Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks

-
Publication Data -

Contact the author at
wdslibrary@gmail..com
http://www.wdslibrary.com

A Prologue To
Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks

Almost a half century has passed since I struggled with the aluminum TV antenna on my US Forest Service issued apartment. This place was walled off by tall virgin timber making television reception ghost-like and snowy. Perhaps you can picture the isolation when I tell you I was on the edge of Oregon's Crater Lake National Park. In the winter, we sometimes had eight feet of snow, and generator power was turned off at 9am, so television was a treat.

One of the shows I could pick up was The Joe Pyne Show. I'm sure Joe Pyne was an early model for guys like Rush Limbaugh.

Joe Pyne was sarcastic and abrasive in the extreme...and I hated his guts. But I watched him anyway hoping one of his guests would eventually win the debate. I fantasized Pyne breaking down in sobs as a guest turned the tables. Of course that never happened.

But then on one show, there was a guest that seemed despicable enough to deserve Pyne's wrath. Pyne was an inflexible moralist and this guest was a notorious madam pushing the idea of legalized prostitution. I waited for this sleazy lady to receive Joe Pyne's cruel abuse. I was in for a surprise.

To my shock, Pyne treated this lady differently. He was respectful and even polite! He asked reasonable questions without a trace of his usual vitriolic rancour. Her philosophy was obviously one that Pyne could never accept, but he nevertheless provided an opportunity for her to present her views.

I was confused and off balance as I watched this enlightening interview. "What the hell is this all about!" I wondered.

From then on, I saw the The Joe Pyne Show from a new perspective. I noticed when a guest had views that were more or less traditional, Pyne would verbally rip them from limb from limb. This would bring on the wrath from the show's listenership. At the same time, however, it would increase sponsor-pleasing demographics. I realized that folks watched Joe Pyne even when they hated him. On rare occasions, when there was a guest with a controversial but interesting idea, Pyne would do a legitimate interview.

The era of The Joe Pyne Show is long past, and we now have the shock-jocks such as Howard Stern, and conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. They all, however, followed the unyielding and inflammatory style of Joe Pyne--and it still works!

It's a testament to the approach that Limbaugh seems to be surviving a drug problem and a divorce with barely a ripple in his support base. He is, however, in some danger from the prosecutorial powers of the US Justice Department as a result of his illegal use of drugs.

But this eBook, Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks, is not about Joe, Howard, or Rush. It's not about how to get rich as a talk show host. My interest is much more narrow than that.

One essential rule pioneered by Joe Pyne and followed by those that came after is this: Never lose a debate.

In this regard, the talent of a talk-show host is similar to a court room attorney that must either defend the guilty or prosecute the innocent. In any case, nobody can be correct one hundred percent of the time, all views have exceptions, and the most brilliant debater will sometimes fail to make their point. Debating is like a game of chess... each move changes the board for all subsequent moves.

So how do these talk show guys seem to always come out on top, even on the occasions when the deck seems stacked against them?

They are certainly well informed and highly skilled debaters. They have a natural talent that allows them to think extremely fast on their feet and, of course, they have call screeners that are equally talented. When all else fails, they can even fall back on host-friendly electronics.

Going up against a one of these guys in a debate is like getting into a fist fight with the current world heavyweight boxing champion...you're going to get your ass kicked.

Beyond talent, supportive call screeners, and countless hours of experience, there is one more factor that offers a different perspective on the usual talk-show debate.

This eBook is a study of human behavior when views are represented as a dichotomy. Most often, intellectual issues fit naturally within a triad structure. Forcing issues into an unnatural, brain-bending, dual system makes possible some Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks.

Carl Weisbrod - 2003

Contents of
Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks

~ ~ ~

Cover Page >FastScroll<

Prologue >FastScroll<
Preface >FastScroll<
What's a two-value trick? >FastScroll<

~ Two-Value Tricks ~

Talk Radio T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Political T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Bureaucrat T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Lawyer T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Classic T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Miscellaneous T-V Tricks >FastScroll<
Index >FastScroll<
About the Author >FastScroll<

~ ~ ~

Preface

This is a book I may never finish. About the time I think I've beat this topic to death, I hear another Two-Value Trick that I feel compelled write about. Of course there is some overlap, and for that I apologize.

I lumped this eBook with my "fun reading" group. Doing this may belie the seriousness of this "two-value" topic. Here's an analogy that may offset that possibility:

Imagine yourself as a CEO of a large corporation. You and your assistant have the important task of hiring a key person for the company. There are two possible candidates for the job--Person A and Person B.

Your assistant hates Person A and loves Person B, and you hate Person B and love Person A. If the two of you so completely disagree, how do you know you're not both correct in the negative assertion?

Maybe neither candidate measures up for the job. Shouldn't you have more than two choices? If you're both locked into your rigid position, perhaps you're not thinking beyond the win-lose aspect of your conflict.

To decide, you could assert your authority as the CEO, or perhaps just flip a coin. But would that bring about the best person for an important position?

Can you see where I'm going with this?
Carl Weisbrod

>back< to the table of contents

What's a two-value trick?

In conversations with folks who have not read this eBook, one of the thoughts that a "two-value" topic brings up is: "I don't think two value, or in threes as you suggest. I have an open mind and consider all aspects of a question."

If you're a person who can process unlimited possibilities at a time, you're at risk of having your head explode! :) ...well, maybe not quite, but the mind can't handle more than three issues at a time.

