As the great writer well knew, people control other people through words — in conversation, on paper, in the media, and everywhere else. So-called experts and authorities do it; lawyers and judges do it; statisticians, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and historians do it; reporters, newscasters, and politicians do it; columnists and college professors do it. 

We are bombarded with thousands of messages every day, and much of it is just plain crap. They are like jigsaw puzzles that are blank on both sides — the words fit together perfectly, but they say nothing. The key to clear thinking is the ability to filter out the crap and avoid the intellectual equivalent of garbage-in, garbage-out. 

Starting in 1985, I spent eight years of research and intense thought designing the mental crap detector that Ernest Hemingway described, and published its blueprint in a book entitled You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake.

Here's what some readers of the book have had to say about it: 

Fair warning! Dr. Shapiro, a truly original thinker, will challenge you, instruct you, and entertain you in this one-of-a-kind book. At times he'll make you uncomfortable. But above all, he'll make you think. A good and profitable read.

Dr. Shapiro, obviously a first-rate teacher, has written an exciting and much-needed book. If I could, I'd make it compulsory reading for all adults. I now find myself continually arguing with my TV set and listening to everything with new ears. Next to the Bible, it is the most valuable text for living I know.

We live in a world of words, a realm in which the untutored are preyed upon by the unscrupulous. Without a map to guide us through this mine field of verbal pitfalls and traps, we cannot distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit. We now have such a guide in Dr. Shapiro's new book. With an ever-increasing verbal torrent from the  media, it is a work whose time has come. 

Your book is the most stimulating (and challenging) work that I've come across in a long time. I'm having a hard time putting it down. Each day I rush home from work to get back to it . . . Some of the best thinking on the relationship between mind-brain-language that I've seen. Impressive!  More importantly, useful! . . . All in all: I am loving it. Few things have been as thought-provoking . . .Thanks for the book. It really means a lot . . . 

I consider . . . [your book] . . . my bible on clear thinking . . . reading your work stimulated me in entirely new directions . . . what a masterful mind you have! 

I am enjoying your book. You were right, it is best consumed in small bites and savored. I will enjoy this book in the months and years ahead, and I thank you for writing it. As a computer programmer, I understand the importance of the “software” in our heads. Our thoughts and our reactions to them are the “software” that controls our “hardware” and every day living existence. You have given us a great users guide to this often overlooked
fact.

Dr. Shapiro has his finger on the pulse of what people are most in need of in this hour of proliferating verbal garbage. His material is a must to restore the balance that has been lost between  edifying presentations and what has become little more than intellectual-sounding wind . . . Better than a course on "How To Listen"; it's instruction that removes the most common obstacles to hearing, reading, and seeing whatever input comes our way, in a non-biased, sensible, and useful manner . . . The wisdom of King Solomon is famous even today; and if he were our current reigning monarch, it's certain that Dr. Shapiro would be one of his advisors. 

What you say to open chapter 13 is VERY true!! We CAN'T be deceived by another unless we are first deceiving ourselves in some way. The less we deceive ourselves, the more the deceivers stand out by contrast. . .The issue is so critically important that I can't stress it strongly enough or well enough. 

I have visited your website. I must say it's one of the very few sites on the net that actually has a reason for being there . . . . You communicate your thoughts and ideas so clearly that I seem to absorb them rather than read them. I have read many books, and it's a rare thing when something comes through to me with perfect understanding. The ability to convey thoughts and ideas in the most pure form is a gift, and one that not all writers have. You do possess that ability, and have sharpened it to a razor-like edge. But in addition, you are working to constantly keep it sharp and improve upon it. For this I feel a deep respect for your work. 

In my view, this is the owner's manual for the mind/brain that didn't come with the equipment.

Other comments have been: “impressive,” “it stretched my mind,” “fascinating,” “great,” “should be taught to all children at an early age,” “the greatest self-help book I've ever read,” “it has something in it for everyone,” “it has the capacity to touch people at any level of need,” “the most intelligent book I've ever read,” and “it introduces the reader to him- or herself.” 

Also, Alan Caruba had this to say about it in BOOKVIEWS:

“You ever wonder if you'll ever figure out what people are really saying? Well, then pick up You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake, which will teach you how to be alert to folks using language in a slippery way to put one over on you for whatever reason. It's quite provocative.”

And perhaps the most profound endorsement of my work came from a woman living in Oakland, California, who claims that my book and several conversations that she and I had over the phone helped her overcome terminal cancer. Actually get rid of it. Now I would never make the claim that reading my book can help one rid oneself of cancer. You know, “You can lead a horse to water . . . .” sort of thing. But I do believe that that’s what happened to her. Something for which I’m grateful beyond measure. 

Both of these two incidents struck home with me, because it's been wisely (and widely) observed that if the reader of a book gets just one good idea out of it, just one insight, just one piece of wisdom that will enhance the quality of his or her life, then that volume was worth every penny he or she paid for it. You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake has dozens upon dozens of such ideas, insights, and wisdom. 

'Nuff said. If you're interested in what you just read, why don't you sample the book by taking a look at its Preface, Table of Contents, Introduction, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8. They're all on this page. 

You see, scuba divers can be taught; surfers can only be entertained. And I am a teacher, not someone whose mission in life is to amuse others, although I'm told I can be very funny at times. 

But please know that this site will do more for you in the long run than will most “cool” (in quotation marks because I haven't the foggiest notion what that word means except in the context of temperature) sites. 

In this regard, my philosophy is much like President Reagan's when he made the observation that if you feed someone by giving him or her a fish to eat, you'll have to give that someone a fish every day. But if you teach that someone how to fish, then he or she will be able to feed him or herself from then on without help from anyone. 

I can teach you how to (1) correctly analyze and digest information, (2) think clearly and innovatively using that information, and (3) effectively communicate the results of that thinking to others. If you learn these skills — and you can, believe me, if you want to — not only will you be able to feed yourself every day, but you'll be able to put on a banquet at the same time and feed others as well until they, too, learn how to “fish.” 

You have my word. 

Now to continue.

Introduction 

PART I Fundamentals 

1 Language 
2 Information 
3 The Mind 
4 The Anatomy of a Conversation 
5 Go Directly to Jail 
6 Words, Words, Words 
PART II Practice 
7 Argumentation Cons 
8 Classic Con Strategies 
9 The Experts And Authorities Con 
10 The Statistics Con 
11 The Psychology Con 
12 The History Con 
13 The Con Stops Here 
Afterword 

Index 

And now a  caveat, if I may. 

Because the book is packed with new ideas, reading the attached material is going to be slow going. Also, it's not going to be as gripping as a Stephen King or Tom Clancy novel might be; once you get into one of those, you can't put it down. In contrast, I urge that once you get into this book that you do put it down, and frequently, too, so that your mind will have time to absorb the new ideas that you'll be finding on virtually every page. 

If you do that, the payoff will be sizeable. You see, the impact of a gripping novel may last days or even weeks. But the impact of You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake will last you a lifetime. 

Irving David Shapiro PhD, President 
Mens Sana Foundation 
Oakland, CA

According to my dictionary, the intended meaning of a con is “A confidence game; a swindle, the world of the confidence game.” And the intended meaning of to con is “1. To swindle; to persuade, convince or victimize another to accept or believe a deception; to cheat. 2. To trick; to fool; to persuade another to do something not in his best interest.” Therefore, by “being conned” I mean being deceived by another into doing or saying something that you would not otherwise do or say, something that is contrary to your best interest.

In the book we will focus primarily upon verbal conning — i.e., conning through words. But even nonverbal conning involves a language of some kind. For example, a broken-field runner cons the defense by using head, shoulder, and hip feints, all elements of body language. And a magician does it with a kind of hand language.

The single most comprehensive sense of a con is that it is the result of a process by which an attempt is made by someone, successfully or not, to communicate to you something that's false as though it were true, whether or not he knows it to be false. 

