Today I am going to attempt to cover a very large topic in a short space. It is an important one, especially during a time in our world/country where our ability to make good decisions relies so much on the information we are provided by people who may or may not have the best of motivations or intentions.
The words we use to communicate a message are important.
They can make our break an argument, so we ought to choose our words carefully, especially when the stakes in the discussion are high. What to have for dinner might not be a big deal, so the words we choose to communicate our preference may not deserve a lot of mental energy. But, behaviors related to COVID, an election, or civil unrest, well, those are big discussions, worthy of carefully chosen words. This point is not lost on leaders in healthcare, politics or social movements: Leaders who wish to persuade you to believe/not believe, do/not do something to their liking or benefit.
So, let's talk words.
Let's talk about the use and misuse of language for the purpose of persuasion.
The often used term in psychology for the purposeful use of words to persuade is called semantic slanting. Using particular words in order to subliminally convey more positive or negative meaning, for instance, is one very common tactic for semantic slanting. For example, using the word 'racing' to describe driving conveys a different message than 'creeping' or 'meandering'. Describing a person's work ethic with terms like 'ambitious', 'hard working', or 'eager' is different than 'aggressive', 'demanding', or 'stiff'.
Using semantic slanting in this way can be a useful tool in describing a person, place, thing, or event with greater complexity, but it can also be used to intentionally mischaracterize a person, place, thing, or event. This is often the case, for instance, when describing an ambitious woman. She may be characterized as aggressive or demanding, when the reality is that she is simply hardworking and eager to achieve excellence in her work. You see here how the use of words can subtly, intentionally or unintentionally, change the tone of a statement.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Another technique in word choice that can heavily influence others is the use of emotional language. An often used example of emotional language for persuasion is the use of 'pro-life' vs. 'anti-choice' or 'pro-choice' vs. 'anti-life'. See how two phrases can have the same meaning but can elicit very different emotional responses? Being 'pro' anything seems to be good - suggesting freedom or autonomy, of which human beings are very fond. Likewise, being 'anti' anything seems to elicit feelings of restriction or control, of which most human beings are not very fond.
Yet another tactic that is often used in a debate is name calling. If you cannot build a strong argument with evidence or reason or by appealing to emotion, one might be tempted to attack your opponent or their argument. This is simplistic, rather weak, and once you are aware of this strategy, its influence can be nullified. If you notice someone using this strategy, the first question you might ask is: "Are you using name calling because you cannot build a good argument on the merits of your position?"
When a strong argument is difficult or impossible to develop, one might also rely on vagueness, ambiguity, and equivocation in communication(s).
Vagueness: Using words that are intentionally vague, such as 'I will be completing the project soon' does not commit to an exact time frame, and leaves the interpretation of 'soon' to the listener. When 'soon' is not 'soon enough' for the listener, the person who claimed 'soon' can simply say they didn't mean 'that soon'.
Another example: "I will get you a good deal, don't you worry." What is a good deal? Do you, the listener, define 'good deal' the same way as the communicator? Who knows! The statement was very vague, and open to interpretation! Intentionally!
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Ambiguity: Using words that can be interpreted in multiple ways is a sneaky tactic to mislead. Often followed later on with: "I didn't say THAT" or "I didn't mean it THAT way"!
An example of ambiguity: "That is an interesting dress!" Does the communicator mean the dress is interesting in a good way, or a bad way?"
Another example: "Wow, I never thought of using pineapple on pizza before!" Does that mean you like the idea, or not?
Sometimes ambiguous writing is good, as it causes the reader to think more deeply on the topic, weighing how to interpret what has been read. But, sometimes, ambiguity is intentional to keep the communicator from having to commit to something that may not be well-received. Politicians do this a lot. For example, saying you value all human life when asked about the BLM movement doesn't really say exactly what your attitude is about BLM. Although it can be surmised what your attitude is, if that is your response. At the same time, if a listener questions that response, prodding for more detail, drawing conclusions on their own but wanting confirmation of those conclusions, a communicator might avoid answering with more clarity by hiding behind: "I value all human life." Ambiguity.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Equivocation: Changing the meaning of a word mid-sentence or mid-conversation. This is a sneaky way to confuse and thus, persuade someone that you are 'right'. This requires, first, that you use a word that is vague, so that it is open to interpretation, and that the interpretation can then, change over the course of the conversation.
Here is an example I use in class, when teaching critical thinking:
Man is the only rational animal.
No woman is man.
Therefore, no woman is rational.