Two-value thought processes will cause some distress (usually anger), but more than three basic ideas at a time is virtually impossible in a state of sanity. Some psychotic states have a symptom called flight of ideas. This is thought to be caused by a chemical imbalance somewhere in the brain. In the acute state, there's symptoms of anxiety, and if a flight of ideas becomes chronic, it can bring about a cognitive shut-down leading to a severe depression.

I'm going to skip across the tops of some neurological science just so you know this two-value versus triad brain function is not some kind of number mythology.

Excluding humans, advanced primates are limited to a dual level of thought--fight or flight, etc. Tens-of-thousands of years ago, humans became modern as they developed lateralization of the cerebral cortex. This means that the two brain hemispheres took on separate cognative tasks able to function simultanously.

There was the external mental processes of language and logic, usually in the left hemisphere, and then the internal mental images usually in the right hemisphere. One hemisphere is envolved with rigid time and space limitations. The other side functions with multi-dimensional images not dependant on time limitations.

This, of course, is an over-simplification of a complex process. The point is, it's not theory--it's seen every day by health care people that take care of stroke victims. The cognative symptoms are predictable in relationship to the observable paralysis in the opposite side of the brain damage.

But that's only two. Where's the third level of thought? Here it is: It's the mix of the two thought processes partially facilitated by a bundle of neurons called the corpus callosum that link the two hemispheres.

As an example, imagine you set out to purchase a painting for your living room wall.

As you walk into the store's art department, you might start looking for such things as physical size and price. Next you look for something that strikes your fancy along with colors that go with the room's decor. That takes care of both hemispheres. But to make a purchase, you must mix together such things as price and eye appeal. This is the triad thought process in action.

Without the triad thought process, you would either be constantly mired in a state of indicision, or locked into a rigid system of preconceived beliefs.

Imagine if you tried to make even a simple decision with more than three choices, or limited to two choices.

If someone's mental processes is manipulated into two levels, and clever debating techniques are applied, a distinct disadvantage is gained. The result is Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks.
Carl Weisbrod

>back< to the table of contents

Radio Talk-Show Tricks

Talk-show demographics
There are three radio formats that influence many people. There's the political format, primarily conservative; there's the National Public Radio format which is interview-based and liberal leaning; and then there's the late-night format, which is an uneasy mix of good science, science fiction, and weirdness.

In the first type, Rush Limbaugh is the acknowledged leader. The NPR variety follows a magazine format that downplays the personality of the reporter or host. The late-night format is presided over by Art Bell.

If you were to ask me how to become a talk-radio celebrity on commercial stations, I would tell you to pull together a large listening audience. The only way to make it on commercial radio is to have large demographics of a buying public. Unfortunately, some of your sponsors will be selling bogus pills, enzymes and elixirs. For this reason, you probably need demographics with a high index of gullibility.

Late-night radio also sells books and audio programs, and the authors of these books and tapes will provide the entertainment for the evening.

The Limbaugh model is a biased political debate, and although he is tightly linked to a political ideology, he sets himself up as the primary pundit.

Art Bell, although personally a skeptic, has built a huge late-night audience by airing crazy stuff such as alien abductions, apemen creatures, and weird conspiracy theories--the late night crowd obviously love such topics.

As Art Bell's demographics skyrocketed, he was hustled more and more by mainstream publishers and authors. Because of the huge number of listeners, an interview with Bell (or one of his contemporaries) will instantly catapult a book onto the best-seller lists.

Eventually the audience numbers reached the point that any book would sell by the truckload without regard to topic. For this reason, late-night radio has become more and more legitimate, although the weird stuff must remain as part of the formula to satisfy the appetite of the original audience.

~ ~ ~

Institutional Stereotyping
Stereotyping is a technique of describing something complex (often a social group) as a general pattern or a standardized mental picture. It's an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or a nonintellectual judgment. Stereotyping is considered hackneyed, lacking in freshness or originality.

Having said that, I'll bet you've heard it said that the US university is turning out liberal fanatics. It is said that the majority of university professors are left-wing radicals--as opposed to clear thinking right-wing conservatives.

Universities naturally tend toward more liberal concepts simply because it better fits the general attitude of the student body--rather than the more parental and rigid conservatism. The youthful demographics of the college/university campus is made up of a majority still in the throes of rebelliousness toward parential restrictions--the "leaving-the-nest" syndrome.

A third alternative views the university as a place to learn from teachers and text books. Students (hopefully) are not so mush-brained that they will absorb whatever a professor (or text book) attempts to feed them--in fact, the reverse is probably more accurate. Many students tend to rebel against messages fed to them by authority figures, as they learned to do with their parents.

This is probably why there are more liberal thinkers among blue-collar folks, and conservatives tend more often to be university trained. I'm not sure that's true, but I think it is.

If you prefer to divide the world along the lines of conservatives and liberals, think about this: To be an enlightened, a conservative must have insight into liberal views, and vise-versa.

Today I heard a talk show guy talking about homeless. He acknowledged the possibility of mental or addiction problems, but brushed that aside and stereotyped the entire homeless population as malingering bums too lazy to work--he said "Those people are there as a matter of choice."

You often hear the phrase "those people" used within the process of Stereotyping.

The truth, of course, is homeless are like non-homeless as far as categorization. They're made up of a wide spectrum of people. They can't be stereotyped as "malingering bums too lazy to work" any more than non-homeless can be stereotyped as "honest people that work hard."

Reference: 1-02*#77//R#16-IV

~ ~ ~

Become dumb & dumber
There's a risk of this should you become a popular radio talk-show host with politics as your primary topic.

The reason for this risk is the need to establish a large listening audience to attract advertisers. Without a large number of listeners you won't attract advertisers, and without advertisers you will not be offered air time.

