#oh also the complications of having taken part in and contributed to the oppression of people who are now your peers

[vssoise]

Rhetoric

At the core of the matter, people don't want to have to make too much of an effort. Especially when they're happy. Perhaps more so when they're looking for someone to blame. What it comes down to, is that people want to live lives without conflict, either external or internal, because it causes discomfort. And if something causes discomfort, it is avoided, or ridiculed, or cast in the role of antogonizing at best, oppressing at worst.

This is my base assumption, anyway, upon which I make the following observations, as to why certain styles of speach/argument are so apparently effective on such a large portion of the population.

Unspoken Assumed Truths

The first offender, or should I say contributor to my inventory of rhetoric, shall be taken to be whom I unaffectionately call "Gumball guy". There was a video not too long ago making the rounds on facebook or some boor going around with gumballs, claiming he could explain the effects (or to use a word he'd probably find more appealing to his argument, consequences) of immigration using only his multitude of gumballs. Right off the bat, two things. He's saying he's going to simplify an obviously very complicated matter with multiple facets using children's sweets, and two, he says he's going to 'explain immigration' using gumballs. I will refer to this assumption that whatever he's going to say is indeed an 'explanation of immigration' (assumedly, as a phenomenon) as Ass 1 (as you can tell, I really don't like this guy). Now, let's get into his actual argument. He says that, since the point of immigration is to reduce the world's poverty level, it necessitates that we have a measure of the world's poor. Hence, each gumball, we shall say, is 100,000 people living below the poverty line. Ass 2: The point of immigration is to reduce the world's poverty level. I mean, what? Since when do countries perform this charity of letting in people of other countries who are below the poverty line specifically under the idea that letting these people will somehow magically lift them out of the poverty zone and therefore decrease the overall number of those living in poverty? I've never heard such an immediately stupid assumption. But this post is not about Gumball's guy's immigration video, it is on rhetoric, and so I digress. Gumball guy goes on to say that, because the countries in which there is a large level of poverty are reproducing at a rate below the poverty line that far outpaces the rate at which developed countries (like the USA, in his example) can let them in, in net, immigration is actually doing nothing to help reduce world poverty, and therefore, immigration and the allowing of the same are totally pointless and should be restricted. Did you see what he did? To the casual listener, more so perhaps to the listener who is inclined to believe a reason that can be used against immigration policy, there is no conflict of thought required. After all, he defined immigration's purpose, and showed quite handily with his gumballs that immigration does not fulfill that purpose. It therefore logically follows that his argument is valid. But this listener doesn't remember to question the basis on which his argument is made, because the speaker never explicitly says what his assumption about the purpose of immigration is. He never says "okay let's define what immigration is for, we think it is this" because that invites attention to it. Attention invites analysis, and analysis is the antidote to misdirection. And because he doesn't explicitly draw attention to this, the listener is all but fine to ignore it also, since it requires more mental effort on his part independently, to do so. Therefore, by never drawing attention to an analysis of his defined purpose of immigration, he allows (forces?) the passive listener to accept, even without the listener's knowledge, that his defined purpose for immigration, his assumption, is true. This is the clutch point. By not drawing attention to the base assumption, he can make whatever argument he wants, even as simple as the one he made using gumballs, and it comes across logical rather than fallacious in some way. It becomes a simple argument, and no one wants to fight that, because simple is nice. Logic is conflict free. Unspoken assumed truths lie at the base of all 'simplified' complicated issues.

The Relatable Misdirection

The first person who did this that made me realize this was a thing (perhaps I should have realized sooner?) was Simon Sinek. He had a video come out recently, or perhaps it has just been making the rounds recently, about Milennials and 'why we are the way we are'. I know, been done to death right? "Oh no, they take too many selfies, they're too self obsessed, they want everything handed to them, they don't want to work as hard" etc etc. 95% of it is generalizing rubbish. 5% of it probably true about certain individuals, as it would be for any generation. In any case, this Sinek video takes "the Curious Case of the Milennial in the Workplace", so to speak, and, since I'm here discussing rhetoric, not his video, and so I can get directly to his point, says that Milennials are the way they are because of a failure of parenting, but more so because of a failure of the workplace to recognize this failure of parenting and provide the appropriate guidance. Now, there are are so many things to be said to counter him almost immediately. Assuming he's right, why is the workplace's responsibility to provide the hitherto missing guidance? Let's not assume he's right at all, and chalk up his ideas of why milennials are any way to generational differences that seem to draw lines between any two generations. Or, we can consider one of the multiple other, more real factors, that probably contribute to milennnial unemployment, or unhappiness, or living at home (the three most commonly referred to problems of our generation, by the older generation who, apparently, were gutsy enough to do things the way they had to be done), like the worst economy to grow into since the 20s, a lack of environmental regulations, the rising problem of student debt. And those are just USA milennial problems, but of course, USA is representative of the world, to a lot of people. But coming back to his rhetoric, while we are poking holes in his arguments, there are more people who accept his statements as must-be truths. This is because of his set up to his assertions. He starts his video saying small things that milennials and others can relate to, differences between generations, endearing things that point out the differences without invoking contempt from older people nor defense from milennials. By doing this, he gains the favor of his audiance, which is all he needs, in the end. If the audiance likes you, they're much more likely to trust you, and if they trust you, they're more inclined to not put their mental faculties to work trying to find flaws in your argument. The easier they accept your assertions. This happens with senators too. When emailed or called about a certain policy or the other, a politician won't go directly to what he thinks he should do to achieve the results; no, doing so prematurely while you are still primed to disagree would be ruinous. Therefore, he will always start by setting the correct stage. Establish vague statements as shared goals, thinks like "we want every American to have a great life" and "we think all Americans deserve access to opportunity". Things that are vague enough and positive enough that you can't disagree, and things that establish a common ground enough to engender more trust and amiability with him than you were originally prepared to give. Then, when he gets into what specifically he's going to, he's primed you to be more receptive, and the problem is that those who do not want to dedicate more thought than they deem 'necessary', which is most people, decide they don't need to hear anymore, especially if it's a conflicting opinion that requires even more brain power to process.

This isn't a pejorative towards people who are less educated or less succesful at all; it's about a real trait humans have. We don't like conflict, especially within our own thoughts, and we'd rather not have to dedicate unnecessary energy towards the consideration of things that we feel comfortable leaving to people we trust. Which brings me to my last point.

Language

Using simple words seems to be the most easily implemented, and yet most easily overlooked, source of good oration. Using larger words, even if they facilitate conveying greater detail, becomes counter productive if your audience can't understand you, or worse, see it as condescending. It comes across complicated, and perceived unnecessary complication can be misattributed to attempts at deception. If you use simple words, even if what you're saying isn't correct, you can connect with people better: if they can understand you, they will trust you. Even if what you're saying is wrong. This US Presidential Election, case in point.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, it seems apparent that most people would rather not devote much brain power to things they think doesn't directly and, more importantly, immediately, affect them. This isn't a groundbreaking realization. But what I've come to understand more fully, and perhaps this is basic, is that what is of primary importance in persuading people that you have their best interests at heart is to get them to TRUST you. It doesn't matter if you have the better plan. It doesn't matter if you actually do have their interests at heart. None of these matter more if they trust someone else more than they do you, and now, with at least these three things fleshed out for myself, I have three new tools in my inventory to help me make (manipulative, a little?) others trust me.

And that's the first step towards making any real change.

#blogpost #rhetoric #oration #politics