(Human tendency to clump) -> (faulty assumption of commonalty)
Humans use a process that we call 'clumping' to organize reality more efficiently. This has to do with grouping experience according to categories. While every category is approximate, there is a tendency to assume that everything in the clumping behaves the same. This inadvertent tendency needs to be neutralized when possible. It is the lazy component of clumping. It leads to false transmissions.
Words, themselves, are a form of clumping for understanding meaning. The word box clumps up similar concepts behind the sound. Further the assumption is that each of the events or concepts is similar enough that they will all behave the same way or similarly, under external forces.
It is as if the word bubble and all it contains always move together like a ball.
Example: The French Army retreated.
While a few might have deserted and a few may have been killed, the bulk of the army moves in a certain direction.
Clumps Might or Might Not Move Together
While event clumping through words is an effective way of organizing and perceiving the meaning of reality, there are some inherent ambiguities built into the technnique. On the most fundamental level, the clumping is always approximate, so the results are equally approximate. For instance the below diagram is the normally expected scenario.
While the word clump might respond to many forces in the expected manner, there could be situations when, instead of acting as a group, the components behave individually. The group behaves like pool balls that have been racked and struck by the cue ball, rather than like a baseball hit by a bat.
The Propagandist frequently relies upon this tendency of humans to clump and assume commonality to deceive the Populace. We called this the Generalization fallacy in Chapter 1.
First, put similar or not so similar events in a word box through cultural conditioning. Then this word can be manipulated and all the concepts in the word box are also manipulated.
For instance:
Marijuana is a drug.
Heroin is a drug.
Cocaine is a drug.
Heroin is addicting.
Cocaine is addicting.
Therefore Marijuana must be addicting
False.
Continuing the example:
Heroin dealers are evil because they introduce people to drugs that are addicting.
Cocaine dealers are evil because they introduce people to drugs that are addicting.
Meta extension: Drug dealers are evil.
Return to specific: Marijuana dealers are evil.
Drugs are illegal. Therefore their use is criminal.
Crime is bad for society.
Specific connection: Marijuana is bad for society.
Because cultural conditioning is so strong, talking about the pros and cons of drugs is not fruitful because ‘everyone already understands that marijuana is a drug and drugs are evil.’ Therefore instead of arguing ‘drugs pro or con?’ - one must begin by deconstructing the word ‘drug’ - and then taking the elements case by case.
This is a good example of the futility of debating the polarity. It is also a good example of the necessity of deconstructing the verbal reality so that one does not come to flawed or faulty conclusions. Finally it is a good example of the technique of deconstruction of ideas to refine the truth.
Honest Person -> modifiers -> True Component
The Honest Person uses modifiers in an attempt to limit the understanding to the true meaning.
He attempts to use modifiers and explanation to convey the truth of his words.
For instance:
‘Many’ Drugs are evil because they lead to addiction, which leads to theft, which is bad for society. However, because marijuana is not addicting, it does not lead to theft. Therefore, it is not necessarily bad for society.
Propagandist -> modifiers -> False component
The Propagandist use no modifiers or misleading modifiers to emphasize the false component of the words.
For instance: ‘illegal drugs’
This creates the grouping of illegal and legal - good and bad. As soon as this good/bad polarity is created, it can’t be attacked successfully, for the majority ‘knows’ that illegal drugs are bad - no matter how logical the reasoning against this point of view. Further, any who suggest otherwise is a fool, no matter what his credentials. While a few random intellectuals might be convinced that the alternate statement - ‘illegal drugs are good’ - has some limited merit, most would seriously question the source rather than investigate meaning.
More are Alienated than Persuaded
Reiterating, attacking accepted polarities by taking the other side is normally doomed, no matter how precise the reasoning. While it might convince a few marginals to join the cause - it will probably convince more of the marginals to go Establishment and will have no effect on those who are already believers - except to confirm that those outside the Box are crazy.
Choosing sides determines Us and Them
In addition to the aforementioned problems with arguing against a culturally maintained polarity, the truth of the polarity is a factor in determining Us and Them.
Thus, arguing on the other side of a commonly known ‘fact’, which may or may not be propaganda, only establishes the Writer or Speaker as one of Them - despite his immaculate Logic and persuasive ways.
Therefore, to persuade ‘the People’ (the electorate) in terms of argumentation, it is necessary to stay away from commonly accepted polarities . These commonly held ‘truths’ are considered ‘given’ for many, if not most, members of the culture.
Therefore, to take the side of any of the ‘falsehoods’ of any of the major polarities only establishes the Speaker or Writer as one of Them.
Cultural Truths Emotional, with a little logic for good measure
Why? The ties that bind groups together are cultural and emotional as well as logical. While the intellectual arguments against the T/F Polarity are based in logic, the social reasons are emotional. Because of this they are more difficult to uproot and are held on to more fanatically.
“If everyone around me believes ‘such and such’, then it must be true.” This is the common reasoning, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The Logic is that if we all stick together, we’ll be stronger against Them. The more of Us, the more fit we are as a group. These ties to cultural truths have much more to do with emotion than logic.
Adherence to cultural beliefs Rewarded with Belonging,
while lack of adherence Punished
The Propaganda Priests consistently tie their ‘logic’ to an emotional appeal. This ‘logic’ doesn’t have to be that sound as long as it is tied to culturally accepted ‘truths’.
Therefore for those who want ‘to expose or reveal the Truth’ it is futile to only employ logic to deconstruct an argument. The logical attack is just a glancing blow, because the emotional ties are so strong.
What are these emotional ties based upon?
The people know if they follow the ‘truths’ of the Priesthood, i.e. the beliefs of the culture, that not only will they belong to the culture with all the advantages of group strength - but that they will also be rewarded. Just as important, they will be punished if they don’t belong - Cruel Parents - the technique of abuse.
Home The Firing Process I. Verbal Truth Previous Next Comments