Come sight word

Federal Center for Information and Educational Resources
http://fcior.edu.ru

Unified collection of digital resources
http://school-collection.ed.ru

Information system "Unified Access to Educational Resources"
http://window.edu.ru

Our school on the site 11klassniki.ru
http://www. 1klassniki.ru/school_post.phous ?id_school=2070

5 common tricks that manipulators use to lead people by the nose

1. A bad person is a bad argument

« What can a person who has not changed his passport argue about? What views on architecture can a man express without a residence permit? And in general, how can we be interested in the opinion of a bald person with such a nose? Let him fix his nose first, grow his hair, and then speak out! "- remember this famous joke of Mikhail Zhvanetsky?

Manipulation "Bad person - bad argument" comes down to discrediting a person in any way, and through his denigration to show that everything he talks about (arguments, arguments, ideas, thoughts, suggestions) does not have the right to Existence.

Discredit can hit anything: a person can be ignorant, inexperienced, incompetent, and unsympathetic — in general, anything can be found in the arsenal of a manipulator.

Of course, it offends, humiliates, infuriates, acts on an emotional level. A kind of attack on the person himself, and not on what he says. Essentially, there is absolutely nothing here.

• "First you dress like a human being, and then come up with your ideas."
• “And this is what a person with a criminal record is telling us?”
• “Why are you listening to him, he even manages to make a mistake in the word “agreement!”
• “First, pick the goat out of your nose, and then teach us all here!”
• “First you arrive on time for meetings, and then try to get the floor!”

These are all examples of "Bad man - bad argument" manipulation. It seems to me that this is a very telling and understandable name: in order to discredit an argument or opinion of a person, you can discredit him himself, and it doesn’t matter how.

Often the victim will try to "return the uppercut". But isn't this a profitable scenario for the manipulator? After all, his main task is to get away from a constructive reaction to the words of the victim. Conflict is a common and familiar situation for the aggressor, he is there like a fish in water. <…>

How can one protect oneself from such manipulation? First of all, no retaliatory attacks, mutual insults, because otherwise you will follow the scenario of the manipulator.

The main tactic is to ignore the denigration.

You have to be above this, because you know the true motives of your opponent, why give in? Especially when you know the manipulation scenario itself and understand the final goals of the aggressor, it is much easier to maintain composure: there is no misunderstanding of what needs to be done in such a situation.

And now the main thing: we must transfer the situation from an acute emotional phase to a cold rational one. Let's think about whether there is a logical connection between what I say and what my opponent accuses me of. Well, I don’t know how to work, for example, in Excel, but does this mean that my business plan is incorrect?

In counteracting the manipulation “Bad person - bad argument”, only a transition to a logical channel, analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship and knowledge of the laws of argumentation can help:

— You will first learn how to work in Excel, and then climb with your business plan!

• • Option 1 : “Tell me, how is my knowledge of a computer program related to my budget plan for the department?”
  • Option 2 : "Do I understand correctly that if I now translate my budget into Excel, will you accept it unconditionally?"

2. Inconsistency of words with deeds

Why do you think I chose the image of a cow to illustrate the next manipulation called “Inconsistency of words with deeds” ? The thing is that among the people there is a wonderful saying “Whoever the cow mooed . ..”, which describes the essence of this manipulation.

As in the previous type of manipulation, here the discussion of the topic is essentially replaced by the discussion of the opponent. Only if before that there was any denigrating discredit, in this case the manipulator shows the inconsistency of the interlocutor's arguments with his own behavior, manifestations of character, life principles and position.

Suppose you are talking about the war, and your counterpart asks: “How can you talk if you yourself have not participated in any war?”

“Inconsistency of words with deeds” — various manipulation:

• “What are you teaching me when you did it yourself in your youth?”
• “You talk about modern fashion here, but you yourself walk around in worn-out, dirty shoes made in China! Do not make me laugh!"
• “Here you are talking about not being aggressive towards animals, but you yourself are wearing a leather jacket!”
• “First, you will learn to speak Russian yourself without mistakes, and then make comments on how I should put stress!”

For example, a father teaches his son: “Smoking is bad! This is very bad for your health! It's a very bad habit!" - and makes a number of arguments. According to the laws of logic and constructive dialogue, the opponent is obliged to give a counterargument to each of the arguments or - another option - to defend his position. But it's not easy, right? And besides, it's hard work.

Even children and adolescents without rich communication experience understand that it is easier to turn your blow against the interlocutor himself, thereby devaluing the importance of his words. Therefore, it is not surprising that the son, in response to his father’s words, reacts like this: “What are you teaching me here when you smoke yourself?”

Counteraction

There is a reasonable feeling that there is no constructive response against such manipulation. After all, everything is logical: words disagree with deeds. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize once again: this is not a counterargument to the merits of the case, not a discussion of the problem, but a blow to the person himself, although in some cases deserved (but, unfortunately, not in most cases).

Let's go back to the father and son situation. What answer options exist to neutralize this unconscious (unconscious?) manipulation? Would it be right for the father to acknowledge the discrepancy? No, that would mean recognizing someone else's victory.

Would it be right if a father starts to play along with his son and demonstrate how sick he is, what rotten teeth he has because of smoking, what condition his lungs are in, and so on? I'm afraid this strategy is also wrong, because he will only discredit himself even more, losing his father's authority. To appeal to the fact that the father wants what is best for his son will be absolutely incomprehensible to a teenager.

Maybe it would be correct to say “ When you grow up, then you will be clever! " or " As long as I fully support you, you will listen to me! ", or " One more word, and you will be punished and stay at home for a week! "? In no case! Indeed, in response to manipulation, the father himself resorts to aggression, fixing an absolutely incorrect communication model in the mind of the child.

So what to do? Let's go back to the manipulation scenario.

