Danger: "Mindtraps" Ahead; W. E. Sprague

DANGER: ttMINDTRAPS" AHEAD ((Like a stairway leading to a gallows, there are thir teen perilous steps that often lead a 'man to socialism:. And like the sprung trap, the fatal fourteenth step, so cialism seals his fate." This-despite the "reverse English" -is a splendid ex ample of a basic device commonly used by socialists themselves in a subtle sort of verbal "sleight of hand" to win converts to the welfare state or the planned econ omy or whatever idea they are advancing as the grand solution to all mankind's problems. But, as the "reverse English" indicates, it is a game you, too, can play. It is, in fact, a game we had all better learn to play because it is a deadly game in which our personal freedom is at stake. An exaggeration? Perhaps, but remember that opening paragraph; we will return to it. Mr. Sprague is a freelance writer with a background of some fifteen years in sales, credit, and insurance. He now specializes in what he terms "the practical application of history, logic, and language studies to daily living."

22 DANGER: uMINDTRAPS" AHEAD 23 There are thirteen devices, including the one above, commonly used by the utopian planners and, in a sense, they are indeed "steps." They do not follow one another in any special order, nor do they have a mounting, cumulative effect (though they may at times); still they are "steps" in the sense that they are designed to lead you and me into what can rightly be called a "mind trap." They are steps toward a dark world of anguish, the anguish of confusion, and away from a bright world of reason. These thirteen basic devices, however, were not in vented by socialism, nor are they strictly socialistic prop erty. They are, in fact, as old as Plato, Aristotle, and those "Madison Avenue boys" of ancient Greece, the Sophists. They are perhaps even older. They work on a simple principle that has been known to every tyrant, despot, and dictator since the time of Alexander and before-the principle that: no man can think clearly if he is frightened, angry, or in any other way emotionally overstimulated. New or not, these thirteen devices are as effective today, because of that principle, as they have been throughout history. In the hands of a skilled social ist recruiter, these devices can and do trap thousands of us who are "sitting ducks" because we are unfamiliar with this sort of verbal legerdemain.

Once you have become familiar with them, however, once you have learned to spot their use, you become free of them to a considerable degree-providing you remain aware of them. To free yourself altogether, though, re quires more than constant vigilance, more than the abil24 w. E. SPRAGUE ity to merely "peg" these devices when you encounter them. What that "something more" is, we will explore very shortly. But first-what are these devices, these "steps" to socialism? And how do they work? The collective name by which they are known sounds innocent enough. They are called "logical fallacies." Their name is misleading, however; it makes them sound like the toys of philosophers and formal logicians. This they may very well be, but don't be deceivedl They are also deadly little tricks that play on certain weaknesses we all possess. They are subtle little "terror tactics" that really have little to do with logic, as we usually think of that word, and have a lot to do with striking at our fears and, through our fears, arousing our· hatreds or feeding the flame of anger. Remember-no man can think clearly, indeed at all, if he is emotionally over stimulated. Rather than "logical fallacies," perhaps they should be called "emotional irritants," since they relate to logic, it may be said, only in that they attempt to short-circuit your power of reason.

Appeal to the People-tAd Populum Consider these phrases-phrases we have all heard many times over: "Which is more important-big business or the little fellow?" "Price controls protect the working man." "Why not have federal aid? It's our tax money, isn't it?" A philosopher or logician would probably call these examples of argumentum ad populum) one of the logical DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 25 fallacies. The impressive Latin name means "argument appealing to the people." The important thing is the way it appeals to the people. Each of the three phrases contains certain key words which evoke in us an image -a word picture-to which all of us tend to respond. By contrasting the words "big" and "little," the speaker cre ates a picture of a gruesome sort of Goliath, labeled "big business," about to strike out at courageous but tiny David called "the little fellow," with whom anyone fa miliar with the Bible story will automatically identify.

And even if one had never heard of David versus Go liath, the key words still tend to excite the common American sentiment for the underdog. In the second phrase, the key words are "working man" and "protect." Again, most people working for wages will almost auto matically identify with "working man," and the implied threat in the word "protect" (after all, we need protec tion only if "someone is out to get us") instantly stirs our fears. In the third example, the key word with which we will tend to identify is "ours"; if the tax money is indeed "ours," we certainly have a right to it then! Ad populum-the appeal to the people-is quite typical of all thirteen devices, all thirteen "steps." It is struc tured with key words that invite us to identify with an image that is somehow (within the scope of that image) threatened. Thus the facts are ignored, snubbed, tram pled, or completely obscured-no mention is made of what these words really mean in the objective world around us, or even what the speaker intends them to mean. What, for example, is really meant (if anything) 26 w. E. SPRAGUE by "big business"? Which "big business"? What com panies or corporations and when? What "little fellow"