A con can be false with regard to fact (January has 31 days and February 30.), false with respect to a stated or implied intention (“I'm only doing this for your own good,” the judge says to the debtor, who is unemployed and has twelve children, as he signs the foreclosure papers in the dead of winter.), false with regard to logic (“It's raining, so I had better wear my sun glasses when I go out.”), false in that appearances belie the truthfulness of what is being stated (“Russia is a paradise compared to the United States,” said Sam, a university professor, who has consistently turned down lucrative offers, including lifetime tenure, to teach in the USSR.), or false in terms of contextual relevancy (“But it's really only a minor setback,” added the president of the company after announcing the firm's bankruptcy.). 
 

And many purposes
A con can be used offensively or defensively. Among its offensive uses are: to misinform you; to persuade you of something at your expense; to confuse you; to camouflage something, to muddy or obscure an issue or a point to keep you from understanding what's going on; to cheat you; to emotionally massage you for the purpose of subsequently manipulating you; to mislead, deceive, or intimidate you; and to encourage you to feel rather than think. The con man uses it defensively to conceal something about himself (usually ignorance, muddleheaded thinking, or motive); to impress you; to deflect an embarrassing verbal attack away from himself; and to avoid an issue by directing attention away from it.

But a con is always relative, never absolute. Therefore, one man's  con is another man's Eternal Truth. To some, dying for one's country is a guaranteed pass to heaven, while to others the notion that laying down one's life in the service of his country will immediately convey the martyr to New Jerusalem is pure hokum. 
 

And it's been around a long time
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was short, and the Word was simple. And there were no cons. But then, enter the serpent, “more subtil than any beast of the field.” 

SERPENT: Didn't God say you could eat the fruit of every tree in the garden?

EVE: Yes, except for the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle. He said if we eat it, or even touch it, we will die. 

SERPENT: That can't be true, because if you eat it, you will know good and evil, and therefore you will be gods yourselves. 

So there it is — the first direct dialogue in the Bible, and already we have the first con. Indeed, cons, like the rich, have always been with us. 

Most people think it's the poor who have always been with us, but I prefer to think it's the rich — it gives God a better name. 

Words, Words, Words
Also, in those days, the quantity of words in play at any one time was probably very small. After all, what was there to talk about? The weather? There was no NFL, nor were there recipes, diets, politics, religion, show biz gossip, or the like. The outpouring of words in today's world is infinitely greater by comparison. Now, in addition to the NFL, recipes, diets, etc., there are news reports, advertisements, advisory service reports, company reports and memoranda, magazine articles, newsletters, research studies and reports, book reports, reviews, criticism, political rhetoric, position papers, opinion polls, and so on, all expressed in words, words, words. 
 

Fertile ground for the con
Which would all be fine, because they sure make life more interesting. Except for one thing: there has never been a better way to con people than through language. Indeed, as you've already seen, it's the only way. 

If you don't believe me, just ask any serpent. 

And just so you don't think that that kind of conning goes on only in totalitarian countries, the other two examples took place in what are known as democracies. The first of the two relates to a bill passed by the Louisiana House of Representatives in May of 1990 containing the following language: “Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no ‘affirmative action' plan or program shall discriminate in favor of or against any individual on the basis of race, religious ideas, beliefs or affiliations.” The bill was held to be racist by those opposing it. And the second involves the cabinet of France's Socialist Premier Michel Rocard, which approved in mid-'88 two bills taxing the rich to help guarantee a minimum revenue for the poor. The government called the new levy a “solidarity wealth tax.”  Said administration spokesman Claude Evin at the time, “This tax is explained by the need for the most-favored people . . . to . . . participate more than others in this effort of solidarity.” (All emphasis mine.) As Irving Kristol once put it: There is no more pernicious influence on public policy than permitting rhetoric to obscure reality. 
 

Sophists were rank amateurs by comparison
Today's con men would make the Sophists of ancient Greece look like truth-serum addicts by comparison; the contemporary con is much more complex and skillfully packaged today than it was in those days. 
 

The Chinese had a word for it
Confucius said, “It's a great art to know how to sell wind.” But it's even a greater art to know how to recognize wind when you experience it. You see, great numbers of people are always selling wind for one specific reason or another, though the underlying reason is always the same — to get you to do or say something that's in their best interest and not usually in yours. And if you're not aware of this, or if you're not able to recognize their wind as wind, then you're easy to con. 
 

Ernest the prescient
Apparently, Ernest Hemingway was aware of this. In Robert Manning's 1954 interview of Hemingway, published in the August 1965 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, Papa said, “Every man should have a built-in, automatic crap [a more earthy way of saying “con”] detector operating inside him. It also should have a manual drill and a crank handle in case the machine breaks down.” Indicative of how strongly Hemingway felt about this, in a later interview conducted by George Plimpton and published in the Paris Review, he repeated it, this time referring to the machine as a built-in, shockproof crap detector. (I've combined both expressions for the book, after substituting “con” for “crap,” into a built-in, automatic, shockproof con detector.) 
 

What's at stake
The cost of being conned can be considerable. 

You don't have the job or the raise or the promotion or the grades you could have had.

Your sense of self-worth falls, as does your level of confidence.

As a simple (yet profound) illustration of what words can do to you, consider (as S.I. Hayakawa once wrote)    “. . . the difference between what happens when a man says to himself, 'I have failed three times,' and what happens when he says, 'I am a failure.'"
You set your sights in life far lower than you need to.

You never seem to be able to get what you want. 

You are continually fearful of events, which have virtually nothing to do with you directly. 

You're not as effective at what you do as you could be. 

You're rarely at peace, but rather in a continual state of anxiety. 

You frequently suffer from verbal sickness. 

The phrase “verbal sickness” is more descriptive, accurate, and informative than the more common “psychosomatic illness.” One who is said to be psychosomatically ill is one who evidences bodily symptoms as a result of mental conflict. But the mental conflict itself is almost always the result of meaning given to words. For example, it was reported in the electronic and print media after the televised Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 that many women viewing the confrontation became nauseous and subject to fits of vomiting during the encounter. A reasonable inference would be that their illness was a self-induced case of verbal sickness, because it was a function of the meaning each gave to the words “sexual harassment,” followed by the fear that Judge Thomas would “get away with it.” Yet “sexual harassment” has no more objective meaning than does “beauty,” which, as has been agreed to for centuries, lies in the eyes of the beholder. 

Your premises in any specific instance can be based only upon two kinds of information—information gained from experience and information gained through language. 

There are several other kinds of information upon which one can base premises, and they are dealt with in Chapter 3. To include them here would be to risk an unnecessary diversion. 

If your decision is based upon reliable information, whether gained from experience or through language,  your conclusion is going to be reliable, assuming that your ability to reason is adequate for the task. And whatever action you take following that decision is going to be in your best interest, for the simple reason that everyone acts out of self-interest. But if it's based upon unreliable information — i.e., based upon a con — then your conclusion is going to be unreliable. And whatever action you take following that decision is not going to be in your best interest even though you have been conned into believing that it will, but rather in the best interest of the one who conned you. And so you don't have the job or the raise or the promotion that you could have had. Or your sense of self-worth falls. Or you're not as effective at what you do as you could be. These are the kinds of things that can happen when you make decisions about the real world that are based on premises taken from an imagined one, premises that have no counterpart in the real world. 
 

The other side of the coin 
That's what can happen when you're easy to con. Now let me tell you what can happen when you're difficult to con. 

It can substantially reduce any tendency you might have to be fearful of life. 

It can change a habitual negative outlook to one that is positive. 

It can get you into the habit of turning inward for solutions to problems, where they always are, rather than outward, where they never are. 

It can bring to you the realization that you, and you alone, are responsible for what happens in your life. 

It can prevent verbal sickness and improve your health in general by changing your outlook. 

It can reorder your priorities for the better. 

It can rearrange your hierarchy of values for the better. 

It can give you the ability to focus on the important things in life while ignoring the unimportant ones. 

It can make you more selective in choosing which ideas to admit into your mind and which to deny passage to. 

It can transform the belief system through which you continually screen all entering ideas. 

It can keep you from wasting time entertaining false ideas. 

It can reduce the likelihood that others will be able to further their own best interests at your expense. 

It can reduce or even eliminate any tendency you might have to feel guilt. 

It can make it extremely difficult for others to kill your dreams. 

It can make it extremely difficult for others to intimidate you through words alone. 

It can make you more self-reliant. 

It can increase your self-confidence. 

It can give you a better understanding of people. 

It can purge your mind of the accumulated garbage dumped on you by others. 

It can free you from bondage to bits and pieces of what is nothing more than pure mythology. 

It's true that courses in logic, semantics, and rhetoric are offered in many schools, but I'm not aware of any single, integrated course in recognizing wind that is part of the educational fare anywhere in the country. 

In addition to the usual reason, of course — to make money. If I told you otherwise, then I'd be conning you. As Samuel Johnson once wrote, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.” But in this case, it's to make money for the Mens Sana Foundation, not for me. But if the Foundation makes money from this book then I will benefit as well. So I guess we're back to Samuel Johnson and his observation. 

You decide 
But don't take my word for any of this — I could be conning you, too. Francis Bacon once wrote, “Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted . . . but to weigh and consider.” Good advice. Read the book, and make up your own mind. 
 

A few rules of the game 
Although footnote or endnote citations identifying sources are customary, ostensibly to lend credibility to what the author has written, you will rarely find such citations in this book. If what you read makes sense to you, accept its validity; the fact that I did not support it by making reference to “authority” doesn't necessarily invalidate it. On the other hand, if what you read makes no sense to you, reject its validity; a string of citations a mile long shouldn't make any difference. Whenever I did quote someone, I did so only because he or she said what was said so well, much better than I could have; I didn't do it as an appeal to authority. 

When dealing with singular, indefinite pronouns—e.g., anyone, someone, that person, everyone, etc. — I used the male, singular, possessive his most of the time, out of force of habit, and the female, singular, possessive her some of the time because I'm just not used to it. If you think that makes me a so-called sexist, so be it; everyone is entitled to her opinion. 

I refuse to use the plural possessive their in combination with a singular, indefinite pronoun such as someone or anyone, despite protestations by many in the world of academe that such usage is now standard English. If that's true, then each of us will have to insert a ya know or an I mean after every fourth or fifth word; dispense with theft, burglary, embezzlement, robbery, and holdup and use only ripoff; use weird for strange, odd, bizarre, or unusual; throw a very in front of every unique; use neat for pleasant, satisfying, agreeable, or impressive; liberally sprinkle his conversation with like; address everyone as man regardless of gender; and toss in a grunt from time to time if he wishes to speak standard English. 

There's no example like an old example 
Many of the news events used in the book to illustrate points are years old, which is precisely why they were chosen. Being long-removed from public consciousness, they have lost the emotional content they had at the time they were current. Therefore, they can be looked at more dispassionately than can more recent happenings. 
 

The rules you will not find 
Because a con is always relative, never absolute, you will not find any rules in the book as to what constitutes a con; there just aren't any. Nor could there ever be. What you will find is the basis for developing a judgment as to whether or not someone is trying to con you.
 

The lay of the land 
The book has two parts. Part I covers the fundamentals of how language works and Part II deals with several of the major aspects of the day-to-day world of language. The relationship between the two is similar to the relationship between theoretical and applied physics. 
 

A couple of caveats 
First, all the time I was writing this book, I was trying out some of its ideas on people I know and on people I would meet at parties and at business meetings. I was astonished at the number of times that the reaction to many of those ideas was something like, “Well, I think you're fundamentally right in principle, but you're carrying it too far.”  If a principle is valid, there's no possibility of “carrying it too far,” as long as it is properly applied. Otherwise, you have, “Yeah, water does tend to seek its own level, but not in Moslem countries,” or “There's no question that the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure, but only during Republican administrations.” So if you think that I took a principle too far, I suggest you reexamine the principle. Should you upon reflection decide that the principle is sound, then I suggest you reexamine the way I applied it. If my line of reasoning passes muster again, then you're stuck with the conclusion I reached, no matter how uncomfortable you may be with it. You could still reject it, of course, if it would make you feel good to do so. Which wouldn't be all that bad, if you accept that that's exactly what you're doing. At least, then, you will have learned something about yourself. 

And second, language is an ineffective medium for communicating what's in your mind to another. However, at the moment it's the only such medium we have. And so I had to use language to convey to you what was in my mind. In doing so, I suspect a lot was lost in transmission. I'm hoping that what did come through will be useful.

Using con tactics to win an argument was raised to a high level of skill in Athens, in the Fifth Century, BC. It constituted the core of study at a school of philosophers called the Sophists. The school's faculty concentrated on teaching young Greeks how to win arguments and debates at any price, even if it included faulty reasoning, deception, trickery, or whatever was necessary as long as the opponent was not able to discern the difference between sound and speciousargumentation.

There are lots of these fallacies of logic. Here are just a few of them. 
 

The con of over-generalizing
This con is common, seductive, and dangerous. Its Latin name is secundum quid, meaning “in some one respect only.” It involves assigning a characteristic to an entire group on the basis of only one or two observations. For example: A politician is convicted of taking a bribe. Therefore, all politicians are crooked; one malingering black, and all blacks are malingerers; one cowardly Italian, and all Italians are cowards; one drunken Irishman, and all Irishmen are drunkards; one grasping Jew, and all Jews are grasping; one welfare cheat, and everyone on welfare is a cheat; and so on. 

To avoid being taken in by this con, always keep in mind that “One swallow a summer does not make.” 
 

The “thin entering wedge” con
This con is very similar to the previous one in that it also reflects over-generalizing.The major difference between the two is that the former deals with observations that lie in the past or present, and the “thin entering wedge” con (also known as the “camel's nose in the tent” fallacy or the “give him a finger and he'll take the whole hand” fallacy) deals with projecting present or past observations into the future. Here are some examples: 

If the Democrats regain control of the White House, they will spend the nation into bankruptcy. 

If the Republicans maintain control of the White House, the U.S.will know only bread lines all over the country.

If we grant this request for a variance so that the developers will be allowed to build a high rise apartment house, our city will look like mid-Manhattan in five years. 

If we ban the possession of hand guns, we'll end up like Russia.

If the argument or discussion is taking place before onlookers, which of the two antagonists will prevail, if one of them uses this con, will depend to a great degree upon how clearly and rationally the audience is thinking at the time. If it is emotionally detached, the intended victim will be favored. However, if the listeners are passionate about the subject of the debate, it's just about all over for the one at whom the attack is being directed.

And because arguments are generally packed with what are known as "ego trips," the probability that two or more disputants will peacefully resolve their differences is directly proportional to their level of verbal understanding, and inversely proportional to the number of onlookers.

An American on tour in China many years ago was distracted from his sightseeing itinerary by loud, angry shouts which seemed to be coming from a cluster of people on a side street in downtown Peking. Close investigation revealed two coolies, face-to-face, angrily shouting invectives at each other, surrounded by curious onlookers. After witnessing the altercation for a moment or two, the American turned to one of the older spectators and asked, "Why doesn't one of them punch the other in the mouth?" The old man recoiled in horror at what had just been asked him. "Oh no," he replied, "each man knows that the first one who resorts to violence will be deemed by the onlookers as being the first one to have run out of ideas."

The “What do you know about it? You're not an expert” con
Related to the ad hominem con in that it fails to address the issue that's been raised by the opponent, but deplores, denies, or ridicules his qualifications instead. 

During an edition of “Firing Line,” William F. Buckley mediated between two guests — the author of a book on the so-called Hillside Strangler and a psychiatrist who had been involved in examining one of the suspects. During the show, the author raised many questions concerning the psychiatrist's professional competence and behavior during the investigation. The psychiatrist responded at times by holding that he wasn't aware that writers are qualified in psychiatry as well as in writing. At other times, he offered that he had written several books on psychiatry, or that the methodology he had used during the examination had mirrored that of “the world's greatest authority on. . . .” Not once did he address the question or respond to the accusation. 

Science comes by observation, not by authority . . . [and] . . . whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not his intellect but rather [his] memory.  — Leonardo da Vinci

(See Chapter 9 for a fuller treatment of the con of qualification.)

The tu quoque response qualifies as a con because it leaves the assertion unaddressed — there is neither an acceptance nor a refutation of the opponent's position. 
 

