Controlling people with words: how minds obey the words we say
The words we use influence how the people who listen to us view the world. How people view the world, in turn, may affect people's actions. Thus those people that are skillful in their use of words exert strong influence over how many people act. People's actions, in turn, change the world.
Rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively. In other words, rhetoric is the art of turning simple patterns of symbols into action. It is being a wizard.
While language is found everywhere, there is surprisingly little talk in places like university classrooms about rhetoric. Specialized classes in marketing and related trades may discuss such things, but in the general education and liberal arts programs I've encountered, I've seen surprisingly little discussion of it.
So here, I give a brief introduction to mind control via rhetoric. This is done with the aim of helping you defend against the dark arts of obscurantism and deception, with the hopes that you may fight one conversation at a time to bring more light and clarity to a world that desperately needs it.
Cognitive biases
Imagine if you knew that Bitcoin always cost less in the morning and more in the evening. Then by golly, buy in the morning and sell in the evening. You'll be rich in no time.
Bitcoin doesn't move that predictably, but in many ways humans do.
Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norms or rationality in judgment [2]. The key word to note in the definition above is systematic. Regular patterns can be exploited. If we understand people regularly act or think in a certain way, we can tailor our words and deeds to take advantage of those regularities.
You can find many lists of cognitive biases; here I'll reproduce a couple of examples from Wikipedia:
Anchoring: the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor" on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject).
Confirmation bias: the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconception.
The wizard that is knowledgeable of cognitive biases is like the Bitcoin trader that is aware of how Bitcoin's price differs in the morning and the evening in the hypothetical scenario presented here.
Logical fallacies
Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning. They are tricks or illusions of thoughts, often used by sneaky politicians and others to fool and control you [3]. Another way to think about logical fallacies is a tried-and-true cookbook of recipes for exploiting cognitive biases.
For example, the use of a strawman argument, the misrepresentation of someone's argument, may exploit the anchoring cognitive bias described in the preceding section. How might one exploit cognitive biases with logical fallacies?
Imagine that you are to give a presentation or lecture on some topic, say for example: "are Mandarin and Cantonese different dialects of the same language or are they different languages?"
Hmmm...
One way to set up a lecture in your favor is to take advantage of anchoring and confirmation bias. Particularly in front of an audience of students who are likely not yet familiar with what you are going to talk about, you can present a volley of initial facts, opinions, and everything in between to anchor their preference towards either "side" of the argument. Then you can provide the actual argument by defining terms on your terms; the goal is that they accept the words you say, not necessarily that they swallow the ideas you hold (at least initially). This is the strawman; you define terms and don't ask any opposing party to agree or disagree on whether those definitions are acceptable. You don't even give the opposing view a chance because it is presented on your terms. You then topple the strawman and then proceed to kick it while it is down, riding the rally of confirmation bias.
Mandarin and Cantonese are different languages
You might begin with a long winded discussion of how hegemonic imperialist neoconservative bullies call the speech of people they oppress "dialects" in order to demote their voices to something inferior to refined "language". You might then extol Hong Kong culture, show some pictures of Cantonese speakers' self-determination in protecting their culture, and then mock an image of Winnie the Pooh [4].
After this set up, you can proceed to give some definitions.
Let's define two languages as varieties of speech that are not mutually intelligible; that is, speakers of two different languages' can't understand each other.
...naturally, you can expect your roused audience (with the possible exception of some extremely nationalistic Chinese students or woke individuals who can see through your rhetoric) to agree that indeed Mandarin and Cantonese are different languages, even though some boneheads continue to call them "dialects".
The statement "Mandarin and Cantonese are two separate languages" will likely stick with your audience, and possibly be scribbled down in some of your more busy-bodied listeners' notes. But just to drive this message home, you continue...
We say that the varieties of English in the US and the varieties of English in the UK are dialects of the same language because speakers of those varieties can understand each other. You don't need subtitles to watch programming by the BBC... (insert confirmation bias tickling rhetoric here)
Fact established!
Mandarin and Cantonese are dialects of the language
Now, imagine you had taken a different approach. Rather than anchoring the language/dialect distinction in an oppressor/oppressed narrative, you stressed cultural continuity. Imagine that you began your presentation with a discussion of how China and Chinese people, despite being spread out over a great wide geographic area, have a surprising amount in common. You may show some pictures of a Cantonese speaking Chinatown in a Western nation and a Mandarin speaking city in China that look very similar.
Then you define your terms:
Let two varieties of speech considered the same language if speakers of those language exhibit strong cultural affinity; this may be through a common literary tradition, religious background,...
...and sure enough, you can expect your roused audience (with the possible exception of an umbrella touting, thick rimmed glasses wearing Cantonese speaking student that read about the dialect/language issue before) to agree that indeed Mandarin and Cantonese belong to the same language (i.e. "Chinese") despite differences in pronunciation, which separatists and dissidents like to overstate.
There are many varieties of Arabic which have significant phonological and syntactic differences, yet we call them dialects of the same language because... (insert confirmation bias tickling rhetoric here)
Fact established!
Exploiting cognitive biases
Arguing both "sides" of the language/dialect question (which itself can be identified as a black-or-white fallacy [5]) we can see how anchoring can be exploited to bias audiences towards one side or another of a "debate". Do I want to be on the right side of history or the wrong side of the history?
Similarly, after establishing a "winning side", confirmation bias can be exploited to drive your claim ("Mandarin and Cantonese are XYZ") home.
So the true answer is?
It is unproductive to have a "debate" over a question like, "Are Mandarin and Cantonese languages or dialects" without definitions for terms given up front.
The answer to the question above is, "let's first define our terms".
Wizards may get to definitions eventually, but they will often use their platforms to push the buttons and pull the levers of cognitive biases before getting there, and they likely won't ask you to agree on their terms or handwave your considerations aside.
Defense against the dark arts
Unfortunately, the way people often "learn" about the world is not through discussion, debate and the honest evaluation of the logical coherence of ideas and the quality of available evidence, but rather through absorbing conclusions through rhetoric.
This isn't to say that rhetoric itself is bad. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that it is very powerful, particularly against people that don't have any experience studying it.
For those of us that do not wish to be controlled as well as for those of us who wish to arm ourselves with these powers in case an opportunity comes to use them for good, learning about how the words we say can make minds obey is probably a good idea.
Notes & References
[1] Merriam-Webster
[2] Wikipedia
[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
[4] "China bans Winnie the Pooh film after comparisons to President Xi" (The Guardian, Mon 6 Aug 2018)
[5] Two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist)