Methods of Manipulation: Heatherly's Post and that Queasy Feeling

[icarus]

Methods of Manipulation: Heatherly's Post and that Queasy Feeling

A few of you might know that I did roughly six years of research into LGATs (large group awareness training) and cult methods of linguistic manipulation. I say "six years" because it was more than that, but I picked the subject up and put it down many times and only seriously dedicated time to it from 1996-2002. I relied heavily on research by Marc Galanter of the World Health Organization, as well as psychologists such as Dr. Margaret Singer and a local psychologist I'll call "B" who had 12 years of experience with former Scientology members. I also attended two Est trainings (the children's training and the adult training, though apparently it's called The Forum now), and attended LifeSpring years later as well.

So, yeah, I know what their methods are and can recognize them.

What sparked my interest was my mother's involvement in Est in late 70s to mid-80s. She went very high in the hierarchy, was part of an elite group called the GSLP (Guest Seminar Leadership Program) and was flown to meet with the head of Est, Warner Erhardt. Her role was to sell Est. For me, cults are not a huge scary Thing Out There. Because of my mom's involvement I more or less have one in my back yard, so-to-speak. I know people in cults the way most people know their mom's bridge club, or the local PTA.

I find heatherly's post highly manipulative. It uses many of the same linguistic techniques I found used by Est and LifeSpring, whether heatherly was conscious of this or not. While the content of heatherly's post bothered me, these methods of communication disturbed me more. There's no doubt in my mind that heatherly means well, but most people who use these methods have extremely good intentions, so much so that they don't question the means.

My purpose is two-fold: to debunk heatherly's post, and to provide interesting information on how cults convince people using heatherly's methods as an example. Hopefully this demystifies cult methods, and gives people the tools to dismantle heatherly's argument. I could have just as easily used Logic 101 to do the same thing, but the textbook is gathering dust somewhere while cults I know off the cuff. Sorry, I'm lazy.

1 - Invoking a false authority: Why is being a health worker even relevant?
The first technique was of invoking false authority. Leaders of LGATs will introduce themselves as holding the key to some unknown, higher knowledge, putting the listener on an unequal footing. This one is listed as a "method of deception" by the CIA.

The fact that heatherly is a health care worker has no bearing on the statistics she quotes: anyone can quote them (and other health care workers disagree because psychological theories disagree, and there is variance according to culture as well). Her assumed authority has didn't change the fact that not one of her statistics demonstrated any link between fictional depictions of incest/child abuse/rape and real rape/etc. There is no causal link. Her authority is false because it does not change the fact that hers is an opinion equal to anyone else's.

2 - Equating actual rape with rape stories through juxtaposition: two half-truths to make a whole truth.
The second technique was juxtaposition, or "making a whole truth out of two half-truths." A LifeSpring leader once stated "enlightened people often come from large families" and then later said, "I come from a large family," leading many people to conclude she was enlightened without her actually saying so.

In the case at hand, heatherly set descriptions of rape victims alongside descriptions of "the wrong kind" of rape stories, equating the two, leading many people to conclude the two were equivalent without her actually saying so. Many people, having reached this conclusion without being clear how, then reach for other supporting evidence that the person didn't say, such as "all rape fic condones rape."

3 - Contradiction and Cognitive Dissonance: People should feel free to write what they choose, at the same time they should only write responsible fiction -- Huh?
The third was cognitive dissonance or contradiction. Est used phrases like "I used to be different, now I'm the same."

heatherly confused people by advocating that people should feel free to write what they choose, at the same time they should only write responsible fiction (which means one cannot write what one chooses). Some people expressed their confusion at this contradiction. Others argued that she could not be for both at the same time. Others, the most common response, opted to supply their own opinion of what she meant. This confusion is important when we get to the fifth method.

4 - Overriding the Intellect: The ever-effective emotional fog.
The fourth method was evoking an emotional response. As others noted in comments to heatherly's post, there appears to be no reason to supply all those figures on the sufferings of rape, incest, and child abuse victims. What was the goal? LGATs use hightened emotional states to force people to react rather than critically assess information. Est used what they called "sharing" where individuals stood up at a microphone and shared deep and profoundly disturbing secrets, often bursting into tears. The military uses humiliation in boot camp, adding physical exhaustion to the equation. (In Est, attendees were not allowed to go to the bathroom, were not allowed to leave until everyone "Got it" and the trainers lowered to room temperature.)