The “cause and effect” con
The Latin name for this con is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In English, “after this, therefore on account of this.” Just because one event precedes another event, the first is deemed to be the cause of the second; there need be no other data or rationale to support that conclusion. Chantecler, the rooster in Edmond Rostand's play of the same name, victimizes himself with this con when he says: 

I fall back dazzled at beholding myself all rosy red, 
At having, I myself, caused the sun to rise.

This is a very common con, because no thinking is necessary. And it's an easy way to feed passion and emotion. For example, in 1980, or thereabouts, some pregnant women living near the Love Canal in New York State had difficulty in giving birth. In addition, several of the babies in that group were born with defects. Subsequently, it was revealed that the Hooker Chemical Company had been dumping toxic waste into the Love Canal for years. Obviously then, it was the toxic waste that had caused the birth defects and a lot of other things as well. The news media got hold of the story and ran wild with it. Later, a panel of independent scientists went over all the studies that had been done on the incident and found that every one of them was significantly flawed. The dumping of toxic waste into the Love Canal could have caused the birth defects. But the inference that it did merely because the dumping had preceded the birth defects in time was the con. 

Right after the 1964 presidential election, a joke made the rounds about the Republican pondering the notion that his Democrat friends had been right during the campaign. They had predicted at the time that if he voted for Barry Goldwater, the United States would become involved in a war in Indochina. It turned out to be true. He had voted for Goldwater, and America did indeed become involved in a war in Indochina.

The “false analogy” con
An analogy can be a useful way to communicate an idea, thought, or concept, which is why analogies are commonly used in argumentation. Because something was true in one instance, your opponent in an argument will frequently take the position that it is true in another, because, he says, the two instances are analogous. But if one thing is to be truly analogous to something else, there must be a marked similarity or an essential resemblance between the two items. And herein lies the false analogy kind of con — the comparison offered is not a true analogy. 

Here are two examples of false analogies: 

“Reagan's decision to send aid to El Salvador, including military advisors, is sure to turn out to be another Vietnam for America.” 

“Great Britain has dangerously erred in landing an invasion force at Port San Carlos on the East Falkland Island. It's going to be another Dunkirk for her.”

The “appeal to authority” con
There is a tendency to believe that those who are held to be wise or famous cannot be wrong. Which is the basis for another common argumentation con  — the “appeal to authority” con.This con involves quoting a well-known person as support for a position. Its Latin name is ad verecundiam, or “appeal to revered authority.” Today it includes an appeal to any celebrity. Now there's nothing wrong per se in appealing to authority, but only with two provisos: 

It must be understood that the authority appealed to could be wrong; it is never certain that he is right.

The subject matter involved must be one in which the authority appealed to is deemed to be an expert. (But see Chapter 9.)

The only sensible response I've ever heard or read to the often-asked question, "What do you think will happen to stock prices in the coming months?" was one given to a reporter by J.P. Morgan on his return from a trip abroad — "I predict they will continue to fluctuate."

More recently, when asked a similar question, John Kenneth Galbraith responded to the effect that there are two kinds of forecasters: those who don't know and those who don't know that they don't know.

The “appeal to authority” con is intended to intimidate. As a defense, always keep in mind that (1) every major undertaking that failed had been orchestrated by experts and authorities and (2) all you know about a celebrity is that he or she is held to be a celebrity, nothing more. 
(Again see Chapter 9.) 
 

The “figures prove” con
This con is anchored in the arbitrary manipulation of statistics to the point of absurdity. Here's how Mark Twain poked fun at it in his book “Life on the Mississippi." 

“In the space of 176 years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself 242 miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the River was upward of 1,300,000 miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token, any person can see that 742 years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together.”

Another kind of “figures prove” con is founded on the premise that if a certain cause produces a certain effect, then twice that cause would produce twice that effect. If one vitamin capsule a day is good for you, five should be five times as good. If one martini a day is good for you, five martinis a day should be five times as good for you. Ten a day, ten times, etc. 

To protect yourself from the “figures prove” con learn to go through the following steps, mentally, of course, every time someone throws a “figures prove” kind of assertion at you: 

How does he know? 

Is there anything that should have been considered that wasn't? 

Is the working of numbers internally consistent, that is, was a scale or a base year changed, etc.? 

Does it make sense?

The “appealing to the crowd” con
In Latin, argumentum ad populum. This con is an attempt to win an argument by appealing to the masses, a mob, or a crowd, rather than by appealing to reason. It generally takes the form of  "Everybody knows that. . . .”  as in “Everybody knows that Americans are imperialists (materialists, stupid, whatever).” 

If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one. — Notebooks of Lazarus Long

The purpose of the “appealing to the crowd con” is to overwhelm you with the “sixty million Frenchmen can't be wrong” nonsense so that you won't take the time or make the effort to do your own thinking. The defense is the knowledge that there isn't anything that everyone knows. 
 

The “arguing in circles” con
The Latin is circulus in probando. This con involves what is supposed to be proof turning out to be nothing more than the premise restated. Hence, arguing in circles. This con is also known as begging the question. For example, 

True believers never die. 
Charlie Smith died. 
Charlie Smith was not a true believer. 
How do you know? 
Because he died.

Classical music is the best music. 
What's your support for that contention? 
All the best music critics say so. 
Who are the best music critics? 
The ones who think classical music is the best.

I wouldn't want to ever make a bet like that with the good doctor, because he can't lose. No matter who I bring to him with a coronary, Dr. Friedman would most likely insist that that patient is Type A. How would he know? Well, the man had a coronary before 60, didn't he? And everyone knows that "You can't get a heart attack before 60 if you're a Type B."

The “self-evident truth” con
Every statement is an argument of some kind in the sense that it is designed to convince or persuade someone of something. It may, occasionally, be composed of one or more premises, presumably true, and a conclusion, presumably valid. An assertion presented to us in that form can be relatively easy to deal with — are the premises true or not and is the conclusion valid or not? 

However, most arguments that are advanced are done so without stated premises; all that are presented are conclusions. In many cases, there's no harm done. “I think it's going to rain” or “This ice cream is delicious” or “Bill is a nice guy” are all conclusions without any stated premises upon which the conclusions are based. In a sense, we accept them as self-evident truths; we don't demand support for the assertions made. In the case of the first statement, we see that it's overcast, that the barometric pressure is falling, that the sea gulls are hovering over land, and so on. The statement that it's going to rain appears to be a reasonable one. As to the ice cream statement, it's a matter of opinion or taste. And as far as Bill being a nice guy is concerned, perhaps, but really not worth fighting about in most circumstances. 

It appears, then, that we accept many statements as self-evident truths when there is no such thing as a self-evident truth; every statement is subject to dispute, because every one of us sees things differently. But unless we are disputatious, we tend to go along with many assertions that are made to us without support of any kind being offered. 

But there are times that outrageous assertions are made to us in the form of self-evident truths. If presented in isolation, with nothing before or after, they are generally easy to recognize and we can defend accordingly. For example, “Women are terrible drivers” or “No one works unless he has to” or “You get what you pay for.” Among most people, a statement such as any of the foregoing would start a dispute going merrily. But there is a neat little trick that some people use to discourage a ready challenge to a supposed self-evident truth; they start the statement with something like “Now everybody knows. . . .” or “As every school boy knows. . . .” or “Unquestionably. . . .” or “All intelligent people agree that. . . .” or some such statement. Thus, the “self-evident truth” con usually resembles an argumentum ad populum. It can also have a bit of ad hominem thrown in, depending upon the way it is phrased. 

Another form of the “self-evident truth” con to watch for is the one which depends for acceptance upon the words “by definition.” For example,“Europeans, by definition, are more cultured than Americans.” Now how can anyone quarrel with that contention?  If, by definition, Europeans are people who are more cultured than Americans, then it must follow that Europeans are more cultured than Americans. Right?  The big question, then, is, “By whose definition?” If two or more people agree to that definition, the statement must be, by definition, a self-evident truth, but only to those people; it may not be to others. 
 

The “guilt by association” con
This argumentation con holds that two unlike persons, plants, animals, or things are equatable, because of a single common trait or characteristic or attribute or belief, depending upon what's involved. 

