Lecture
The trick in the dispute is called any method by which they want to ease the dispute for themselves or make it more difficult for the opponent. There are a lot of such techniques and they are very diverse in nature. Some of them, which are used to alleviate the dispute themselves, are permissible. Others are impermissible and often outright dishonest. List all the tricks, or at least accurately classify them is not possible. However, it is necessary to describe some of the most important and most frequently encountered in order to help recognize them and take adequate protective measures.
First, consider what are permissible techniques. These tricks include (most often in oral disputes) delaying the objection . Sometimes it happens that the enemy brought us an argument to which we cannot immediately find an objection. In such cases, they try to “delay the objection” as imperceptibly as possible to the opponent, for example, raise questions in connection with the argument given, as if to clarify it or for information in general, although they do not need it in any other way; they begin to answer from afar, with something relevant to this question, but not directly connected with it, etc., etc. At this very time, the thought continues to work and often the desired objection, to which after that . You need to be able to do this deftly and unnoticed. If the opponent notices what is the matter, he will in every way interfere with the implementation of this trick.
This trick in its pure form is quite permissible and is often simply necessary. The mental mechanism of a person is very capricious. Sometimes all of a sudden a thought in a dispute refuses for a moment to work with the most ordinary or even ridiculous objection. The man, as they say, "is lost." Especially often it happens with people nervous or shy, under the influence of the most unexpected reasons, for example, sometimes even under the influence of a suddenly flashed thought: “what if I don’t find an answer?”. This phenomenon reaches its highest degree in the so-called “shock”. The disputant suddenly lost all the baggage of thoughts on this issue - all the knowledge, all the arguments, all the objections seemed to have flown out of my head. A person becomes completely helpless. Such a “shock” occurs most often when a person is very worried or tired. In such cases, the only “salvation” is the trick we are dealing with. It is necessary to try not to give out your condition, not to look confused, not to lower or weaken the voices, to speak firmly and skillfully to delay the objection until you recover. Otherwise, both the adversary and the listeners (mostly judging about the course of the dispute “in appearance”) will think that we are defeated, no matter how ridiculous the argument may be when this unpleasant story happened to us.
Often, to resist objections, they resort in those cases where, although the adversary's argument seems to be correct, it is still possible that we are subject to some kind of illusion or error in such an assessment. Caution is not very easy to agree with him (additional questions are very relevant here). In such cases, very often they resort to other tricks that are already impermissible, for example, shy away from objections to it and hush up, “bypass” it, or simply transfer the dispute to another topic.
It is quite permissive that technique (it is even difficult to call it a “trick”), when, seeing that the enemy was embarrassed at some argument or began to get excited, or trying to “escape” the answer, we pay special attention to this argument and start the emphasis is on him. Whatever the dispute, one should always keep a close eye on the weak points in the opponent’s arguments and, having found such a weak point, “develop” it to the end, until it became clear that the whole weakness of this point was not indicated. “Release” the enemy in such cases is possible only when the opponent has an obvious shock, or out of generosity, or from the well-known “knighthood in a dispute” if he has fallen into a particularly ridiculous position. Meanwhile, the ability to use the weak points of the enemy is quite rare. Much more often it happens that a participant in a dispute, due to his complete inability to navigate a dispute or for other reasons, loses his advantage over his opponent.
Some tricks with which they respond to dishonest tricks of the enemy are also quite permissible. Sometimes without this, there is no other way to protect yourself. For example, in a dispute, we need to prove some important thought. But the enemy felt that if we prove it, we will prove the thesis, and then his case is lost. In order not to give us a chance to prove this thought, he resorts to an unfair ploy: whatever we argue in favor of it, he declares it unproven. We will say: “all men are mortal,” he replies: this has not yet been proven. We will say: “do you exist yourself or not?”, He answers: “maybe, I exist, and maybe it is an illusion”. What to do with such a person? With such a “malicious” denial of the arguments, it remains either to give up the argument, or, if it is inconvenient, to resort to a trick. The most characteristic are two “defensive tricks”: 1) it is necessary to “carry out” the arguments in favor of the provable thought so that the adversary does not notice that they are intended for this purpose. Then he will not become stubbornly persistent and can accept them. When we conduct all of them around, then it remains only to combine them together - and the thought is proved. The enemy fell into the trap. In order to successfully accomplish this trick, it requires a lot of art, the ability to own a dispute, the ability to conduct it according to a well-known plan, which is quite rare.
