Let Manipulation Do All the Work

On the weekend I read chapters seven through nine of Thank You For Arguing. These three chapters basically talked about logos, ethos, and pathos and how to properly implement them when arguing. Even though we learned about these Greek terms in class, I think I have an even better understanding of them now that I know how to very effectively use them in debates or arguments. 

 Chapter seven begins by introducing us to the term "practical wisdom". What that means is basically the ability to show the audience that you know how to solve a problem spontaneously, using common sense. Of course, decorum and virtue are vital in order to be successful at this. However, what makes practical wisdom so special is that it doesn't need you to show that you're smart or that you've had amazing grades at school or that you're enrolled in the honor society. People don't have to be book nerds or little Einsteins in order to have practical wisdom; Heinrichs even says that, "strict rule followers lack [practical wisdom]" (pg. 98). In order for people to trust you with a decision, there are three specific rules that exist. First, showing off your experience thrashes book learning. Second, bending traditional rules show your spontaneity. Third, taking the midway decision is better than extreme ones in order to keep you and your audience satisfied. All of these tips use both logos and ethos. 

Zeal: (noun) Great
energy or enthusiasm

 Then, in chapter eight, ethos and pathos are employed in the techniques that are introduced. When an audience believes that you seem to cope unwillingly with something you are dying to prove, they'll be more easily convinced. Additionally, when it seems like the choice you're making is a personal sacrifice, it becomes more credible. I always use that technique (unconsciously). There used to be many times were I used the personal sacrifice idea in order to convince my parents to let me go to parties. It always went something like this: 

 PARENTS: Are you doing anything tonight? 
ME: Nah, I don’t think so. All my friends are going to this party, but I didn’t even want to try and ask for permission. I'll rather stay in and do some homework. 
PARENTS: What? Why don't you ask us for permission? 
ME: Because it's obvious that you guys won’t let me go. 
PARENTS: How do you know? 
ME: I just know. I don’t wanna fight with you. Plus I have a bunch of work to do, so don’t worry. 
PARENTS: Why would we fight? Of course you can go, don't assume anything from us. 

Effectively, they'd let me go. 

Besotted: (adj) strongly infatuated
(it could also mean drunk or intoxicated)

 Chapter nine talked about the audience's mood and how to use pathos in order to persuade. Long story short, using experience and what the audience expects from you, can ignite belief. If you tell a story, specifically in first person, it'll give the audience a virtual experience. A key element is volume control: starting with a low voice, increasing it as you go, and ending with loud remarks will grab your audience's attention. Keeping it simple but sneaking up on their mood, will hook your audience completely. Anger and patriotism are also key if you're trying to make your audience believe you above a rival. 

 In three chapters, I learned so many things. I am definitely taking all of the suggestions so that I can use them whenever I desire. It takes time to really encrypt them in my brain and natural behavior. I know that by the end of this book I'll be able to manipulate everyone I want through the use of rhetoric. I'll just wait patiently and let the manipulation sink in. Then I'll just let it do all the work.

Audience Above All

Chapters 5 and 6 of Thank You For Arguing introduce new ways to win arguments. The main topics that Heinrichs talks about are decorum (following the audience's rules and expectations) and virtue. Both chapters give very good examples (which is what I'm liking most about the book) about these two ideas. The one that stood out the most to me was when he talks about Eminem and his decorum in the autobiographical movie 8 Mile. This example was so good, that not only was I able to visualize the scene that is explained, but I also understood what decorum means and how it works. That's why I am going focus more on decorum than in virtue.

Dire: (adj) Extremely serious or urgent

When Eminem's example came up, decorum quickly became clear to me. In order to convince the audience, you have to fit in. But how do you fit in? Simple, by acting the way that everyone is anticipating. Heinrichs explains that when he says, "to show proper decorum, act the way your audience expects you to act - not necessarily like your audience" (pg. 69). This includes your attire, gestures, order and tonality among other things. That's exactly what Eminem did: he dressed accordingly and used proper body language. 

Click here to watch Ashton's acceptance speech. 

While reading that part of the book, I remembered a celebrity who won his audience over. Ashton Kutcher gave a great speech in the 2013 Teen Choice Awards. His decorum is perfect; Ashton's attire is teen-ish and relaxed, his gestures are informal and casual, his tone is very sincere and jovial, and the content of what he's talking about has a serious message but he uses humor to make it entertaining and proper for the occasion. This very casual decorum is perfectly appropriate for the event since the audience consists of mainly teenagers. Teenagers are expecting to see a specific show: one that is fun, "cool", and cheerful. That's why Ashton's decorum is so great. He could have given this speech in a ver serious and monotonous tone, but he managed to think the way his audience would and spoke in a suitable way. As it said in the book, "decorum follows the audience's rules," (pg. 70) which is exactly what Kutcher pursued. 

