Tricks in dealing with people. Psychological tricks in communication and their neutralization

This list of psychological techniques has been proven in practice. Perhaps some of them resemble manipulation. The same techniques can be used in communication with you, and whoever is forewarned is armed.

1. At the beginning of the acquaintance, pay attention to the color of the eyes of one of those present. Let this information not be useful to you (unless, of course, you are going to devote poetry to him). However, this technique helps to achieve optimal eye contact, demonstrating your friendliness and self-confidence to your interlocutors.

2. People remember best what happened at the beginning and at the end of the day, and everything that happens in between is perceived as blurry. Therefore, when scheduling an interview, try to be the first or last on the list of candidates.

3. The position of the feet of people participating in the conversation can betray their hidden emotions. For example, if you approach two acquaintances and they turn towards you only with their bodies, keeping the position of their feet, they are clearly not disposed towards you. Likewise, the toes of the other person's shoes or boots turned away from you indicate that he wants to leave as soon as possible.

When a group of people laughs, everyone instinctively glances at who they like best.

4. When a group of people is overwhelmed by laughter, everyone instinctively glances at whoever they like the most. This, by the way, is a great way to figure out office romances.

5. If you want to get an honest answer to a question, and the interlocutor evades, pause, as qualified psychotherapists do. Be silent for a while, continuing to look into the eyes of the interlocutor. As a rule, the person becomes embarrassed and wants to fill the gap.

6. If you feel that your boss is getting ready to chew you at the flyer, sit right next to him. Your close proximity will reduce his level of aggression, and you will be able to get away with it.

7. When you ask people for small favors, they start to like you. This is the psychological mechanism: we value more those who have been cared for at least once.

If you know that your boss will scold you at the meeting, sit right next to him. Your close proximity will reduce his aggression.

8. Try to remember the name of the person when you first meet and use it in subsequent communication. This will endear him to you.

9. Unobtrusive mirroring of other people's gestures builds trust. The main thing is not to overdo it.

10. Making your way through the crowd, try to look at the gaps between people, and not at themselves. This forces people to part in front of you.

11. Dating with adrenaline - such as a roller coaster ride, watching a horror movie, or flying together in an airplane - stimulates the centers of excitement in the brain and brings you closer to the object of passion.

Don't be afraid to ask for a favor: we value more those we have taken care of at least once

12. Try not to start sentences with the words “I think” and “I think”. This is implied in your speech, but sometimes it shows unnecessary insecurity.

14. It is important for people to have their own self-image. Try to figure out how others see themselves in their own eyes.

15. If your job is customer service, put a mirror behind you. This will allow people waiting in line to be less bored and angry about the matter.

16. Are you dating someone you want to like? Then, as brightly and emotionally as possible, demonstrate the joy of meeting him. This will make him rejoice at you almost as intensely next time.

Psychological tricks used in communication are hidden psychological methods of communication, with the help of which the interlocutor intends to get the action he needs from you (to make, as they say, "dance to his tune"). At the same time, you are not going to perform this action and even internally resist it. It is not difficult to recognize these or tricks, and here are descriptions of some of them.

Body and body language

The main purpose of this psychological trick- to form in the interlocutor a feeling of their own insignificance, to embarrass him. Typical gestures of this type include: "pistol" (index fingers are directed forward, thumbs are raised up, the rest are tucked in), "icebreaker" (hands with fingertips collected in a pyramid are lowered on the table in front of them), "porcupine" (fingers are crossed and spread out to the sides), "drum roll" with your fingers. Effective psychological trick, designed to confuse the interlocutor, is a slightly repulsive handshake and all kinds of "denying" postures and gestures.

There are two ways to defend against this psychological trick - either require the interlocutor to explain the attacking, "lecturing" or expressing impatience gestures, or take into account that this is just a psychological game.

The psychological ploy "facial expressions of suggestion"

The purpose of this psychological trick is, again, to cause embarrassment to the interlocutor. His arsenal includes the following techniques: yawning, glances "past" the opponent, smirks, skeptical head shaking and other facial expressions of disdain for the interlocutor.