Simply another trick: 2) noticing that the enemy maliciously denies our every argument in favor of the thought being proved, and we need to hold some argument, we set a trap. We keep silent about our argument, but instead we take a thought that contradicts it and pretend that we want to use it as an argument. If the enemy intends to deny all our arguments, then he can, without hesitation, pounce on her and reject her. This is where the trap closes. Rejecting a thought contrary to our argument, he thereby accepted our argument, which we wanted to hold. For example, we need to hold the argument “some people are evil by nature,” and our opponent clearly took on the malicious denial and never misses any argument. Then I pretend that I want to put forward as an argument a contradictory thought: “you will not deny,” we say, “that by nature every man is kind and blameless, and depravity is acquired from education, from the environment, etc.”. If the enemy does not solve the trap, he will use his tactics here and declare that this is obviously a false thought. “Undoubtedly, there are people who are vicious by nature,” sometimes even proof will lead. This is exactly what we need. The argument is made, the trap is shut.
The inadmissible tricks are countless. There are very rough, but there are very thin. The most rude tricks occur when the wrong "out of the dispute." Sometimes it is necessary to “throw an argument”, because, for example, the enemy goes to the person, allows himself to be rude, etc. This, of course, will be the right “way out of the argument”, for serious reasons. But it also happens that the disputant is in a dispute badly because the opponent is stronger than him or in general, or in this matter. He feels that the dispute is beyond his power, and tries in every way to "slip away from the dispute." In the funds here are not shy and often resort to rude tricks.
The roughest of them is not to let the opponent talk. The disputant constantly interrupts the opponent, tries to shout it over, or simply demonstratively shows that he does not want to listen to him: he clamps his ears, sings, whistles, etc., etc. In the dispute with the listeners, sometimes the role is played by the listeners themselves, who see, that their like-minded person has to do badly: there is a chorus of approval or disapproval, and a roar, and a gaggle, and stamping with their feet, and even breaking tables and chairs, and a demonstrative way out of the room - all as the listeners' moral character. To argue under such conditions, of course, is impossible. This is called (if successful) "to break the argument."
If the debater is arrogant enough, he can, “arguing” so with us and without letting us say a word, declare: “you cannot argue with you, because you do not give an intelligent answer to the questions,” or even: “because you are not positive give opportunities to speak. " Sometimes all this is made thinner. We made a strong but difficult argument against which the enemy cannot object to anything: he then says with irony: “I'm sorry, but I can't argue with you anymore. Such arguments are beyond my comprehension. They are too learned for me ”and so on and so forth.
After this, such a stubborn man can not be forced to continue the argument. Others can be kept “in dispute”, stating that if he did not understand the argument, then the fault is in our inability to clearly express it, and not in his mind, etc.
Another, but more serious trick to end the unfavorable dispute is “appeal” or “argument to the township” . First, a person argues in the permissive framework, argues because of whether the thesis is true or false. But the dispute is played out in his favor, and he appeals to those in power or recognized authorities, for example, in the field of theology, pointing out the danger of a thesis for the state, society, one or another moral doctrine, etc. regime or new, “city”, “comrades” or “gentlemen” - the name of such a reception is the same: “call for city”. And its essence is the same: some kind of “power” comes and pinches the enemy to our mouth. Q.E.D. The argument has stopped, and the "victory" is ours.
But the "appeal to the town" is only intended to end the dispute. Many are not content with this, but use similar means to “convince” the enemy, that is, rather, to force him, at least in words, to agree with us. Then such arguments are called "cane arguments . " Violence in all forms very often “convinces” many and resolves disputes, at least temporarily. But such cane arguments are clearly not included in the scope of consideration by logic.
The cane argument is a rather unattractive trick, consisting in the fact that they bring in such an argument, which the enemy, in view of giving such an argument, must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or which he cannot correctly answer for the same reason and must either be silent or come up with some "workarounds".