This seems like a nobrainer, but the listening majority won't tolerate flexible views from the host. Most listeners tune in a popular radio show to fortify their own cherished belief system, with a much smaller group of listeners that enjoy developing debating skills.

As an analogy, think of a Protestant minister of a church who suddenly becomes a Catholic Priest. How many parishioners would remain? Most devoted talk radio listeners hang on to their political beliefs with an almost religious zeal.

Talk-show icons such as Rush Limbaugh keep their toe in the water by closely watching the flow of email. They have at least one employee who does nothing else but run statistics on the minute by minute flow of email. Based on the feedback, they have learned when to back off and when to amplify an issue.

With a system such as this, they are forced to maintain a static belief system, so with any issue, they will tend to follow a similar pattern of reasoning, one that fits within the expectations of established listeners. Of course, to keep people tuning in, once in a while they need to slip in a "shocker" but less often than one might expect.

It's critical for them to never (or almost never) lose a debate with a caller (with an opposing viewpoint). To survive in the business, their debating skills need to be superb.

I was amused when President Bush (43) turned out to be more liberal than Limbaugh could tolerate. In 2002, Rush became cautiously critical of the Bush policies. He confessed of immediately receiving an avalanche angry email. What he didn't admit was the plummeting listenership with advertisers threatening to cancel their accounts.

Since that time, President Bush has become even more liberal, but Limbaugh (having learned his lesson) levels smaller and smaller doses of cautious criticism, while appearing to "maintain the faith."

Talk show hosts have a couple of stalling techniques when a political system is in danger of falling out of favor:

Red Herring & Tempest in a Teapot
These two techniques allow a focus on issues that have been found to be "audience safe."

On the other hand, for job security, a talk show host needs to know when to bail on a politician that breaks the faith. This is not an unusual occurrence with examples during the administrations of Clinton, the elder Bush, and of course, Richard Nixon.

Talk show hosts must keep a sharp eye on the possibility of such an occurrence. If separation does become necessary, timing is critical: if this separation is done too soon, they will be seen as disloyal and lose faithful listeners, but if done too late they will lose credibility and ultimately listeners.

To answer my topic question (how to become dumber): one of the important ingredients for intellectualism (and therefore intelligence) is an ability to change and grow one's belief system. This, however, would be a risky system for a talk-show host. For this reason, by the very nature of the profession, intellectual growth is limited.

Reference: 8-03E#36//E#36-IVa - 6-03E#35//E#35-IIIa

~ ~ ~

An Evil Point of View

The major "Two-Value Trick" that's in progress as we speak [2002] is the idea that a war against Iraq is American, while the sentiment against an Iraqi war is un-American.

Two-Value Tricks tend to take highly complex issues and break them down into simplistic terms.

As an exercise, how many reasons can you come up with for a war against Iraq. Then how many reasons for no war against Iraq.

Reference: 3-03*#94//E#33-IVa

~ ~ ~

Fake Science
Please forgive a bit of stereotyping, but I think of Liberals as part of the political system that wishes to regulate everything that offends them.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want to shout down everything that conflicts with their conservative point of view.

For example, I just heard Rush Limbaugh use a Two-Value Trick that drove me up a wall.. He took a bit of scientific research and manipulated it so it backed up his point of view.

I admire Rush for his accomplishments in the broadcasting world, but my admiration is shaken when he uses such manipulation.

In this case, he was talking about one of his favorite rants, i.e., that we are NOT (as the Libs claim) endangered by pollution.

He then proceeded to make some statements about insulin he characterized as research--a stretch to begin with, but. . .

. . .it wasn't research he was quoting but rather some outlandish statements used to sell fad-diet books. He then proceeded to justify "this truth" by his personal experience with weight loss--in other words anecdotal evidence.

In the space of a sentence or two, his line of reasoning failed my HAX test on all three points: Hyperbole/Anecdotal/eXpert. It also involved inductive rather than deductive thinking.

Anyway, please don't fall for the tyranny of anecdotal evidence. Frequently, it's the last refuge of the insupportable claim.

Reference: 11-02*#91//*#91-III

~ ~ ~

Laugh at the caller and win the debate

The other day I heard a substitute radio host (his regular job was a state senator). The topic was a spirited discussion about which was a better idea: incarceration or rehabilitation.

The thesis question was should we throw offenders in jail or attempt to straighten straighten them out. Of course, the "macho conservative" guys had a "letum rot" mentality, while the "bleeding heart liberals" wanted to turn them into productive members of society.

Then someone called in and suggested that we should consider banishment as alternative to incarceration. He started out by suggesting that the cost could be minuscule compared to the high cost of a prison infrastructure and staffing. Most important, the caller suggested, it would protect innocents from the worst of the cruel offenders.

"Banishment!" the host chortled. "What are we going to do, give em a nice country of their very own! Ha ha ha ha!" The caller hung up in disgust and the next few callers, picking up on the host's lead, made fun of the caller and his idea.

When humor and laughter is used to discount the opposing view, that's definitely a two-value trick.

Since two-value tricks carry the implication that there are only two alternatives, other ideas must be reduced to a joke. So when a third alternative is presented, a common trick is to treat it with mirth. "You can't be serious!" they giggle.

There is no more disrespectful way to show disdain within a debate than to discount the opponent by simply laughing in their face. The implied statement is "Hey caller, I can't take your idea seriously because you're stupid."

All talk show hosts fall back on this obnoxious two-value trick when a viable idea suddenly threatens their conformable and well-rehearsed niche.

~ ~ ~

Discounting -- It's a great idea but it will never happen!

