<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace V5 Site Server v5.13.159 (http://www.squarespace.com) on Thu, 23 May 2013 18:44:37 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>The Daily Figure</title><subtitle>It Figures</subtitle><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/atom.xml"/><updated>2013-05-11T14:55:49Z</updated><generator uri="http://five.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace V5 Site Server v5.13.159 (http://www.squarespace.com)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Should We "Invite" Instead of Manipulate?</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/5/7/should-we-invite-instead-of-manipulate.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/5/7/should-we-invite-instead-of-manipulate.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-05-07T14:38:43Z</published><updated>2013-05-07T14:38:43Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Kay Halasek, a professor at Ohio State, interviewed me for a writing MOOC (massive open online course). The main topic, besides rhetoric itself: &nbsp;Is manipulation a good thing?&nbsp;</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/huuqhPAsYFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>What if SCOTUS Sounded Like Americans?</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/27/what-if-scotus-sounded-like-americans.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/27/what-if-scotus-sounded-like-americans.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-03-27T13:38:50Z</published><updated>2013-03-27T13:38:50Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Decorum doesn&#8217;t mean using the right fork&#8212;unless your audience cares deeply about using the right fork. So what if the Supreme Court justices were plunked down in average America and forced to speak decorously?</p>
<p>See this <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/?ref=auto&amp;wpisrc=nl_wonk">Onion</a> piece. It will forever change your notion of decorum.</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Persuade by Shutting Up</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/21/persuade-by-shutting-up.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/21/persuade-by-shutting-up.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-03-21T15:38:20Z</published><updated>2013-03-21T15:38:20Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363880274606_416"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/ShuttingUp.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1363880342735" alt="" /></span></span>​&#8221;My theory has an opinion. I don&#8217;t have an opinion,&#8221; says Harvard B-school prof Clayton Christensen, author of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1363877349&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=innovator%27s+dilemma">The Innovator&#8217;s Dilemma</a>. He&#8217;s employing a great rhetorical strategy. Want someone to agree with your opinion? Take yourself out of the picture. It makes you sound objective and&nbsp;<em>disinterested</em>&#8212;free of special interests. Those who have read my&nbsp;<a href="http://jayheinrichs.com/books">book&nbsp;</a>or heard me&nbsp;<a href="http://jayheinrichs.com/keynote-topics">speak&nbsp;</a>know that appearing disinterested helps make an audience trust your opinion. So how do you take yourself out of your own point of view?&nbsp;</p>
<h3>1. The Reluctant Conclusion.</h3>
<p>&#8220;I used to agree with the other side. But the facts (or changing circumstances) forced me to change my mind.&#8221; Christensen doesn&#8217;t exactly do this. But he does say&nbsp;<em>Listen to the theory, not to me</em>. That takes personality out of the picture. How does the audience know whether to believe the theory? By looking at the facts. Not at Christensen.​</p>
<h3>2. The Passive Voice.</h3>
<p>Writing coaches tell you to stick to the active voice. But scientists (and B-school profs like Christensen) use the passive voice in most of their academic papers. &#8220;The mouse was placed into the maze,&#8221; not &#8220;My hot young research assistant placed the mouse into the maze.&#8221;​ Again, this takes the personality out of the picture, making the author seem disinterested.</p>
<h3>3. Shutting Up.</h3>
<p>I call this tool Stalin&#8217;s Timing Secret. Before he became the Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin would sit mute until the very end of meetings. Finally, if there was any disagreement, he would weigh in on one side or the other and settle the issue. He did this so often that comrades would look at him toward the end of every meeting, waiting for his judgment. It works. Wait until late in a meeting, then say, &#8220;This is what I&#8217;m hearing.&#8221; Then spin it in a way that favors your point of view.​</p>
<p>Shutting up. Consider it the new eloquence.​</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Making Your Character Count</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/15/making-your-character-count.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/15/making-your-character-count.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-03-15T15:16:01Z</published><updated>2013-03-15T15:16:01Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11310">I like to ask audiences for a show of hands: How many wish arguments were purely logical? Almost everyone&#8217;s hand, including mine, goes up. But Aristotle&#8212;the guy who invented logic as we know it&#8212;says that logic isn&#8217;t the biggest persuader. Nope. The biggest persuader is character. (Aristotle called it&nbsp;<em>Ethos</em>, but he was speaking in Greek.)</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11313">Watch this amazing TED talk by the great ecologist Allan Savory and pay close attention to the character he projects.​</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vpTHi7O66pI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11983">You can persuade people much more easily if they like and trust you. The three tools to get yourself liked and trusted:&nbsp;<strong>Craft, Caring,</strong>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<strong>Cause</strong>. (Aristotle: phonesis, eunoia, and arete, all Greek to me.)​</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11981"><strong>Craft&nbsp;</strong>means showing you know what you&#8217;re talking about and knowing how to apply that knowledge to specific problems. Savory does this in spades, showing deep knowledge and applying it innovatively.</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11979"><strong>Caring&nbsp;</strong>​has to do with convincing your audience that you&#8217;re willing to sacrifice yourself for their interest&#8212;that you&#8217;re not after money or power. In short, that you care. Savory&#8217;s soft-spoken approach and modest dress convey a someone who&#8217;s there just to deliver an urgent message, not to get rich or famous.</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11991"><strong>Cause</strong>: This is the biggest tool of all. ​When you pitch a product or service, or argue an issue, ask yourself: What&#8217;s your cause? What does your argument do for humanity?&nbsp;</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11992">It&#8217;s the cause that wins the standing ovation. How do you think Savory did? Let me know what your own cause is. How does it relate to your work? Do you serve a larger cause in what you do to earn a living?​</p>
<p id="yui_3_7_3_1_1363359790888_11993">I&#8217;ll tell you mine: It&#8217;s to teach people how to argue without anger and persuade without fear. Our democracy depends on it. I quit my job to promote it. That doesn&#8217;t make me a saint. But I hope it makes me more persuasive.​</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Stop Apologizing!</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/1/stop-apologizing.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/3/1/stop-apologizing.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-03-01T20:26:09Z</published><updated>2013-03-01T20:26:09Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Figaro has been going around the country telling corporations not to apologize. Has he gone to the dark side? Hardly! In fact, we think corporations would endear us to them a whole lot more if they stopped apologizing, followed his directions to the letter, and paid him lavishly for the privilege.</p>
<p><em><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2FBusinessweekcover.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1362177285849',757,568);"><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/thumbnails/219489-22070884-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1362177287848" alt="" /></a></span></span>Bloomberg Businessweek</em> offers a fine example. It&#8217;s a truly great magazine&#8212;one that has undergone a wonderful renaissance. (Full disclosure: the magazine did a <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-14/jay-heinrichss-powers-of-persuasion">profile</a> of us last year. But we were loving the magazine before that. Honest.) Its most recent cover, though, is awful. Click on the thumbnail to see the full image.</p>
<p>The magazine, predictably and mistakenly, apologized:&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><em>Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which we regret. Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we&#8217;d do it differently.</em></p>
<p><span>What&#8217;s wrong with that? Let us show you how to do it right.</span></p>
<ol>
<li>When you screw up, you need to switch quickly to the future tense. Say what you&#8217;re going to do to fix it.</li>
<li>Don&#8217;t mention the reaction to your idiocy. Ever. It sounds like you&#8217;re apologizing for people being oversensitive to your wit and risk-taking. Nothing&#8217;s worse than an insincere-sounding apology. The problem is, an apology is never enough for an angry audience. Instead&#8230;</li>
<li>Focus on your values and standards and say how you temporarily slipped. Remind people how awesome you usually are and how you&#8217;re going to get back to that awesomeness, stat.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Present a plan for restoring awesomeness. Give it a short timetable.</li>
</ol>
<p>&nbsp;And do it without cartoons making fun of people of color. Got it?</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Figaro Rewrites a Half-Naked Woman</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/2/18/figaro-rewrites-a-half-naked-woman.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/2/18/figaro-rewrites-a-half-naked-woman.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-02-18T13:31:00Z</published><updated>2013-02-18T13:31:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2FSI-china.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1361194997092',445,570);"><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/thumbnails/219489-21957134-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1361195001972" alt="" /></a></span></span>Want to persuade? Keep it simple. Start by not talking like a Women&#8217;s Studies major.</p>
<p>Jezebel&#8217;s Dodai Stewart commits the rhetorical sin of unnecessary complexity with&nbsp;<a href="http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&amp;key=56859a155d8e1a372c43f3f83502b32a&amp;loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F02%2F15%2Fsports-illustrated-racist-exotic-swimsuit_n_2696162.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dmostpopular&amp;v=1&amp;libid=1361193879207&amp;out=http%3A%2F%2Fjezebel.com%2F5983737%2Fsports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue-goes-to-7-continents-finds-exotic-people-to-use-as-props&amp;ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F02%2F18%2Fjodi-arias-timeline-bizarre-statements_n_2696874.html&amp;title=Sports%20Illustrated%20Called%20Racist%20For%20Using%20'Exotic'%20People%20In%20Swimsuit%20Issue%20(PHOTOS)&amp;txt=makes%20the%20%22native%20people%22%20tantamount%20to%20exotic%20props&amp;jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13611947595983" target="_blank">her take</a> on Sport&#8217;s Illustrated&#8217;s latest <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/swimsuit/" target="_blank">swimsuit issue</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This photo cements stereotypes, perpetuates an imbalance in the power dynamic, is reminiscent of centuries of colonialism (and indentured servitude) and serves as a good example of both creating a centrality of whiteness and using &#8220;exotic&#8221; people as fashion props.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Having stared at the picture judiciously, Figaro agrees with Ms. Stewart. The photo is truly offensive. But whiteness centrality and imbalances in the power dynamic? Phrases like these only trigger spontaneous eye-rolling.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>Instead of multisyllabic bloviation, let&#8217;s try good ol&#8217; ridicule, focusing on the photo&#8217;s most cringe-worthy aspect. How? By turning it into an offensive cartoon. Got a better balloon? Tell us!