In this example, the meaning of 'man' changed. In the first line, man represented the human species. In line 2, man represented gender.
Another example:
I have a right to speak my mind.
Therefore, it is right for me to speak my mind.
I hope we can agree that it is not always 'right', as in appropriate or polite, to speak our mind. Sometimes it is 'right', as in appropriate or polite, to keep our thoughts to ourselves.
Using equivocation in this manner is intentionally misleading. When you think you hear it, you probably do. When you think you hear it, you should ask for clarity. For instance, in the second example, you might ask the communicator if they realize they are using the word 'right' in different ways, thus negating their argument. If you cannot pose the question to the communicator because you are, for example, watching them on TV, it is safe to say you heard correctly, and the communicator used equivocation intentionally, because.... you guessed it... they don't have a strong argument that is logical or reasonable, or.... they don't want to commit to a stand that might offend some people, so they equivocate. Leaving the door open for misinterpretation. Assuming there is benefit for them in that misinterpretation.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Euphemisms: Substituting desirable terms for less desirable terms. We see this a lot!
It isn't always bad. For instance, talking about someone 'passing away' instead of saying they 'died'. Passing away somehow sounds better than death. They mean the same thing...but one sounds better than the other.
It can be purposefully used to dilute or confuse a message when the message is difficult or uncomfortable. One I have heard a lot in discussions about adolescent development is the importance of authentic, accurate, and complete discussions about sexuality in sex education classes. Sex education is a term that is uncomfortable for some parents or teachers (or even students!), so it can be rephrased using a euphemism: family education. Another one often used in military settings is 'collateral damage', which is a nicer way of referring to accidental or unintended deaths.
Why might I suggest that using euphemisms are bad, you might ask? Because it can desensitize us to the true issue. If we talk about collateral damage instead of deaths long enough, we no longer see the deaths of, say, civilians in war time engagements, as a bad thing (this is not a political statement about my feelings on war time engagements). How many lives have been lost due to COVID-19? We hear daily tallies of 'COVID-19 deaths' instead of 'people who died from COVID-19 today'.
Politicians might refer to tax increases as 'revenue enhancements'. Isn't that nice? A revenue enhancement sounds so much better than a tax increase.
See how that subtle change in language can have a lasting impact on our attitude or belief system (which then impacts our decisions and behaviors)?
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Framing: How we frame our words can heavily influence the attitudes of others. Ways we frame fall into two general categories: positive vs. negative, and gain vs. loss.
Positive vs. negative framing: We hear this one a lot lately, with regard to pandemic statistics and recovery rates. How many people die, or how many people have long lasting health issues after recovering. How many people catch the virus and recover, or how many people do NOT get the virus (instead of what percentage of the population have caught it).
Other examples: Negative framing: What is the risk involved with getting on a plane, investing money in the stock market, or betting on a horse at the racetrack. Positive framing: How many planes take off and land safely every day, what is the yield potential for a particular stock, and what is the win/loss record for a horse you want to bet on at the racetrack.
Another example: How safe is the vaccine, or how many people in the clinical trial had issues from the vaccine.
Gain vs. Loss is another framing tactic: What do you have to lose, or gain? We all like gain (unless it is weight gain, maybe), but few like to lose.
When your child gets married, are you losing them to marriage, or gaining a new member of the family?
Here is a visual of gain vs. loss.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
When listening to others, comprehension is important. Especially when the stakes are high. So, I will leave you with some tips we may all use to help with comprehension, especially when we hear someone using some of these linguistic gymnastics.
First, if you can ask questions for clarification, do that. Ask them to repeat what they said, or tell them what you think you heard, and ask them to confirm or disconfirm that ("What I heard you say is..."). If you cannot ask questions because you are watching them on TV, for instance, try asking someone else to clarify what you think you heard. Did you hear the same thing I heard? Are you interpreting that the same way I am? If you cannot know for certain what the communicator is trying to convey, then you want to avoid drawing any conclusions, changing your mind on the topic on which they are trying to persuade, or changing your behaviors without first gathering more information.
You might also try writing out what you heard, or drawing an image of what you heard, if that helps you understand. This is helpful if there is a lot of information involved. Then, clarify it with the communicator, or get some feedback from another listener, to see if you have all the information, and if you have interpreted the information similarly.
An important consideration if you are listening to someone use these tactics to persuade you would be to delay making any changes in your beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors, until you have gathered more information. Information that is clear, not ambiguous, overly emotional, euphemistic, vague or equivocating.
Stop.
Think.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
As always, be well, stay safe, and take care.
Comments