Lord777
Professional
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 1,513
- Points
- 113
By talking about someone in general terms, we create an illusion in the interlocutor that we know this person well. This technique is widely used by fraudsters and is often found in humorous literature. It is curious that the police often also resort to this technique during interrogation. For example, in China in the fifties of the last century, this was one of the most important methods of inquiry. Only one thing was reported to the arrested person: "We know everything, so you'd better confess." Then the poor man was locked in a cell for several days. Left to his own thoughts, he spent days and nights there, tormented by conjectures about what he was accused of. In the end, he always found something to confess to. If you delve into yourself well, everyone will find something to blame themselves for. But during the interrogation, the person was given to understand that although this is also a serious crime, the police did not mean it. Back to the cell for another couple of days. The police did not particularly try to invent something in order to gain recognition, the method was primitive and cruel, but effective if a person had to be condemned by all means. In the end, the man confessed that he was plotting a conspiracy against the government or was going to betray his homeland or something like that.
The technique of using common phrases helps to build the confidence of the interlocutor. Speak about someone in such a way that the interlocutor has something to think out for himself.
As you read these lines, make a fist. Compressed? Okay, now hold that for a few seconds. Just a couple more seconds. Start slowly, slowly, slowly unclenching your hand. Do you feel this special sensation in your hand? Good.
To be honest, I really have no idea how you are feeling right now. Maybe your hand is aching, or itchy, or sweaty. I just omitted the main information, limited myself to the general phrase "special feeling" so that you yourself can fill in the gaps, which you have successfully done, being fully confident that I clearly represent your feelings. You have not doubted for a second that I simply cannot know this. Thus, you can easily be made to believe that they know everything about you, even the most intimate details, and you will not have time to look back as tell about everything. Religious leaders, police officers and crooks are happy to use this technique.
Of course, we all use generalizations often in our daily life, but tabloid newspapers truly abuse them. Just read the headlines: "People are protesting", "Discontent is growing", "Nobody knows." But what do they really mean? Who is protesting? Obviously, not the entire population of the country. Dissatisfaction with what? How is it growing? If no one knows, where does the newspaper get this information from? Two letters from disgruntled readers are enough to head the article "People's discontent" or "The people are against." Or "The results of the polls showed that ...." How many people were interviewed? Two? Two hundred? And what were they even asked about?
By using non-meaningful phrases, a person can give the impression that they are experienced and well-informed in a certain area, in fact they are not. For example, one director of an enterprise in a stressful situation stated: "First, we must discuss a new difficult situation that affects important details of the ongoing process." Sounds good, but what's the new situation? What was the old one? Why is she like this? What process and how long has it been going on? Having said many words, the director didn't actually say anything. Journalists call this technique a high level of abstraction, and they are terribly annoyed when a person starts talking like that during an important interview. Communication instructors advise their clients not to abuse this technique, using it a maximum of three times, because then the journalists lose patience, and the public - all trust. The problem is that it is difficult for the listener to guess the intent of the person using this technique. Such a speech sounds very beautiful and effective, and you need to strain hard to notice all the absurdity of such statements.
Fexeus
"The Art of Manipulating"
The technique of using common phrases helps to build the confidence of the interlocutor. Speak about someone in such a way that the interlocutor has something to think out for himself.
As you read these lines, make a fist. Compressed? Okay, now hold that for a few seconds. Just a couple more seconds. Start slowly, slowly, slowly unclenching your hand. Do you feel this special sensation in your hand? Good.
To be honest, I really have no idea how you are feeling right now. Maybe your hand is aching, or itchy, or sweaty. I just omitted the main information, limited myself to the general phrase "special feeling" so that you yourself can fill in the gaps, which you have successfully done, being fully confident that I clearly represent your feelings. You have not doubted for a second that I simply cannot know this. Thus, you can easily be made to believe that they know everything about you, even the most intimate details, and you will not have time to look back as tell about everything. Religious leaders, police officers and crooks are happy to use this technique.
Of course, we all use generalizations often in our daily life, but tabloid newspapers truly abuse them. Just read the headlines: "People are protesting", "Discontent is growing", "Nobody knows." But what do they really mean? Who is protesting? Obviously, not the entire population of the country. Dissatisfaction with what? How is it growing? If no one knows, where does the newspaper get this information from? Two letters from disgruntled readers are enough to head the article "People's discontent" or "The people are against." Or "The results of the polls showed that ...." How many people were interviewed? Two? Two hundred? And what were they even asked about?
By using non-meaningful phrases, a person can give the impression that they are experienced and well-informed in a certain area, in fact they are not. For example, one director of an enterprise in a stressful situation stated: "First, we must discuss a new difficult situation that affects important details of the ongoing process." Sounds good, but what's the new situation? What was the old one? Why is she like this? What process and how long has it been going on? Having said many words, the director didn't actually say anything. Journalists call this technique a high level of abstraction, and they are terribly annoyed when a person starts talking like that during an important interview. Communication instructors advise their clients not to abuse this technique, using it a maximum of three times, because then the journalists lose patience, and the public - all trust. The problem is that it is difficult for the listener to guess the intent of the person using this technique. Such a speech sounds very beautiful and effective, and you need to strain hard to notice all the absurdity of such statements.
Fexeus
"The Art of Manipulating"