The details in heatherly's post were as disturbing as possible to create an emotional reaction and undermine critical thinking about these issues. (Her post also utilized fear, but we'll get to that later with the sixth technique.) Any political leader will tell you that you can sway a crowd more easily with emotion. Studies have shown that memory imprints more intensely when an individual is under stress, and this becomes important for the next method.

5 - After contradiction and confusion: The repeated phrase goes in. What was repeated? 'I do not like these stories.'
The fifth method was repetition of a slogan or phrase. Now this by itself doesn't do a thing, that is what makes the B-movie versions of brain-washing so silly. But under stress, the repeated information imprints. The mind retreats from the confusing and disturbing info to what is simple and clear, the way water goes to low ground. In this case, heatherly repeated, "I do not like these stories" numerous times. In cults, the actual message will be that repeated information. The actual underlying message of heatherly's post is she does not like these stories (and that you should dislike them, too). Many rape survivors who wrote these stories felt guilty and ashamed after reading heatherly's post.

Now, repetition is also speech writer's technique. Martin Luther King, Jr. used it as well. What do we remember of his speech except the emotional upswelling and that repeated, "Free at last"? The distinction between heatherly's post and King's repetition is that King did not rely on emotional distress and cognitive dissonace first.

6 - Peer pressure and fear: Wait. Everyone in the world is on Heatherly's side?
Let's move on to the sixth technique, peer pressure. Est and LifeSpring will even seed the crowd with "graduates" of the program to cause trainees to go along with treatment (of themselves and otehrs) that they wouldn't accept otherwise.

In heatherly's post, she invokes "hypothetical outsiders" who will agree with her in the future as the fandom becomes more public. That's a lot of peers. It's the whole world!

Let's examine this more closely: Who are these outsiders? Recently, the press, Six Apart, and even the watchdog group Perverted Justice all agreed that fiction did not constitute child abuse. Only the extremist WfI thought it did, and many "outsiders" would be offended at being lumped with WfI. To examine this from another angle: How is heatherly able to predict the future?

Understand, heatherly only needs "hypothetical outsiders" to blatantly utilize the current fear in fandom to drive her point home. This was illogical but effective and caused many people, myself included, to lock their initial posts critical of heatherly's post, and caused many to only voice support in comments instead of their questions -- concerns that they voiced once others began to speak up, breaking the force of peer pressure. heatherly was backed by a very threatening (and hypothetical) outside world. This would not have been plausible even three months ago, and as this fear recedes, will again seem exaggerated at best.

7 - Deliberately vague and deceptive language: Just what does 'writing responsibly' mean anyway?
The seventh method is vague and deceptive language. Highly developed LGATs will have an entire vocabulary of jargon with vague meanings that the members themselves can't define. When Marc Galanter interviewed a spokesman for Est, the spokesman could not provide a definition of "getting it," the entire aim of the Est training. The terms are slippery for good reason, though these reasons vary. To give two examples, in an authoritarian group such as the Moonies, the leader will need to have the power to redefine the meaning at will -- the dogma has to be changeable according to the leader's whim. In a looser organization like Est, the meaning needs to be broad enough to appeal to people with varying backgrounds. Vague language gets all the strays and people on the fence in line because it allows people to define it however they want.

Given heatherly's aim was to convince rather than dominate, the intent with the undefined phrase "writing responsibly" was to be vague enough to appeal and go unchallenged.

Advertisers use this all the time, as did right-wing groups like the Moral Majority in the 80s with slogans like "Right to Life," which united religious people uncertain about the implications of opposing abortion (likewise "Pro-Choice" which did the same to unite people uncertain about the implications of supporting abortion). The intent of "writing responsibly" is to get people who are uncomfortable with chan, non-con, incest fics -- but who also believe in the right to choose what we read and write -- on board with opposing the "wrong kind" of these stories. It avoids critical discussion of the implications, because you can't argue with something that has no definition.

Is heatherly's "writing responsibly" deliberately deceptive? It's telling that, as others have observed, heatherly takes great care to define her terms elsewhere but does not define "writing responsibly." If she had been sloppy elsewhere I would say this might be an omission, albeit a big one since it's central to her post (how did her beta readers miss it?). But since she is so clear elsewhere, I have to believe this is deliberately vague language intended to get people to support something that wouldn't if they had a clear definition.

No, no, I'm not saying Heatherly's serving Kool-Aid
Now the difference between Est and heatherly's is that heatherly does not get money from convincing people (also, I'm using a very extreme example as a point of comparison with heatherly's post). Nor is she passing out cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. Also, cults have far more methods in their arsenal than these, especially once they've gained access to highly personal information (Scientology keeps files on all of its members). But she is attempting influence fandom using methods that are in themselves deceptive.

Reading, fortunately, waters down the effectiveness of these techniques
None of these techniques are as effective in writing as they are in person. We tend to read more critically than we listen. If something bothers us we'll often skim so the impact is dulled. heatherly's post will go unchallenged for those who already dislike these sorts of stories, while their anger and fear is redirected at these writers. Those on the fence are given a cheap slogan instead of an argument.

Readers of heatherly's post who feel queasy about it, but can't quite put their finger on why, should be aware that virtually the entire post is dedicated to one or another of these methods of manipulation.

Even if I agreed with her position, I find these methods to be unethical, damaging when used in concert, dangerous, and flawed. Rather than engage fanfiction writers as equals, heatherly relied upon coercion and emotional deception.

Comments

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

*nodnodnod*

Now, I absolutely do not think that heatherly was trying to be that manipulative, or that she was even conscious of it -- we pick things up as we go, we learn what works and what doesn't, and it all gets incorporated. I absolutely do not believer her to be a... a bad person, or an extremist person.

But that doesn't change the fact that, as you carefully show, her entire post was disingenuous, even fear-mongering. There was no point, no goal, no analysis, just ramping up emotions until (as you've said best) peer-pressure accomplishes her private goal, whatever it is and I don't claim to know.

I'm academically trained, as a lot of us are -- give me an analysis, show me suggested methods of change and I will work for you. Shout at me just so you can hear the roaring echoes? And I have a real, serious problem.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I think everything was unconconscious up to the point where she used the phrase "writing responsibly." The lack of definition there to me seems a deliberate sell job.

Icarus

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

As a small side note, I have to say I do agree with the concept of "hypothetical outsiders" only insofar as topics like seeking support from the press in response to Strikethroughgate. We don't need it, and I'm not sure a lot of America would get it.

"It's a Harry Potter community, that doesn't sound so bad. Why was it deleted?"

"Well, it listed 'incest' as an interest."

I defend the right to create fiction on that topic, but I'm skeptical that a lot of people in the country would get why.

The real issue for me boils down to a general censorship question. I know that "slippery slope" arguments are supposed to be fallacious, but in the case of censorship I'm not sure that they are.

Either depicting illegal acts is wrong, or it isn't. If it isn't, carry on.

If it is, the entire body of fanfiction in the world boils down to a couple million pieces or so, with however much readership, but surely there are bigger fish to fry. We can start with almost every novel, film, music album, video game, etc. I heard the Holy Bible has a pretty big readership, so I submit that be the first to go.

I think that on the subject of censorship, any attempt of trying to establish a "middle ground" is dangerous to us all.

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Addendum: Yep that's Americentric but a) that's where LJ and 6A are, b) that's where I am and c) I barely understand censorship laws here let alone anywhere else.

[greenling.livejournal.com]

Mmm, psycholinguistics and discourse analysis. Sexy.

I don't suppose you have any studies, books, or whatever about those organizations/techniques you could recommend right offhand, do you?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yep. Dr. Marc Galanter's "Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion." Available on Amazon.com. The Moonies cooperated in statistical analysis of their experiences. It's very even-handed, even open to the possibility that cults may have some benefits for the members.

Then there's Dr. Margaret Singer's "Cults In Our Midst." Her's a bit better organized, but as she's been a psychologist dealing with cult survivors, her tone is more strident.

