d, in: North American Journal of Psychology, 11 (1), pp. 121\u2013132 (2009). 58 Weinstein\/Klein: \u201cUnrealistic Optimism: Present and Future\u201d, in: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15 (1), pp. 1\u20138 (1996). 59 Elder: Trading for a Living; Psychology, Trading Tactics, Money Management, John Wiley and Sons (1993). 60 Trump during his Nevada caucus victory on 24.2.2016, https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/politics\/onpolitics \/2016\/02\/24\/donald-trump-nevada-poorly- educated\/80860078 (accessed: 21.3.2018). 61 Reber\/Mitterndorfer: \u201cThe use of heuristics in intuitive mathematical judgment\u201d, in: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, pp. 1174\u20131178 (2008). 62 Reber\/Schwarz: \u201cEffects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth\u201d, in: Consciousness and Cognition, 8, pp. 338\u2013342 (1999).","63 Greifeneder\/Alt\/Bottenberg\/Seele\/Zelt\/Wagener: \u201cOn writing legibly: Processing fluency systematically biases evaluations of handwritten material\u201d, in: Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, pp. 230\u2013237 (2010). 64 Lev-Ari\/Keysar: \u201cWhy don\u2019t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (6), pp. 1093\u20131096 (2010). 65 Ibid. 66 Rubin\/Paolini\/Crisp: \u201cA processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (1), pp. 21\u201328 (2010). 67 See Dion\/Berscheid\/Walster: \u201cWhat is beautiful is good\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (24), pp. 285\u2013290 (1972). 68 Landy\/Sigall: \u201cTask Evaluation as a Function of the Performers\u2019 Physical Attractiveness\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (3), pp. 299\u2013304 (1974). 69 Efran: \u201cThe Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgment of Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, and Severity of Recommended Punishment in Simulated Jury Task\u201d, in: Journal of Research in Personality, 8, pp. 45\u201354 (1974); Castellow\/Wuensch\/Moore: \u201cEffects of Physical Attractiveness of the plaintiff (victim) and defendant in sexual harassment judgment\u201d, in: Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, pp. 547\u2013562 (1990).","70 Stewart: \u201cDefendant\u2019s attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of trials\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10 (4), pp. 348\u2013361 (1980). 71 Kulka\/Kessler: \u201cIs justice really blind? The effect of litigant physical attractiveness on judicial judgment\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, pp. 336\u2013381 (1978). 72 Hammermesh\/Biddle: \u201cBeauty and the labor market\u201d, in: The American Economic Review, 84 (5), pp. 1174\u2013 1194 (1994). 73 Mack\/Rainey: \u201cFemale applicants\u2019 grooming and personnel selection\u201d, in: Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5 (5), pp. 399\u2013407 (1990). 74 Benson\/Karabenic\/Lerner: \u201cPretty pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12 (5), pp. 409\u2013415 (1976). 75 Chaiken: \u201cCommunicator physical attractiveness and persuasion\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (8), pp. 1387\u20131397 (1979). 76 Hildebrandt\/Fitzgerald: \u201cAdults\u2019 responses of infants varying in perceived cuteness\u201d, in: Behavioral Processes, 3, pp. 159\u2013172 (1978). 77 Karraker\/Stern: \u201cInfant physical attractiveness and facial expression: Effects on adult perceptions\u201d, in: Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, pp. 371\u2013385 (1990). 78 Milgram: \u201cBehavioral Study of Obedience\u201d, in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 371\u2013380","(1963). 79 Hofling et al.: \u201cAn Experimental Study of Nurse- Physician Relationships\u201d, in: Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, pp. 171\u2013180 (1966). 80 Kahneman\/Tversky: \u201cAdvances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty\u201d, in: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4), pp. 297\u2013323 (1992). 