Most talk show hosts have a locked-in system of belief in their field of interest. If politics it was once called the party platform--each idea was a plank in the platform.

When a caller presents an idea that makes more sense then they concept they possess, they say: "It's a great idea, and I agree, but it will never fly." This allows a conditional discount of the idea without discrediting the idea or the caller. They're saying, It's a good idea but impractical.

Every idea was once new...and probably drew the same reaction from those with a locked-in belief system.

Variations of this are statements traditionally adopter by physicians when confronted with a new idea:
(1) When first heard the medical profession would say: "It's incorrect."
(2) Later the medical profession would say, "It's correct but not practical."
(3) When the idea became accepted the position would be: "We knew it all the time." [ed note to myself. Do this as a separate category.]

~ ~ ~

The Wishy-Washy Person
One of the favorite criticisms of someone who does not follow a two-value line of thinking is that person is Wishy-Washy.

For example, those that change political beliefs, or even positions within the sample political party, are often called "wishy-washy." The connotation of that pejorative term is they are folks that can't make up their mind, tend to pander to different groups, or are somehow dishonest. Wishy-washy people are said to "flip-flop" in their views, and therefore not credible or reliable.

Using a the two-value line of thinking, it's interesting to find the antithesis of wishy-washy. I think it would be "rigid." A rigid person would never be described as wishy-washy. A wishy-washy person is one who changes views easily, while a rigid person seldom, if ever, changes views.

Think about it a little bit. If you had a much-loved business, and you needed to hire a manager--someone that could make important business decisions. Which would you hire, a wishy-washy person that changes views easily, or a rigid person that would stuck religiously to the "game plan?"

Logically, the wishy-washy person would be willing to adopt changes--the rigid person would not. Of course, if the business would flourish without change, a rigid manager would do fine...but if something such as a new technology or a new breed of competition came along, who would then be best to fill the position?

The rigid person would be less likely to develop new ideas, and would eventually continue making the same old mistakes. On the other hand, the wishy-washy person might excessively go-with-the-flow, and also make mistakes.

Once again, this shows that a two-value system is too simplistic to base a solution to problems--and certainly not a credible way to judge the performance of someone.

~ ~ ~

Turn an Adjective Into a Noun
One of the tricks, when a two-value line of reasoning prevails, is the process of turning adjectives into descriptive nouns. The habit of doing this often manipulative and blocks good communication.

At the birth of language, there were only nouns. That was perhaps 100,000 years ago. There were probably names for animals in the area, a specific food, the geographic location of water, things like that.

But then there was a need for descriptive terms: a "hungry" saber-tooth tiger, a "ripe" fruit, a "safe" shelter, and so forth.

Turning an adjective into a noun, can be a source of misunderstanding. An example of this is turning the adjective "liberal" into a noun, and then using it in a pejorative way.

It's certainly fine to suggest someone tends toward conservative or liberal ideals in their political views, but when the whole person is labeled by an adjective--such as liberal or conservative--it's far to simplistic to hold up intellectually.

~ ~ ~

The triad system of choosing candidates for important positions is to first look for intelligence. (How is that judged? Look for academic achievement, a record of accomplishment, and some sort of unique creativity.) Second, look for the ability to be flexible, but based on intelligence rather than opportunity. Third, look for a somewhat rigid system of core beliefs.

~ ~ ~

The Misrepresentation

But I just heard Rush Limbaugh argue the Christian point of view by telling a high school student that he shouldn't believe the "bigots" that are telling him about evolution...Rush came up with the tired old 1920s Scopes Trial argument that made the point, "If men came from chimpanzees or baboons, these monkeys would no longer be here!" That's just one step away from the "Flat Earth Society" level of belief. ("If the earth was round we would constantly be either walking uphill or downhill.")

It's easy to win arguments with people that lack knowledge in certain areas by misrepresenting the counter-point. i.e., "evolution believes man came from baboons or chimpanzees." Of course, no paleontologist or anthropologist has such a silly belief.

~ ~ ~

The Trivialization
A variety of misrepresentation is a tactic I'll label as trivialization. That would be taking a complex scientific or philosophical idea and condensing into one sentence making it sound silly.

~ ~ ~

>back< to the table of contents

Two-Value Tricks Used By Politicians

Working The Spin

Politicians tend to exaggerate the tomfoolery of the other party and are apologists for the same kind of stuff from their own party. In the modern vernacular it's called "Working The Spin."

In the US, the Conservative point of view is generally more appealing to the radio talk-show demographics. This population generally believes the Conservative cause focuses on personal freedom and smaller government. It's felt that Liberalism, on the other hand, has the opposite focus, such as entitlements and big government.

And when a radio show is advertiser-supported, the listener numbers is the bottom line. In other words, talk show guys are really slaves to thier own demographics.

A few years back, Rush Limbaugh did an interesting on-air experiment. He tongue-in-cheek pretended to be swayed over to the Liberal cause. The reaction from his listeners was explosive. It became abundantly clear that his audience was listening to Limbaugh-the-viewpoint rather than Limbaugh-the-thinking-person. The audience couldn't handle listening to opinions other than those they'd been hearing.

If I were a talk show host, I probably couldn't sell a six-pack of Snaffle soda pop in a year, and I'd be broadcasting from Radio K-DYMB in someplace like Dogslobber, ND.

To have something that sells Snaffle, look for a created dichotomy of views. A TV or talk-show pundit must offer a hundred percent support for "their team" and, at the same time ridiculing the other team--it takes a kind of high-schoolish-sports mentality.

In the real world, as long as we have the need for a social existence, we need a social structure. And with it comes such things as tax supported entitlement programs.

