The Rawness

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to The Rawness RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Derren Brown is a skeptic that likes to go around debunking the supernatural and displaying how tricks are done.  What he does in this clip below is show one of the ways psychic readings work. You have to go in a little past the 1:54 mark to get to the psychic trick.

One of the most powerful communication tools you can use when trying to influence others is to make yourself appear and sound decisive and direct while simultaneously being vague in content and substance.  People will just fill in the blanks with whatever message they want to hear and do all of the work for you.  When I was single this tactic often worked like a charm. The reticence gets interpreted as being mysterious, and the fantasies women made up in their minds far outweighed the extravagance of any lie I could have conjured up. And the best part is, I never had to actively do anything dishonest to achieve the positive impression; I just had to avoid fucking it up by talking too much.

Political campaign rhetoric uses this tactic to a nauseating degree. It’s very similar to Derren Brown’s psychic trick above. People compete on likeability, charisma, poise, confidence, credentials and eloquence, while just using empty phrases about bridging gaps, bringing change, doing reform, thousand points of light and brand new days. It sounds just direct and decisive enough to inspire people to vote for you, but it doesn’t say anything concrete about who you are in the least.  The more specific you are, the easier it is for your opponents to attack your position.  You give them a clear target, something tangible to evaluate and pick apart.  If people don’t know who you are, they can’t validly criticize you.

Yet it works. Why? Because like in the Derren Brown clip, if you package yourself convincingly complete, whether as an authority, an expert, a charmer, a charismatic person, a leader, a ladies’ man, an iconoclast, whatever, and sell that image with all the right trappings, people will rationalize whatever you say, interpret any ambiguities in the most positive light, and fill in the necessary blanks in order to make it work and keep the illusion alive. If there’s any cognitive dissonance at that point and something doesn’t seem to fit with your projected image, they’ll doubt themselves rather than you. This is especially true if you’re in a group situation and the rest of the people in the room are buying into your act too. Social proof is hard to resist.

This is why I haven’t watched a single debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I hate debates, because it’s a charisma contest more than an intellectual contest. Candidates can’t properly address any of the issues in depth in the time they’re alloted to speak. Their job is to be as charismatic and likeable and statesmanlike while keeping their soundbytes as vague and pleasant as possible. And if they’ve presented themselves well in terms of looks, demeanor, confidence, affability, authority and eloquence, they’ll arouse positive emotions in their audience, which in turn will reduce their critical abilities, which in turn causes the crowd to assign more depth and intelligence to the statements than they actually deserve, just like the psychic victims in the Derren Brown clip above. It’s a ridiculous dog and pony show.

When it comes to politics, I stick to reading the issues in print when I want to learn what candidates stand for. It’s boring, it’s clinical, it’s dry and best of all it’s not as emotional…which is exactly why it’s more reliable.  Charisma, especially in debates and speeches, appeals to emotion.  Emotion clouds judgment.  And poor judgment leads to poor choices.

Related: Profiles in Charisma

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading ...