I’ve seen that subtle rhetorical technique used in person, as well; once I caught what the guy was doing—which is harder than it sounds, since it was done eerily well—I could only stand grinning & nodding in stunned amazement. The gentlemen he HAD been arguing with—who WAS wrong, let me be totally clear—was also grinning and nodding, so at least I wasn’t out of place.
Then I watched the two of them pick apart the original assertion for about ten straight minutes, like they were the best of friends.
It was the verbal equivalent of something beyond mere psychological judo—it was logical wire-fu. It was like watching Jet Li fight eight guys at once, starting with flinging the first guy THROUGH two other dudes.
No, more than that: it was watching Jet Li take an opponent’s weapon, kick it in half and hand it back to him, and then observing the guy join Jet Li’s fan-club.
Goodness—I’m sorry, I completely missed this reply to my post! My sincerest apologies for not responding more quickly; I am a goober.
As to the specific incident: it was during a very interesting discussion, which was moving rapidly toward becoming a very uninteresting argument, and then possibly into a REALLY interesting fist-fight. You know the drill—young men, all in the process of earning their various Master’s Degrees in unrelated fields, encamped around alcohol, talking politics, getting heated, voices rising.
It had to do with racism. And the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and how laws are changed. So this may not be the very best possible place for me to post all of this; please ignore or skip this note if it please you.
To set the stage: the question was put forth as to who, present at the time, had voted for Obama in 2008 - which was, in the majority opinion, a useless tangent away from the much more stimulating, ongoing discussion as to what Obama had and had not accomplished during his first term, what he might have accomplished given different political circumstances, whether those specific political circumstances (read as: rise of the Tea Party) were a foregone result of his election, what the President might or might not hope to accomplish if re-elected, the likelihood of such a reelection, and if we could reasonably expect the aforementioned political circumstances to change significantly during a theoretical Obama second-term.
We were moving toward analysis of voter apathy, I think, and the idea of an “energized block,” and some talk about the odds of various scenarios. Things were getting heated. Body language was getting authoritative—fingers pointed, heads cocked, stare-downs, chests puffed out. Alpha-male posturing among intellectuals with political-science, law and philosophy backgrounds.
So the general consensus at the raising of this question (that is, who present had voted for him the last time) was a groan—this was in Illinois, in a college town, among young academics, educators & professional writers. OF COURSE, we all assumed, everyone present had voted for Obama. Whether we might choose to vote for him again, and why, and how excited we were to cast our particular vote in 2012, and what we might hope to gain from it, was a much more valuable topic of conversation. And clearly, the gentleman who raised the question meant to use this as a sort of unifier: “Okay, we obviously all voted for him last time,” he meant to suggest, “so what’s changed?”
But then one dude, a guy named … uh, we’ll call him “Mike” … well, he went and said that he had voted for McCain.
After a moment to recalibrate ourselves, everyone present stopped to reassure everyone else of their total respect for Senator John McCain—no one there personally disliked or distrusted the man. No one here condemned McCain, no one hated him, no one thought he was a monster or a fraud or The Devil or anything like that. War hero, public servant, frequent guest on ‘The Daily Show’ - we hadn’t voted for him, certainly, but that didn’t mean we didn’t LIKE him.
We just liked Obama better. Wanted him in office more than McCain. Wanted to vote for the first black president. Really got into the whole “Hope” thing. Didn’t really dig on his choice of running mate, Governor Palin … not that ANYONE there didn’t respect her as a strong, capable, independent, 21st-century woman. We just didn’t care for her specific policies.
But hell … look, half the people in the room had met Obama—gone to a speech, shaken his hand, even worked for his campaign, going all the way back in 2004 when he was running for Senate. We wore the t-shirts, got out the vote, and threw a party during the inauguration. Some of us literally danced in the streets.
So it was a little unfathomable that someone in our peer-group had voted for McCain, of all people.
Finally, someone finally asked Mike the million-dollar question: “Why?”
There were a million answers that everyone present would have accepted, if not agreed with. A good example would be: “I’m from Arizona, I’ve met McCain; he’s a good man. And, well, since Illinois was going to swing for Obama anyway, no matter what I did, I voted my heart.”
His answer was … different than that.
Mike said, and I quote as best I’m able: “The founding fathers never intended a black man to be president. It’s in the constitution that it’s illegal.”
That seemed strange, coming from a man with a master’s degree. Which I would like to note, Mike HAS.
When it was noted that the Constitution does not specifically prevent a black man from being president, Mike rebutted that it didn’t really NEED to be spelled out—the founding fathers pretty obviously never intended a black man to be president. When asked to clarify, Mike explained that he could not vote for a black because it was morally wrong.
There was very nearly a scuffle.
But rather than see if anyone was able to knock Mike out, which at least one person there was willing to try, a friend attempted a different tactic.
He said, very simply, “You’re right, but …”—and the rest was history.
Rather than lecture Mike on why he was wrong—and I tend to believe that he was—my buddy was able to get Mike to explain his own cognitive error to HIM. By the end, not only was Mike able to explain to others why the original intent of a group of slave-owners was not infallible, but he was able to see how his view might have been construed as racist. He was even able to make a point about how interpreting both language AND intent are important, and that cultural mores change—often for the better.
And we also cleared up Mike’s misconception that Lincoln had several illegitimate black children.
Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.
