How else do I say "Lazy, Provocative Persuasion"?
March 7, 2024 1:30 PM Subscribe
I'm looking for a term to describe how someone can talk about someone else's beliefs/ideology in a way that isn't outwardly provocative but seems to intend to quickly other, negate, and win support. It has an immature and antagonistic flavor. So what's a term for a style of speaking on a topic that promotes superiority of *this* perspective and encourages others to quickly choose *this* side?
Details inside.
My relative just shared a podcast episode on a topic related to my field. I'm interested in the topic but the podcast host's "disruptor" approach and lazy lack of research (and reductionistic conclusions) are off-putting (think Joe Rogan). I'd like to have language to explain to what it is I'm reacting so negatively.
Help me find a description for this kind of linguistic style or even social psychology approach to communicating:
A podcast host is introducing a guest who's about to be interviewed on their show and says something like:
"Here's Interview Guest, who'll talk about Topic A, which relates to Profession A. Most other professionals in Profession A would dislike/disbelieve/dismiss Interview Guest's thinking; Interview Guest is in the small minority in their field."
What isn't said explicitly at first (about that lurking "majority" of professionals in the field who are rejecting Interview Guest's beliefs) but what's insinuated and later said is:
* "They're ignorant and haven't really questioned what's important or they'd reach the same conclusions as Interview Guest."
* "They're just not ready for/brave enough to face the truth that Interview Guest shares because they're constrained by the status quo/conventional thinking/groupthink, otherwise they'd see the value to also promoting Interview Guest's ideas."
[Ironically, the likely reasons many professionals in Profession A would be against Interview Guest's beliefs is the poor stats and questionable conclusions undergirding those beliefs, but that doesn't matter to the podcast host, who's already concluded those beliefs are correct and who'll label any challengers as ignorant, afraid, conformist, etc.]
My relative just shared a podcast episode on a topic related to my field. I'm interested in the topic but the podcast host's "disruptor" approach and lazy lack of research (and reductionistic conclusions) are off-putting (think Joe Rogan). I'd like to have language to explain to what it is I'm reacting so negatively.
Help me find a description for this kind of linguistic style or even social psychology approach to communicating:
A podcast host is introducing a guest who's about to be interviewed on their show and says something like:
"Here's Interview Guest, who'll talk about Topic A, which relates to Profession A. Most other professionals in Profession A would dislike/disbelieve/dismiss Interview Guest's thinking; Interview Guest is in the small minority in their field."
What isn't said explicitly at first (about that lurking "majority" of professionals in the field who are rejecting Interview Guest's beliefs) but what's insinuated and later said is:
* "They're ignorant and haven't really questioned what's important or they'd reach the same conclusions as Interview Guest."
* "They're just not ready for/brave enough to face the truth that Interview Guest shares because they're constrained by the status quo/conventional thinking/groupthink, otherwise they'd see the value to also promoting Interview Guest's ideas."
[Ironically, the likely reasons many professionals in Profession A would be against Interview Guest's beliefs is the poor stats and questionable conclusions undergirding those beliefs, but that doesn't matter to the podcast host, who's already concluded those beliefs are correct and who'll label any challengers as ignorant, afraid, conformist, etc.]
An appeal to the minority casually dismissive of authoritative sources?
posted by ixipkcams at 1:57 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by ixipkcams at 1:57 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
How about "arrogant, ignorant, non conformist ideology"? Or "unsubstantiated underdog outlook"? Or "dismissive, unsubstantiated, coercive ideologist"? ~ooh, I'm having fun with this. The last one might be the closest to what you are looking for so far.
posted by itsflyable at 1:58 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by itsflyable at 1:58 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
The word "snide" is what comes to my mind.
posted by heatherlogan at 2:04 PM on March 7, 2024 [8 favorites]
posted by heatherlogan at 2:04 PM on March 7, 2024 [8 favorites]
Does the notion of a "used car salesman" get at what you're talking about? Spin? Disingenuous spin? Wishful spin? Delusional spin.