81 Regan: \u201cEffects of a favor and liking on compliance\u201d, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, pp. 627\u2013639 (1971). 82 Strohmetz\/Rind\/Fisher\/Lynn: \u201cSweetening the Till: The Use of Candy to Increase Restaurant Tipping\u201d, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (2), pp. 300\u2013 309 (2002). 83 Brehm\/Weintraub: \u201cPhysical Barriers and Psychological Reactance: Two-year-olds\u2019 Responses to Threats to Freedom\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 830\u2013836 (1977). 84 Choo and McGuinness\/Ward, cited in Cialdini: Influence, op. cit., p. 255. 85 Worchel\/Lee\/Adewole: \u201cEffects of Supply and Demand on Ratings of Object Value\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, pp. 79\u201390 (1992). 86 Cooper\/Bennett\/Sukel: \u201cComplex Scientific Testimony: How do jurors make decisions?\u201d, in: Law and Human Behavior, 20 (4), pp. 379\u2013394 (1996). 87 Lakoff: \u201cLanguage and Woman\u2019s Place\u201d, in: Language in Society, 2 (1), pp. 45\u201380 (1973); later explained in","more detail in her 1975 book of the same name. 88 See https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Toastmasters_Internationa l (accessed: 15.6.2021). 89 Tversky\/Kahneman: \u201cThe Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice\u201d, in: Science, 211, pp. 453\u2013458 (1981). 90 Cited from https:\/\/www.brainyquote.com\/quotes\/thomas_a_edison_ 132683 (accessed: 24.7.2021). 91 Cited from https:\/\/www.brainyquote.com\/quotes\/thomas_j_watson_ 209877 (accessed: 15.6.2021). 92 Carver\/Scheier\/Segerstorm: \u201cOptimism\u201d, in: Clinical Psychology Review, 30 (7), pp. 879\u2013889 (2010), with further studies of different areas of life in which optimism has a positive impact. 93 Patrick\/Hagtvedt: \u201cI don\u2019t versus I can\u2019t: Empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior\u201d, in: Journal of Customer Research, 39 (2), pp. 371\u2013381 (2012). 94 See Lakoff\/Johnson: Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press (1980). 95 Thibodeau\/Boroditsky: \u201cMetaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning\u201d, in: PLoS One, 6 (2), pp. 1\u201311 (2011). 96 \u201cRegierungserkl\u00e4rung des Bundesministers der Finanzen, Peer Steinbr\u00fcck, zur Lage der Finanzm\u00e4rkte vor dem Deutschen Bundestag am 25. September 2008","in Berlin [Government Statement by Peer Steinbr\u00fcck, Federal Minister of Finance, on the Situation of the Financial Markets to the German Bundestag in Berlin, 25 September 2008]\u201d, https:\/\/www.bundesregierung.de\/Content\/DE\/Bulletin\/2 008\/09\/97-1-bmf-bt-regerkl.html (accessed: 27.3.2018). 97 Schopenhauer, op. cit., Device 12. 98 Langer\/Blank\/Chanowitz: \u201cThe mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of \u2018placebic\u2019 information in interpersonal interaction\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (6), pp. 635\u2013642 (1978). 99 Ibid. 100 Mehrabian\/Wiener, op. cit.; Mehrabian\/Ferris, op. cit. 101 See the \u201cGalileo\u201d episode from 14.11.2016: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch? v=8kBzvEbpmz8&t=201s (in German, accessed: 27.3.2018). 102 Ambady\/Krabbenhoft\/Hogan: \u201cThe Thirty Second Sale: Using Thin Slice Judgments to evaluate Sales Effectiveness\u201d, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (1), pp. 4\u201313 (2006). 103 The thin slicing theory was popularized by the journalist Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Back Bay Books (2005), but has been known to science since the early 1990s. 104 Ambady\/Rosenthal: \u201cHalf a minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations From Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior","and Physical Attractiveness\u201d, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (3), pp. 431\u2013441 (1993). 