>>> Item number 16795 from WRITERS LOG9309B --- (109 records) ---- <<< Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 18:00:05 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: A Verbal Tactic [I promise, down near the end, I'll get to a writing exercise. Bear with the background, ok?] Recently I tore into the tactic of "If you don't do X, then you must be Y" (with X something the speaker desires and Y as some generally unacceptable characteristic or property). In that case, I overstated and attributed it to men (X being letting the man have his way with her, and Y being frigidity). On thinking about it a little more, I realized this is a particular example of a more general verbal tactic used by both sexes in many situations. Let me abstract a bit. There seem to be four variations: If you don't do X, then you are Y (X desired, Y ugly) If you do Z, then you are Y (Z undesired, Y ugly) If you do X, then you are Q (X desired, Q wonderful) If you don't do Z, then you are Q (Z undesired, Q wonderful) The expected or desired response is for the other person to make a statement about their self-concept - "I'm not Y" or "I am Q", with implicit agreement to the if part. I.e., the attribute (desirable or undesirable) is emotional bait, covering the hook of the implication and the first part (the if - I've forgotten the formal logic name). E.g., The woman says "If you don't marry me, then you must be a homosexual." The man's (perhaps) shocked response of "I'm not a homosexual!" leaves her free to imply, "Then you'll marry me!" I think the negative attribute forms (the Y forms above) tend to be used more simply because they are stronger - they challenge the self-concept (if the Y is well-chosen), making it more likely that the victim will fall into the trap. Just for fun - here are some alternative responses I could think of, and a little of the reasoning... assume the statement is "If you don't do X, then you are Y (X desired, Y ugly). [Variations are left as exercises for the studenten:-] (the first two responses seem to me the strongest) 1. Psychological - "When did you start to worry about you being Y?" This is very subtle. In many cases, the choice of Y as something you won't want to be is a reflection of personal anxieties. By returning this fear to the owner, you are upsetting the whole thrust of the first statement in a way which is likely to strongly challenge their self-concept. The most likely responses are "We're not talking about me" or "I'm not worried!" Either way, your next step can be turning the talk back to the original speaker, with a focus on their fears - and forget about what they wanted you to do. Notice that this response in no way agrees (or disagrees) with the original implication - it changes the ground of the discussion completely. 2. Agree with Y - "Well, I guess I'm Y then." This requires a fairly strong self-concept (since you are verbally agreeing to disreputable, nasty, filthy habits or attributes). Fairly powerful response. It does have the unfortunate weakness of agreeing with the original implication. A variation might be "Well, I guess I must be Y IN YOUR EYES then" - which insinuates that the original implication may be wrong, and that the attribute is a personal judgement instead of a general truth. 3. Reversal - "And if I do X, then you are P" This presents the original speaker with a dilemma - should they counter the attack on their self-concept or try to get back to the original charge? The weakness in this response is that it implies agreement with the original statement. Also, if at all possible, P should be chosen to complement Y - either an exagerrated contradiction (frigid - sex-crazed), a simple inverse (frigid - impotent), or totally unrelated (frigid - brainless). 4. Trivialization - "So every time I don't do X, I get more Y?" Absurd examples - "So if a rock doesn't do X, it's Y"; "does that mean your pillow isn't Y?"; are also good, but be careful. This response has the weakness of implying agreement with the original statement, unless the examples are quite obviously incorrect (e.g. the rock one is weak!). 5. Counter to assumed accuracy - "I don't think being Y depends on doing or not doing X" This is a direct counterattack, which will probably break down into a fight over being right or wrong. Of course, the whole question of doing or not doing X may get lost in the fight. So - one verbal tactic is making this argument "If A, then B" where B is bait for the other to strongly disagree (or agree) with. The implied agreement (or disagreement) with A is what the original speaker is really after, though. Exercise(s) in Dialogue 1. Think of some other examples of this tactic. 2. Take two characters (mother and child, husband and wife, whatever). Give one of them a statement of this form. Run through several versions of what happens after that. 3. Try taking two characters and starting them with a statement of this form, with the responses. Now try the other three variations of the statement. Do you need to change the responses? How and why? 4. (bonus) Think of some other verbal tactics. Analyze why they work, and what possible responses (outside of the ordinary) are. Share your results with the class.. er, with the list. I suppose this is "micro-writing" technique. Sorry if it is too small for consideration. tink