The cult that she had to avoid naming because of the onslaught of attacks and lawsuits is (as usual) Scientology. They're as nasty as they come. They took down the Cult Awareness Network by filing 37 separate lawsuits against them, and then bought the domain name, so the cult most frequently targeted by CAN started masquerading as a cult awareness group. *whistles*

[skuf.livejournal.com]

I find your post and the comments interesting, but I wouldn't be surprised if you analyzed one of my fandom essays/meta posts and came to the same conclusion (manipulative writing) - isn't that how one writes? Aren't you doing the same thing in your post here?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

No.

1 - False authority is a logical fallacy. For example, if someone said, "I'm a ski instructor, I'm going to teach you how to ski!" -- that's a real authority.

If someone said, "I'm a ski instructor, and I think you should buy Minute Maid orange juice!" -- that's false authority.

2 - Juxtaposition. If I juxtapose two things that belong together, "Rain is falling. It looks like a rainy day!" -- that's a valid juxtaposition.

If I juxtapose two things that aim to produce a false conclusion, "It rains often in Seattle. The ground is wet." -- that's not a valid juxtaposition. The ground could be wet because the sprinklers are on, so you're aiming for an assumption. If that assumption is wrong (the cult leader is enlightened, fiction and reality are the same) that's deception.

3 - Congnitive dissonance is a deliberate contradiction used to confuse the audience. The method is not to be understood but rather throw the audience.

4 & 5 - Evoking an emotional response is common, as is repetition. Like I said, these only are problematic if used on the heels of cognitive dissonance. In extreme cases, those three together -- cognitive dissonance, emotional distress, and repetition -- result in what's popularly called brainwashing.

6 - Peer pressure and fear are not valid logical arguments. They're value statements. "You should do this because everyone should!" doesn't provide any reasons. And in logic it's easily shot down.

Group A: "We think they should!"
Group B: "We think they shouldn't!"

End of conversation. Or an endless circular loop.

7 - Vague and deceptive language is used by advertisers, but not by people who use logic. Because in addition to being deceptive, it's easily torn apart. "Toyota's the car of the future!" You can immediately line up a dozen other possible "cars of the future" or shred what "cars of the future" is supposed to mean.

So, no. I would hope you don't use these techniques. Manipulation is not the same as deception. Hmm. I may have to make that clear (I hate to ask this, but did you read the whole post?).

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

I posted this (http://regann.livejournal.com/290616.html?view=1854264) to regan's lj commenting on her essay on similar lines. It's my concerns about the use made by heatherly of statutes in a way which I find confusing at best and actively misleading at worst. Specifically, she gives two statutory uses of the term "child", one being anyone under 18 and the other being anyone under 13. I, myself, do not think the natural meaning of the world "child" applies to some hulking 6ft whatsit a week short of his 18th birthday who is married, himself the father of a child and a serving member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, though I agree they are technically a "minor". What I think the effect of the use of the term "child" does, especially when coupled with the two definitions, is to imply that the normal form of "underage sex" written about in HP fandom deals with sub-13 year olds, rather than mid-to-late teens. There are perfectly good arguments, still, why the depiction in literature of acts which are themselves illegal is not in itself illegal, but it's upping the squick factor by creative use of linguistics, namely adopting a technical legal usage specific to one statute in to convey a wholly different emotional impression, because the lay reader not being aware of the technical usage assumes that the natural usage is meant.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Exactly. [nod] I've noticed in a number of different areas, and not only in fandom, people using the word "children" to indicate teenagers, even older teenagers. To me, there's a major difference between a fifteen-year-old involved in something sexual and a seven-year-old involved in something sexual, and using the word "child" in connection with both of them is an attempt to blur that distinction. That counts as manipulative in my book and it always annoys me.

"Child" is an emotionally loaded word in our culture, and using it to indicate your 6-foot-tall married father soldier who happens to be 17.95 years old and therefore legally a minor is just a tiny bit ridiculous. :/

Angie

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

*clings to you* Part of the reason I couldn't respond on her post was that I couldn't figure out what she was saying. I gleaned a couple of bits that did not sit well with me but I couldn't get the heart of what she was advocating. I still don't, really--it's still hard for me to find.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I couldn't figure out what she was saying.

seperis said the same thing, and I have to admit the first time I read it, I couldn't tell you either (though mostly because I was reading it through laced fingers).

