Rhetorical Tricks for Fraudulent Persuasion
Earlier this month, I was having a discussion with students in my Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice System course about a particular TED talk that I showed in class. Many students expressed that the talk was a failure because, despite discussing an emotional topic (the perils of drug addiction), the speaker did not show the appropriate emotion to grip the audience and convey the gravity of the message. This led me to thinking about a reality that has been widely known since the publication of Charles Darwin’s (1872) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals: Nonverbal communication is a critical part of effectively delivering a message. However, it also made me think of the manifold ways that nonverbal communication is often manipulated in contemporary discourse.
Many have mastered the devious art of packaging propaganda and mendacities in such a way that they deceive people who do not know better. It is very important to note that the spoken word is much more susceptible to manipulation than the written word. This is why some of the greatest sophists of the day are obsessed with podcasts, in-person debates, and various other forms of spoken mediums. Rhetorical tricks tend to work magnificently with the spoken word, but they do not work nearly as well with the written word.
Fast talking
People who talk extremely fast are often thought to be staggeringly intelligent, given that it admittedly takes decent brain functioning to be able to rapidly express one’s thoughts. However, the fact that someone can rapidly express their thoughts does not mean that said thoughts are well considered. (See the concept of Gish galloping.) When people speak extremely fast, the points being made are not always well captured by the listening audience, but it gives the air of authoritativeness and mastery of the subject. It is more sensible to think that someone who is deliberately talking fast wants people to be impressed by the style rather than the substance of what is being said. When a speaker wants people to comprehend what is being said, the speaker slows down.
Slow talking (with flat affect)
One would think that because fast talking is often subject to manipulation, slow-talking is the better alternative. Talking slowly is definitely preferable for effective communication; however, it is vital to consider the ways that this can equally be a tool of manipulation. Assimilating the points made by someone talking slowly is much easier, but it is often the case that people can say utterly fallacious things slowly, articulately, and with a flat affect that it leads to persuasion. The slow talking, superior articulation, and the flat affect make people think that what is being somberly expressed is not just correct but also important. Because people have been accustomed to think that lack of emotion when speaking means that someone is being more logical, it can be a good strategy to obfuscate illogic. While a flat affect is not persuasive when someone is delivering what should be an emotional speech, such as the aforementioned TED talk about drug addiction, it can work to persuade when someone is offering sociopolitical analysis. Reading such material would expose the dubiousness of the ideas presented, but the presentation of the ideas in spoken form can fraudulently convince.
Torrents of historical facts and statistics
While historical context definitely matters and statistics are often necessary to effectively make points, it is also wise to consider how these can be abused by manipulative people when speaking. With respect to history, it is often the case that when people do not have very good arguments to make on a particular topic, they revert to discussing history to appear intellectually impressive. The Tucker Carlson interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin from earlier this year is a noteworthy example. Rather than using the interview to make a forceful case to the world as to why Ukraine is legitimate part of Russia, Putin started off with a long, boring historical recap of the region, which some historians have called bogus. Of course, understanding the history of the region is important to making the case for Russian ownership of Ukraine, but a prolix discussion of mundane historical facts in an interview format only makes sense if one’s intention is to evade rather than genuinely inform and persuade.
Statistics can also be used to fraudulently persuade. Again, while we need statistics to be able to talk intelligently about topics, statistics themselves are not arguments, and they can easily be invented from whole cloth or manipulated to make the points that the speaker would most like to make. At times, people can even cite a battery of statistics then make an argument that does not make sense based on the numbers that they just cited. Unfortunately, so many have been duped into thinking that numbers being cited means that someone knows exactly what they are talking about, even if the argument that they are advancing is nonsensical based on the very numbers that they cite. One must recognize this works best with the spoken word. People are much more likely to be able to spot an argument that makes no sense in written format. Also, citing endless statistics in lieu of cogent argumentation does not translate well in written form.
Lamentably, these rhetorical tricks will continue to be used with maximum effectiveness because a culture of books and reading has been supplanted by a culture of podcasts and listening, and people who point that fact out are treated like troglodytic monsters who are claiming that there is absolutely no value to podcasts and listening. With the spoken word comes all sorts of tricks that fraudulently persuade. The spoken word is inarguably valuable, but without the written word being held in higher esteem, manipulative persuasion is the ineluctable conclusion. People need to be vigilant whenever they see charlatans talking fast, talking slow with flat affect, and using tons of history and statistics, as the intention to deceive is very likely present.