Going waaaaay back, It's interesting to note that a social structure beyond a single family unit couldn't have existed until fire and agriculture fell under human control. And such basic technology didn't get a foothold until some 50,000 years ago.

This means that the degree of socialization we have developed isn't actually part of the human make-up...hence the problems. Humans, for example, are unique in their acceptance of mass genocide.

Anyway, the recent Conservative presidents are as much against individual rights as are the liberals; but it manifests in different ways. Look, for example, at the hugely expensive "Star Wars" project that President Bush wanted as part of his legacy, until he raided tax-payer funds for his war. Let me ask you some questions about this Star Wars idea.

Based on recent performance, could a federally sponsored program get something as complex as a Star Wars system in orbit? If they could, would it be a good thing for the average citizen to have such a defense system orbiting overhead?

Wouldn't that open up a brand new battle ground? Could a terrorist country get something like a nuclear suitcase bomb into orbit? Who would be the victims of the resulting radioactive fallout?

As far as I know, one-hundred percent of astrophysicists are scared to death of a project with a goal (in reality) of world domination (rather than the advertised protection of US citizens).

I heard one astrophysicist say that if terrorist had enough money to get a keg of nails and a couple sticks of dynamite into orbit, it could wipe out 80% of the communication satellites--most of which are bought and paid for by US citizens. I think Iraq and possibly the Al-Qaida could pull it off--with or without bin Laden.

Another example is the dream of both Bush #41 and #43. It's called The New World Order. Take a look at the ideals of this organization and see it if fits within your Conservative views. I come down on the Conservative side and a New World Order sure as hell doesn't work for me. You can find plenty of details (pro and con) on the Internet.

Reference: 2-02*#79//F#16-III

~ ~ ~

The Two-Value Tricks that ruined Trent Lott
Trent Lott was a victim of Two-Value thinking. First there was the rigid interpretation (by opponents) of a careless remark made not to establish a political position but to simply flatter an old man at a birthday party.

Two-Value thinkers love dragging comments out of context.

The reason for this is simple: Two-Value thinkers process inductively, which means they are focused on backing up a preconceived belief system.

Lott, also a two-value thinker, compounded his problem by flip-flopping on issues in a foolish attempt at a "fix."

This represents a mentality found within our current crop of politicians--a mentality I find worrisome.

Reference: 1-03*#93//R#25-III

~ ~ ~

Abusing Statistics

Rush Limbaugh is someone I like. I listen to him whenever I can and get a kick out of his kicking the ass of liberal politicians. They deserve it by making a mess of the economy.

I also find Rush as an excellent source of the Two-Value Tricks of which he is the master.

He has been forced to fine-tune this ability during the Bush administration that ironically has turned out to be more liberal than Limbaugh can tolerate--but when he has tried to criticize Bush he gets reams of hate mail and loses listeners (and ultimately sponsors) in droves.

Under this pressure, Rush sometimes uses a two-value trick that projects me straight up from my chair.

Here's an example: Rush quoted statistisc from the Centers for Disease Control that said on a daily basis 10 Americans die by drowning, 9 by fire in their homes...14 by pedestrian accidents...27 Americans die in falls, 50 are murdered; 118 in auto accidents, and 25 from AIDS.

After a dramatic pause, Rush concluded by saying, "Yesterday, two Americans died in battle in Iraq."

His point made quoting these statistics is that 2 deaths/day in Iraq is no big deal.

Here's the lie in this shameless manipulation of statistics. There are about 280 million people living in the United States as opposed to 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. By projecting the Iraqi war death rate by base population, it would be equal to 2000 people killed every day, or 14,000 every week.

To see more clearly the fallacy in this kind of use of statistics, think of this: If one person dies in a base of ten million, that's not out of the ordinary, but if one person dies in a base population of ten, that's a shocking death rate

Of course the death of every soldier is a tragedy to their friends and family. [ed note: Since I published this, the allied death rate in Iraq has increased--no longer is that analogy heard. It should never have been used.]

Reference: 8-03*#97//E#36-IV

~ ~ ~

Better than the alternative

It's easy enough to take any high-visibility figure and build a case in his/her defense. This is without regard to the quality of the job done.

One approach is to suggest the opposing figures are much worse. Another method is to shift the focus of importance, perhaps using a distraction something like a "red herring."

A trick that Rush Limbaugh is using to justify President Bush's liberal-like spending is his assertion that we've lost the Conservative's fiscal spending responsibility, but any Republican remains a better alternative than those incompetent "Libs."

Reference: 9-03F#27//F#27-IIIa

~ ~ ~

Separate it into two parts

Let's look at some big issues; the US economy, the War in Iraq, tax cuts, national security, etc.

The politicians and radio talk show people do something I find very annoying. They divide in half the issue in question and high-light only the positive aspects of their side and only the negatives of the other side.

This is a useless approach for understanding any complex issue. Could you "win" an argument using this approach? Of course!

Often it gets down to who has the bully pulpit, the microphone, the stage, or even the louder voice.

Of course you expect a politician or media person that's pandering to a constituency or listening/viewing audience to use such a technique, but if you're looking for insight into an issue, avoid this system.

A better approach is to gather a random list of statistics, questions, and even biased beliefs.

Here's a sample of the failure of this system: You're debating the purchase between two automobiles. You might be thinking of the features of Car A and comparing them to Car B. You'll end up with one or the other.

But then look, for example, at the average price of these cars, and ask yourself if there might be other places (even more fun places) for that amount of money to be spent.

Another example: Consider the cost of the Iraqi War in both dollars and loss of life, and then consider other places the money and resources could have been used.

The key to the best kinds of questions happens when the answers are not obvious. When this occurs you can make an educated guess that the issue has not yet been adequately debated.

Reference: 10-03E#37//E37-IV

~ ~ ~

Using subjective stories to make objective points

The pretty young woman, tears streaming down her cheeks, clutches at her departing husband, a young soldier leaving for war. A toddler is clinging to her skirts and she is pregnant.

I believe in what we're doing, the soldier is telling her...it breaks my heart to leave you and our little family, but it's my duty to fight for our country. Don't worry, I'll come back to you.

The young husband didn't return but was killed in battle, and the young woman was left alone with her grief and two babies to raise without their father.

And then she hears a group of people raging against their county's president who was responsible for the war. Although usually shy, she speaks up angrily, saying her husband had died for his country and how dare they criticize this noble cause!

These anti-war activists, stunned into silence, look embarrassed and ashamed. The young women continues, "My husband died for your freedom! Don't you even care about that?"

~ ~ ~

Does this story make you more supportive of a war we might be engaged in? Well, it shouldn't.

I wrote this story so it could be from any country, and the woman and her husband could be of any nationality and speaking a language you don't understand...and the fighting could be against your country.

The point is that anecdotal and emotional stories make no point other than the heart-rending victimization of individuals within the story. It certainly makes no point whatsoever about the justification or purpose behind a war.

Those using such arguments are attempting to manipulate with emotionalism as opposed to making valid points. In my opinion, this is a somewhat shameful Two-Value Trick.

Reference: 1-9-03 WDS E-Zine Victims #28

~ ~ ~

Can a Two-Value Tricks Junkie be recognized?
...and anyway, Two-Value Tricks is just a system of thinking, and thinking can't cause major social problems, can it?

The social tendency to base a belief system on a two-value system causes major problems. For one thing, it allows a politician to gain access to an important office without letting the voter's know his or her true agenda. Two-value tricks system is also frequently used to sell products that can be life-threatening.

So how can you identify someone that uses a two-value approach to reasoning?

Imagine presenting a well thought out group of ideas to back up a point of view. The deductive thinker will break the ideas down into basic parts--looking for flaws in the logic. It's a process that by its very nature won't happen quickly.

By contrast, the two-value thinker will quickly counter with a stock answer. This answer will appear as a dichotomy, not with the group of ideas, but with only the conclusion the idea brings--a classic example of inductive thinking.

Reference: First published in WDS Formulas #28, January 2004

~ ~ ~

It's about power, sports fans!

Imagine you developed a crushing and agonizing pain in your abdomen. You're sweating, nauseous, and slipping in and out of consciosness...and you knew something is terribly wrong. You aren't sure, but you guess that you might have a ruptured appendix. In fact, you're at death's door, and need help immediately.

Your guess was correct. The infection from a ruptured appendix is rapidly spreading throughout your abdominal cavity causing peritonitis and you will soon fall into a coma and then death....

There were two people coming to your aid.

One was terrific! He was handsome, articulate, confident, and charismatic. He knew just the right things to say to give you confidence...a powerful person. He made his living as a public speaker.

The other was an older scruffy man... hesitant in speech, someone that inspired little confidence. All he had going for him was training as a general surgeon.

Which would you choose to give aid?

That certainly is a no-brainer! In such a situation, it would take a surgeon to save your life. The powerful, charismatic, individual did not have the tools to help you at all.

One might say that the world is in such a life-threatening situation--the symptoms are everywhere on both a domestic and global level.

On the global level, a major problem is hatred against countries such as the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. It has reached such a level that individuals are willing to sacrifice their very lives to make a point.

That was brought home to us on September 11, 2001. But it doesn't stop there. This hatred goes both directions with a willingness of other world leaders to sacrifice the lives of their own citizens, and is sometimes dealt with by killing thousands of innocent victims by dropping bombs. The hope is that it will force submission and eventually win love and respect.

Any behavioral scientist knows that fear stimulates hatred rather than respect. As a result we watch anxiously as the problem of international terror escalate into never before heights. This is during a time that weapons of mass-distruction can be carried in a briefcase, or even an old mayonnaise jar.

Who do we choose as leaders to solve a crushing problem of world terrorism and hatred? Do we choose folks that are trained and experienced in such disciplines as cultural anthropology? Do we find leaders that can view problems from a historical perspective, and thus avoid the mistakes of their predecessors?

On the domestic level, do we find experienced economists with proven success dealing with problems of the economy? Do we find people with well thought-out ideas and a track record of success? Do we find people that we can be certain will not repeat the mistakes of the past?

Or do we, as might the dying victim of a ruptured appendix, choose the charismatic individual over the surgeon?

As I write this, we are watching the Democratic Party's battle for a candidate to run against President Bush. Who among them has credentials to deal with the global and domestic problems that threaten our very survival? The only candidate I see that has even minimal qualifications is General Clark, but little has been brought out of the details of his ability. The talk is primarily on a two-value win-lose level. It's called a race and the focus is "beating" George Bush. [ed note: as of July 2004, it's interesting that the Democratic choice appears to be the least qualified of the original group, and picked a VP with even fewer qualifications.]

Many US voters are conditioned into the win-lose (two-value) mentality of competitive sports. Pandering to this, candidates and incumbents rant and rave about the weakness of the opposing party, while minimizing or making excuses for their own failures. Little is discussed about the real world qualifications necessary to solve problems that have been escalating for decades.

