By Andy Valencia
In college, a friend of mine periodically ran a game called “Assassin.” None of the players knew each other, and all were paired up: one target, one assassin. You were “assassinated” with a chalk mark, and the target could defend with chalk-filled small cloth bags. The rules favored the target once they spotted the assassin coming, and there were rules to make sure the game didn’t disrupt classes and such.
I never played, but I knew people who did, and the changes to the target’s behavior during the game were remarkable. They would never just leave a building, and would never leave it the same way twice. They were wide awake, always assessing their environment, looking for any new factor. A new face, vehicle, even a piece of tarp draped over a bicycle.
It was not any single behavior that changed, but rather the way they were intensely immersed in and aware of their environment. The best way to realize how you’re mostly sleepwalking through life is to stand next to somebody who has every sense fully engaged. The assassin usually won if they got a “touch” early in the game. Otherwise, the target would realize the assassin’s identity and take them out before they could get close enough to touch them.
The media is playing such a game against us now. They’re moving in on us, trying to score “touches” of manipulation on the beliefs we hold in our heads. And just as in the Assassin game, once you start seeing them approaching, their job becomes difficult. You’re now paying attention, and those attempted “touches” are no longer easy to score.
There are two basic ways to win an argument. You can make a compelling, logical, well-reasoned and factually supported set of statements. If somebody does you the courtesy of presenting such an argument, please do listen to it, even if you disagree with the conclusion. We want more of such things; treat them with respect. The alternative is arguments based on dishonesty, misdirection, and manipulation. Recognizing dishonest forms of argument can warn you that you’re being manipulated – not informed or convinced.
A very common form of dishonest argument is the “strawman,” which starts by focusing on the foolish, incoherent thing the opponent supposedly said. It’s then easy to show how your own argument is superior in every way. The catch, of course, is you misrepresent what the opponent said. You lie. An unwary listener comes away thinking they’ve seen a weak argument and its strong rebuttal. In reality, all they’ve seen is an argument against something that was never said. They’ve been fooled.
With any bitterly divided issue, look to each side to present its own case. Yes, this means you’ll pay attention to the words of somebody with whom you perhaps currently disagree. Although you may never change your mind, it’s eye-opening to see how often pundits on both sides of an issue will lie about what the other side says or wants. It’s human nature to think one’s own side is thoroughly good, but the tools of dishonesty are very tempting.
Another conveniently self-labeled form of argument is “debunking.” The presenter of a “debunking” is telling you right in the title that they will not fairly represent an argument. Instead, they’ll misrepresent or omit anything that weakens their argument, and overstate the strength of their “facts” – some of which may be simple inventions, in order to create the illusion of an overwhelmingly strong argument.
A “debunking” presenter is, in a strange way, being honest. They’re telling you that they will say whatever it takes to manipulate you into accepting their conclusion. I no longer read anything that sets out to “debunk” an issue. It’s as if someone cleared their throat and said, “I am now about to lie to you.” Tune them out.
In the next issue, I’ll cover the final phase in the art of winning an argument. You’ve used good techniques, and possibly even evil ones. But you’re not carrying the day! You are losing the argument, what’s to be done? An honest person accepts the wins with the losses. A dishonest person has a range of nefarious techniques for driving such an argument off the rails.