I think the best response came from the lady who worked in HIV/AIDS prevention who said, "Whatever. If I got bent over every story I read that didn't practice safe sex it would spoil my hobby. Try not to take your work home."

[pushdragon.livejournal.com]

Icarus, I love watching you in action! You have such a compelling, concise way of making an argument that always cuts right to the heart of the matter.

My greatest problem with her piece is what you've hit upon in points 2, 4 and 7. Namely, behind all the facts and stats, the points she actually wanted to make were never stated overtly. Like:

- Writing fictitious rape/incest/abuse causes real crimes, or creates real harm to victims of sexual offences

- Writers of "abuse" fic are irresponsible and ignorant

- Writers of "abuse" fic owe a duty to victims of crime not to write that sort of fic

- Writers of "abuse" fic owe a duty to the wider fandom not to risk bringing it into disrepute

Conveniently, by failing to state her main premises directly, she doesn't put herself to the trouble of having to justify any of them.

This is probably not deliberate manipulation but rather an attempt to use any tactic the writer could find in order to bolster an argument that, while well intentioned, was at its core really just a matter of extreme personal distaste.

This is a fantastic, engaging argument you've written. If I were in the public pillory, I'd want you defending me!

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Hey, maybe I should go to law school. *g*

Also, I didn't mention it, but the post was insulting. On the other hand, I've been looking around the fandom and most people are going, "We'll write whatever we like, please and thank you for minding your own business."

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Wonderful post -- very clear and specific with a good logical flow. All I can say, really, is "Yeah, what she said."

Angie

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

My worst case scenario was that this would incite a witch hunt. I'm looking around and, nope. Most of the meta states, "What is she talking about and puh-lease, we'll write what we like."

*sighs*

Time for porn?

[nycene.livejournal.com]

brilliant analysis. so often i go with my gut (**i feel queasy, but can't put my finger on why**) and it is great to see the why thought out, and spelled out.

thanks

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I backed away in a knee-jerk fashion, too. So I had to go back to it and dismantle what the hell was wrong with her argument.

[dossier.livejournal.com]

absolutely fascinating. I had a vague awareness of bits an pieces of the information on Est, Moonies & Scientology, but this certainly adds some clarity.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I was thinking Monday that this discussion was dying out, since no one seems to be changing anything in response to heatherly's post.

I have charts and everything that I've drawn up about various types of cults. Actually, the bloody Jim Jones type aren't the norm. Most are out for money, including the pyramid scam-type cults, LGATs, and the types that, say, target the elderly to get them to bequeath their estates after they die.

[littlemousling]

I'm having a little trouble understanding why so many people are going after heatherly's post. All I got from it was "rape, incest, and molestation are horrible, serious topics; it'd be nice if fanfic writers acknowledged that, though I know I don't have any control over what people write." I don't really see that as a bad thing. It would be nice if many people were a little more careful when writing about such topics, although I certainly don't have any authority to make that so, and, yes, people are free to write what they like. That doesn't mean I can't think, "Gee, I wish this person had thought before writing this brutal rape scene that ends in the victim and the aggressor getting married and living happily ever after."

[twistedrecesses.livejournal.com]

They're going after her because she's encouraging (and I use the term with a heavy dose of sarcasm) people to write to her specifications of acceptable. She uses the methods pointed out by icarusancalion, which is not the same thing as making a valid, persuasive arguement, to "support" falacious statements in an attempt to clean up fandom, so to speak.

Yes, she's entitled to her opinion and preferences, as is everyone. But her message is unclear, and her methods untenable.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

You RULE. Cubed.

(Once had a horrible boss who was heavily into the Landmark Forum.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

(Once had a horrible boss who was heavily into the Landmark Forum.)

Oh, marvelous. The distinction between Est and the religious cults is that there isn't even the veneer of goodness and light -- it's a philosophy of total selfishness.

[viverra-libro.livejournal.com]

Wow. I'm really impressed. You've successfully nailed-down a big pile of verbal jell-o. I would've thought that was impossible. Damn, fandom has some cool people in it!