I lay the blame for this disturbing chain of events, not with Democrats or Republicans or Liberals vs Conservatives, but right where it belongs: the voters. We have a voting population that would ask for help (as an analogy), not from the surgeon, but the charismatic person with little ability to deal with a life-threatening medical emergency.

~ ~ ~

Power vs Altruism

Politics, unfortunately, is more about power than altruism. Critics of my assertion might say that most politicians could make more money in the private sector. In most cases this is incorrect when considering their post political life; and beyond that, money isn't the only measure of power. The power of the most highly paid CEO pales in the presence of a former president, even one, for heavensakes, that was impeached!

Albeit a cynical view, I believe successful politicians must sell their very soul to attain their powerful positions. I believe they develop a thick skin enabling them to tolerate their growing sociopathy. I also believe it's up to the voters to start making better choices--but I'm afraid we have become locked-in to a closed and self-perpetuation system.

~ ~ ~

One candidate is 100% right while the other candidate is 100% wrong
The hallmark of political thinking is to defend a hundred percent of their candidate's activities and beliefs while vilifying a hundred percent of the opponent's activities and beliefs. This is the unfortunate result of voters buying into the political two-value rhetoric.

In reality, there has never been a politician, no matter how skilled, that hasn't made a profusion of mistakes within a political career--it's inherent within the job.

Imagine you put together a list of obvious mistakes made by either party and confronted typical party loyalist with them one by one. You need to keep in mind that a politician can't function without making some mistakes. It's predictable that many party loyalists will shoot down each mistake as either the fault of the other party, something that is not relevant, or not a mistake at a all. This is an example of the tyranny of two-value thinking.

A Reality Testing Exercise
Try this reality testing process with a two-value thinker as described above. You must be totally objective with this test.
1) Gather a list of acknowledged mistakes made by a political figure.
2) Gather a list of acknowledged mistakes made by the opponent.
3) Ask for a response to both lists. Each list should contain three or more mistakes and each should be similar in importance.

Most people will feel uncomfortable as the rigid nature of their two-value logic unfolds. In my experience, few have been willing to complete this exercise.

~ ~ ~

>back< to the table of contents

Bureaucrat T-V Tricks

Did It Happen Anyway?
The other day, I criticized the feds for not dealing with the domestic terrorism problem and received an onslaught of "evidence" that many terrorists have been caught since 9/11, and therefore the Bush Homeland Security system is doing its job.

Can you see the intuitive jump in this statement? "Terrorists have been caught, therefore Homeland Security is doing a great job."

The flawed logic suggests that the thwarted terrorism would not have happened before the (DHS) Homeland Security systems were put in place, or that all terrorist threats are successfully being dealt with.

I understand that a great deal of potential terrorism has been dealt with since 9/11, but much of it is related to an increase of awareness of the potential risks, rather than the new policies, and would have happened anyway.

Virtually every governor has recently testified to a fact-finding group that their state is unprepared for the eventuality of a major terrorist attack. I know from personal experience that the Honolulu International Airport has been made only slightly more secure since 9/11, and the federal checkpoint screening is mostly "window dressing."

In my e-zines, I've written extensively about the lack of security of commercial jets parked overnight on the HIA AOA--little has changed in that regard. (ed note: May 2004: a year later, still no changes.)

Reference: 7-03P#26//P#26-IIIa

~ ~ ~

Avoiding a question by asking a question
A common example is the person who asks the questioner something like "Are you crazy?" or "What kind of question is that?" or "Who told you such a thing?"

Bureaucrats, however, are masters at inflicting the Two-Value Trick.

Here's a dialogue that just happened to me. My Type-4 truck driver's license will expire on my birthday, and to have it renewed requires a physical.

I had mistakenly thought the expiration date would be the last day of the month, so I didn't start the process until a day before my birthday. The earliest doctor's appointment I could get for my physical was the 21st of the month--which was okay because I'm not driving at this time anyway.

I was worried that with my license expired for a couple of weeks, I might need to retake the driver's test (in a truck). I was pretty sure there was a grace period, as long as I wasn't driving at that time...but I wanted to be sure. Here's the dialogue with a bureaucrat who was excellent at dragging out our conversation by asking irrelevant questions.

Me: I won't be able to have my physical until a couple of weeks after my Type-4 driver's licensee has expired and I wanted to be sure I will not be required to retake the road test.

Bureaucrat: You want to take your driver's test?

Me: No, I can't get my physical until the last part of the month, and I want to know if I can still renew my license without retaking the road test.

Bureaucrat: What is your social security number? (I supplied it.)
Bureaucrat: What is your name? (I supplied that too.)
Bureaucrat: What did you want to know? (I repeated my question.)
Bureaucrat: Do you realize that you can't legally drive when your license is expired?

Me: I said I realized that and repeated my question. Restrained anger slightly affected the quality of my voice.

Bureaucrat: You have a 90-day grace period before you must re-take the road test--but are you driving at this time?

Me: No Mam. I'm not driving at this time. Thanks for your help. (And then hanging up the phone while mumbling obscenities under my breath.)

~ ~ ~

>back< to the table of contents

Lawyer T-V Tricks

Stop Beating Your Wife!

I think this two-value trick was invented by court room lawyers, but I heard a talk-show guy using it very effectively--not surprising since he had spent a couple of years in law school.

Talk show guys, like politicians and lawyers, are masters at using a two-value debating system. When you hear this sort of argument I suggest you devalue the intellect of the person using it--unless in a court room.

The tactic in my HAX Test [12-97*#1-I], falls under the H = hyperbole. It's a similar tactic of an attorney asking a witness "Did you stop beating your wife? ...and then demanded a "yes or no" answer.

