{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CMS 344K 11-4 to 11-20 - Thursday I The blood relatives of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Thursday 11-6-08 I. The blood relatives of deception a. Definition of blood relatives: They are indeed sources of attribution about lies and may be associated with lying, but not necessarily b. Public lies – like personal lies, aren’t always clearly lies: i. Can deceptive intent be determined? Were they trying or meaning to mislead you? ii. Deceptive and non-deceptive messages may use similar language: 1. Can be clear or ambiguous 2. Can be direct or indirect 3. Can be precise or general 4. Can be exact or inflated or deflated iii. BUT some linguistic constructions are more likely than others to receive attributions of deception …especially when the content is at odds with the beliefs of the target c. Types: i. Equivocation 1. You do not want to tell the truth, but you do not want to lie. 2. You are looking for a way out – a way to respond even though you do not want to lie to the person or necessarily tell the truth a. Ex: Lina gets up on the stage and gives a speech and it is terrible, however, Emily is asked by Lina “How did I do?”, so Emily says to Lina, I have had this professor before and he is a really hard grader – so she tells her that she will probably get a bad grade, but she’s not addressing if she had a good or bad speech. b. Ex: Woman has an affair and husband finds the letters of her and the man she has an affair with and the husband and the wife are interested in keeping the marriage together, but they need to resolve the issues so the husband says “You must have really loved him.” So she knows that if she says no, he will bring up the letters and if the wife says yes, the husband will feel even worse. So instead, she responds: “I hardly knew him.” 3. Equivocation may imply a belief or action without directly saying it a. Politician is asked their views about gas mileage. They may say “our cars should get better gas mileage or I intend to get the bottom of this.” – you might expect them to do something about it, but whether they WILL or not is another issue. ii. Spin 1. It looks like you are saying one thing, but you are really saying something gelse 2. It is a way of giving a positive or negative cast to a story 3. OR a form of deception which tries to redirect the way one thinks about a particular issue 4. AT IT’S BEST: a. Looks like it is addressing an issue directly, but it isn’t b. Cannot be factually disproved
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
c. Uses language that allows “interpretation” so that the “spinner” can deny “lying” 5. 2 common ways to “spin” a. ½ truths i. This car has never been to the repair shop. What isn’t said is that it should have been ii. 2004 election from George W Bush said that his opponent voted on higher taxes on SS benefits – what he did not say was that he wanted to use that money to help Medicare.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}