I don’t know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
I think the difference between a McCain term and an Obama term have as much impact on my life as which team wins the super-bowl. For the exact same reason.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
I’ve seen that subtle rhetorical technique used in person, as well; once I caught what the guy was doing—which is harder than it sounds, since it was done eerily well—I could only stand grinning & nodding in stunned amazement. The gentlemen he HAD been arguing with—who WAS wrong, let me be totally clear—was also grinning and nodding, so at least I wasn’t out of place.
Then I watched the two of them pick apart the original assertion for about ten straight minutes, like they were the best of friends.
It was the verbal equivalent of something beyond mere psychological judo—it was logical wire-fu. It was like watching Jet Li fight eight guys at once, starting with flinging the first guy THROUGH two other dudes.
No, more than that: it was watching Jet Li take an opponent’s weapon, kick it in half and hand it back to him, and then observing the guy join Jet Li’s fan-club.
Truly the Voldemort of the Dark Arts.
What was the subject of their argument?
Goodness—I’m sorry, I completely missed this reply to my post! My sincerest apologies for not responding more quickly; I am a goober.
As to the specific incident: it was during a very interesting discussion, which was moving rapidly toward becoming a very uninteresting argument, and then possibly into a REALLY interesting fist-fight. You know the drill—young men, all in the process of earning their various Master’s Degrees in unrelated fields, encamped around alcohol, talking politics, getting heated, voices rising.
It had to do with racism. And the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and how laws are changed. So this may not be the very best possible place for me to post all of this; please ignore or skip this note if it please you.
To set the stage: the question was put forth as to who, present at the time, had voted for Obama in 2008 - which was, in the majority opinion, a useless tangent away from the much more stimulating, ongoing discussion as to what Obama had and had not accomplished during his first term, what he might have accomplished given different political circumstances, whether those specific political circumstances (read as: rise of the Tea Party) were a foregone result of his election, what the President might or might not hope to accomplish if re-elected, the likelihood of such a reelection, and if we could reasonably expect the aforementioned political circumstances to change significantly during a theoretical Obama second-term.
We were moving toward analysis of voter apathy, I think, and the idea of an “energized block,” and some talk about the odds of various scenarios. Things were getting heated. Body language was getting authoritative—fingers pointed, heads cocked, stare-downs, chests puffed out. Alpha-male posturing among intellectuals with political-science, law and philosophy backgrounds.
So the general consensus at the raising of this question (that is, who present had voted for him the last time) was a groan—this was in Illinois, in a college town, among young academics, educators & professional writers. OF COURSE, we all assumed, everyone present had voted for Obama. Whether we might choose to vote for him again, and why, and how excited we were to cast our particular vote in 2012, and what we might hope to gain from it, was a much more valuable topic of conversation. And clearly, the gentleman who raised the question meant to use this as a sort of unifier: “Okay, we obviously all voted for him last time,” he meant to suggest, “so what’s changed?”
But then one dude, a guy named … uh, we’ll call him “Mike” … well, he went and said that he had voted for McCain.
After a moment to recalibrate ourselves, everyone present stopped to reassure everyone else of their total respect for Senator John McCain—no one there personally disliked or distrusted the man. No one here condemned McCain, no one hated him, no one thought he was a monster or a fraud or The Devil or anything like that. War hero, public servant, frequent guest on ‘The Daily Show’ - we hadn’t voted for him, certainly, but that didn’t mean we didn’t LIKE him.
We just liked Obama better. Wanted him in office more than McCain. Wanted to vote for the first black president. Really got into the whole “Hope” thing. Didn’t really dig on his choice of running mate, Governor Palin … not that ANYONE there didn’t respect her as a strong, capable, independent, 21st-century woman. We just didn’t care for her specific policies.
But hell … look, half the people in the room had met Obama—gone to a speech, shaken his hand, even worked for his campaign, going all the way back in 2004 when he was running for Senate. We wore the t-shirts, got out the vote, and threw a party during the inauguration. Some of us literally danced in the streets.
So it was a little unfathomable that someone in our peer-group had voted for McCain, of all people.
Finally, someone finally asked Mike the million-dollar question: “Why?”
There were a million answers that everyone present would have accepted, if not agreed with. A good example would be: “I’m from Arizona, I’ve met McCain; he’s a good man. And, well, since Illinois was going to swing for Obama anyway, no matter what I did, I voted my heart.”
His answer was … different than that.
Mike said, and I quote as best I’m able: “The founding fathers never intended a black man to be president. It’s in the constitution that it’s illegal.”
That seemed strange, coming from a man with a master’s degree. Which I would like to note, Mike HAS.
When it was noted that the Constitution does not specifically prevent a black man from being president, Mike rebutted that it didn’t really NEED to be spelled out—the founding fathers pretty obviously never intended a black man to be president. When asked to clarify, Mike explained that he could not vote for a black because it was morally wrong.
There was very nearly a scuffle.
But rather than see if anyone was able to knock Mike out, which at least one person there was willing to try, a friend attempted a different tactic.
He said, very simply, “You’re right, but …”—and the rest was history.
Rather than lecture Mike on why he was wrong—and I tend to believe that he was—my buddy was able to get Mike to explain his own cognitive error to HIM. By the end, not only was Mike able to explain to others why the original intent of a group of slave-owners was not infallible, but he was able to see how his view might have been construed as racist. He was even able to make a point about how interpreting both language AND intent are important, and that cultural mores change—often for the better.
And we also cleared up Mike’s misconception that Lincoln had several illegitimate black children.
It was miraculous.
NOTE: yes, Mike has a Master’s Degree.
Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.
I don’t know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
I think the difference between a McCain term and an Obama term have as much impact on my life as which team wins the super-bowl. For the exact same reason.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.