</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/SI-china-balloon.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1361195922858" alt="" /></span></span></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>How to Screw Up</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/2/1/how-to-screw-up.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/2/1/how-to-screw-up.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-02-01T15:41:19Z</published><updated>2013-02-01T15:41:19Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Know your rhetoric, and your own mistakes can enhance your career. My most popular presentation shows how. And Fast Company wrote it up. &nbsp;You can see it <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3005272/screwing-could-be-your-best-career-move-if-you-do-it-right">here</a>.</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>"I Would Not Smell the Foul Odor of Your Name"</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/29/i-would-not-smell-the-foul-odor-of-your-name.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/29/i-would-not-smell-the-foul-odor-of-your-name.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-01-29T14:10:47Z</published><updated>2013-01-29T14:10:47Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/Martin Luther.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1359470226275" alt="" /></span></span>People who cry for &#8220;civil discourse&#8221; miss the true problem. Insults&#8212;ad hominem attacks&#8212;have been part of argument ever since the first proto-human sneered at the second human&#8217;s big butt. Insults add spice to an argument, and banter&#8212;insulting, competitive humor&#8212;can even help persuade the persuadable onlookers. (Keep in mind that most effective persuasion aims at an audience, not the person you&#8217;re arguing with.)</p>
<p>OK, enough egghead stuff. Now <a href="http://ergofabulous.org/luther/?">let Martin Luther insult you</a>. Enjoy!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Gesture Like Hillary</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/28/gesture-like-hillary.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/28/gesture-like-hillary.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-01-28T14:32:50Z</published><updated>2013-01-28T14:32:50Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Check out this <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/how-to-talk-to-scared-condescending-misinformed-old-white-dudes-with-your-host-h">great series of gifs</a> showing Hillary Clinton&#8217;s Benghazi testimony. They show the power of gesture&#8212;the combination of facial expressions and body language that spices oratory and argument. For centuries, rhetoric students learned gesture as part of their students. Let&#8217;s bring it back, starting with Prof. Clinton.</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>How to Write an Inaugural Address</title><id>http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/22/how-to-write-an-inaugural-address.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://inpraiseofargument.com/it-figures/2013/1/22/how-to-write-an-inaugural-address.html"/><author><name>Figaro</name></author><published>2013-01-22T15:45:30Z</published><updated>2013-01-22T15:45:30Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Want a job with good health insurance? Want to see&nbsp; your words&#8212;heavily edited, rigorously vetted, endlessly fretted over&#8212;mouthed by the Commander in Chief himself?</p>
<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2FThe-White-House-Obama-Inauguration-speech-2013.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1358869836363',281,500);"><img src="http://inpraiseofargument.com/storage/thumbnails/219489-21711351-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1358869840442" alt="" /></a></span>Then consider becoming a White House speechwriter. It&rsquo;s easy! As Barack Obama&rsquo;s second Inaugural Address shows, you need only learn three simple techniques.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 120%;"><strong>One: Get all Contrasty.</strong></span></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.wordhero.org/contraster">antithesis</a>&#8212;the not-this-but-that figure&#8212;is a speechwriter&rsquo;s best friend. Obama&rsquo;s Second Inaugural contains more contrasts than a zebra.&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin&#8230; [but] our allegiance to an idea&#8230;</p>
<p>For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing&#8230;</p>
<p>The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob.&nbsp; They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people&#8230;</p>
<p>The commitments we make to each other&#8230;do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.&nbsp; They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.</p>
<p>But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. &nbsp;</p>
<p>We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That last one, by the way, is a nice <strong>syncrisis</strong>, a kind of antithesis that piles on the contrasts in multiple clauses.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 120%;"><strong>Two: Go on Lots and Lots of Metaphorical&nbsp; &ldquo;Journeys&rdquo;</strong></span></p>
<p>Obama talks about America&rsquo;s &ldquo;never-ending journey&rdquo; and uses that foot-sore, exhausted metaphor 12 times in his Second Inaugural. The word &ldquo;journey&rdquo; comprises 1.2% of the words in his entire speech. Want to be a White House speechwriter? Prepare for boatloads of journeys. Truckloads. Air Force One-loads.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 120%;"><strong>Three: Repeat Words (Preferably &ldquo;Journey&rdquo;) Again and Again</strong></span></p>
<p>Practice the <a href="http://www.wordhero.org/word-repeater">anaphora</a>, the figure that repeats the beginning of successive phrases, clauses or sentences. Go to the transcript of Obama&rsquo;s speech and search for &ldquo;our journey is not complete until&rdquo;. Then search for &ldquo;we the people.&rdquo; And &ldquo;Together.&rdquo; See a pattern here? Repetition in speechwriting isn&rsquo;t all about making nice rhythms. It&rsquo;s about implanting an idea in the audience&rsquo;s head. Like, we&rsquo;re in this together. On our never-ending journey.</p>
<p>Now write yourself a speech, then another and another. Practice antithesizing. Then polish your resume. Figaro will watch your progress with interest. For we the people are on this journey together.</p>
]]></content></entry></feed>