Phil 1102: Critical Thinking

1. How to manipulate people (and how you, yourself, are manipulated) Phil 1102: Critical Thinking

2. Rhetoric • “The art of winning the soul by discourse” – Plato • “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion” – Aristotle • So, how do we convince people, given that valid arguments from true premises are damn near impossible? • Intro to how to read Aristotle (2 Examples) • Using Language

3. 3 ways to convince others • we could put the audience a frame of mind where they are likely to act the way we want them to. • we could convince others that we, as the speaker, are credible; and therefore, can be trusted to guide the correct action. • we can appeal to logic, reasoning and rationality.

4. How to understand Aristotle • The basic question is “how do you persuade an audience?” • Answer 1: appeal to their heart (pathos) • Answer 2: make them think that the speaker is ‘one of them’ (ethos) • Since what we read today are more or less lecture notes, the conclusions are not always drawn out explicitly.

5. Aristotle! • Chapter 2 can be divided into two parts: • 2.1-2.11: Pathos (appeal to emotion) • 2.12-2.17: Ethos (appeal to character)

6. Aristotle’s three-fold classification: Ethos Pathos Logos Appeal to Anger Anger <-> Calmness Kindness, Friendship <-> Enmity Fear <-> Confidence Shame Pity <-> Indignation Flattery <-> Emulation Appeal to Character Appeal to Reason Logic Inductive Causal Deductive Categorical Conditional etc. Matching Character

7. Sub-forms that : • Ethos -> Appeal to Authority (the argument is good insofar as the authority is good, and that’s a matter of ‘character’) • Pathos -> Appeal to Force (ad bachulum) (insofar as it is an appeal to fear. If it is an appeal to the force of an authority, it is ethos)

8. Other: Argument from Analogy • Will talk about later.

9. Anger Joe? rhetoricMillerRNC2005.exe

10. Anger: The persons with whom we get angry... ...[are] those who speak ill of us, and show contempt for us, in connection with the things we ourselves most care about: those those who are eager to win fame as a philosopher get angry with those who show contempt for their philosophy; those who pride themselves upon their appearance get angry with those who show contempt for their appearance; and so on in other cases.

11. Anger may be defined as an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friends. (1378b)

12. those who laugh, mock or jeer at us, for such conduct is insolent • those who inflict injuries upon us that are marks of insolence • those who speak ill of us, and show contempt for us, in connection with the things we ourselves most care about. Especially if we suspect that we lack the qualities they highlight (belittling only hurts if you suspect that the person belittling you is right. If you are convinced that he or she is wrong, then he or she will just appear foolish and mean-spirited.)

13. those who usually treat us with honor or regard, if they change their behavior • On a related point, we get more angry at friends than strangersthose who fail to return kindness (as it shows contempt for our kind actions) • those who oppose us, even if they are our inferiors (for this shows contempt for our leadership) • For friends especially, those who fail to perceive our needs (for it shows contempt for us — if they really cared, they would see we were in trouble)

14. those who rejoice in our misfortunes, or fail to share our misery when misfortunes befall us (for this, again, shows contempt) • those who are indifferent to our pain • those who seem to take particular interest in stories about our weaknesses or mistakes • those who treat us badly in front of those we respect: either those we admire or those we consider rivals • those who slight "what honorable men are bound to champion — our parents, children, wives or subjects" (Mom and apple pie?)

15. those who reply with humor when we are speaking seriously • those who treat us less well than they treat others • those who are forgetful with respect to us, for it shows a lack of care — which is very close to contempt

16. Examples • MoveON Pac ‘Doesn’t get it’ • SBV: all of them…

17. Calmness • those who slighted us involuntarily, or those who actions were accidental • those who treat themselves in the same way they treat us (as no one can slight themselves) • those who admit their fault and feel sorry; since they recognize the slight and intend no more • those who humble themselves before us, for this shows respect, which is the opposite of contempt

18. those who are serious when we are serious • those who have done more kindness than we have done them • those who pray to us and beg for mercy, since this is an humbling act • those who do not mock or slight anyone at all, or not any unworthy person, or anyone like ourselves • those who we fear or respect (because you cannot both fear and be angry with a person)

19. Bobby K…

20. How to control others? • In the extreme: Political Force / prison life: • Arbitrary rules enforced arbitrarily • Mindless work • Rewards given to those who cooperate • Enforcement by peers • Divide and conquer

21. Implicit: • Arbitrary rules enforced arbitrarily:

23. Mindless, repetitive work • High school

24. Enforcement of (organic) arbitrary rules by peers

27. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Suppose you were asked to perform a mindless, annoying task for ½ hour. We compensate you $20.

28. Now suppose that you were asked to perform a mindless, annoying task for ½ hour. We compensate you nothing. Which task was more unpleasant?

29. Festinger showed that people consistently rated the tasks for which they were compensated as more unpleasant than the tasks for which they were not compensated. • Why?

30. The theory is this: People like to have their minds in balance – so if you throw one side out of whack, they will believe false things in order to maintain balance – even if it means distrusting their own intuitions. (It wasn’t that bad, but he wouldn’t pay me if it was painless – therefore, it really was bad, and I just didn’t notice) (Bad life? Buy a French car)

31. Cult-think • “One of us. One of us.” • ‘Belonging’ love-bombing • Being ‘in’ on ‘it’ / knowing something that others don’t. • Linux, Mac-users, VW owners, Residents of the Pacific NW. • Last: the ‘Calvinist’ rationality.

32. Marketing and Language… Some of your aspirations tend to be fairly unrealistic. At times, you are extroverted, addable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. you pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept other's opinion without satisfactory proof.You prefer a certain amount of change and variety, and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitationsAt times you have serious doubts about whether you have made the right decision or have done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. you have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.

33. Our Results? • 10 respondents, average = 6.4 • Last Fall: 11 users = 5.54

34. Why generalities? The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint. I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.

35. Claims: • Not be chosen by a litmus test • Be competent • Interpret the constitution strictly • Not use the bench for writing social policy • Look at the constitution as sacred • Not misuse the bench • Not be liberal activists • Be strict constructivists • Be good, solid men and women who make good, solid decisions

36. Example: Gore 2000 • Vice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told seniors in Florida last month that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh... (Published on September 18, 2000 by the Boston Globe)

37. Videos: • Debate 2, Q 16 • Debate 3, Q 14

38. Orwell’s advice: I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

39. Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

40. Orwell The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first.

41. Fallacies: • Embedding in the mouths of others: • Video 1: Fox News: ad hominem email • Video 2: Moveon Pac: Richard Clarke

42. Inverted Fallacy: • "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard..." • "Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard...". • Monday, July 12, 2004

43. Inverted Fallacy: • "assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the [nuclear] program." • "Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that the tubes are probably intended to conventional weapons programs." • Monday, July 12, 2004

45. USGS Warming will also cause reductions in the mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow packs in the polar region. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by sifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrologic events.

46. Whitehouse • Warming could also lead to change in the water cycle in polar regions.

48. USGS & WH • The challenge for the USGCRP is to provide the best possible scientific basis for documenting, diagnosing and projecting... • The challenge for the USGCRP is to provide the best possible scientific basis for documenting, understanding and projecting...

49. USGS • In this new phase of the climate science programs, information that compares the potential consequences of different responses to global changes, including climate change, will be developed in a form useful to national debate and decision making.

50. Whitehouse • In this new phase of the climate science programs, information that might allow comparison of the potential consequences of different responses to global changes, including climate change, will be pursued.