Grushnitski’s passion was declamation. He would deluge you with words so soon as the conversation went beyond the sphere of ordinary ideas. I have never been able to dispute with him. He neither answers your questions nor listens to you. So soon as you stop, he begins a lengthy tirade, which has the appearance of being in some sort connected with what you have been saying, but which is, in fact, only a continuation of his own harangue.
Mikhail Lermontov - A Hero of Our Time (1839)
Although we navigate through life by avoiding anomalies, the avoidance seems to be stronger in some people than others. Some are so constituted that they avoid all language which to them would be anomalous, which in Grushnitski's case was language spoken by anyone else.
It’s the strength of that avoidance where we may see a marked difference between ourselves and the person to whom we are speaking. Some of it is our own bias, but sometimes it isn't because we are speaking to a Grushnitski.
A Grushnitski, or more likely a Grushnitski-Lite, avoids anomalous language to such a degree that is isn’t understood as language - it is effectively redacted from the conversation.
It is not something I would have said…
It is not something I could have said…
It is not something said…
It is not something.
The anomalous language doesn’t register except to create an avoidance response which may or may not be rationalised afterwards. The main thing registered is the avoidance which may stretch to avoiding certain people as well as their language.
Sceptics are not quite so rigorous about language avoidance, which is part of what makes them sceptics. It's a vague and diffuse distinction perhaps, but there are too many versions of Grushnitski for it to be an entirely invalid comparison.
Sceptics may avoid both language and people, but anomalous language is more likely to be noted rather than redacted. This seems to be a difference.
A Grushnitski, or more likely a Grushnitski-Lite, avoids anomalous language to such a degree that is isn’t understood as language - it is effectively redacted from the conversation.
It is not something I would have said…
It is not something I could have said…
It is not something said…
It is not something.
The anomalous language doesn’t register except to create an avoidance response which may or may not be rationalised afterwards. The main thing registered is the avoidance which may stretch to avoiding certain people as well as their language.
Sceptics are not quite so rigorous about language avoidance, which is part of what makes them sceptics. It's a vague and diffuse distinction perhaps, but there are too many versions of Grushnitski for it to be an entirely invalid comparison.
Sceptics may avoid both language and people, but anomalous language is more likely to be noted rather than redacted. This seems to be a difference.
4 comments:
There does seem to be a spectrum related to this. Some people are clearly autistic, and simply can't recognise certain things being said or implied. There is another category who have trained themselves to ignore certain "inconvenient" lines of thought. I remember management training where people talked about the "broken record" technique of persuasion. Just interrupt and keep repeating your point again and again, and your interlocutor will tire, weaken, and give in. I remember dealing with staff who did that. I'd laugh and say "Ah, you've done that stupid course, haven't you! No, I'm not buying you a new photocopier!" They nearly all gave up at that point, which is how I knew it was a learned tactic rather than autism or some inherent disability.
With politicians, it's hard to tell. Starmer's frequent insistence that his Dad was a toolmaker is interesting. Does he not know it's ridiculous? Or do his media team tell him that his embarrassment is worth bearing, as there are still some daft members of the public who like it? It's always a tough one, this issue of mental defect versus scheming careerism.
Sam - "It's always a tough one, this issue of mental defect versus scheming careerism."
It is tough and I'm inclined to treat it as the same thing, although that's difficult because it goes against the usual assumptions. Your example of people using the "broken record" technique of persuasion is interesting because some people just do that anyway. Others learn it, but does the learning merely give them permission to use it?
MPs learn the techniques of party politics, but does that learning mostly give them permission to use their natural duplicity to further their career?
I've written before that some people believe that 'perception is reality'. It's a way of dodging an inconvenient truth.
So... the broken record technique is just one way of trying to form a perception by repetition and bears little relationship to reality.
Another technique is the 'Gish Gallop', which sounds rather like Grushnitski’s technique. Wikipedia:
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.
DJ - the 'Gish Gallop' sounds interesting, some people certainly use it, although it requires a quick-fire rhetorical ability which many don't have.
From a slightly different angle it's easy to imagine a small group of like-minded people using it among themselves. It would be as a way to cement a particular group conviction, effectively training themselves in the Gish Gallop even if most of them lack the rhetorical pace to use it effectively.
Gish sounds bonkers though. Maybe that helped.
Post a Comment