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

nailed-down a big pile of verbal jell-o.

Best. Analogy. Ever. *laughs*

[els-chan.livejournal.com]

Brilliant. I thought it was strange that I was reacting at all to what she was saying, because normally this sort of post doesn't bother me, but this one didn't sit well at all. Now I can see why that might be.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It was a manipulative pile of crap.

I've since learned that her listings of the results of abuse are exaggerated, she's stretched the definition of abuse to cover things that, depending on your psych background (Freudian, whathaveyou), aren't always considered to be sexual abuse (by other definitions I experienced 2 years of abuse, by hers eight, so it's a big difference).

On the legal level, she's mixed up the legal term for "child," applying it in a blanket fashion for 18-year-olds (who are minors, but not children and sex with a 17-year-old has a term: legal) as she does for prepubescents, then mixes in adult survivors into that question.

There's so much wrong with her post it's hard to even begin.

[brithistorian.livejournal.com]

Great job on the analysis here! I knew there was something that just didn't feel right about heatherly's post, and you managed to nail down exactly what it is. My hat is off to you!

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

There are so many logical fallacies in her post it's hard to know where to begin. It's the equivalent of buckshot.

H's post is a dead letter at this point. No one's changed their warnings. No one's been witch-hunted. No one's come forward and said, "From here on I'll write differently, I've been irresponsible in the past." Nothing's happened.

Heatherly hasn't replied to the critical comments.

[ella-bane.livejournal.com]

Icarus. You've nailed down my knee-jerk reaction to her post. It's true for me that after the increased attention to lj I felt more exposed and the sections of her essay that dealt with that really got to me.

I've been feeling quite stupid for a few days, honestly, after reading the dissenting posts. Thoughts like: Why didn't I see that? and Why didn't I read heatherly's post more closely? have been poking at me.

Thank you for being the logical person you are and breaking it down. :D

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Well, that is the point of vague language and whatnot: to get people to agree and keep inconvenient facts and implications hidden. That's why they're called methods of deception. They fool people, and they consistently work.

[terrie01.livejournal.com]

What really put me off was how she was equating three different groups as equal. Prepubescent children, teenagers and adults. As you put it, a false juxtaposition. She invokes the specter of the abused young child, and then talks about the possible response of the adult reader. And I think she does a real disservice to the very people whose side she claims to be on, when she does that. Adults can make choices for themselves, even bad ones. And they don't need someone else to leap to their defense, unasked.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

You know, legionseagle pointed that out as well. In terms of the legal codes H. was mixing up the definitions for child and minor (having sex with someone 18-years-old, while they're still a minor, is not child molestation). I have to say that her definitions of what constitutes sexual abuse are pretty broad. By her definition I experience 8 years of sexual abuse instead of 2, which is a pretty big difference.

In all though, her whole argument -- if you can detect one for sure -- she's set up a hypothetical type of story as a straw man.

[wishwords.livejournal.com]

There are so many reasons you are on my friends list... :-)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I hope it was interesting.

I went back to check her post to see if she'd answered of the people who'd politely disagreed, or answered anyone's questions. She stopped replying to was the first time someone bluntly said, "I disagree."

[aphephobia.livejournal.com]

I don't think the manipulation on that scale from her was intentional.

That said, you've deconstructed it beautifully.

If only the rest of the world could do that with, well... everything. (The media use tactics like that, too, especially on "moral" issues.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I don't think the manipulation on that scale from her was intentional.

I suspect, as someone later suggested, professional habit. Which I don't find comforting although it jives with my own experience with dating a social worker. He was an alcoholic, clinically depressed, cheated on me. Then after I dumped him he contacted me two months later. Apparently it would help his therapy if I apologized to him because my tone had been "harsh" when I dumped him. LOL!

No, not the picture of sanity and mental health.

[amalthia]

wonderfully said. :) I love that you can break down essays and work through them logically.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Thank you. :)

[ansku]

After reading this I don't think I'll bother reading the original at all :) Sounds like a waste of time... Thank you for your analysis :)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's a steaming pile of B.S. wrapped up in a smile.