Such arguments abound at all times, among all nations, under all regimes; in state, in public, in private life. At the time of the Inquisition, for example, such disputes were very common: the free-thinker said that “the earth rotates near the sun,” and the enemy objects: “but in the psalms it is written:“ You set the earth on solid foundations, it will not shake for ever and ever ” . What do you think, he asks meaningfully, can the Holy Scripture err or not? ” The free-thinker remembers the Inquisition and ceases to object. He even, for greater security, usually "makes sure", sometimes even touchingly thanks for "enlightenment."
The various modifications of the “arguments to the mayor” and “cane arguments” are innumerable. At least, in the old manuals according to the logic of the XVI, XVII and XVIII centuries there are sometimes quite long lists and descriptions of them, from which it can be seen that they are all found in our time.
The most frequently used modifications and complications are primarily cases of "reading in the hearts . " This trick is that arguing with us does not so much parse our words as the secret motives that made us express them. Sometimes even he is limited to this. For example, the interlocutor expresses to us in a dispute: “you say this not because you yourself are convinced of it, but because of persistence”, “just to argue”, “you yourself think the same thing, just don’t want to admit your mistake”, “you say it is from envy of him, ”“ how much did you get to support this opinion? ”,“ you speak like that from class interests ”, etc., etc. What is the answer to such“ reading in hearts ”? It “pinches its mouth” to many, because it is usually impossible to refute such an accusation, as well as to prove it. Others are able to "cut off" such an opponent, for example, deftly and sharply emphasizing the nature of his tricks. But the trick gains a real formidable force in connection with a cane argument. For example, if we prove the harmfulness of a government event, the enemy writes: “The reason for the attack on the event is clear: it is the desire to undermine the prestige of power. The more devastation there is, the more desirable it is for such oppositionists ”, etc. Or:“ these words are a clear call for an armed uprising ”, etc.
Of course, such accusations, if they are substantiated, maybe in this case are just, and the prosecutor does a very useful matter, paying attention to known facts. Sometimes it can be a civic duty. But you can not call it a dispute and it can not be added to the dispute. A dispute is a struggle of two thoughts, not a thought and a club struggling with a thought. It is necessary to protest against the admixture of such methods to the dispute in every possible way and in every possible way.
Sometimes “reading in hearts” takes another form: they find a motive according to which a person does not speak or write. Undoubtedly, he does not do this on such or such a motive. For example, why did he not express “patriotic delight” when he spoke about such an event? Obviously, he does not sympathize with him. Thus, for the skillful lover of “reading in the hearts,” it is, if desired, the opportunity to find “sedition”, as in some words of the enemy, sometimes in his silence.
These same tricks of the dispute must also be attributed to innuendo. A person seeks to undermine in his listeners and readers confidence in his opponent, and, consequently, in his arguments, and uses for this purpose insidious irresponsible hints. Unfortunately, this trick is very popular, and it does not stop even other highly respectable figures.
Where rude cane arguments reign, where freedom of speech is constrained by violence, a special opposite is often worked out, also a rather ugly trick: a person has nothing to say in response to a reasonable argument of the opponent. However, he pretends that he could have said a lot in response, but ... Many empty heads used this technique, surrounding themselves with an undeserved aura of the mind, which supposedly "is not allowed to turn around." So any violence against freedom of speech corrupts people, both oppressors and oppressed.
Much more interesting are those tricks that can be called psychological. They are based on the knowledge of certain properties of the human soul and certain human weaknesses.
The state of mind during an oral dispute has a huge impact on the management of the dispute. When we are “in shock”, that is, we are seized by a slight pleasant excitement, in which thought, memory, imagination work especially clearly and vividly, we argue better than usual. If we are very excited about something, embarrassed, confused, “hot”, if our attention is dissipated by something, we argue and think worse than usual, or even very bad. This is where a number of psychological tricks arise, designed to put us off balance, weaken and frustrate the work of our thoughts.
For this there are many different techniques. The toughest and most common trick is to annoy the opponent and get him mad. To do this, they use rude antics, insults, obviously unfair, disturbing accusations, etc. If the opponent “boils” - the case is won (he lost many chances in the dispute). But they use various other ways to bring the enemy off balance. If the dispute is very important, when the listeners are responsible, then, they say, others even resort to the “trick of the actors”. Some artists, for example, singers, in order to “cut” their rival, before his performance, inform him of some extremely unpleasant news, frustrate him with something, or derail him with an insult in the calculation that after that he will not control himself and sing badly . Certainly do not disdain to do so, and some debaters before a responsible dispute, so you need to be on your guard against it.
If an adversary is a person, as they say, “unstretched”, trusting, thinking slowly, although it may be accurate, then some unscrupulous debaters try to “stun” him in an oral dispute, especially with listeners. They speak very quickly, express thoughts often in a form that is difficult to understand, quickly replace one thought with another. Then, without letting it come to their senses, they victoriously draw the conclusion that is desirable for them, and throw the argument: they are the victors. The most dishonest sometimes do not hesitate to bring thoughts without any connection, sometimes absurd, and while a slowly-minded and honest opponent tries to grasp the connection between thoughts, without assuming that such impudence is possible, they leave the battlefield with a triumphant look. This is done most often in front of such listeners who absolutely do not understand anything in the subject of the dispute, and are judged on the success or failure of only one appearance.
Множество грубых и тонких уловок имеют целью отвлечение внимания противника от какой-нибудь мысли, которую хотят провести без критики. Наиболее характерные тонкие уловки имеют такой вид.
Мысль, которую мы хотят таким образом провести, или не высказывается вовсе, а только необходимо подразумевается, или же высказывается, но возможно короче, в самой серой, обыденной и малозаметной форме. Перед нею же высказывают такую мысль, которая поневоле должна своим содержанием или формой привлечь особое внимание противника, например, чем-нибудь задеть, поразить его и т. д. Если это сделано удачно, то есть очень много шансов, что у обычного противника уловка пройдёт с успехом. Он «проглядит» и пропустит без критики незаметную мысль.
Нередко приём принимает форму настоящего «наведения на ложный след». Перед мыслью, которую хотят «провести» без критики, ставят какую-нибудь такую мысль, которая, по всем соображениям, должна показаться противнику явно сомнительной или явно ошибочной. При этом предполагается, что всякий противник ищет в нашей аргументации слабых мест, и большинство набрасывается на первое попавшееся слабое место, без особого внимания пропуская ближайшие к нему последующие мысли, если они не бросаются в глаза своей ошибочностью. Скажем, некоему спорщику нужно провести без критики важную для его цели мысль, к которой противник может отнестись очень придирчиво, если заметит её важность и неполную очевидность.
Эта уловка допускает самые различные видоизменения. Иногда, например, чувствуя, что подставная мысль, под завесой которой хотят незаметно провести нужный довод, сама по себе может и не привлечь критики противника, искусственно стараются показать ему, что сами считают её слабым местом аргументации. Например, человек тоном, выражением лица, игрою пауз воспроизводит поведение человека, высказавшего слабое возражение и боящегося за него, неуверенного в силе довода и старающегося поскорее провести его незаметно, ускользнув от критики. Недостаточно искушённый противник довольно легко может попасться на эту удочку, если «артист» не «переиграет», не слишком неестественно подчеркнёт свое «желание ускользнуть».
Не будет лишним заметить, что в ораторских речах одним из сильнейших средств, отвлекающих внимание от мыслей и их логической связи, является пафос, выражение сильного эмоционального подъёма, равно как и избыток удачных речевых фигур и т. д. Проверено на опыте, что обычно слушатель хуже всего усваивает и запоминает смысл таких отделов речи.
Очень часто спорящий пользуется обычной для большинства человеческой слабостью - желанием «казаться лучше, чем есть на самом деле» или же желанием «не уронить себя» в глазах противника или слушателей, чаще всего - «ложным стыдом». Видя, например, что противник слабоват в науке, спорящий проводит недоказательный или даже ложный довод под таким соусом: «вам, конечно, известно, что наука теперь установила» и т. д. Или «давно уже установлено наукой», или «общеизвестный факт», или «неужели вы до сих пор не знаете о том, что…» и т. д. Если противник побоится «уронить себя», признавшись, что ему это неизвестно, он оказывается в ловушке. Иногда эта уловка связана с использованием авторитета какого-либо лица - писателя, учёного и т. п.
