1] Assume that the "Story"/Narrative/Article read, listened to, etc is Correct.
2] Write down a list of implications (Direct) that are implied by [1].
3] From [2], create a flowchart, mind-map, etc for the most salient implications and their immediate corollaries and implications. This now is the list of "Indirect" implications of our original "Story", Article, etc.
4] Use Reductio Ad Absurdum-centric Abductive Reasoning to whittle down the models built in [3].
5] If there has been a sufficient whittling down; then those salient implications in [2] can now also be destroyed.
6] If [5] is successful, then the original "Story", Narrative, etc can be tossed into the Bin.
Intuitively, some of these steps take a few minutes and seconds at best (especially if the topic is sufficiently trivial). For more nuanced topics and subject areas of greater specialization; a few hours and days may suffice.
Overall, the main tools are Abductive Reasoning coupled with Organizational maps (sometimes mental, sometimes written) and making these two collide.
Perhaps the inverse problem is more apropos: Who *isn't* using mental shortcuts to avoid debate? Which factions are open minded in these tribal days?
Back when I did politics in Hippyland East (Asheville, NC), the environmental activists were the most open to alternative solutions, especially those from Environmental Defense. From what I see on the net these days, I suspect that the open minded are losing ground to the pure fanatics, but I would still try the green angle were I to do politics on the Left Coast.
Perhaps one tell would be: Who has a sense of humor? Or more precisely, who has humor that involves something other than sneering?
Ironically, the remnants of the old Moral Majority come to mind. The Babylon Bee has become my favorite source of humor these days. But even before the Bee, I noticed that something had changed bigly when I saw how warmly Gary Johnson was received when he spoke at Liberty University.
Perhaps not exactly propaganda, but I would note that many factions have mental shortcuts by which they "win" arguments without addressing them. Here are a few tells for when thinking ends:
For libertarians, "That violates the Principle of Non Aggression."
For Austrian school economists, "That's Scientism."
For Roman Catholics, giving a label to a theological argument stands in for refutation. "That's the ____ heresy." (Austrian school economists often do something similar with Latin phrases or naming philosophical schools.)
Years back, for social conservatives, a toking motion indicated end of argument.
For classical Marxists something about Class Interest -- usually involving the hard to spell B word -- served as a universal refutation.
Today's Left does something similar using "racist" or "patriarchy."
The conspiracy oriented alt right uses nested parentheses.
A certain dark lord ends all debate by calling people he disagrees with "gammas."
I find it helpful to treat all assertions as arguments made by advocates. A good advocate will provide the support for his arguments. A better advocate will also pre-rebut the most compelling expected rebuttals. Most assertions fail this test, causing them to be suspect right off the bat. Then, you go on to review the rebuttals and apply the same test thereto. Finally, you see how well the original assertor responds to the rebuttals. Often there’s no attempt to respond dialectically or at all and the jump is made to the rhetorical, as you point out.
The one distinction I’d make is that using rhetorical arguments are not always ad hominem. I don’t consider ridicule necessarily to be ad hominem. Ridicule is often effective rhetoric provided a dialectical argument is included. Often though it’s rhetoric from start to finish.
The propaganda you describe has always informed my instincts that something untoward was going on, but I had never connected the dots to realize what seems so obvious in retrospect. There's always some evidence, it just might not be persuasive. This is very helpful to acknowledge, thanks!
The steps employed by myself personally:
1] Assume that the "Story"/Narrative/Article read, listened to, etc is Correct.
2] Write down a list of implications (Direct) that are implied by [1].
3] From [2], create a flowchart, mind-map, etc for the most salient implications and their immediate corollaries and implications. This now is the list of "Indirect" implications of our original "Story", Article, etc.
4] Use Reductio Ad Absurdum-centric Abductive Reasoning to whittle down the models built in [3].
5] If there has been a sufficient whittling down; then those salient implications in [2] can now also be destroyed.
6] If [5] is successful, then the original "Story", Narrative, etc can be tossed into the Bin.
Intuitively, some of these steps take a few minutes and seconds at best (especially if the topic is sufficiently trivial). For more nuanced topics and subject areas of greater specialization; a few hours and days may suffice.
Overall, the main tools are Abductive Reasoning coupled with Organizational maps (sometimes mental, sometimes written) and making these two collide.
Perhaps the inverse problem is more apropos: Who *isn't* using mental shortcuts to avoid debate? Which factions are open minded in these tribal days?
Back when I did politics in Hippyland East (Asheville, NC), the environmental activists were the most open to alternative solutions, especially those from Environmental Defense. From what I see on the net these days, I suspect that the open minded are losing ground to the pure fanatics, but I would still try the green angle were I to do politics on the Left Coast.
Perhaps one tell would be: Who has a sense of humor? Or more precisely, who has humor that involves something other than sneering?
Ironically, the remnants of the old Moral Majority come to mind. The Babylon Bee has become my favorite source of humor these days. But even before the Bee, I noticed that something had changed bigly when I saw how warmly Gary Johnson was received when he spoke at Liberty University.
Perhaps not exactly propaganda, but I would note that many factions have mental shortcuts by which they "win" arguments without addressing them. Here are a few tells for when thinking ends:
For libertarians, "That violates the Principle of Non Aggression."
For Austrian school economists, "That's Scientism."
For Roman Catholics, giving a label to a theological argument stands in for refutation. "That's the ____ heresy." (Austrian school economists often do something similar with Latin phrases or naming philosophical schools.)
Years back, for social conservatives, a toking motion indicated end of argument.
For classical Marxists something about Class Interest -- usually involving the hard to spell B word -- served as a universal refutation.
Today's Left does something similar using "racist" or "patriarchy."
The conspiracy oriented alt right uses nested parentheses.
A certain dark lord ends all debate by calling people he disagrees with "gammas."
I find it helpful to treat all assertions as arguments made by advocates. A good advocate will provide the support for his arguments. A better advocate will also pre-rebut the most compelling expected rebuttals. Most assertions fail this test, causing them to be suspect right off the bat. Then, you go on to review the rebuttals and apply the same test thereto. Finally, you see how well the original assertor responds to the rebuttals. Often there’s no attempt to respond dialectically or at all and the jump is made to the rhetorical, as you point out.
The one distinction I’d make is that using rhetorical arguments are not always ad hominem. I don’t consider ridicule necessarily to be ad hominem. Ridicule is often effective rhetoric provided a dialectical argument is included. Often though it’s rhetoric from start to finish.
The propaganda you describe has always informed my instincts that something untoward was going on, but I had never connected the dots to realize what seems so obvious in retrospect. There's always some evidence, it just might not be persuasive. This is very helpful to acknowledge, thanks!