Later on, Heinrichs talks about sympathy in persuasion. That is another thing that Kutcher utilized in his speech when he talks about the jobs he had before becoming an actor. While "persuasion requires sympathy," (pg. 79) it is also said that "persuasion doesn't depend on being true to yourself. It depends on being true to your audience" (pg. 79). He did both things, and that's why everyone is left amazed when he finishes. 

I find it very logical that physical appearance and how one presents itself to an audience is quite important in order to persuade. It is also virtue that is quite important, and specifically supporting the audience's values is what truly makes you appear trustworthy. If I can employ all of these things just like Eminem and Ashton Kutcher did, I'll take another step into mastering persuasion. 

Maybe Aristotle's Ghost Unconsciously Taught Us?

As I began reading Thank You For Arguing I noticed that many of the tips given are things that I already do or have done. Maybe it's just me. Maybe not. Or maybe Aristotle's ghost has reincarnated in my body and used some rhetoric skills throughout my life. Whatever it is, I know I've done these things unconsciously and now that I've realized that, I bet I can now use rhetoric successfully in the future if I learn and "listen" to everything Jay Heinrichs has to instruct. 

In chapter one, Heinrichs introduces us to the world of rhetoric. He mentions that in ancient Greece rhetoric was so important that it was considered the most critical skill of leadership. Along the chapter, he uses a lot of examples of famous people throughout history who used rhetoric (such as Aristotle, Daniel Webster, and John F. Kennedy). While I digested those two facts, I thought that maybe rhetoric is a very hard art and only very smart people (like the ones I just mentioned) are capable of mastering it. Quite intimidating. However, throughout the chapter he also gives some typical examples taken from his daily life, and that's when I became aware of the fact that I have used rhetoric multiple times in my life. It looked hard and complex, but when I think about the times I've unconsciously convinced someone or had an argument, it's not too bad. 

Chiasmus: (noun) A reversal in the order
of words in two otherwise parallel phrases.

The example that he starts the chapter with was when he blamed his son for the toothpaste that was gone, then his son used deliberative skills ("how are we going to keep this from happening again"), then he said he's right and accepted that his son won, and then he got what he wanted in the first place since his son brings him the new toothpaste. I have experienced similar occurrences. For example, two years ago my dad lent me his DSLR camera to take picture for different school events. He gave it to me at the beginning of the year and then at the end he asked me to give it to him since he was traveling to Moscow and needed the camera back. When I gave it back to him, he noticed that in the camera case there was something missing. The lid of the lens was not there. And so the first thing he did was blame me (forensic). Immediately, I was very surprised because 1) I didn't loose the lid, and I am very responsible especially with things that are not mine, and 2) I couldn't believe my own dad would think I am a messy or irresponsible person, when in reality I'm very organized, mature and reasonable. So I responded with "How can you say that? Do you really think I am such an irresponsible person?" (demonstrative). He then proceeded to say that he thought I was very irresponsible and that it was probably me, because to him it made no sense that it couldn't have been my fault. Finally, I began to control myself because this was going towards the direction of a huge fight, not argument. That's when I said, "Okay. Whatever. Now what? Are we going to upgrade the camera because of this?" (deliberative). This hasn't been the only argument I've had in which I've used rhetoric. I remember many years ago, I used to make up chiasmi with my aunt whenever we travelled to my family's farm. I don't really remember any of them right now, but I know that the ones we invented sounded very cool and were ingenious. 

Later on, in chapter two, Heinrichs talks about offense and how to attack during an argument. His main points are to set a personal goal and set goals for the audience. He also explains the difference between a fight and an argument, "An argument, done skillfully  gets people to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (Page 17). Also, he throws in a bunch of examples to show us how it's done. One point he makes is, "To win a deliberative argument, don't try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way" (Page 19). The moment I read this, I realized I've used this so much, especially when I was younger. I would always make my brother do things I wanted to through this method. After asking him to change the channel while we watched TV, he said the remote was far away from him (and obviously from me too). So I would agree and be like "Yeah, that's so true. But wouldn't it be fun to watch something like a soccer game rerun? Didn't Barça play last Tuesday?" My brother, being a huge Barça fan, ran to the remote and came back to the couch. He changed the channel to an older soccer match, and even though I'm not the biggest soccer fan, I was happy because I'd rather watch anything other than that boring WWI documentary on the History Channel. That's when I'm allowed to say, "I win."

So far, Thank You For Arguing has been very interesting. I wonder if the book will continue to be so instructive. It feels weird to read a book that teaches you about new things, since every text book that I have to use in school is usually used only sometimes; never do we have to read the whole thing. Obviously this book is far more interesting that a BIology textbook, but what I really mean is that I'm more used to reading narrations rather than expositions. I guess I'll get used to it, but what matters is that I can truly learn all of the techniques given in this book. 

Awkward Justifications

You can watch my assessment on my life skills grade here.