[gyutto.livejournal.com]

I'm writing this as a person who now feels kinda hornswoggled by heatherly. First of all, I thank you for writing this--it brings up a way of reading her post that I hadn't considered. One of the things I've been wrestling about with this is the question of why were so many people (including myself) praising her post? You wrote that we tend to read more critically than we listen. I think this holds true for non-internet based print media. However, I also think that the point and click nature of online forums such as LJ make it a lot easier to be impulsive when formulating responses to controversial posts before you've actually pondered it fully. In my case, eagerness to express my initial response caused me to ignore my own "queasy feeling" (mainly tied into the fact that she didn't define 'responsible writing', and that the post itself came off as apologetic). I admittedly skimmed heatherly's post and interpreted it as "okay, she's endorsing labeling" and "okay, she's endorsing thinking about the effect your writing has on an audience." And I didn't have a problem with either of those two ideas. It's only after that I read the various followups by other LJers that I began to question the way she [wasn't] supporting her points.

Essentially, I think that the "instant-ness" of internet communication can lead to similar responses as those seen in spoken linguistic manipulation.And as many others have said re: responsible fanfic writing, developing a critical response in online dialogues becomes a matter of responsible readership. Your post is a great tool for the purpose of developing the ability to make such a response.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Someone just told me that there's a way of confidently expressing one's opinion that it's taken as fact and that's exactly what H. did.

I admittedly skimmed heatherly's post and interpreted it as "okay, she's endorsing labeling" and "okay, she's endorsing thinking about the effect your writing has on an audience."

A lot of people did. What I find telling is that when people started to ask what she meant exactly, she stopped replying.

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

Firstly, I have nothing invested in heatherly's post. I found it an interesting perspective, and I could agree with some of her points in theory. I can say it didn't make me uneasy in the least, because what I got out of it was yet another LJer getting all passionate in her LJ and using dramatic phrasing/terminology to express a point. Flawed arguments, probably. Unethical and dangerous, though, weren't on the list of vibes I got.

Your post here kind of gives me the squigglies, though, interestingly enough. You do eventually say you don't think she's passing out poisoned Kool-Aid, but that's after you mention Scientology and other manipulators and go point by point showing how she's done the same manipulative things in her post that they do in real life. I.e., at the beginning of the post, the context I was given for what I was about to read was heatherly on one side, and Scientologists et al on the other side for purposes of comparison.

If that wasn't your intent...well, I don't know. If it wasn't your intent for me (as a reader) to draw that direct comparison, I wonder why even bring up Scientologists and [generalized] other real life people/groups whose purpose is manipulation for nefarious purposes?

You also say that heatherly "relied upon coercion and emotional deception" - I'll echo another commentor who asked, isn't that pretty much what people do when they write? Specifically when they write in their LJ about something that really gets them going? And isn't that what you're doing here, to some extent? The strong language and dramatic comparisons in your post seem geared to convince me to disregard heatherly's post not based on the ideas in it, but based on the way she put it together. I.e., I shouldn't think about what she's saying, I should listen to the little voice within (or, as in this case, without) that says she's being manipulative and not think any more on what she says.

And then the guaranteed-to-shock-and-disturb mention of Scientology's methods in comparison with heatherly's, plus the very strong language at the end - "unethical, damaging when used in concert, dangerous, and flawed" - are very emotionally charged.

Don't get me wrong - I find your post just as fascinating and thought-provoking as heatherly's. I'm not familiar with the school of thought you've explained, and a lot of it strikes me as dead-on, in terms of the way people tend to formulate speeches and written manifestos and etc. I can think of several politicians offhand who does exactly as you outline. (Right, give me a second and I'll come up with an even more obvious statement...)

Also, once again, I have no investment in heatherly's post, or in her, or in the overall 'responsible writing' discussion - as far as I can see it, neither position is more right or wrong, and both positions make really valid points. I'm not even trying to figure out if, specifically, you're right or if she's right.

But what's interesting to me is that, from my p.o.v. at least, I see some of the same things happening in her post - elements you call out as manipulative - happening in your post here. To me that makes sense - you're addressing something you feel very strongly about, something that hits an emotional chord with you and potentially with your audience. So, not passing judgement here. Just wonderign if you see it that way at all?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

First off: Absolutely! People use these techniques all the time. You have to watch out.

