Oh, sweet. A candy-coated attack!
Examples (Nov 3, 2004):
“Everyone understands why a woman your age might get emotional at a time like this.”
“Everyone understands why the Democrats lost the election: values.”
“All good Christians understand that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”
Let’s see what’s happening here…..
Patterns:
- “If you REALLY X, you’d Y.”
- “If you really A, you wouldn’t WANT to B.”
- “Don’t you even CARE about X?”
- “Even X should Y!”
Response
- Identify the mode
- Identify the presupposition(s)
- Respond in NEUTRAL Computer mode TO THE PRESUPPOSITION ONLY
- Stay in Computer mode.
“Everyone understands why a woman your age might get emotional at a time like this.”
mode: phony leveling
presuppositions:
- You are the clueless one; every one else gets it.
- You are acting unreasonably.
- There is something wrong with being a woman.
- There is something wrong with being your age.
- Your feelings are invalid.
- Since the ‘something wrong’ is never stated, you are left to fill in the blank with your personal Achilles’ heel.
- And of course, those of ‘us’ who are so much more with it than ‘you’ will be happy to demonstrate our love and our superiority by forgiving you.
And the whole thing is poured over you in a syrup of fake concern and caring, so how can you possibly be angry at the speaker who cares so much for you?
So where is the bait that you must ignore?
Right out in the open. In this case: ’emotional’.
To neuter this attack you can’t discuss emotion and you can’t show emotion.
You will also have to fight dirty.
You don’t want to be too direct here–asking “Why?” is an excuse to have more garbage poured on your head. But you can leave the speaker standing there, holding the trash can high overhead–with no place to dump it!
So… try the ‘humble gratitude’ maneuver. Look mildly interested and reply gently, “I appreciate that.”
If you feel like returning some of the syrup, pour it on: “The fact that everyone here can understand and offer their support to me is a rare and special thing. It is a real tribute to your leadership here.”
Note that you didn’t come right out and say, “You are a great leader.” Instead, you turned the verb phrase (“are a leader”) into a noun (“your leadership”) and slipped the idea in as a presupposition.
“Everyone understands why the Democrats lost the election: values.”
Mode: Computer
presuppositions:
- You’re stupider than ‘everyone’ because you don’t get it
- You oughta feel even worse because you’re stupid
- There’s something wrong with [Democratic Values]
- You oughta feel bad about that, too.
- I am wise and kind and wish to help you by explaining this.
Do you want to argue who has the better values?
Do you want to argue WHY the Democrats lost?
Do you want to argue that the election was stolen?
If the speaker was willing to actually discuss any of the above, he would have asked you directly. So…… LEAVE THE BAIT ALONE!
What you really want to do here is politely make the speaker look like a fool.
You do this by subtly highlighting the speaker’s arrogance.
“It’s interesting how often men in your situation use a global word such as “everyone” to make a personal opinion seem more weighty. Substituting quantity of opinions for quality is a temption hard to resist when one is in a hurry. It’s understandable, of course; people with your responsibilities rarely have the time to do personal research.”
Note that you HAVE NOT DIRECTLY STATED that your opponent:
- Has something wrong with them.
- Has opinions that are flimsy.
- Has made the logical mistake of substituting quantity for quality.
- Hasn’t done his homework.
He’s very likely to jump on any of the above, and you can simply shrug and look innocent.
As I’ve been working on these diaries, I’ve discovered some interesting things when working out political examples. Sometimes these same verbal patterns can be used to exert pressure to conform, rather than being used as a direct attack. When you are responding to pressure, what then?
“All good Christians (should) understand that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”
Presuppositions:
- You are not a good Christian.
- You should feel terrible about that.
- Unless, of course, you vote on the single issue of abortion.
- The speaker has the right to judge
- The speaker has a pipeline to universal knowledge.
If you are the person spoken to, the ‘humble gratitude’ tactic should be pretty effective.
Depending upon the total audience, you may want to add butter and jam.
If the speaker is no longer present, and you are hearing the story second-hand, you have even more options.
- You can ask why the speaker would expect people to vote for someone who says they oppose abortion but then puts in place family planning policies that cause the abortion rate to go up?
- If your informant believes that the original speaker was claiming scriptural support for his position, you might ask the informant if his own reading of scripture fully agrees.
- You can sympathize. “You? Not good Christian? Should a true Christian leader make you doubt your faith?”
Homework–
“Every reasonable person understands why Ohio Democrats are so emotional these days.”
“All of us understand why you liberals are feeling so panicky about social security.”
Analyze….and refute.
CategoryVerbalSelfDefense diaries are based on the work of Suzette Haden Elgin.
Again, please recommend if you think this is worth pursuing.
If anyone has noticed similar attacks either in their daily life or in the news, please bring them into the discussion.
Thanks for your interest in this.
chriscol, I hope you had a nice vacation.
Thanks for parsing these techniques for me. It seems a daunting task to read a whole book on VSD – perhaps because the thinking required can be large in relation to the amount of text consumed… But it is much easier to digest it one principle at a time.
I especially enjoy reading your examples.
The vacation is scheduled for later this month. Major genealogy research, so I have to do a fair amount of prep for it. I’ve ordered some additional books by Elgin; I’m hoping they will give me some leads on how to put this stuff together into something useful.
There’s still the family wrap-up to do after the funeral–fortunately my cousin is executor, not me, but we need to coordinate support for my stepmother, who is physically frail. So I’m just busier than I had been earlier this year.
I think you’re right about the immense amount of thinking necessary to process this stuff properly. I know I still react emotionally to attacks long before I become logically aware of them and can start responding effectively.
Which means, of course, that there is too much “bait” in my diet….
chriscol you are … CORRECT! I also have problems with the strength of emotions that pop up when someone attacks verbally. It is exactly the reason that I’ve had to study these things over the years. I find that the more I am able to become the “heartless computer” in such “conversations” the better I do. It requires lots of practice and also personal preparation of my mindset before I venture out into situations where I know I’ll be interacting with the other side. I have the most trouble when the exchange is impromptu or I don’t know the other person very well. I don’t think that we are alone in this problem, which is why I think that it is crucial to get this info out there.
I wish you continued strength during your family “wrap-up”. I have had some recent experience in negotiating the needs of an aging parent and I know how time-consuming it can be.
Thanks again.
is a version of the “No true Scotsman” gambit:
Argument: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Reply: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
Rebuttal: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Personally, I think maple syrup goes well with porridge. But I don’t even claim to be a Scotsman.
Nice series. Keep them coming!
This is a great series! And I seem to run into these kind of statements a lot-mostly I think to encourage conformity. Of course, now that I want to I can’t think of an example, it’s usually something prefaced with the all knowing “everyone” though.
And I take the damn bait every time. So, let’s see here…
“All of us understand why you liberals are feeling so panicky about social security.”
Liberals are panicky, liberals are not one of us, you are a panicky liberal – an outsider. I’m not good with words in a pinch so my best bet would be the short, sweet approach:
“How kind of you all.”
although I kind of want to ask for details.
“And why would that be? I’d appreciate your views on the subject.”
But that last is probably a mistake. Thanks, I need to work on this!
I like your point about conformity. Perhaps sometimes we need a response on the order of “Have you ever noticed that the real saints and heroes seldom do what “everyone” else does?”
Perhaps someone can improve on this?
This is a good series. I’ve seen ads for Elgin’s books before and never gotten around to reading them. These short pieces look like a fantastic introduction.
May I suggest that when you provide links to your previous diaries? Something like this:
1. “If you REALLY X, you’d Y.”
2. “If you really A, you wouldn’t WANT to B.”
3. “Don’t you even CARE about X?”
4, “Even X should Y!”
That way those of us who came late to the party can follow the action better.
That’s why I always start with the Category comment.
If you click on the link, you’ll pull all of them up her at BT.
CategoryVerbalSelfDefense diaries are based on the work of Suzette Haden Elgin.
but I would find links to the individual stories much friendlier. The category comment took me to a list of posts, not all of which were relevant to what I was looking for.
Think of it as multiple paths to the same destination, perhaps.
I guess it works differently at BT than at Kos. Or maybe it’s the tinyurl I needed in order to link to the sig-file.
At dKos so it only pulls those diaries which have the Category comment (which is the only place where I ever post the CategoryCombinedWord).
Better suggestions will be welcomed….
When someone says something provocative and offensive to me, and I can’t think up a good comeback, I’ll often say “thank you for your input.” It doesn’t acknowledge the truth of what the other person said, and it doesn’t invite elaboration.
A very nice beginner’s move. Very nice.
Do you recall that TV spot for the TempurPedic mattress–the one with space-age foam? Where someone throws an 80 mph egg at the darn thing–and nothing happens to the egg?
Not spectacular, perhaps–but it does keep the egg from running down your face!
“All of us understand why you liberals are feeling so panicky about social security.”
Seems like one response might be to give them a superior grin, laugh, and say, “Sounds like you don’t understand–or you’d be panicked, too.”
(This is fun. I have to play!)
“All good Christians (should) understand that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”
Seems as if that presupposes the speaker has the inside track on what Jesus wants. Maybe one response might be:
“Oh, really? That’s funny, because Jesus didn’t say a word about that. You’d have thought that if that was the most important thing for his followers to do that he would have said so, but nope, not a word. Seems like he was busy promoting peace and forgiving sinners and helping sick and poor people.”
I think you have a good angle–but it might be more effective if you started a bit further away from your goal. That is, if the original attacker first agreed that the best way to figure out what Jesus felt was important was to look at which things he emphasized when he spoke, and then both of you actually compiled a list–then you might actually make some headway.
If you get too direct, you trigger the The Right-Wing Reasoning Chip.
Excellent idea. Of course, you’re aiming for actual good and effective communication, while I was apparently aiming for snide. <gr>