Довольно часто употребляется и другая родственная уловка, основанная также на самолюбии человека: «подмазывание аргумента» . Довод сам по себе не доказателен, и противник может опротестовать его. Тогда выражают этот довод в туманной, запутанной форме и сопровождают таким, например, комплиментом противнику: «конечно, это довод, который приведёшь не во всяком споре, человек, недостаточно образованный, его не оценит и не поймёт» и т. д.; или «вы, как человек умный, не станете отрицать, что…» и т. д.; или «нам с вами, конечно, совершенно ясно, что…» и т. д., и т.п. Иногда не говорят комплиментов, а лишь тонко дают понять, что к вашему уму относятся с особым уважением. Всё это иной раз очень сильно действует в спорах для убеждения. Даже в грубой форме иногда такой приём «смягчает» душу противника.
Одна из сильнейших и обычнейших уловок в споре - это внушение. Особенно огромна роль его в устном споре. Кто обладает громким, внушительным голосом, говорит спокойно, отчётливо, самоуверенно, авторитетно, имеет представительную внешность и манеры, тот обладает (при прочих равных условиях) огромным преимуществом в устном споре. Он невольно «импонирует», в большинстве случаев, и самому противнику. Кто глубоко и твёрдо убеждён в том, за что спорит, и умеет выразить эту непоколебимую твердость убеждённым тоном, манерой говорить и соответствующим выражением лица, тот обладает большой внушающей силой и действует на противника, особенно такого, у которого этой убеждённости нет. Убедительный тон и манера часто убедительнее самого основательного довода.
Особенно действует внушение на слушателей спора. Мы уже касались «психологии типичного слушателя». Если спор мало-мальски отвлечённый или выходит за пределы того, что слушатель знает «как дважды два - четыре», обычный слушатель не вникает в доводы, не напрягает достаточно своего внимания, чтобы схватить суть того, что говорится, особенно если возражение или ответ длинны. Когда у слушателя уже есть определённое убеждение по разбираемому вопросу, он обычно не слушает даже как следует «чужих», противоположных доводов. Если у него нет определённого убеждения, и спор не задевает очень близких к нему интересов, слушатель руководится более или менее внешними признаками, чтобы судить, на чьей стороне победа. И вот такого-то рода слушатели - наиболее подходящий материал для внушения в споре. Кто говорит слабым, нетвёрдым голосом, неуверенно, тот, при обычных обстоятельствах, теряет в споре перед слушателями, всё равно - из-за победы этот спор или же для убеждения.
Кроме тона и манеры спорить, есть много и других приёмов, рассчитанных на внушение. Так может действовать смех, насмешка над словами. Так действуют часто заявления, что такой-то довод противника - «очевидная ошибка» и «ерунда» и т. д., и т. п. Последнего рода приёмы употребляются и в письменном споре: «противник наш договорился до такой нелепости, как…» и т. д. Затем следует сама «нелепость», вовсе не нелепая. За ней стоят три восклицательных знака, но не сделано даже попытки доказать, что это нелепость. Или же наоборот: «в высшей степени остроумны и глубокомысленны следующие слова такого-то…». В «словах» такого-то нет ни остроумия, ни глубокомыслия, но они нужны автору статьи, а последний знает, что читатель не имеет часто даже времени проверить его оценку, не станет сосредоточивать на проверке внимание, а просто примет слова под тем соусом, под каким они ему поданы. Даже, может быть, через час сам будет повторять их «как остроумные и глубокомысленные».
К психологическим приёмам также относятся ссылки на авторитеты. Эти ссылки действуют на иных, как таран, пробивающий стену недоверия. Часто чужой аргументации предпосылается «несколько слов» авторитетного автора, имеющие целью предварительно «надлежащим образом осветить» эту аргументацию. Здесь также таится «внушение». Вобщем, все подобного рода уловки носят характер «втирания очков», через которые читатель или слушатель должны смотреть на известный вопрос.
The tricks of suggestion also include the repetition of the same argument several times, especially used in public speaking. Often the argument is given each time in a different form, but so that it is clear that the thought is the same. It acts as a mechanical “hollowing into the head,” especially if the presentation is decorated with eloquence and pathos. “What the people will say three times, the people believe that,” says one of the German sayings. This is indeed confirmed by experience.
Comments
To leave a comment
Rhetoric
Terms: Rhetoric