and how is he less important? "Price controls" when and on what and for how long? And how do they "protect"? Or do they? Is it truly "our tax money"? How much of it did you pay? Or me? Isn't tax money more of a com mon trust that in reality "belongs" to no one? Or is it? The point is, you see, that the answers to these ques tions are the facts of the issue, but ad populum J like the other fallacies, dare not be concerned with facts. In stead, facts are obviated by "image words" so generalized they have practically no meaning. If you coded these words and fed them to a computer, the computer would reject them or else answer them with equally meaning less phrases. Or if you presented these three phrases to a formal logician for analysis, he would be powerless to act until you also gave him the answers to the ques tions, until you gave him facts. Logically, then, these thirteen "steps" are untenable but, emotionally, they are potent. They hit you-to coin a phrase-"right where you live." Their aim is to make you defensive, to make you feel "picked on," and thus forget the facts. After all, how can you be bothered by facts when some bully is about to "clobber" you?

Appeal to the Heart In case you can't be scared into forgetting the facts, there is another fallacy so closely related to ad populum it is considered by some to be merely a twist. Its Latin DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 27 name means "an appeal to the heart," and it aims to coax you, if you won't be frightened, into ignoring the facts by arousing your sympathy. "Peace and harmony and cooperation," it might say, "are Man's destiny-not competition." Who among us does not respond to the image of Eden, especially since we were brought up on it? What culture in what age has not had its ideal of a Paradise or an Elysian Field? Who can resist the pic ture of a sunny, green world living in idyllic "peace and harmony and cooperation"? But what kind of "peace and harmony"? What kind of "cooperation"? The kind known to the shepherd's un thinking· charges, or the kind achieved by the voluntary association of free in dividuals who have made their decision on facts?

By now you are perhaps beginning to see that all of these devices, these "mindtraps," have certain things in common: they aim at obscuring the facts by creating images with which you will identify, first, then react to emotionally. It seems so simple one wonders that they work at all. But they work, and work astoundingly well! Why? Because our emotional network, as any psycholo gist will tell you (and I will leave the fine points to him), is made up of a collection of more or less stand ardized and generalized images that we have all acquired simply by the process of being born, living, and growing up. This emotional network, incidentally, with its col lection of images, is quite necessary to survival; we would never have the time to reason out the billions of deci sions of a minor note that we encounter in daily living. But only careful, rational thinking can carry us through 28 w. E. SPRAGUE the vast complexity that is our economy and our nation.

And it is here that these "steps" to socialism would have us forget facts and struggle through an emotional re sponse to images, to "word pictures." What, then, are the remaining eleven logical fallacies? It might do to mention at this point that, viewed strictly as logical fallacies, as toys of the logicians, there are many more than thirteen. A complete listing and classi fication can be found in textbooks on logic or in any standard encyclopedia. We are concerned here, though, as stated earlier, with the ones most commonly used by the planners of utopia in their battle against ideas of free market, private property, individual enterprise, and the many other aspects of a free philosophy. Restricted so, there are then eleven remaining fallacies. Non Sequitur-It Does Not Follow "Without compulsory government health programs, thousands upon thousands of people will suffer for want of proper medical care!" Sound familiar? qf course it does. This current battle cry of socialism is essentially the fallacy of non sequitur-translated: "it does not fol low." Put simply, it means there is no logical connection between "thousands of suffering people" and the ab sence of a program of socialized medicine, but there cer tainly is an emotional connection once you are tricked into placing yourself in the image of those "thousands upon thousands." Stay out of the image and ask for the facts.

DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD False Cause 29 In some ways, all of these "mindtraps" touch and over lap; hence, we have a sort of "half-brother" to non sequitur, sometimes called "false cause." Its Latin name post hoc, ergo propter hoc (a mouthful even for the old Romans)-translates: "after this, therefore because of this." An example? How about-"Free enterprise col lapsed and that's why we had the depression." In this statement, the speaker is committing a dual fallacy. First he is equating "free enterprise" with all the conditions in both industry and government that existed prior to the depression; then he is ignoring a host of external (that is to say, international) factors that may have very well contributed to the depression; for these, taken all to gether, were the major determinants. Yet in his flippant use of the term "free enterprise," he intends you to re act to the image of business and industry, symbolized by the 1929 crash, as being the sole factor.