posted by bluedaisy at 2:14 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by bluedaisy at 2:14 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
Con artist
posted by bluedaisy at 2:16 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by bluedaisy at 2:16 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]
Delusional, cynical spin
(I'll stop here)
posted by bluedaisy at 2:18 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
(I'll stop here)
posted by bluedaisy at 2:18 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
Best answer: There's a tribalist element to it - very "us against the elitists". There's also an ego-boosting conspiracy theory/chosen one vibe - only we, a tiny group, are able to see the truth, everyone else is deluded, misled, or conspiring to to hide the truth. But you - you're special enough/smart enough to see what other people don't. You're special enough/smart enough to join our tribe.
posted by trig at 2:20 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by trig at 2:20 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
I would say the text is couched in condescending language, so the reader is encouraged to feel more enlightened by choosing the narrator's viewpoint before considering the data and merit of the study.
posted by effluvia at 3:09 PM on March 7, 2024
posted by effluvia at 3:09 PM on March 7, 2024
Fallacious and anti-intellectual?
posted by toastedcheese at 3:34 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by toastedcheese at 3:34 PM on March 7, 2024 [1 favorite]
Bad faith?
posted by tristeza at 4:42 PM on March 7, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by tristeza at 4:42 PM on March 7, 2024 [3 favorites]
Probably my recent viewing of this YouTube Video is bringing its perspective to the front of my mind, so take it with a grain of salt. Dr. McGilchrist might (???) say that it's a Left Brain perspective lacking the Right Brain's ability to deal with nuance, context, big picture, analysis, metaphor and empathy.
posted by forthright at 5:49 PM on March 7, 2024
posted by forthright at 5:49 PM on March 7, 2024
"Facile" covers the oversimplifying aspect. I think I would call it a "facile appeal to emotion".
There's quite a bit of it on both the left and the right. Sometimes because the facts are too complicated, but often because someone has an agenda.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:04 PM on March 7, 2024
There's quite a bit of it on both the left and the right. Sometimes because the facts are too complicated, but often because someone has an agenda.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:04 PM on March 7, 2024
When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called guilt by association or an appeal to spite
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 8:47 PM on March 7, 2024
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 8:47 PM on March 7, 2024
Best answer: Using a false front of superiority to hide an inner feeling of inferiority (see Alfred Adler's work)
Argument from ignorance aka appeal to ignorance (see "logical fallacies")
Stealth bigotry
Failure to grasp the full, nuanced context
Dismissing inconvenient/uncomfortable truths
Micro-aggression, macro-aggression
Dog whistle
Biased selection of facts/data/information
Invalidating
Lack of critical thinking skills
Willful ignoring/dismissal of relevant facts/data/information
Emotional bleed-over
Substituting in a placeholder for the actual conversation one is to unskilled/afraid to have
Tragic expression of unmet needs (see Marshall Rosenberg and NonViolent Communication)
posted by concinnity at 7:43 AM on March 8, 2024 [2 favorites]
Argument from ignorance aka appeal to ignorance (see "logical fallacies")
Stealth bigotry
Failure to grasp the full, nuanced context
Dismissing inconvenient/uncomfortable truths
Micro-aggression, macro-aggression
Dog whistle
Biased selection of facts/data/information
Invalidating
Lack of critical thinking skills
Willful ignoring/dismissal of relevant facts/data/information
Emotional bleed-over
Substituting in a placeholder for the actual conversation one is to unskilled/afraid to have
Tragic expression of unmet needs (see Marshall Rosenberg and NonViolent Communication)
posted by concinnity at 7:43 AM on March 8, 2024 [2 favorites]
Is that a microaggression? I'm not sure, it's just the first thing that popped into my head.
posted by Snowishberlin at 10:19 AM on March 8, 2024
posted by Snowishberlin at 10:19 AM on March 8, 2024
Response by poster: These are all really helpful, thanks! I marked a few that got closest to the gist of what I was looking for.
posted by MCMLXXXIV at 8:20 AM on March 9, 2024
posted by MCMLXXXIV at 8:20 AM on March 9, 2024
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by praemunire at 1:50 PM on March 7, 2024 [2 favorites]