But I do not believe that deception is the sum total of all communication, no.

As for my example, that's one of the weaknesses of using cults: people view them as very extreme. I should probably move that part about Heatherly not selling Kook-Aid to the top, I was thinking about that last night. Emotionalism has snuck into my post; it's a hard one to beat back. But if anyone comes away with the idea that I'm saying heatherly's a cult leader and not just using similar fallacious arguments, please let me know. I don't think I'm leading anyone to a false conclusion.

I use cults because that's what I've studied, and that's what I draw on to understand deception. My second purpose is to demystify their methods of persuasion and show how common they are. I mentioned that above. Dr. Margaret Singer said that most people judge cult members as being inherently weak-minded (my mother is by no means weak-minded) when in fact anyone can be persuaded with these methods.

I could just as easily take apart heatherly's fallacious arguments with a Logic 101 class, or by consulting the CIA's list of methods of deception. The point is that these methods are deceptive.

As for comparing heatherly's post to most LJ posts ... hmm. Typically I find emotionalism in a lot in LJ posts. In LJ with it's communal nature I often see peer pressure used.

That said, it's rare to find all seven of these methods used in one argument. I don't think I've ever seen it in LJ before. No -- *snaps* -- I take it back. I did see a lot of these used before in and_love's arguments, but she was running a donation scam.

I find the combination of contradiction + emotionalism + repeated simple message to be deadly in any context. That one is unusual and I only see it used in a hard sell, say by car salesmen. To me it's red flag that someone is trying to convince me of something they don't want me to think about too carefully, and they want me to commit now.

There are others of course, for example, undercutting the opposition to put them on the defensive. "I'm a good person, they're bad people who've misunderstood!" or "they've done the same!" (heh, your argument) -- which doesn't change the facts at hand. I'll bet you ten bucks that's next.

Icarus

[aerynvala.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this. Like others I couldn't quite figure out a logic-based way to express why heatherly's post infuriated and upset me. Having you break it apart makes me feel a less irrational.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

By setting up a hypothetical (straw man) "type of story" made it impossible to argue with her. How can you argue with a non-existent? Her post was bullshit from the beginning. The only thing of value were the effects of incest/et al lists. But even those are exaggerated (by her definition I went through 8 years of child incest, not 2). They also conflate 18-year-old minors with 11-year-old children with adult post-traumatic responses. These are not the same, and in terms of the law these are all very different.

[dhae_knight_1]

I never did read heatherly's post, until now, but I love the way you're taking it apart.

Well, actually, I skimmed about a third of it - that's a long post!

However, what instantly triggers my suspicious sense, is the way she refers to fanfic - without y'know referring to it. "This is Scott Summers having sex with a 14 year old Bobby Drake"... "We have Bruce Wayne taking pictures of 9 year old Dick Grayson and posting them to Gotham bulletin boards".

Well, the thing is, I haven't read any of those fic. I probably wouldn't have, either. But I have nothing but the word of Heatherly, that these fic actually exist.

I get that she probably doesn't want to turn her post into the ultimate "start here for bad-fic"-post. But... well, I'm a librarian. I like to have a way to check my facts. I like to have a chance to see for myself. And especially, when she refers to them in a way I can only see as incendiary. No, that doesn't sound like good fic - but I don't know the context! Is there a reason for Bruce Wayne to do what he does? I guess I'll never know.

Oh, and also: I'm of the opinion that the good old "The wave" should be required reading and/or watching in schools. It's a brilliant look at how cults and extremism starts, and what signals to watch out for.

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i<however,>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<I<However, what instantly triggers my suspicious sense, is the way she refers to fanfic - without y'know referring to it. "This is Scott Summers having sex with a 14 year old Bobby Drake"... "We have Bruce Wayne taking pictures of 9 year old Dick Grayson and posting them to Gotham bulletin boards".</i>

Exactly! Not only does she not referr to the fic in question, if you are not in that particular fandom, it might not even be apparent right away that she's talking about fictional characters at all. I know it took me a while to figure out who Scott Summers and Bobby Drake are because I'm not in X-Men fandom.