Overgeneralization This same example also falls, at least partly, under the heading of another of the commonly used fallacies, secundum quid. In a word, it means "overgeneralizing." It works in a variety of ways. In the case of "collapsing" free enterprise "causing" the Depression, all factors contributing or not, extraneous or not-are lumped un der one very broad general heading, "free enterprise." Another method of overgeneralizing is what might be 30 w. E. SPRAGUE called building "straw men" or "paper dragons." The idea is to take a handful of superficial characteristics and build an image to represent each individual in a certain class or group. Thus the socialist is fond of depicting the "capitalist" as a bloated, walking money-bag, preying on "the common people." Absurd? Of course, but the image would not persist if it were not effective. Give 'em a Foot and They'll Take a Mile Another "mindtrap," this one closely related to secun dum quid, and indeed another form of overgeneralizing, is sometimes called the "entering wedge" argument or sometimes referred to as "give-'em-a-foot-and-they'll-take a-mile" reasoning. A good example is still bounding about the current scene: "If you allow automation in industry, you'll soon have thirty million unemployed!"

Again, this is a "David and Goliath" image, inviting you to identify with thirty million unemployed "Davids." Well, automation is more and more on the scene and our economy seems to be adjusting nicely. But that is unimportant to the speaker; it's merely a fact. Name-Calling Tu quoque, in Latin, means "thou also"; in everyday American it means: "Oh yeah! Well, you're one, too!" The fallacy of tu quoque is nearly pure name-calling. Venture to suggest that complex, bureaucratic govern ment is a burden on taxpayers and tends to destroy DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 31 profit motive for both business and the wage earner, and you might hear this: "How about the greedy profiteers of capitalism? Look what they do to initiative!" Aside from the fact that greed is no more intense or evenly dis tributed among "capitalists" (whoever they really are), than among Hottentots, the trick here is a quick counter attack, again with "image words," to trap you into de fending something entirely foreign to the issue being dis cussed-thus saving your antagonist the job of defending elaborate government.

Authorities and Statistics "] ff ·d" 0" fi "e erson once sal . . . . r our gures prove. . . . Familiar? Indeed so, and they are familiar to logicians as argumentum ad verecundiam~ another "two-in-one" fallacy. Some logicians, in fact, consider these statements as separate fallacies. In the vernacular, "1efferson once said .... " might be called "appealing to the wise man," while "our figures prove" stands apart as a separate fallacy. Consequently, it can be said that we have here a "double step" to socialism. In either case, quoting a famous person (living or not) or quoting figures, verecundiam means "appeal to authority." This is a particularly effective device for utopians, since we have all been reared to respect au thority and most of us to stand in awe of large numbers. What Jefferson or anyone· else said about a particular topic, or what statistics allegedly show about it is really not the point-though that is what we are urged to be32 w. E. SPRAGUE lieve. The point is the validity of the topic judged on current, reliable facts. And, since any competent mathe matician can show you several ways to "lie" with num bers, figures in themselves are not necessarily current or reliable or factual. Did Jefferson, or whoever else is quoted, have firsthand knowledge of the facts relating to the topic? Is the topic within his field of special knowl edge? Who compiled the statistics, and how? Are there any cross references on them?

Destroy the Man or Source Perhaps the most popular, and certainly the most vi cious, of these "mind traps" is argumentum ad hominem -the argument that attacks not the issue but rather the man. In close alliance with ad hominem is its variation known as "poisoning the well." Examples of these two abound in every area of human endeavor, but perhaps the favorite of socialism occurs when a proponent of limited government is brash enough to suggest that there may still be some merit in referring occasionally to some of the original premises of liberty as variously stated by the framers of our Constitution. "You'd still have us wear silk breeches and powdered wigs," they shout. Or let any man criticize wasteful government spending, and he may be assailed as a "tight-fisted, inhuman Scrooge," or worse. The basic idea, the aim of ad hominem, is to attack the man, not the issue, especially if the issue can not be logically defended at all. "Poisoning the well" is essentially the same tactic used against groups, political DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 33 or racial or religious, and sources of ideas such as books, documents, or publications.

These two fallacies are especially vile in that, to their users, there are "no holds barred"; attack on any grounds, including, if necessary, the deliberate assassina tion of reputations by out and out lies. In fact, the closer you come to the truth in your presentation or criticism, the greater risk you run, usually, since you then repre sent a hazard that must be removed at all costs. The F,alse Analogy-All Analogies Are False We come now to the most troublesome "mindtrap," the slickest "step" to socialism that we shall examine. It is, in many ways, the most difficult to deal with, owing to a peculiar duality of its nature. It is at once both "true" and "false," which is to say that, while it will always contain certain seeds or elements of truth, it is always false; yet it is an absolutely indispensable tool in the process of learning-anything. It· is the analogy. Stated simply, an analogy is a device for explaining one thing in terms of another. A classic example can be found in the lore of the Old West.