The essence psychological trick“Mimicry of suggestion” consists in the fact that as soon as the washing of the opponent processed with its help begins to “move in the right direction,” so immediately signs of disregard for him give way to benevolent attentiveness, and many interlocutors, wishing to maintain a comfortable atmosphere of communication for them, accept those who did not enter earlier in their solution plans. The most effective defense in such a situation is to demand from the "psychological manipulator" an explanation for the neglect of his person.

"Murderous" psychological trick - intimidation of the interlocutor

If you evoke in a person such a strong feeling as fear (especially fear of death), then in order to get rid of it, he is ready to make any concessions.

Another "aria" from the same "opera" is the intimidation of the opponent by referring to the opinions and support of well-known authoritative people. If you have been subjected to such a psychological attack, then you should think about whether your interlocutor is so omnipotent and respected, as he declares or, nevertheless, banally intimidates you.

Psychological trick - questioning the competence of the interlocutor

If a person is confident in his knowledge, strength and is in control of the situation, then it is very difficult to provoke him to make concessions. Therefore, expressing doubt about the competence of the interlocutor means shaking his confidence in own forces and the doubting person is easy to manipulate. It is very popular psychological trick in communication and there is only one defense against it - to remain at your own opinion about your own knowledge, strengths and capabilities.

These are not all that are used in communication to achieve the desired result of the conversation. The arsenal of qualified negotiators, speakers and other people called upon to persuade includes dozens of similar psychological techniques, and if you do not want to be manipulated during communication, then you need to learn to recognize them.

Psychic tricks are dishonest and mean, but fun and good for you. How do I get the answer I want? How to be popular? How do I get consent? How do I get help? How to look confident? How to tie a person to yourself and fall in love?

How do you get what you want? Act smart! Use the secrets of psychological tricks to get the desired result. It's time to manipulate people with psychology.

1. How to get the right answer

Having received an answer that is not what you wanted, it is not necessary to start arguing and sorting out the relationship. You can do smarter. It is enough to look closely into the eyes of the interlocutor. This will make the person feel uncomfortable, as if cornered. The interlocutor will begin to explain the reason for his answer and may make concessions.

2. How to find mutual language

Do you want to easily find a common language with people, gain confidence or like you? Use mirroring behavior. Repeat gestures, body movements, posture, voice of the interlocutor, walk in step and breathe in unison. Mirroring will help to be your own in the board. This technique is often used when meeting a cute pickup chick.

3. How to look confident

Keep your posture straight. An upright posture increases confidence in a person. A person with an even posture looks more confident and stronger, and this is a well-known body language technique.

4. How to avoid aggression

Are you coming up with a showdown with a person? It can be a meeting, a conflict or a showdown with a girl. Position yourself as close to the aggressor as possible. It will be physically uncomfortable for the attacker to attack someone who is very close.

5. How to get consent

To get consent from the interlocutor, you need to be able to act correctly during a conversation. Nod your head slightly when talking. The person will perceive what is said to be true and will more easily agree.

6. How to get help

People love to feel needed and smart. The phrases “I need your help” or “could you give me advice” fit very well. You can ask for something incredible, and then more mundane. The second time a person cannot refuse.

7. How to be popular

Do you want to be a little more popular and pleasant to talk to? Memorize the names and always call the interlocutors by name. A person feels special when his name sounds.

8. How to deal with someone else's anger

They raised their voice at you. This can be a boss, colleague, friend, or girlfriend. In such a situation, one should be cold-blooded. Answer calmly without raising your voice. This will silence the attacking person. Feelings of anger will quickly subside, passions will subside, and the attacker will feel uncomfortable and apologize.

9. How to manipulate people?

Find the weak points of the interlocutor and play on them. Manipulate with guilt, resentment, anger, hope, silence, sarcasm, irony, vanity.

10. How to tie a person to yourself and fall in love

This is a good trick to use in relationships. Encourage the person, and then discourage and disappoint. Then again give hope with happiness. Be friendly and charming, and then get cold and sullen. Cold - hot. Far close. Thus, you can tie a person to yourself and even fall in love.

Psychic tricks are dishonest and mean, but fun and good for you. Use them, because most people are naive.

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for
that you discover this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and the goosebumps.
Join us at Facebook and In contact with

There are psychological tricks that work on a subconscious level. They help you gain the location of the interlocutor, join a new company, or instantly calm down in times of stress.

site talks about the 12 most effective of them, which work 100% and will be useful in any situation.

No. 1. When several people laugh, each one looks at the one who likes him the most.

After a good joke or during a lively discussion in the company of people, each instinctively looks at who he likes most Therefore, in order to find out everything about relationships in the company of friends, prepare a couple of killer jokes.

No. 2. If you are nervous, chew

Before an important conversation, performance, or event that makes us nervous, try chewing gum or even eating something.

• No one will eat in the face of danger. Therefore, while chewing our brain thinks there is no danger and you can relax. It sends out a signal that takes off nervous tension and helps to calm down.

# 3. A closer look will help draw out any information

If the answer of your interlocutor does not suit you or it seems to you that he is not saying something, simply keep silently looking into his eyes.

• In such a situation, the silence for the interlocutor will become so unbearable that he will be forced to tell you literally everything, just to stop it.

# 4. Imagine the employer is your longtime good friend

In order not to worry during an important exam or interview, imagine that the person opposite is your friend, with whom you have not seen for a long time. This will help you calm down instantly, and it will be much easier to answer questions.

# 5. If you have to work a lot with people, put a mirror behind you.

If you often communicate with by different people for work, put a small mirror behind your back. You will be surprised, but many clients will behave politely and meet you more often... This is because people do not like to see themselves angry and annoyed.

No. 6. If you thought that someone was looking at you, just yawn

Just look at this picture. You just yawned, right? Yes, yawning is incredibly contagious. It is enough to yawn and look around to understand who was following you. The person who was looking at you is likely to yawn too.

No. 7. If you want to stop the fight, then just grab something to eat and stand between the fighting

No. 8. If you want to get rid of an object, then just pass it to the person by talking to him

Ask the person a personal question or get their opinion on something. During the response, the brain will be so busy that everything else will happen at the level of reflexes. In such a situation, most people will accept anything from your hands without thinking at all.

Disrupting the enemy's balance. Relying on slow thinking and gullibility. Distraction and misreading.

1. Much more interesting are those tricks that can be called psychological. They are based on knowledge of some of the properties of the human soul, and some of our weaknesses.

The state of mind during an oral dispute has a tremendous impact on the conduct of the dispute. When we are "in good shape", i.e. We are seized by a light, pleasant excitement, in which thought, memory, imagination work especially clearly and vividly, we argue better than usual. If we are very excited about something, embarrassed, confused, “hot”, if our attention is scattered by something, we argue and think worse than usual, or even quite badly. (Of course, all other things being equal). Hence, a number of psychological tricks arise, designed to throw us off balance, weaken and upset the work of our thoughts.

2. There are many different techniques for this. The crudest and most common trick is to irritate the enemy and to piss off him. To do this, they use rude antics, "personalities", insult, mockery, mockery, obviously unfair, outrageous accusations, etc. If the enemy is "boiled" - the case is won. He lost a lot of chances in the argument. Some artfully try to "inflate" it to the desired degree. I saw a melting trick: by injustice and ridicule, the sophist unbalanced his adversary, a youth. He began to get excited. Then the sophist assumed the form of unspeakable good nature and a patronizing tone: “Well, Jupiter! You are angry, so you are wrong. " Well, what are you, father! It's worth getting so excited! Take it easy, take it easy! What a fever you are (58 :), etc. So, after all, he brought the young man to white heat! His hands are shaking with excitement and indignation. Throws himself blindly in an argument, wherever it goes. He stopped thinking altogether and, of course, “failed”. But they use various other methods to "unbalance". Someone deliberately begins to mock your "holy of holies". He does not start up in personality, no! But he can "whip up" the careless idealist to the last limit. If the dispute is very important, in front of the audience, responsible, then, they say, others even resort to the "trick of the artists." Some artists, for example, singers, in order to “cut off” their rival, before his performance inform him of some extremely unpleasant news, upset him in some way or infuriate him with an insult, etc., etc., in the calculation that after that he will not control himself and will sing badly. So, according to rumors, some disputants do not hesitate to act occasionally before a responsible dispute. Personally, I have never seen this dastardly trick, but it is undoubtedly possible. You also need to be on your guard against it.