Main strategy: do not succumb to the scenario line, but break it. The opponent discredits us by demonstrating that our words are at odds with our deeds. He sticks to us a kind of "minus sign". So, in order to break the scenario, we have to translate "minus" into "plus".

I call this logical reframing. And in most cases, for a competent and conflict-free answer, the template phrase “just because” will help, which immediately turns our supposedly weak side into a strong one, instantly increasing authority in the issue of discussion.

See how this can be effectively done:

— What are you teaching me if you smoke yourself?
— So, it is precisely because I smoke myself that I am telling you this! Not a grandmother from a neighboring entrance, not someone else, but me. I know what it can lead to!

Notice how the background and tone of the conversation has changed. Instead of self-flagellation through logical reframing, or the "that's why" template, an expert position appears and the words take on a completely different meaning.

3. Ignorance

The manipulator always plays on our emotional strings, this is what I call the target of manipulation. And very often this string is the fear of appearing ignorant, inexperienced, incompetent or ignorant.

We are very often afraid to admit that we do not know or understand something, we are embarrassed to show our ignorance. This is the basis of the manipulation, which I call very simply: “Ignorance”.

Here are some of the most common examples of such manipulation:

• “Everyone has long known that…” theory confirms my opinion.
• “What can you say about the coefficient of determination? BUT? You see, I'm definitely right here!
• “Well, you must have read this book! It's a business classic! All educated people have read it! Here it says the same thing. So I propose to accept my point of view.
• "I'm not sure if the validity you specified is amenable to correlation analysis, so I'll have to change some indicators in the report."

You probably already understood that highly educated people very often use such manipulation. Difficult terms, English words, incomprehensible abbreviations, scientific expressions, facts that are difficult to verify here and now - this is what Ignorance uses when they play on ignorance and a sense of false shame.

The manipulator additionally makes the victim believe in his superiority, this is a complicating factor. At the same time, the manipulator often uses such a tone and intonation, as if talking about the most elementary things.

There are times when a manipulator simply sprinkles memorized smart words, without fully understanding their meaning. The main thing is to sound smart, and the victim would be ashamed to show their ignorance - then everything will work! Sometimes manipulators use amplifying phrases: “ Everyone knows ”, “ It has long been known ”, “ The fact is well-known”, “ Absolutely obvious ”, “ Everyone understands ”. Compare: " Best cars - German " and " Everyone has long known that the best cars are the German .” All these are also manifestations of the “Ignorance” manipulation. <…>

Opposition

It's amazing why people are so afraid to show their ignorance? Does ignorance of some term, postulate or scientific theory somehow detract from their dignity? Is it really so scary if you haven’t read or heard something? Is it really so scary to clarify the meaning and meaning, especially from the manipulator himself?

What is the manipulator waiting for? The fact that we are afraid and show false shame. Shame to ask and clarify.

The only way to break this really simple manipulation is to simply admit your ignorance, ask and clarify. Without self-flagellation, embarrassment, absolutely calmly and with dignity.

And then you will see that the manipulator itself has a rather vague and vague idea of ​​what it refers to. Watching the manipulator "get confused in his own testimony" is always a funny sight, because he himself falls into the trap set by himself. And sometimes he can refer to completely non-existent facts, fictitious scientific positions, so you should always ask and clarify. Believe me, your reputation or authority will not disappear.

— Don't you even know basic things?
- I don't know what elementary things you are talking about. Introduce me to them, please.

— Haven't you read the book "7 Keys to a Successful Life"? It's a classic! This is just a must-read for all educated people!
- No, I haven't. Share your main thoughts.

- You draw conclusions without having sufficient knowledge on this issue. To begin with, you would study the well-known experience of foreign colleagues.
– I will definitely study at my leisure. Now I can't do that, so please explain how this experience is directly related to the subject of our discussion?

- Look, even the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer hypothesis says so!
- I don't know this hypothesis. Let's see what she's talking about and see if she's relevant.

4. Oiling

Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can catch more flies with a drop of honey than with a gallon of bile." What a capacious and well-aimed observation! It is on this effect that the next uncomplicated, but very common and, most importantly, effective manipulation called "Greasing" is based.

The main target of this manipulation is an appeal to our vanity, the purpose of which is to cloud our consciousness, to flatter our vanity with the help of properly selected compliments.

• “The erudition of my interlocutor is beyond doubt, therefore I am sure that he will not argue…”
• “A person who is not subtle and deep enough, of course, will not appreciate and understand, but here you are…”
• “ You, as one of the best specialists in our company, should…”
• “As an educated person, you will agree that…”
• “We are well aware of your honesty, integrity and openness, so you will definitely…”
• “I rely on your prudence and sharpness of mind and I am sure that you will agree with me…”

What do all these seemingly different examples have in common? manipulation script.

Please note that in each of the above remarks there is the same mechanism of influence: a compliment + a command.

There is always a compliment here, which, like honey, is pleasant to our ear: "smart", "educated", "subtle", "erudite", "honest", "decent" . But note that the command is always given next: "agree", "accept", "do", "you will not argue", "support" .

It turns out an interesting logical connection: if I do not execute the command, then I am not smart, not educated, not intelligent. This is the trick and the scenario line of the manipulation "Greasing". And despite its imaginary simplicity, in most cases it works flawlessly. The stronger the self-esteem and vanity of the victim, the more effective this manipulation is, despite the fact that the commands within the script can be quite radical.

Counteraction

Neutralization of this manipulation is as simple as the scenario line of the manipulation "Greasing".

The formula is as follows: acceptance of the compliment and rejection of the command.

For example :

- I rely on your prudence and sharpness of mind and I am sure that you will agree with me ...
- Thank you for the high rating, but I have to disagree ... - Thanks for the high rating, but that's why I have to disagree ...