It has several subdivisions. There's guilt by physical association. You're seen in the company of some unsavory characters and, therefore, you've been contaminated, and are now unsavory yourself. Then there's guilt by kinship association. Your brother or wife or whoever is an alleged subversive. Consequently, you are suspect as well. The most common form of guilt by association and the most heinous, because it is frequently used to silence opposition, is guilt by verbal or philosophical association. So if you believe in government-owned housing and government-owned housing is characteristic of communism, then clearly you are a communist. Or if you write a book and it is favorably reviewed in a conservative publication, then clearly you are a conservative. 
 

The “special pleading” con
The con of special pleading involves the application of a double standard: one for the members of a group claiming to be underprivileged and, therefore, deserving of special consideration, and another, a much stricter one, for everyone else. The best (or worst) example of the special pleading con is in the area of group relations, in which the so-called leaders of different racial, ethnic, gender, etc. groups claim that they and their constituents should not be held to the same standards as others because of “special circumstances." For example, one of the institutions of pre-1964 America was the existence of “whites only" organizations. Since that time, such associations were either closed down or driven underground by social pressure, only to be replaced by any number of “blacks only” associations, “Chinese only” associations, “Hispanics only” associations, etc. with nary a protest from the same people who were responsible for the disappearance of the “whites only” groups.Why? because of “special circumstances.” Then someone in Louisiana formed an organization, which he called The National Association for theAdvancement of White People. Political activists, politicians, and members of the news media all over the country branded the new association as “racist,” a charge never directed at The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

And then there are “special considerations” in the area of college admission policies, hiring and advancement in both the public and private sectors, contract set-asides, and so forth, all based on race. Indeed, because political agitation based on the con of special pleading proved to be so profitable for racial minorities, women have also climbed aboard that bandwagon. For example, ten female high school seniors and two women's groups filed suit against the New York State Education Department in November of 1988, alleging that that body practices sex discrimination in its awarding of state merit scholarships. The New York State Education Department awards state merit scholarships purely and solely on the basis of grades that high school students achieve on college-entrance tests — the Scholastic AptitudeTest. In February, 1989, a federal judge barred the New York State Education Department from relying exclusively on the SAT to award state merit scholarships. He found that using it to select scholarship winners was unconstitutional because women tend to score lower than men on the college entrance test and, therefore, far fewer women qualify for state scholarships. 

Perhaps the best known example of the con of special pleading is the last and final Commandment put up on the wall by one of the pigs in GeorgeOrwell's Animal Farm: 

Following is a summary of the argumentation cons just covered: 

The con of over-generalizing involves assigning a characteristic to an entire group on the basis of only one or two observations. 

The con of the thin, entering wedge involves directly projecting past or present observations into the future without considering factors that could alter the direction or the magnitude of the projection. 

The con of ad hominem involves ignoring the issue and attacking the opponent personally. 

The you're-not-qualified con involves failing to address the issue that's been raised by an opponent and deploring, denying, or ridiculing his qualifications instead. 

The Oh, yeah? Well, you're one also con involves leaving an assertion unaddressed by either reversing its direction, or by focusing attention on a related but completely different issue. 

The cause-and-effect con involves assuming that just because event A preceded event B, event A must necessarily be the cause of event B. 

The con of the false analogy involves offering an item (or an event) as analogous to another item (or event) despite the absence of a marked similarity or resemblance between the two items (or the two events). 

The con of appealing to authority involves believing that those held to be wise or those who are famous cannot be wrong. 

The figures prove con involves a totally arbitrary manipulation of statistics to the point of absurdity. 

The con of appealing to the crowd involves the attempt to win an argument by appealing to the masses, the audience, a mob, or a crowd instead of appealing to reason. 

The con of arguing in circles involves offering a conclusion, which turns out to be the premise, just restated. 

The con of the self-evident truth involves stating a conclusion without first offering the necessary premises for that conclusion. 

The con of guilt by association involves holding that two unalike persons, plants, animals, or things are equatable, one with the other, because of a single common trait or characteristic or attribute or belief, depending upon what's involved. 

The con of special pleading involves the application of a double standard: one for one person or group, and another, a much stricter one, for everyone else. 
 

IN CLOSING
The foregoing entailed a look at only the more common cons of argumentation; there are many more. Become familiar with them. Learn to spot them. And also be aware that argumentation cons usually come in very complex packages. So it's highly unlikely that you'll be subjected to only one con at a time in sequential order; it's much more likely that you'll be the target of several, nested within one another. That's the bad news. The good news is that with time and practice, you develop a discerning ear for them.

Early cons were most likely couched in sign language, soon after to be couched in grunts. And then someone must have come along who was smart enough to realize how effective cons could be in controlling others. Being smart enough to do that, he was also probably smart enough to put his mind to what we might call today con R&D, out of which grew a body of con strategies, just as military strategies have grown out of military R&D. Before he died, it is likely that he passed on his knowledge to others who passed on their knowledge to others who passed on con strategies to others right up to the present day. 

There are many con strategies that have withstood the test of time. There are also many new ones that show promise. Here are some of the more common ones. But I present them to you with one caveat: They are all based on inferences that I have made. You may or may not agree, because I see things through my symbolic-self, and you see them through yours. But that's OK, because that's what makes for a horse race. 
 

Never give a sucker an even break

W.C. Fields is usually credited with being the first to offer this bit of wisdom to the world, having said it in the movie Poppy. But he wasn't; it was Edward Albee who first spoke these deathless words.

In the world of news reporting, this con strategy is called slanting. The con journalist promises neutrality of position, but pushes you in the direction he favors. Of course he doesn't tell anybody that; nobody is that much of a sucker. What he does when describing someone or something is to select his words so that they will cast the object of his description in either a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on his purpose. And if he's really good at it, he'll never mix favorable and unfavorable descriptive phrases; if he does, his listeners might make the wrong judgments. Wrong, of course, from his point of view. 

See “Disguise the real issue or you may get the wrong response” con later in the chapter. 

Favorable Light   Unfavorable Light 

pleasantly plump           fat as a pig 
coat of English 
   tweed                        jacket of rough material 
country estate                rural house 
sports car                      compact 
bearded man with 
   long hair, informally 
   dressed                      hippie 
casual                           disorganized 

“As we rounded the bend, we saw a country estate on our right. Under a stand of trees near the front gate, we saw a bearded man with longish hair, informally dressed. He wore a coat of English tweed. He was talking to a pleasantly plump woman. In the garage was a sports car. There was a casual air about the whole setting.” 

“As we rounded the bend, we saw a rural house on our right. Under a stand of trees near the front gate, we saw a hippie. He wore a coat of rough material. He was talking to a woman who was fat as a pig. In the garage was a compact car. There was a disorganized air about the whole setting.” 

But slanting is usually much more refined and expertly crafted.  A journalist on an evening news television program reported that a prominent defense contractor, named in the report, had received “. . . a lucrative contract from the Department of Defense.” Lucrative implies “unconscionably profitable . . . [and] . . .the presence of gouging.” Profitable is more neutral. And another TV journalist, when announcing the verdict of “not guilty” in the second Claus von Bulow trial, credited the defendant's “high-priced” lawyers for the jury's decision to acquit von Bulow. The implication of that pejorative adjective was that von Bulow was really guilty, but that his lawyers, fiendishly clever at confusing and misleading juries, were able to get him off. It is doubtful that the journalist had any idea as to the amount of von Bulow's legal expenses. And even if he had, what constitutes a high price or a low price is purely subjective. Therefore, the adjective “high-priced” was clearly a case of slanting. 

Slanting to some extent is unavoidable; everyone has biases of one kind or another. But when all the descriptive phrases used in a statement are one-sided, you're being conned. 
 

Changing meanings in midstream 
A con man changes meanings in midstream when he changes the intended meaning of the same word in the same context to gain advantage. 

Changing meanings in midstream is closely related to the argumentation con of special pleading.

Writer Salvador de Madariaga observed about a half century ago that inequality is the inevitable consequence of liberty, that any attempt to legislate equality in a society must be at the expense of personal freedom in that society. 

Or when a school bases its enrollment policy on racial percentages, it's racism. When government does it, it's affirmative action. 

One of the more far-reaching examples of changing meanings in midstream involves the word “liberal." 