3. If the adversary is a person who is "not shot", gullible, thinking slowly, although it may be accurate, then some arrogant "magicians of thought" try to "dumbfounded" him in an oral dispute, especially in front of listeners. They speak very quickly, express thoughts often in a form that is difficult to understand, quickly replace one with the other. Then, “without giving them time to come to their senses,” they triumphantly make the conclusion that they want and throw an argument: they are the winners. The most arrogant sometimes do not hesitate to bring thoughts without any connection, sometimes absurd, and while a slowly-thinking and honest opponent tries to grasp the connection between thoughts, not assuming that such insolence is possible, they already leave the battlefield with a triumphant air. This is done most often in front of such listeners who understand absolutely nothing about the topic of the dispute, but judge success or failure by their appearance. Here is a famous example of such a ploy from The Weckfield Priest.

“That's right, Frank! Cried the squire. ... Beautiful girl worth all the intrigues of the clergy in the world. What are all these tithes and charlatan inventions if not deception, one bad deception! And I can prove it. "

“I would like to listen! - exclaimed the son Moses. I think I could answer you. "

“Fine, sir,” said the squire; who immediately figured it out and winked at the rest of the company, so we got ready to have some fun.

“Great, if you want to discuss this topic in cold blood, I’m ready to accept the dispute. And above all, how do you prefer to discuss issues: analogously or dialogically? "

“It is reasonable to discuss,” exclaimed Moses, happy that he could argue.

“Excellent again. First of all, first of all, I hope you don’t deny that what is, is. If you do not agree with this, I cannot speculate further. "

"Still would!" - answered Moses. "Of course, I agree with this and I myself will use this truth as best I can."

"I also hope you agree that the part is less than the whole?"

"I agree too!" exclaimed Moses. "This is both correct and reasonable."

"I hope," exclaimed the squire, "you will not deny that three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles."

“Nothing is more obvious,” Moses replied, and looked around with his usual importance.

“Excellent,” the squire exclaimed, and began to speak very quickly: “Once these premises have been established, then I assert that the concatenation of self-existence, acting in a mutual ambiguous relation, naturally leads to problematic dialogism, which, to a certain extent, proves (59 :) that the essence of spirituality can be attributed to the second type of predicabiliy. "

"Wait, wait!" - exclaimed Moses. “I deny it. Do you think that I can give in to such wrong teachings without objection? "

- "What?" - answered the squire, pretending to be furious: “you do not give in? Answer me one simple and clear question: is Aristotle right in your opinion when he says that the relative is in relation? "

“Undoubtedly,” said Moses.

“And if so,” the squire exclaimed, “then answer me directly: do you think that the analytical development of the first part of my entimeme is deficient secundum guoad or guoad minus and give me your reasons. Give me your reasons, - I say, - bring it directly, without evasion. "

“I protest,” Moses exclaimed. “I have not grasped the essence of your reasoning properly. Reduce it to simple sentence then I think I can give you an answer. "

"Oh sir!" Exclaimed the squire, "Yours truly. It turns out that I have to provide you not only with arguments, but also with understanding! No sir. At this point I am protesting, you are too difficult an opponent for me. "

At these words, laughter arose over Moses. He sat alone with his face stretched out among laughing faces. He did not say another word during the conversation. "

Vekf. Sacred Goldsmith. Chapter vii

4. Many coarse and subtle tricks are designed to distract the enemy's attention from some thought that they want to carry out without criticism. The most typical subtle tricks are of this kind.

The thought that we want to carry out in this way is either not expressed at all, but only necessarily implied, or expressed, but perhaps in a shorter way, in the most gray, ordinary form. In front of her, they express such a thought, which inevitably should, by its content or form, attract the special attention of the enemy, for example, to hurt him with something, hit him, etc. If this is done successfully, then there are very many chances that the trick will be successful with a common opponent. He will "overlook" and miss an imperceptible thought without criticism.

Often (especially in disputes without long "speeches"), the technique takes the form of "real" pointing on the wrong track. " Before a thought that they want to "carry out" without criticism, they put some such thought, which, for all reasons, should seem to the enemy clearly dubious or clearly erroneous. It is assumed that every opponent is looking for weak points in our argumentation and the majority pounces on the first weak point that comes across, without special attention skipping the next thoughts that come to him, if they are not striking in error. For example, X needs to carry out, without criticism, an idea that is important for his goal, to which the enemy can be very picky if he notices its importance and incomplete evidence - the idea that the house in question is old. X decides to put the enemy on the wrong track. Knowing that the enemy defending, for example, some B., will certainly lash out with indignation at any accusation of dishonesty to B. deception ". If the adversary "pounces" on the accusation, he can miss the "old house" without criticism. Then it remains in the heat of the battle to repeat these words imperceptibly several times, hiding them in the shadows, until "the ear gets used to them" - and the thought is carried out.

This trick allows for the most varied modifications and, so to speak, "grace". Sometimes, for example, feeling that a false thought, under whose wing they want to quietly carry out an argument, by itself may not attract criticism of the opponent, they artificially try to show him that they themselves consider it a weak (60 :) place of argumentation. Here "talent" can manifest itself in full force. For example, a person with a tone, facial expression, play of pauses, reproduces the behavior of a person who has expressed a weak objection and is afraid for him; unsure of the strength of the argument, and trying to quickly carry it out unnoticed, eluding criticism. An insufficiently sophisticated adversary can quite easily fall for this bait, if the sophist does not "overplay", does not too unnaturally emphasize his "desire to slip away," and so on. etc.

It is worth noting that in oratorical speeches, one of the strongest means of diverting attention from thoughts and their logical connection is pathos, an expression of strong emotional uplift, as well as an excess of successful tropes, figures, etc. It has been verified by experience that usually the listener is the worst at absorbing and remembering the meaning of such parts of speech.

Chapter 17.

Psychological Tricks (Continued)

A bet on false shame. "Greasing" the argument. Suggestion. "Rubbing" glasses on thoughts. Double-entry bookkeeping.

1. Very often the sophist takes advantage of the common human weakness for the majority of “to seem better than he really is” or “not to drop himself” in the eyes of the enemy or listeners; most often - "false shame". Seeing, for example, that the enemy is weak in science, the sophist carries out an unproven or even false argument under the following sauce: "You, of course, know what science has now established," and so on. Or "it has long been established by science"; or "public fact"; or "don't you still know about what?" etc. If the enemy is afraid to "drop himself", admitting that he does not know this, he is trapped, and the sophist giggles inwardly. Sometimes this trick is associated with the use of the authority of a person - a writer, a scientist, etc. For example, in a dispute with a socialist-Marxist, "the well-known dictum of Marx" is used. One can often bet eighty against twenty, and sometimes ninety-nine against one, that this "Marxist" has not even leafed through Marx, much less studied him, and has never met the "famous saying" anywhere. However, he usually hesitates to say this. Rather, if you are also a socialist, he will pretend that he also knows this dictum; more often than not, he will "swallow" the argument without objection.

2. In disputes "for victory", another modification of this trick, based on the same weakness, is very common. Everyone knows that in general one thing (61 :) is often said, the other is thought. Secret desires, beliefs, goals - may be the same, words - completely different. But another person will never admit this and will not dare to refute the "words" so as not to "appear" is not enough a good man... Aristotle also notes this feature.

Some high moral positions and principles are on the lips of many, in the soul and in deeds of a few. For example, not so many people carry out in practice the truth cited by the same Aristotle: "it is better to go broke, remaining honest, than to get rich with a lie." But in words - rarely will anyone contradict her. On the contrary, sometimes a person is "unclean at hand"

When he speaks of high honesty

We inspire with some kind of demon -

Eyes on fire, face on fire

He cries himself - and we all cry.

Each epoch has its own "running truths" with which they recognize the need to agree out of "false shame", for fear of being called "backward", "uncultured", "retrograde", etc. etc. And the weaker a person is in spirit, the more cowardly he is in this respect.

The sophist is in the hands of both. Both false and right shame. He boldly stands on the basis of public hypocrisy and cowardice of the herd man and often acts “for sure”.