When the transcontinental railroad pushed its way across our nation, the American Indian got his first (and probably frightening) look at a locomotive. We are all familiar with his name for it, the Iron Horse. The term was an abbreviated a~nalogy; the Indian had long been familiar with the white man's metal, iron, and with the horse. He explained the locomotive to himself, then, in 34 w. E. SPRAGUE these terms which he knew and understood-the strange machine was iron and it carried things and people as did his horse. Still, the analogy is false; a locomotive is not a horse. Modern day physics would be lost without the analogy, though here whole sets of analogies are considered and called by various names such as "constructs" or "abstrac tions." Nonetheless, they are analogies in that terms like "electron" or "neutron" or "chain reaction" are essen tially descriptive terms for things and events no one has ever actually seen; still the terms are useful and vital, since they reduce the processes of matter to a compre hensive level by acting as working models of these processes.

But analogies, no matter how useful, no matter how closely they resemble that to which they are compared, are always "like" something-but they are not identical to that thing. Hence, in this sense, they are always false. The test of the usefulness or reliability of an analogy lies in asking yourself, "How close is the resemblance? Does this specific analogy really fit? What are the simi larities and what the differences in this particular com parison?" Above all else, we must remember that an analogy is always a comparison, not a proof. When we view it as a proof (or advance it as one), we commit the "logical fallacy," the "mind trap" of what logicians call the "false analogy." Consider the following: "Like a stairway leading to a gallows, there are thir teen perilous steps that often lead a man to capitalism.

DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 35 And like the sprung trap, the fatal fourteenth step, capi talism seals his fate." Yes-our opening paragraph re phrased as the utopian planner often uses it. Phrased either way it is a false analogy, for the comparison be tween a gallows and any ideology is a farfetched one; yet the image it evokes is a powerful one, an image cal culated to steer your mind completely away from the facts. Don't be steered; the major factor in comparing two ideologies or philosophies is simple: they can be compared only to each other and done so with a cold, objective eye. The false analogy of the gallows, however, illustrates my major point in all of this, a point I cited earlier. By a simple switching of terms, by "reverse English," any one of these thirteen common devices, used so much these days by the advocates of government control, gov ernment aid, and government intervention, can just as easily be used against them-if one cares to play at such games. For a game is, as I have said, exactly what it is: a game that people of all kinds have been playing per haps since the birth of the human race. We need to do more than play this game, however; deadly as it is, we need to avoid playing it. Rather, do we need effectively to combat its effects. In times past, as in the present, whole nations and cultures have succumbed to them.

"Today Germany! Tomorrow the world!" -one of his tory's greatest non sequiturs. "For the good of the people!" -a tired, cliched ad populum; yet how many nations have been captured by this one alone?

36 W. E. SPRAGUE Appeal to Fear The last of the "mindtraps" is argumentum ad bacu lum, the "appeal to fear." In its most crude form, it is nothing more than a threat; a club, as it were, held over our heads; a statement of "... or else!" We rarely en counter it in this form, though, until its users stand on the very threshold of their goal. But how about some thing like this: "Where do you stand? With big busi ness or with the people? You're either with us-or against us!" That "against us" is simply a thinly veiled threat. In a sense, ad baculum is an element inherent in nearly all the arguments of the Omnipotent State faction, since the arguments, as we have noted, aim at arousing the emotion of fear above all other emotions-fear of big business, of poverty, of unemployment, of exploitation, of ... you name it! Yet fear is dispelled by knowledge and by specific truths. Herein lies the most effective means of combating the "mindtraps" and freeing our selves from their effects altogether.

The Steps Reviewed And so we have thirteen "steps," the thirteen devices used in the socialists' game. Remember them well: 1. Argumentum ad populum-the appeal to the people, the "little fellow." 2. The appeal to the heart-"peace and harmony," the image of Eden.

DANGER: "MINDTRAPS" AHEAD 37 3. Non sequitur-it does not follow, even if someone says it does. Check it yourself. 4. Post hoc) ergo propter hoc-the "false cause." 5. Secundum quid-overgeneralizing. 6. The entering wedge-"Give 'em a foot and they'll take a mile"-but only if someone gives 'em the mile, too. 7. Tu quoque-"You're one, too!" 8. A rgumentum ad verecundiam-"J efferson once said .... " Oh? Was he there? Did he see it? 9. A rgumentum ad verecundiam (second variety)-"Our figures prove .... " How reliable are "our figures"? 10. Argumentum ad hominem-"Attack the man, not the issue." But the issue is what is important. 11. Poisoning the well-the source of the idea is not im portant; the idea is! 12. False analogy-all analogies are false, so consider the differences as well as the similarities. 13. Argumentum ad baculum-"believe or else!" We must learn this game at least to the extent of rec ognizing those arguments that appeal not to our reason but to our unreasonable fears. When next you meet an argument that evokes an image and excites fear, check it with questions-"Who said so? And how does he know?

What are the facts, the specific facts?" Facts, not dialectics, are the best weapons. Truth, not emotion, will keep us free.