If "no" it implies that the witness is still beating his wife, and if "yes" it implies that the witness is a former spouse abuser. Even if the witness tries to explain that he never beat his wife, the attorney can claim he is avoiding the question.

A variation of this theme is found in this tactic:

A talk-show guy was responding to a caller objecting to the security at an airport. His point was that airport security is inefficient at best. But the minute he suggested it was a violation of his civil rights, the talk-show guy seized the opportunity:

Saying in a loud-outraged voice: "Well, sir, what the hell do you want? ...more 9-11 attacks in which thousands of innocent victims are killed, or do you think a few minutes of your time is more important!?

The caller was stopped dead-in-his-tracks by this onslaught.

He didn't get to make his point that he felt bottlenecks at airport gates may only represent a cosmetic fix and have little value in stopping future terrorist attacks.

To stop an argument of this type, the caller could have said: "I think you heard me incorrectly--I wasn't talking about my personal comfort, and I wasn't talking about security versus no security. I'm suggesting there may be a third and better alternative."

If not quickly cut off, the talk-show guy could ask, "What would that be? ...and then the caller could have made his or her point.

Reference:12-01*#76//F#14-III-A

~ ~ ~

>back< to the table of contents

Classic T-V Tricks

The Straw Man Technique

Here's a Merriam Webster definition of Straw Man: A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

I like Rush Limbaugh. I listen to parts of his show several times a week and I've read one of his books. I admire his wit and wisdom, and especially admire the courageous way he handled his loss of hearing. I felt great when the cochlear implant brought it back.

I lost a bit of admiration when I learned of his abuse of a heroine-like prescription drug. It hasn't been widely reported, but it seems likely that his hearing loss was probably a result of the overuse of drugs.

I still like Rush, although I'm often put off by his rhetoric about environmental issues, minorities, etc. I think Rush Limbaugh, and his imitators, accomplish a lot toward a greater awareness of political issues, without regard to the rigid bias.

However, having said that, I can now talk about Rush Limbaugh's genius at using the Straw Man Technique.

This is a technique in which an imaginary person with huge flaws is skillfully created for the listener's imagination. These flaws can then be ripped apart. Since a Straw Man is not a real person, it can be insulted and ridiculed with impunity.

It's a very slick technique, but the downside is it takes a long time and constant repetition to build a Straw Man persona, and it needs something approaching a Limbaugh-size audience to pull it off.

I'm sure that before radio, the Straw Man technique was rare.

A Straw Man is mute, but seems to speak through the ventriloquist voice from it's creator. Rush is especially talented at this.

The next step is to, by implication, assign a Straw Man identity to an individual, and groups of individuals (e.g., Liberals).

Of course, it's next to impossible to win a debate with someone using this technique. Anyone that presents an argument while getting cloaked with a Straw Man identity (even if it doesn't fit) will be at an intellectual disadvantage. Even though debating a single issue, they are forced to do so while painted with an identity created by their adversary. How unfair is that?

Why would anyone be foolish enough to suffer the humiliation of a talk-show debate with a skilled user of the Straw Man Technique?

Reference: 2-02*#80//H#17-IV

~ ~ ~

The Red Herring

Literally, a red herring is a smoked and salted fish that, during the curing process, takes on a red or dark brown color.

The mythical aspect of the term came from an age-old process of dragging one of these smelly fish across a trail to confuse hunting dogs.

A Red Herring has thus become a metaphor for something that distracts attention from the real and important issue. This is a technique that is understood by every politician.

The current two-valued trick is the search for emotional and distracting events to take the heat off life & death problems, and corporate corruption.

A decade ago it was the issue of flag burning--now it's the "Pledge of Allegiance" thing. Politicians use these "Red Herring" issues as something to fight over to pull public attention away from present failures. They should be concentrating on terrorism, the unrest in the Middle East (before they start flinging around nuclear bombs). WorldCom is one example of this inattention.

Unfortunately, Americans are easily distracted by these two-valued tricks.

Reference: 6-02*#87//P#20-III

~ ~ ~

If you disagree with A that must mean you agree with B
I hear it all the time; "Anti war people love terrorists" or on the opposite side of the fence, the "Hawkish folks don't mind killing American soldiers."

Another example: "The anti-capital punishment advocates love killers." or the pro capital punishment "love killing." In the time worn debate regarding abortion, the Pro-Lifers are said to disrespect women's rights, and the Pro-Choicers are baby killers.

~ ~ ~

>back< to the table of contents

Miscellaneous T-V Tricks

We're Smarter Than You, or our experts are more qualified than your experts.

Here's the covert message: "My associates and I are smarter and better informed than you so you have no reason to doubt what we say."

Anyone selling snake-oil will prepare by building a case that would make sense to someone at the same level of knowledge had by snake-oil salesman before they started working out the details of their pitch.

Psychologically, we are at a disadvantage against someone that is armed with well-rehearsed technical information, and it's difficult to tell if this information is manipulated to make their point, or even an out-and-out falsehood.

I suggest you use my HAX test when you suspect a snake-oil salesman. Beware of speakers that seem to use a lot of hyperbole. If they attempt to show-case an "expert" that is unknown to you, be doubly skeptical.

And if they attempt to "close" the deal using anecdotal evidence, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction.

Reference: [2-02E#22//*#78-III]

~ ~ ~

A Broken Clock Can Be Correct
A carlism: A broken clock is correct twice a day while a functioning clock could be incorrect all but twice a day.

In other words, it's not possible to take a statement or action attributed to a person or group of persons and infer that all subsequent statements or actions must follow the same pattern.