The word has a long and honorable history, with roots going back at least as far as Socrates. Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, in this country, and Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, and David Hume in England, also considered themselves liberals, in terms of the word's intended meaning in those days. Paine thought that the power of government was, at best, “a necessary evil." Jefferson held the idea that the “best government was that which governed least." That philosophy was reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which by and large cover what the government may not do and little of what it may or should do. On economic affairs, these men favored an open, free marketplace in which consumers, by the process of free choice, decided the way in which the economy should go, rather than politicians and bureaucrats. In short, government was to be the servant of the individual, not his master. 

The meaning of the word began to change in the early part of this century. The Sixteenth Amendment for the first time imposed a tax on income. Perhaps that was the forerunner of the change. From that grew the idea of taking resources from one group of Americans and giving them to another. We call it today the redistribution of income. Politically, it made sense — there are more “have nots" than there are "haves," and taking from the latter to give to the former will produce more votes than either taking from neither, or taking from the "have nots" to give to the "haves." (Harry Hopkins used to refer to the idea of income redistribution as the policy of "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.") With time, those in government who espoused the idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor began to call themselves liberals.

Create a purely imaginary group, all of whose members have a single characteristic in common — racial, religious, ethnic, vocational, or something else. 

Give the group a name composed of that single characteristic followed by the word community. For example, the black community, the Jewish community, the Italian community, the business community, the medical community, and so on. 

Identify a spokesman for the group, not on the basis of an election in which the members of the group would have the opportunity to choose, but rather on the basis of prominence and media visibility. 

Jewish leaders are chosen by the news media the same way — from among prominent Jewish politicians, clergymen, and quasi-governmental officials who have shown a high level of media visibility. So the Jewish “leaders” involved in forcefully expressing to President Reagan “Jewish opposition” to his decision to place a wreath at the Bitburg military cemetery in 1985 were Elie Wiesel, Max Fisher, and Kenneth Bialkin. Nowhere to be found were Isaac Asimov, Benny Goodman, Paul Newman, Saul Bellow, Milton Friedman, George Burns, Isaac Bashevis Singer, or Saul Steinberg. But there's is no evidence that Messrs. Wiesel, Fisher, or Bialkin are considered by Jews to be among their leaders. Nor is there evidence that Messrs. Goodman, Newman, Bellow, Friedman, Burns, Singer, and Steinberg are not so considered. As with blacks, I suspect that those in the latter group are far more influential among Jews than are Elie Wiesel, Max Fisher, or Kenneth Bialkin. 

Now why is this a con? Well, first, the notion that there is a single characteristic that can consistently identify all the members of any group is pure fancy. What is a black? What is a Jew? What is an Italian? Second, the probability that all blacks, all Jews, or all Italians view the same issue in exactly the same way is infinitely small. And third, no black or group of blacks, no matter how vocal, speaks for all blacks; no Jew or group of Jews, no matter how vocal, speaks for all Jews; no Italian speaks for all Italians; no doctor for all doctors; and so on. In short, no single member of any racial, religious, ethnic, or vocational group speaks for all the members of that group on any issue, the propensity of the news media to king-make notwithstanding. 

Cloning gone wild can extend beyond racial, religious, ethnic, and vocational characteristics. And so there are the poor, rich, Hispanics, non-aligned nations, developing countries, consumers, and so forth, as though each group were made up of clones. Yet there isn't a shred of homogeneity in any of them.

Today the same is true for identities and events, along with with ideas. For “What's its name?” has also become a perfectly acceptable substitute for “What does it mean?” or “Exactly what happened?” 

There are lots of labels today: Reaganomics, Star Wars, Vietnamization, career burnout, right-wing, left-wing, Three-Mile Island, Love Canal, liberal or conservative (in a political sense), and death squad among them. Yet it is highly doubtful that any two people, if asked to explain, define, or describe one of these labels would produce the same response. 

For example, some years ago, a staff member of the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour asked fifteen participants at a Democratic Party convention to define the word liberal (as a noun). They produced fifteen different definitions. The related question asked at a Republican Party convention would most likely have produced a similar result. 

Snow them with jargon

Briefly touched upon in Chapter 6. 

The con strategy behind the use of jargon when dealing with lay people is to intimidate, impress, mislead, or confuse; it isn't to inform. 

Examples of this strategy are plentiful. Here's one from something called Psychological Abstractions (The Conning Tower would be a more appropriate title), a publication that prints abstracts of studies conducted in the fields of psychology and sociology, among others. 
 

“[the study] Demonstrates that for a personally relevant counterattitudinal issue, a highly credible source can alter persuadability by increasing an S's [S refers to a subject of the study] message-relevant thinking. Previous failures to show this effect were probably due to the highly thoughtful nature of typical research Ss when confronted with involving issues. In the present study, 354 field-dependent and field-independent undergraduates heard convincing or refutable counterattitudinal speeches given by sources of high or low credibility. Results indicate that Ss who were typically low in differentiation of stimuli (field dependent Ss) showed differential persuasion to strong and weak arguments only when they were presented by a highly credible source. For Ss who were typically high in propensity to differentiate stimuli (field independent Ss), the arguments were differentially persuasive for both high and low credible sources. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that increasing source credibility can enhance message-relevant thought for Ss who typically do not scrutinize message content.” 

And don't forget, a member of some college or university faculty had to approve it. 

Creating an elaborate abstract structure, which has no demonstrable existence in the real world. 

Creating and promulgating rules, relationships, and principles relating to that structure. 

Viewing measurements made of elements in that structure as though they were real. 

And if those measurements can be entered into and manipulated by a computer? — well, that's the con artist's idea of heaven; the results appear to be both legitimate and unassailable. 

And for good reason, too — one man's intelligence is another man's stupidity. 

It would not be any different were psychologists to develop tests to measure loyalty quotients, sense-of-humor quotients, ethics quotients, or bravery quotients. 
 

Now you see it, now you don't
The heart of this con strategy is paying obeisance to the connotative intended meaning of words, all the while ignoring the denotative. It works particularly well in politics. 

In September 1983, Secretary James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, said of a commission reviewing his coal-leasing policies, “We have every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent.” 

It was a statement most of which was verifiably true — the commission was made up of a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple. As for the talent, there's no way that that could be verified.

Senator Lowell Weicker: “. . . [Watt] articulates the trash of  American thought.” 

Senator Alfonse D'Amato: [Watt is] “A colossal bigot.” 

There is another kind of “now you see it, now you don't” con strategy running wild today. It is the language laxative strategy, because its professed purpose is to purge language of “sexism.” And so chairman becomes chairperson, fireman becomes fireperson and Herman becomes Personperson. 

But those who live by the word die by the word. A scientist in California wishing to avoid “sexism” in his writings ran one of his articles through a computer that had been programmed to eliminate “sexist” words. When the results were printed, he discovered that his name had been changed by the computer from Bowman to Archer. 

It also follows that those who support the proposed course of action, the expressed position, or the moral value are good,  reasonable people, while the others are bad, unreasonable people. 

But there is an infinite shading of attitudes or values between any two extremes. Consequently, an issue can be resolved in any one of many ways, not in just one way. 
This is one of the more vicious con strategies; it brutalizes opponents because it appeals to passion more than to reason, and it constitutes rule by intolerance rather than by tolerance. 

Ironically, it appears to be a strategy more likely to be used by people with lots of schooling than by others. 

This classic con strategy is used effectively in naming what is purportedly to be a public service organization, but whose intent is narrow, focused upon a single objective, and more concerned with the well-being of a small group, than with that of the public at large. Here's how it works. 

Suppose a con man were going to organize an association whose purpose will be to overthrow the United States government, and to install a dictatorship in its place. Would he call it "The Association of People Dedicated to the Overthrow of the United States Government and the Installation of a Dictatorship in Its Place"? Hardly. 

Although such a name would probably not interfere with his success in attracting (1) the usual bloc of politically fatuous college students and faculty members to his cause and (2) substantial government grants by the mere process of political intimidation, it wouldn't make most people feel good about him.

The success of this strategy depends heavily upon the ability of the con artist to verbally misdirect; his words must imply one thing, but produce another. 
 

Be indignant! (but selectively)
The con strategy of “Be indignant! (but selectively)” involves several parts: (1) identifying a situation or a set of circumstances as deplorable; (2) expressing indignation at that situation or set of circumstances on the basis of moral or humanitarian grounds (so far, no con); and (3) implying that the act or acts which brought about the situation or set of circumstances are evil, not in and of themselves, but solely because of the identity of the victims involved. That's where the con comes in. 

In this bit of con strategy, the con artist feigns or implies all-inclusive indignation, whereas he has carefully selected only one outrage of many about which to be indignant. 

For example, moving people about as though they were cattle, committing genocide, brutalizing entire populations, stripping constituents of their freedom, and so on are all situations justifying indignation. No con here. 

But if indignation is expressed only about genocide in one country and not in another, if the stripping of people of their freedom causes indignation in one instance and not in another, and so forth, it is con of the highest (or lowest) order. 

A fine example of selective indignation involves the treatment given South Africa worldwide compared with the treatment given all the other African nations. 

From the time the decolonization of Africa started in 1945 until the present, black Africa has been ruled almost entirely by blacks. Democracy is rare, and military dictatorships the norm. African governments have slaughtered their own people in the tens of thousands. When they weren't slaughtering their people, they were starving them to death, or moving them about like cattle. Countries were plundered by their rulers. Political instability was the rule, not the exception, and political opposition was brutally crushed. Yet through all this, there's been no outpouring of indignation in the West in any form. 

For a detailed exposition on how African black governments have treated their constituents, see The First Dance of Freedom: Black Africa in the Post-War Era by Martin Meredith. 

There are two differences between the two in this context: 

The government of South Africa is less oppressive than the governments of black Africa. 

The government of South Africa is white and the governments of black Africa are black. 

Consequently, the inescapable conclusion of a rational person is that oppression is OK as long as the oppressor is of the same race as the oppressed, and that the South African government is evil, not because it oppresses its people, but because it oppresses people of a different race. Presumably there would be no cause for indignation at the actions of the South African government were it black, or were it to oppress only its white citizens. Nor would there be for what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Joseph Stalin in the Ukraine, and Mao Tse-tung in China. 
 

Now, dear, mother knows best
There is a Greek legend about the goddess Diana and her love for her people. It seems that she caused an olive-wood chest to be placed in front of a temple that had been built in her honor and decreed that any citizen who felt he could no longer bear life's burdens need only list them on a scroll, place the scroll in the chest, and the burdens would disappear. However, there was one catch: he had to select a different scroll from among those in the chest, and the burdens listed on it would become his. During the entire time that the chest remained in front of the temple, no citizen left with a scroll other than the one he had placed in the chest to begin with. Without exception, each one who placed a scroll in the chest examined the burdens listed on scroll after scroll. He then retrieved his own scroll and left. The point of the story is that everyone is better equipped to deal with his problems than he is with anyone else's. The corollary is that no one is better equipped to deal with your problems than you are. 

It is also important to notice that the goddess Diana, with all her godly powers, didn't attempt to protect any citizen from his burdens or penalize any citizen for the public good by making it mandatory either to do something or to refrain from doing something. But the con artist is not as wise; he can't solve his own problems, but he seems to think that he's going to solve everyone else's. 

For example, a relative handful of people some years ago formed an organization called The Center for Science in the Public Interest. And what do you think this association was trying to do? From its name, you could reasonably infer that it was trying to raise money to fund scientific research. But that was not the case; its mission was to have all TV beer and wine commercials banned, claiming that studies have indicated that beer and wine commercials are a direct cause of teenage drinking, which is a direct cause of a good part of our highway slaughter—a finding impossible to prove. Ergo, ban beer and wine commercials from TV for the public good. Then, because the rest of us didn't exactly stampede to their cause or stumble over each other to express our heartfelt thanks for such altruistic and loving behavior, these selfless toilers for the public good started working on the capture of City Hall so that we would all be forced at the point of a gun to do what they say we should do (or refrain from doing what they say we should refrain from doing). For our own good, of course. Now, dear, Mother knows best. But isn't that what every dictator has always said? 

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. — H.L. Mencken 

How about when the children grow up? Their parents may not do it to them anymore, but everybody else does. 

Several years ago, 60 Minutes broadcast a story about several members of our law-making body in Washington, DC, who were militantly in favor of busing. That, by itself, could not have constituted a story. But that they all sent their own children to private schools did. When Mike Wallace asked one of these “Do as I say, don't do as I doers” why she did, she replied that because her child was going to go to school only once,  it was essential that the child go to the best. 

And for years Zimbabwe's leaders demanded that the US and other Western nations impose economic sanctions on South Africa. Now Zimbabwe does a significant amount of business with South Africa. Nonetheless, it promised to ban trade with that country once others took the sanctions lead. About six months after the US and other Western countries did what Zimbabwe had demanded — imposed sanctions against South Africa — the Zimbabwean cabinet met to address the issue. After hearing evidence that imposing sanctions against South Africa — in effect, cutting off all trade with that country — would very much hurt the Zimbabwean economy, the cabinet rejected the imposition of such curbs, holding that Zimbabwe just couldn't afford them. 

It would appear that there's an inverse relationship between the extent to which one's self-interest is threatened and the level of his idealism.

The more ingenious a con strategy is, the more insidious it is, because exposure is difficult. The politics of conscience is that kind of con strategy, primarily responsible for our federal deficits and  relative competitive weakness in world markets. It is also responsible for  old style racism in a tricky new form. 

The politics of conscience begins with “We're all guilty of ______________ and so we really should. . . .” or words to that effect. And the form of con intended to convince us that we are indeed guilty of ___________ can be highly sophisticated. But whatever the form, it is always couched in abstract words, so that there can never be a referent to contradict it. And because it appeals to conscience rather than to reason, it tends to paralyze the thought process. It is an ideal mechanism by which a handful can manipulate a body of people many times their number. 

For one to be guilty, it is necessary that he breach something, generally a law — written or unwritten. We're not concerned with the first in this context, so let's focus on the second. The usual unwritten laws are those of fairness, ethics, morality, and the like. Please notice that they are all good abstract words. In short, someone can make you feel guilty by persuading you that you committed a breach of something that he can define any way he chooses. By doing so, he can then appeal to your conscience, and make you feel guilty. 

Let me enumerate for you some federal programs, and you decide for yourself whether each was the result of dispassionate, clear thinking or of the con strategy of “We're all guilty of _____________ and so we really should. . . .” 

• Food stamps 
• Racial quotas 
• Forced busing 
• CETA 
• Affirmative action 
• Medicare 
• Federal Aid to Dependent Children 
• Welfare

Notice that the con artists who practice the politics of conscience never say, “I'm guilty of __________ and so I really should.  . . .” It's always, “We're guilty of _______ and so we really should. . . .” Sure makes a big difference. 
 

Study, schmudy, my mind's made up
This classic con strategy is well illustrated by a series of events that took place in London, beginning in 1977 and ending some nine years later. 

West Indian children in London were getting school grades that were lower than those of the children of other ethnic groups. In 1977, so-called leaders of the group complained to the British government, declaring that the reason for the low grades was racial prejudice on the part of the teachers against nonwhites. The government promised an investigation. It then appointed and funded a blue-ribbon commission to look into the matter. 

About two or three years later, the committee made a report to the “West Indian community” that the teachers could not be racially prejudiced against nonwhites, because Oriental children were doing as well in school, if not better, than were the children of any other ethnic group. The “West Indian community” responded with hostility and rancor, asserting “that's all well and good, but the reason our children are not doing as well in school as other children are is because the teachers are racially prejudiced against nonwhites.” The government ordered the commission to reexamine the situation. 

Two years later, the commission came forward with another reason that the West Indian children were doing so poorly in school. It was a cultural problem, they reported. West Indian children were not as motivated in getting an education as were the children of other ethnic groups. That finding was met with even more hostility and rancor than the first. No, the “West Indian community” said, the reason that our children aren't doing as well in school as the other children is that the teachers are racially prejudiced against nonwhites. The British government fired the commission's chairman, shuffled its membership around a bit, and once again ordered it to reexamine the situation. 

