This week, Jay Heinrichs, author of Thank You for Arguing, joins us to talk about the rhetoric of the campaign, including a review of how each political party makes use of different rhetorical devices, and the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses of each Presidential candidate.
We also continue to use the first Presidential debate to illustrate various critical thinking subjects we’ve been discussing, including confirmation bias, managing expectations and media literacy.
A concept underlying most (if not all) of the critical thinking concepts covered at Critical Voter is the notion of consistency. As a species, humans seem to crave consistent behavior and, more importantly, are repelled by anything that seems to behave inconsistently. This is why the most powerful logical argument you can make is to prove your opponent has made a logical contradiction. It also explains why accusing an opponent of hypocrisy is such an effective way to put them on the defensive.
Understanding our need for consistency not only helps us better understand why we react to different rhetorical and argumentative techniques as we do, but can also provide people (including the Presidential candidate) guidance as to how they should behave in important situations (like the upcoming Presidential debates).
This week’s resources include:
Critical Voter – Consistency – Quiz
Critical Voter – Consistency – Lesson Plan
Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs
Jay Heinrichs’ Figures of Speech blog
Toulmin analysis of campaign material (mentioned at the start of the podcast) – Part 1 Part 2
The post Critical Voter – Podcast 11 – Consistency and Interview with Jay Heinrichs appeared first on Critical Voter.