3. Quite often, another related trick is also used, also based on a person's self-esteem: "smearing the argument." The argument itself is not conclusive, and the adversary can challenge it. Then this argument is expressed in a vague, confused form and is accompanied by such, for example, a compliment to the opponent: “of course, this is an argument that cannot be given in any dispute, a person who is not educated enough will not appreciate and understand”, etc .; or “you, as an intelligent person, will not deny that,” etc .; or "you and I, of course, it is perfectly clear that" and so on. etc. Sometimes they do not say compliments, but only subtly make it clear that your mind is treated with special respect ... All this sometimes works amazingly in arguments for persuasion. Even in a rude form, sometimes such a technique "softens" the soul of the enemy. "Smeared" with flattery, the gates of the mind are surprisingly easy to open to accept arguments. What to do! All people; all are human. As for the sophist, he rubs his hands. That is why the pike is in the sea, so that the crucian does not doze.

4. One of the strongest and most common tricks in an argument is suggestion. His role is especially huge in oral dispute. Whoever has a loud, impressive voice, speaks calmly, clearly, self-confident, authoritative, has a representative appearance and manners, he has, all other things being equal, a huge advantage in oral dispute. He involuntarily "impresses", in most cases, and the enemy. Whoever is deeply and firmly convinced of what he is arguing for and is able to express this unshakable firmness in a convinced tone, manner (62 :) of speaking and expression on his face - he also has great inspiring power and also "acts" even on an opponent, especially one with which this conviction is not. A convincing tone and manner are often more convincing than the most compelling argument.

Perhaps go; only really, wouldn't it be better for you to stay? You would have waited for us here, hunted, and we would have gone with God. And it would be nice! " - he said in such a convincing tone that at the first minute it really seemed to me that it would be nice.

L. Tolstoy. Raid

This "external persuasiveness" and its strength is known to every experience. It is the secret of the success of the preaching of many fanatics. It is used by skilled orators, and is one of the most powerful tricks in disputes with many.

5. Suggestion is especially effective on the listeners of the dispute. We have already touched on the "psychology of the typical listener." If the dispute is somewhat abstract or goes beyond what the listener “knows through and through”, “like the back of his hand,” the ordinary listener does not delve into the arguments, does not strain enough attention to grasp the essence of what is being said, especially if the objection or the answer is long. When the listener already has a certain conviction on the issue under discussion, he usually does not even properly listen to “alien”, opposite arguments. If he does not have a certain conviction, and the dispute does not affect interests very close to him, the listener is guided by more or less external signs in order to judge on whose side the victory is. And this and such a listener is the most suitable material for suggestion in a dispute.

"The old man shook his head so severely and triumphantly (having expressed his argument, SP) that the clerk (one of the listeners, SP) immediately decided that the victory was on the merchant's side and laughed loudly." "The impressive intonation of the merchant, obviously, won the audience and the lady even felt depressed." (Tolstoy L. Kreutzer Sonata, ch. 11).

This is taken from life. It is worth taking a closer look at the controversy in order to feel the reality of the image. He who speaks in a weak, unsteady voice, uncertainly, under normal circumstances, loses in a dispute in front of the audience, all the same, because of the victory of this dispute or for persuasion. According to W. James, even in such an abstract area as philosophy, it is important not only what is said, but also how it is said. "No matter how pure and flawless you may find this philosophical movement, it does not feel a strong, radical temperament." It has "neither activity nor enthusiasm." "It lacks an aggressive, victorious tone - and as a result, it lacks authority." (Pragmatism, lecture 1).

6. In addition to the tone and manner of arguing, there are many other techniques designed to suggest. This is how laughter, mockery of words can act. This is how often statements operate that such and such an argument of the adversary is an "obvious mistake" or "nonsense" and so on. etc. The latter kind of methods are also used in a written dispute: “our enemy has agreed to such an absurdity as,” and so on. The "absurdity" itself follows, not at all absurd. She has three exclamation marks with her, but not even an attempt has been made to prove that this is absurdity. Or, on the contrary: "in the highest degree the following words of so-and-so are witty, profound. " In the "words" of such and such, there is neither wit nor profundity, but the author of the article needs them, and the latter knows that the reader often does not even have time to check his assessment, will not focus on checking his attention, but will simply accept the words under that sauce, under (63 :) as they are served to him. Maybe in an hour he will repeat them himself, as witty and thoughtful. "

This also includes, psychologically, references to authorities. These links act on others like a battering ram breaking through the wall of mistrust. Sometimes they preface a fact or someone else's argumentation, etc. “A few words” intended to “properly illuminate” this fact or argumentation beforehand. There is often also a "suggestion" hidden here, etc., and so on. In general, all such tricks are in the nature of "rubbing glasses" through which the reader or listener must look at a known issue.

