"She's A Fool" - An Argument

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Let's talk today about the discussions. There are many of them in our life. Any discussion easily turns into a discussion, and even into an argument and quarrel, where the arguments of the parties become more and more emotional, with transitions to personalities.

The trick itself - to get personal - is not new. It was also described by Roman orators. What speaker does not dream of “getting the audience”, getting an emotional response from it? And what needs to be done in order to get something? The "law" is the same for all aspects of life. First you have to give "this". If you want love, give it first. If you want care, show it yourself. There is the same “song” about money, and it is on this issue that most of the discussions flare up. Perhaps we will turn to this topic later, but now we will return to the disputes and speeches.

Roman orators often used oratorical techniques to address the emotions, beliefs, and prejudices of the audience with the sole purpose of defeating other orators. In the scientific community, these techniques are not prohibited, but are considered incorrect, since they appeal not to the essence of the issue under discussion, but to the personality of the opponent.

Ad personam. This is the name of the transition to personalities in Latin. This "technology" of conducting discussions is one of the varieties of a logical trick, effective in essence (influencing the opinion of the audience), and at the same time incorrect in the sense of the way of substantiating the thesis. The logical trick is called "Ad hominem", which translates as "an appeal to the Person (Personality)" (and not to the essence of the question). This argumentation is the opposite of substantive arguments.

But still…. Every now and then people use incorrect methods of dispute, and … win them. I wanted to write, "It's strange that they win", if before that I had not posted a series of my articles on non-verbal communication.

Emotions overwhelm the mind. Prejudice imposes a “filter” of perception on the life of those who have it. And now a “weighty argument” from the series is ready: “How can a divorced person talk about art? What does he understand in pictures?"

Personalization means blaming the person for … yes, is that important? The main thing is that all listeners about a person should understand that he is a decent bastard, once divorced (meat eater, vegetarian, democrat, atheist, believer, man, woman, and so on). Who is interested in the opinion of a man with long unwashed hair, wearing a beard, or the opinion of a short-haired girl? Funny? At one "women's club" I heard something similar about a thin, cropped girl in pants. All the stout ladies in long skirts with braids have successfully “pushed” this “idiot” into “femininity”.

The same girl “got into trouble” with another argument. About her bias towards the interpretation of "femininity". Ad hominem circumstantiae. Such a name is an argument indicating circumstances that make an opponent's opinion biased. Accusation of bias. Like, you have no priests or breasts, and “you don’t have a body,” so it’s convenient for you to wear jeans, of course, you will protect this “non-feminine” clothing. The whole controversy again boils down to the most powerful argument, "she's a fool." That's how ugly you are, you're out of luck (the fool herself), therefore, you, ONLY therefore, protect your pants and short haircuts. Here is the verdict. All the stout ladies clap their hands victoriously.

And if this technique "does not work," then you can find a "like-minded" girl with a short haircut, and put her on a par with, say, shaved "Reich bedding". What is there in common? And what kind of emotional outburst? Have you noticed? Comparison with the publicly condemned individuals “automatically” sends the opponent into the same “basket”. It doesn't matter what is not logical. It is important that on an unconscious level the listeners received a "negative" in relation to a certain person.

And finally, "she's a fool" in its purest form. Ad hominem tu quoque. "You do it yourself, you yourself are." Accuse your opponent of hypocrisy. “You have grown your daughter's braids. This is compensation for your inferiority. " Oh how. Go bet! Or like this: "son, smoking is harmful." "So you smoke yourself!" Cancels this harm? DOES NOT cancel. And the argument ends with such an argument. A daughter with long hair can have her own look for her hair. Does this cancel her mother's right to wear short hair? Logical trick. And what matters is that it is these tricks that "rock" the emotional swing.

Aristotle spoke of man as a driver who drives a chariot drawn by two horses. White (rational soul) and black (animal soul). And these horses always strive to go in different directions. This concept is very similar to the thoughts of K. G. Jung about a person who has "ego" and "shadow" in the structure of his psyche. Conscious (rational) and unconscious (emotional).

No wonder, oh, no wonder K. G. Jung said that the Self loves the shadow more than the ego, because it is in the shadow (in the emotional sphere) that the true causes of behavior are found.

It is not in vain that there is a formula for "receiving information" 55 * 38 * 7, illustrating that only 7 percent of information we perceive "with the mind", with the help of a conceptual-categorical apparatus. The rest is emotionally (at an unconscious level). It seems that the "business" is said by a person, but he is somehow … unpleasant …. well, him with his speech! Sound familiar?

Here is the same story with logical tricks "she's a fool". It is incorrect to use them. Knowing about them, you can "cleanse" your speech, even oral, even written, from the use of such "praises".

Knowing about them, you can apply them consciously. Knowing about them, you can track the intervention in your address and take action in time. Perhaps a not too emotionally “warmed up” audience will take your arguments “to the point” and together with you will expose an unscrupulous opponent.

If you feel that you are emotionally involved in the discussion, feel some resentment in your direction - it's time to be on your guard and "catch" arguments to your personality. And ask your opponent to speak on the merits.