105 Prickett\/Gada-Jain\/Bernieri: \u201cFirst impression formation in a job interview: The first 20 seconds\u201d, presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, in May 2000. 106 Ambady\/Rosenthal: \u201cThin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta- analysis\u201d, in: Psychological Bulletin, 111 (2), pp. 256\u2013 274 (1992). 107 Search for \u201cLatin proverbs\u201d online and you will find a vast number of quotations that you can use for free. 108 Tucholsky: Ratschl\u00e4ge f\u00fcr einen schlechten Redner [Advice for a Bad Speaker], in: Gesammelte Werke in 10 B\u00e4nden [Collected Works in 10 Volumes], Vol. 8 (1930), ed. Gerold-Tucholsky\/Raddatz, Rowohlt, p. 290 ff. (1975). Cited from http:\/\/gutenberg.spiegel.de\/buch\/panter-tiger-und- andere-1193\/52 (accessed: 27.3.2018). 109 See https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Glossary_of_rhetorical_ter ms (accessed: 12.7.2021). 110 From the Latin ignoratio (\u201cignorance, unconsciousness\u201d) and the Latinized genitive of the Greek work \u00e9legchos (\u201cproof, refutation\u201d). 111 Cited from https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch? v=TDh2iKzBh4E (accessed: 6.4.2018). 112 Schopenhauer, op. cit., Last Device (38).","113 Ibid., Device 6. 114 Aristotle identifies the circular argument as a bogus argument in his Sophistical Refutations (op. cit., fifth chapter). 115 See the fascinating Ted Talk by Maurice Conti: \u201cThe incredible inventions of intuitive AI\u201d, available on YouTube or www.ted.com (accessed: 28.3.2018). The autodidactic chess program Alpha Zero \u201cthinks\u201d independently and learns from previous matches against itself. It is not operated by predetermined algorithms, but develops its own ideas based on its prior successes and failures \u2013 just as people do. 116 Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol. 2, Dover Publications, p. 208 (1959). 117 Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (of the German Christian Democratic Union party) in the Saarbr\u00fccker Zeitung, 3.6.2015, https:\/\/www.saarbruecker- zeitung.de\/politik\/themen\/und-dann-die-forderung- nach-heirat-von-mehr-als-zwei-menschen_aid-1542981 (accessed: 28.3.2018). 118 Bill O\u2019Reilly on Westwood One\u2019s The Radio Factor with Bill O\u2019Reilly, 14.9.2006. 119 Schopenhauer, op. cit., Devices 8 and 27. 120 See B\u00f6hm: \u201cAngeklickt: Was Nicolas Cage mit Stolperunf\u00e4llen verbindet [Revealed: What Links Nicolas Cage to Accidental Falls]\u201d, in: Spiegel Online, http:\/\/www.spiegel.de\/netzwelt\/web\/spurious- correlations-korrelationen-vs-kausaler-zusammenhang- a-968848.html (accessed: 28.3.2018).","121 Peters\/Stringham: \u201cNo Booze? You May Lose: Why Drinkers Earn More Money Than Nondrinkers\u201d, in: Journal of Labor Research, 27 (3), pp. 411\u2013421 (2006). 122 Cited from https:\/\/www.brainyquote.com\/quotes\/mark_twain_1228 62 (accessed: 20.7.2021). 123 The classic book is Huff: How to Lie with Statistics, Penguin (1991). For the experts, Google has a tool that you can use to create your own correlations: https:\/\/www.google.com\/trends\/correlate (accessed: 28.3.2018). 124 Schopenhauer, op. cit., Device 35, cited from https:\/\/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/The_Art_of_Being_Right, tr. Thomas Bailey Saunders (accessed: 19.7.2021). 125 Schopenhauer, op. cit., Device 35. 126 Ibid., Device 2, Note 12, cited from https:\/\/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/The_Art_of_Being_Right, tr. Thomas Bailey Saunders (accessed: 19.7.2021). 127 Paragraph 7, Law of Pure Practical Reason in Critique of Practical Reason, cited from https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Categorical_imperative (accessed: 23.7.2021). 128 Cited from https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Thirty- Six_Stratagems (accessed: 23.7.2021). 129 Cited from https:\/\/de.wikiquote.org\/wiki\/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiave lli (accessed: 30.3.2018)."]