Finally, in 1986, the British government apologized to the members of the “West Indian community” for the racial prejudice against nonwhites of the teachers in the London school system, which had resulted in lower grades for West Indian children than for other children. Whereupon the “West Indian community” leaders praised the government for its honesty and courage in admitting that it had been wrong all along. 
 

Disguise the real issue, or you may get the wrong response
One of the more burning political issues of the 1990s has centered around the subject of abortion. The so-called “pro choice” faction in this issue bases its position in this controversy on a woman's right to control her body for the simple reason that no one in his right mind would quarrel with that. The other side talks about the “right to life,” and who could quarrel with that? But neither is the real issue. The real issue involving abortion is whether or not abortion constitutes murder. If it does, then the choice is not between having an abortion or not, but rather between committing murder or not. 

Recalling one of the fundamentals of language, nouns and verbs are intended to function as symbols. Therefore, the sole function of each is to represent something — its referent. The referent for aborting a foetus and killing a foetus is the same. Changing the words does not change the result. 
 

Oh yeah? those are really code words for. . . .
Control the symbols, and you control the race. When someone tells you that “ _________ ” are really code words for " _________ " what he's trying to do is set both the agenda and rules of debate so that he can't lose. For example, there is a belief among some people that so-called racists use a special verbal code so that they can communicate racist ideas (whatever that means) without being detected by others. 

This has about as much sense going for it as did the Elders of Zion Conspiracy theory of decades ago, which held that there was a committee of old Jews in Jerusalem who dictated the behavior of Jews worldwide, including the ritual murder of Christian children. 

Pick a card, but not just any card
One of the classier and more effective cons to come along in a long time is the “political correctness” con. As a controlling mechanism, it would be hard to surpass. As an example of fatuity, it would be even harder to surpass. 
I haven't the foggiest notion of just what it is that that phrase is intended to mean, and I doubt if anyone else does either. But I'll give it a try. 

Political has something to do with determining and controlling public policy within a given jurisdiction, while correctness implies the existence of two or more ways of doing or thinking something — the right way and the wrong way(s). However, to paraphrase Shakespeare once again, nothing is either correct or incorrect but thinking makes it so. And so if a given way is correct, it is only because someone thinks it's correct. And if a given way is incorrect, it is only because someone thinks it's incorrect. In this context, correct or incorrect would be equally valid conclusions.  For example, in the table that follows, and the same would be true of any such table you may wish to construct with any number of paired expressions in it, every expression in the first column is as correct as its corresponding item in the second column. 

   Politically Incorrect       Politically Correct
   nearsighted                      optically inconvenienced 
   a dog residing in the US    canine-American 
   black                               African-American 
   African-American             black 
   drunk                              sobriety-deprived 

The alleged necessity of being “politically correct” bears a remarkable resemblance to the real necessity of cleaving to the Communist Party line in the old days of the USSR, the purpose in both cases being to control thinking by controlling the symbols. And words as symbols are no more "politically correct" than are numbers as symbols. 
Poet Allen Ginsberg said it well in the August 24, 1968 edition of The New Yorker: "Whoever controls the language, the images, controls the race." 

The next time someone says to you that something you just said is not politically correct,  I suggest you mentally add a tag to his statement to the effect that the only reason it's not politically correct is because you're not thinking the way he wants you to. 
 

Oh, yeah? Well, we know what you were thinking
This classic con rests on the notion that it's possible for someone to read someone else's mind. 

Under many judicial systems the breaking of a law constitutes a crime. (In our system, the one who is so charged must first be proved guilty by the authorities before the act involved is considered a crime.) Why someone violates the law is of no consequence in most areas; it is sufficient to charge that person based upon his action only. 

But no one knows, nor can he ever know, why someone else does what he does. And anyone who claims that he can know is either a charlatan or a fool. 

But one may be a charlatan or a fool without being stupid—that is, stupid enough to claim that he can read minds. But since language is the ideal medium for conning people — indeed, it is the only medium capable of doing so — there is a better way. All you have to do to con the public in this area is to splice two common words — hate and crime. Therefore, if Jones, a heterosexual, assaults Smith, also a heterosexual, all you've got is a plain vanilla crime. Nothing to get upset about. Happens all the time. Not even worth a line in the local paper or a few seconds on the local news telecast. But suppose Smith is a homosexual. Well, that's different. Now what you've got is a hate crime. Front page stuff and lead story material on the evening news. What makes it a hate crime? Well, because Jones is a heterosexual and Smith a homosexual, Jones obviously hates Smith. And that's why he assaulted him. What other reason could he have had? He denies hating Smith? Well, it's obvious that he's lying. Can you read his mind? No, but I know he's lying. How do you know? I just know. 

And hate crimes don't appear to be limited to matters of sexual preference. If the two antagonists are the same color, religion, or ethnicity, it's not a hate crime. But if they are of different races, religion, or ethnicity, it is. Why? Because why else would a Caucasian assault a black, Oriental, or American Indian? Why else would a Protestant assault a Jew or a Catholic?  Why else would a Westerner assault someone from the East? It's open and shut. 

For some reason that escapes me, there are people to whom the mind-reading involved in determining whether a crime is of the hate variety or not seems to move in one direction only. So to them the assault of a heterosexual by a homosexual does not constitute a hate crime. Neither does the assault of a Caucasian by a black, of a Protestant by a Jew, or of an Englishman by a Hindu. Oh, they're considered crimes, all right, but not hate crimes. 

Cause-and-effect relationships exist only in worlds of words. Therefore, one can focus on two events in the world of no-words and connect them any way he chooses, with no one able to “prove” that he's wrong. And so he invents a cause-and-effect relationship which he uses to neatly span the gap between the two events. The result is Mrs. Jones loses her temper and beats the hell out of her child. Ordinarily, she would be held accountable for her actions. But she is now said to be the victim of premenstrual syndrome. How can you blame her? Or take the case of a former soldier who holds up the proprietor of a liquor store. Is he to held accountable for his actions? Not according to these people. For you see, he's really the victim. It's called post traumatic stress. 

If you take a nonsensical hypothesis to its ultimate, you generally arrive at something called reductio ad absurdum. In this case it's the claim by con artists that we're all victims of our "inner child," that whatever is wrong with us can be justifiably attributed to our faulty upbringing. Sure. But you might consider Paul's view of the matter, as he expressed it in I Corinthians 13:11 — When I was a child, I spake as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

A one-sided coin? Ya gotta be kidding
In this con, only the immediate effect upon a single group of a proposed act or policy is presented to you; the long-term effect on all groups of that proposed act or policy is ignored. The idea is to convince you that the proposed act or policy will be beneficial to all rather than only to a relative handful. However, careful analysis will show that it will not. 

The “A one-sided coin? Ya gotta be kidding” con is used to its greatest effect in the public sector as a way of getting people to believe that economic problems can be solved politically. There are two reasons for this: 

It's easy for pressure groups to “capture City Hall”; all they need do is pound away at elected officials either long enough or intensively enough. 
The public sector is not subject to market correction. 

The broken window

"The Broken Window" is the classical example of the "A one-sided coin? You're kidding" con. It was extensively covered in an essay entitled What is Seen and What is Not Seen, written in the 19th century by Frederic Bastiat. 

Clearly, they considered only the immediate consequences of the broken window, and primarily upon the glazier. But take a look at what happened from a different viewpoint. 

The crowd was right, but in one respect only — the glazier will now have $1500 to spend, which he would not have had otherwise. But what the onlookers did not consider, not having been informed of it, was that the bakery proprietor was planning to buy some new equipment for which he had put aside $1500. The people who were to provide the new equipment will now not receive that money which they, too, would have spent around town. For them the broken window is a loss. For the baker it is also a loss. Before the event, he had $1500 and a window. After the event, he had only a window. 

For the town it was a loss as well. The installation of the new equipment was intended to reduce the cost of producing the baked goods. That was to have been followed by lower prices, to be followed by the townspeople being able to buy their usual quantity of baked goods plus something else from someone else with the money left over. 

Would not the town have been better off if the new equipment had been purchased by the baker? But the crowd saw only a two-party transaction, the baker and the glazier, and the immediate consequences of the act. It did not see the balance of the cast, nor did it see the long-term effect of the broken window. In essence, what took place was not an opportunity for new employment, but rather a destruction of capital.