The tricks of suggestion also include the repetition of the same argument several times, especially used in oratory practice. Often the argument is led each time in a different form, but so that it is clear that the thought is the same. This acts like a mechanical "hammering into the head", especially if the code is decorated with flowers of eloquence and pathos. “What the people are told three times, the people believe,” says one of the German authors. This is indeed confirmed by experience.

7. Finally, it should be noted one of the most common mistakes and tricks - albeit psychological - the so-called. (not entirely correct) double-entry bookkeeping. Almost all people are prone to more or less duality of assessments: one measure for ourselves and for what is beneficial or pleasant for us, another - for strangers, especially people we dislike, and for what is harmful and not to our liking. In ethics, this is expressed in the form of "Hottentot morality"; for example, if I rip off an extra hundred rubles from you, that's good; if you're with me - it's bad. We must shout: "Help!" A party newspaper screams about injustices and atrocities committed by another party; what is done by its party is always only necessary or commendable; the newspaper may even boast of the same or many times worse atrocities committed by its allies. Often, Hottentot morality has such naive, irresponsible forms that you don't know whether to be indignant or laugh. For example, when a person who is very good in essence scolds another for gossiping about him - and he himself immediately transfers new gossip about this to the other. Not out of revenge - no! He simply does not realize that this is gossip. Gossip - when others talk; and when we say the same thing, this is a "transmission of friendship" interesting fact from the life of friends.

8. When this bias of valuation begins to operate in the field of evidence, then double-entry bookkeeping results. The same argument turns out to be true in one case, when it is beneficial for us, correct, and when it is not beneficial, erroneous. When, for example, we refute someone with the help of a given argument, he is the truth; when they refute us, he is a lie. Naturally, the sophist cannot but accept "double-entry bookkeeping" into his arsenal of tricks: it is too profitable "with skillful use." Another lawyer will refer, for example, to a well-known interpretation of such and such an article of the law as correct if it speaks in favor of his client. And he will prove his falsity if, on the contrary, his opponent is based on this interpretation. One and the same fact is accepted, undoubtedly, if it confirms our thesis; and immediately his doubtfulness is suspected, if, on the contrary, it is expressed by the enemy, etc.

Here is an example of this trick: one of the parties that entered the district councils of city X. turned out to be the predominant party in most of these councils. Having entered a bloc with other related parties, she did not give in these thoughts a single seat in the council of the hostile party. - The members of the latter argued that they have a right demand a known number of "managerial" places: elections to the Duma were proportional, therefore, seats in the council should be distributed according to the same principle.

The mainstream party rejected this argument as unusable, wrong.

However, it happened that in some district councils it nevertheless turned out to be predominant. The "related" parties took advantage of this and, having formed a bloc among themselves, in turn did not give it a single seat in the council. Then she resorted to the same argument that her "enemies" used in other thoughts. Here he ended up fit and correct. - Thus, double-entry bookkeeping prevailed.

In cases where the evidence and controversy relate to the field of ethical evaluations, "double-entry bookkeeping" is only a formulation of "Hottentot morality" in the field of argument and evidence. This is clear, of course, by itself.

Sometimes "double-entry bookkeeping" does not hide at all, but acts with an open visor. This happens in those cases when she openly relies on “her own convictions” in what is beneficial for her, and where it is not profitable, on the convictions of her opponent. Here's an example. In France, Catholics were accused of logical inconsistency: they demand for themselves complete freedom words, while in general they themselves are bitter enemies of this freedom. One Catholic publicist answered something like this: “When we demand freedom for ourselves, we proceed from your principles. This is how you stand up for freedom of speech. Why don't you apply it to us? When we restrict freedom of speech, then we proceed from our convictions. In this we are also quite right and logically consistent. " - Of course, this is often very profitable "accounting"! In a word, a special, heightened love of logic is manifested here.

Double-entry bookkeeping is already quite clearly moving from the area of ​​"mere gimmicks" to the area of ​​sophisms.