What did he just say? I am half
held in amusement, half held in stunned silence at some of the things that
political figures, community leaders, and even nice friends at church may
say. Perhaps it is a good time to take a
minute and discern the accidental Freudian faux pas from the intentional
circumspection of the truth. I found an
interesting resource with a quick Google search of “honest debate.” I found a site that you may wish to spend
some time with called Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest
Debate Tactics hosted by author John T. Reed, a coach, author, West Point
Graduate and Harvard MBA.
Very
interesting insight in to how to manage the most basic to the most complex
conversation and I highly recommend a glimpse at his work. According to Reed, there are really two kinds
of discussion: One that is intellectually
honest and one that is intellectually dishonest. The measure of the two is simple. The honest discussion is grounded in fact or
logic. Period, and end of statement. This means that you can fairly point out an
error in your opponent based only on fact or logic. If you do not use fact or logic then you are
being intellectually dishonest, which is a fancy way of saying that you are
twisting the truth and even lying.
According to the assessment and lengthy list by Reed, there are a lot of
ways to twist or play with the truth to get your way and these methods achieve
intellectually dishonest debate. The
goal for the intellectually dishonest debater is to not make his or her point only
mind you, but simply to get his or her way.
Think about this next time you are talking/arguing with someone. Step away from the heat of the moment and try
to state only the fact or the logic.
Does your point hold? Or do you
retreat to one of the thirty plus tactics used to get a debate or discussion
off track by intellectually dishonest means.
There
are quite a few strategies according to Reed.
They can include name calling, changing the subject, questioning the
motives of the person, stating irrelevant facts, quoting hearsay, pulling in an
unqualified expert opinion, being vague, stereotyping, cult of personality, sloganeering,
creating a scapegoat, claiming privacy to information, arousing envy, innuendo,
redefining words, rejecting logic as opinion, fake laughter, intimidation, peer
approval, mockery and political correctness are but just a few on the
list.
Let me give you a few examples that Reed shared on his
site. Start thinking about this the next
time you watch the news or subject yourself to the ongoing political debates
and see how many that you can find now that your eyes are a bit open to the
technique. Keep it in mind at your next
board or council meeting too.
Intellectual dishonesty is just second nature sometimes. “Intellectually-dishonest
debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of
guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting
to perpetrate a fraud,” shares Reed.
Name calling and
changing the subject is a fairly straight forward technique to derail an
argument by minimizing the credibility of an opponent. “Never mind that the facts are true, let’s
just make him look bad” thinks the intellectually dishonest person. Questioning the motives of an opponent may be
clever but it is also insincere when it comes to debate. “They just want to sell their product,” may
be true, but if the facts are accurate then by all means, sell away.
Hearsay or the
support of the support of unqualified expert opinion is a technique that should
be easy to pick up on, but it can sneak by if you aren’t watching. Look for the ads in the paper that are set up
to read like an article or press release.
What about
sloganeering? People love to fall for
this one. It is so much easier to grasp
on to a slogan or phrase than to take the time to understand the reason or
logic. Does “Change you can believe in”
ring any bells. Following on this idea
is the “cult of personality” where instead of sifting though logic and facts to
choose a leader, someone votes because “I like him” or “I dislike him less” as
the case may be. Also, look out for
“claims of information privacy” in discussions or debate. Really?
If you can’t divulge that
incredibly private and negotiated contract that is at the heart of the
point of decision or purchase, perhaps you should just move on to the next
offer completely.
Stereotyping is a
technique used to leverage a win too. If
I label you as too Ivory Tower and Too Smart for your own good, then you
probably can’t understand the “real world” problem that we are dealing with
here, so your ideas aren’t going to be relevant. It is always best to keep to the facts, and
the person that you are overlooking or minimizing may just have the missing
key.
How about
redefining words to suite your agenda and win the discussion? In this technique the debater uses a word
that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes,
like calling government spending “investment.”
Taking words or quotes out of context is a common strategy too, like the
recent debate of whether or not Romney really “doesn’t care about the poor.”
Words mean things,
and it can be a challenge to stick to the facts, and to require our leaders to
stick to the facts. As we move in to our
election cycle, stay alert, and hold the speaker accountable.
Pg Slot รวม ตลาดเกมออนไลน์ในขณะนี้นั้นเติบโตขึ้นอย่างเร็วจนกระทั่งไม่ได้นึกฝัน pg slot มีผู้เล่นมากมายก่ายกองสนใจกับเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ด้วยเหตุว่าสามารถสร้างผลกำไรอย่างมากมาย
ReplyDelete