_________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL May-June 1997 _________________________________________________________ ======================================================== COMMENTS ======================================================== REFLECTIONS ON "TO SPEAK AGAINST": IDENTIFYING DOUBLESPEAK Donald P. Corriveau, Ph.D. In his column, Jeffrey A. Schaler exposes the controlling influences of contradiction. Drawing inferences to George Orwell, the process of controlling others through rhetorical devices is called "doublespeak." Consequently, the successful implementation of this process results in contradiction of thought, "doublethink." Dr. Schaler argues that dictators deliberately and intentional use doublespeak to control the behavior of others. This method of behavioral control appears particularly effective with individuals who use peripheral-route processing and is less effective with central-route processing. Thus, if we are to free the masses from the shackles of doublespeak, we need to empower people to become central route processors. Dr. Schaler raises several important points and challenges all of us to examine the nature of our own cognitive functioning. The purpose of this paper is to expose and explore the presence of doublespeak in Science and to suggest methods of inoculating ourselves from its deleterious effects. THE ROLE OF CONTRADICTION Dr. Schaler argues that contradiction serves to contradict the authority of another. I agree. However, contradiction is not necessarily manipulative or exploitative. In a Darwinian sense, contradiction allows variation, the prerequisite to natural selection. Contradiction is a necessary first step in the identification of peripheral-route processing. In science, peripheral-route processing is akin to "The Method of Authority" and stands as a warning label to validate our hypotheses in an objective manner. Historically, the method of authority held that the earth was the center of the universe around which all other heavenly bodies circled. Clearly, at one time, many people agreed with this notion. While the belief itself may have had religious-political benefits, I cannot believe that ALL individuals who held this view did so in an intentional attempt to exploit others. Instead, I am more inclined to believe that misguided beliefs are fueled by a lack of attention to underlying premises and a failure to subject our hypotheses to the rigors of scientific method. Occasionally, Science is blessed with a Galileo - a person who challenges authority and has us reexamine our assumptions. This is not to say that everyone who challenges authority should be commended for it! Divergent thinking simply lays a foundation for Science to evolve. Through processes of natural selection, the strongest ideas survive. Of course, in science, ideas must be presented in a testable format. Otherwise, we might all continue to believe that the world is flat. Fortunately, inquiring minds want to know. In Science, pioneers should be commended for their contradictions. While pioneers skew the distribution of thought, their contributions are certainly not in bringing us to the extreme as much as it is in bringing us back to the middle. B.F. Skinner's contribution to our discussion of freedom and dignity is the realization that at least some of our behavior is controlled by its consequences. Thomas Szasz's attention to the myth of mental illness shares a similar contribution in drawing attention to the dangers of using "mental illness' as an excuse to gain political, economic and legal goals. However, in absolute terms, is ALL behavior controlled by its consequences? Similarly, do ALL mental health professionals use the concept of mental illness as an excuse for self-serving needs? While contradiction is an important first step in discovering new truths, how do we protect ourselves from the ravages of doublethink? Strangely, the scientific method may be our strongest ally. Principles of the scientific method may help us identify doublespeak. Identifying doublespeak may be the best vaccine for doublethink. As an exercise, let's try to identify components of doublespeak in Dr. Schaler's present column. In doing so, I'll share three useful tools. THEY-ISMS In my own view, one notable characteristic of doublespeak is over-generalization. Doublespeak can include limitations in both sampling and generalization of results. One strong hint of over-generalization is what I have called "They-ism." They-ism is found at the central core of bigotry, terrorism, and dictatorships. As we will see, they-ism also affects scientists and philosophers and rests as a particular danger whenever extreme positions are presented. A close reading of Dr. Schaler's column reveals a multitude of they-isms. As one example, Dr. Schaler conveniently lumps all spokespersons for psychiatric survivors into a single category and subsequently refers to them as "they." Thus, all spokespersons for psychiatric survivors are ascribed the same motivation, thought, and behavior. How can this be? In my own observations of human behavior, I have never found even two people with exactly the same thoughts and feelings. To cite another example, Dr. Schaler appears to agree with Thomas Szasz in thinking that mental health professionals use the concept of mental illness to justify their existence. Thus, not only do all mental health professionals have the same thoughts and behaviors but they presumably also have the same motivations. To continue with our exercise, examine the content of Dr. Schaler's writings and his radio talk show dialogue. Can you identify more they-isms? SUBSTITUTIONS IN LOGIC A particularly powerful form of manipulative doublespeak includes substituting faulty logic with even more faulty logic. Consider Dr. Schaler's assertion that all editors of the Washington Post oppose religious freedom (drug use) in America. Let's dissect this conclusion. Artful doublespeak often begins with a term or phrase that facilitates strong imagery or visualization. "Religious freedom" is such a phrase. Notice how Dr. Schaler parenthetically juxtaposes the term drug use behind the term religious freedom. Hopefully inconspicuous, this substitution of terms may manipulate the reader into thinking that the editors of the Washington Post are in fact opposed to religious freedom. Notice the implication that anyone who opposes religious freedom should be somehow despised. Careful attention should be placed on the fact that it is Dr. Schaler's rhetoric that equates religious freedom with drug use. A variant to the substitution in logic approach is to include ill-defined premises into propositions. At one point, Dr. Schaler wrote, "The mind cannot be sick." In studying this premise, my immediate question is, "How do you define the word mind?" There are several variants in the definition of this term. If one finds support for a subsequent proposition using a single variant, do the propositions hold for other variants as well? I think not. GENERALIZATION OF RESULTS Another strong warning taught by the scientific method includes the over-generalization of results. While Freud's case study of little Hans may have provided the foundation for a theory of psychosexual human development, I'm hard pressed to believe that little Hans is an exemplar of humankind. I'm equally hard pressed to agree with Dr. Schaler's central thesis. Incidentally, what is Dr. Schaler's central thesis? His article appears devoted to specific examples in which his "letters to the editor" were not published. His selection of radio talk show transcripts are used to present further validation of his major points. Overall, his selectivity illustrates the tremendous potential of bias that accompanies over-generalization. Presenting anecdotal accounts is useful if it makes us think and if it leads to further hypothesis testing. However, drawing unsupported conclusions based on anecdotal evidence is faulty and not particularly scholarly. In his article, Dr. Schaler cites four specific examples of letters that were not accepted for publication. The letters were meant to be examples where he exposed contradictions to news stories. He writes, "What is interesting is how the editors chose not to publish any letters contradicting their editorial positions on their news story." Let's carefully examine Dr. Schaler's conclusion. Was he in fact discriminated against for his views? First and foremost, we are not presented the actual data. In a more global sense, how many of Dr. Schaler's letters actually get accepted? How does he fare against baseline acceptance rates? How many letters to the editor did the editors have to select from? Were his letters any good? The point here is that there are many plausible reasons why Dr. Schaler's specific letters to the editor mentioned in this article were not published. His conclusion that he knows the "real reason" why editors deliberately rejected his letters is an example of over- generalization. His conclusion reflects doublespeak and lays the foundation for doublethink. CONCLUSIONS The irony of course is that Dr. Schaler's conclusion may in fact be correct. The problem with doublespeak is that we have no way to objectively test our hypotheses. Finding they-isms, substitutions of logic and over-generalizations are tools that I use to sight the red flags of doublespeak. What do you think? Are you aware of other examples of doublespeak that pervades our professions or, for that matter, society? Perhaps we should invite submissions of examples to a new column called DOUBLESPEAK. George Orwell would be proud. -------------------------------------------------------- Donald P. Corriveau, Ph.D. Assistant Editor, PsychNews International Professor of Psychology University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth