Subjective (adj.)
modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>
Objective (adj.)
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
One of the most common and powerful tools people use is to change the objective into the subjective. In other words, changing fact into opinion. Once this is done, we can then dismiss the once-troublesome information as incorrect or irrelevant, and move on with our agenda.
Keep in mind, I am not talking about the unfathomable or ephemeral, such as religion or quantum physics. Nor am I discussing the deliberately subjective, such as philosophy.
No, we are discussing the deliberate act of taking control of reality and re-shaping it to our needs.
Why do we do this? To get our way, succeed in business, protect someone from criticism, get elected to office, perpetuate a desirable situation, or simply to keep ourselves comfortable.
Let’s look at some of the classic applications of this technique.
1. Obfuscation
Literally meaning “to darken,” this technique is used to deliberately confuse the listener in order to render them unable to engage the facts. Often irrelevant information is brought into the conversation in order to draw attention away from the subject at hand. The goal is to so muddy the waters that the actual issue is lost. This is basically using the fact that most people will become so distracted and overwhelmed by the artificial complexity and confusion that they will give up.
Teacher: “Why didn’t you learn your lesson this week?”
Student: “I had a flat tire, I didn’t have a ride to school yesterday, my dog threw up on the carpet, and I had to go to court on Thursday.”
In other words, in order to hold them responsible, you have to prove that none of those events are relevant. The burden of proof is shifted to you.
2. “If you only knew”
The approach here is to take a fact and negate it by creating a false sense of ignorance in your opponent. If you give them the impression that their knowledge is superficial and lacks important background information, you disqualify them from bringing up an uncomfortable point.
This engages a person’s desire to be intellectually honest and uses it against them. Now it is important to understand that the reverse is also true: many people make judgements about things with precious little knowledge, thus making fools of themselves. However, this doesn’t change the fact that a well-versed person can be check-mated by this tactic.
Q: “Why didn’t John show up to work today?”
A: “Oh, you wouldn’t believe what John has been through! If you only knew…”
Notice that an objective question was asked, but the response both subjective in that that person’s struggle is a vague condition, and secretive in that there is private knowledge which makes your judgement harsh and ill-informed. Now you are in the position of defending yourself after making a simple observation.
3. Change the subject
This is done when a disagreement about a fact is brought up; instead of obfuscating, or confusing, we simply re-direct the conversation to something we do agree on. This takes advantage of most people’s desire to end an uncomfortable moment. To some extent this is an unspoken mutual agreement to walk away from the discussion. However, if you try to steer things back to the subject at hand, you will probably find one of the other techniques quickly brought to bear.
Statement: “John didn’t show up to work today.”
Response: “We have really got to get these sales numbers up.”
What happened here is you would be forced to both change the subject back to John, and you would be somehow downplaying the importance of improving sales. Easier to just proceed with talking about sales, unless it was worth it to you to pursue your earlier line of discussion.
This is one reason why large meetings seldom achieve as much as they could; with more people, there are more opportunities for distraction. Likewise, a strong leader will be seen as inflexible and dominating if they constantly re-direct.
4. “Everybody knows that”
In this case, the fact that a lot of people believe something makes it a fact; objectivity is squashed by mob-rule. This explains everything from hyped-up pop stars to genocide.
If you choose to make an observation, you are instantly overruled by “common knowledge.” Brand-names use this to shut down their competition when they are popular. Often people fiercely defend a particular viewpoint simply because they have heard it so many times, regardless of any lack of direct experience.
Examples:
Ethnic groups are stereotyped.
Inferior products dominate the marketplace.
Certain people get blamed for things all the time.
Y2K: nothing happened, yet everybody was sure it would happen.
Various urban legends and rumors.
Generally, this leads to scapegoats; as time goes by, more and more imagined evidence piles up and soon it becomes common knowledge that they are the problem. In fact, they may have done nothing.
5. Deliberate Omission
Choosing only to reveal part of the story is a great way to change the facts. Needless to say this plays out every day in the news media. Political candidates use it in attack ads, and various commentators make a career of it.
Much of the legislation in Washington has hidden intent; there are fund allocations that have nothing to do with the name of the bill. Since nobody reads it, we use the subject given to us to make our judgement; we might find the “Children’s Health Act” with funding for some useless pork project embedded. We can be sure the funding for Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” was not called the “Bridge to Nowhere Act.” You can be sure this is true for both parties.
So a politician can tell you: “John voted against the Children’s Health Act.”
They are not technically lying, but they omitted the fact that John might have disliked something else wrapped in that bill. This is a very common trick to play.
6. Kill the Messenger
Another technique to convert facts to opinions is to attack the character of the person delivering those facts. It may not actually make much sense, but the emotional discomfort and distraction from the real information is often enough to do the trick.
Statement: “John, you were late to work today.”
Response: “Why do you have to criticize everyone? You are so negative!”
Now you are in the position of proving that you are not critical and negative. The facts are not even part of the conversation.
Just the facts, ma’am.
Simply being aware of these tactics in ourselves and others will help us move forward with our goals and lives. We may find ourselves frustrated when we realize how rare a true, honest, objective dialog really is.
How does this relate to our study as musicians and engineers?
First, most of these play out inside us as we deal with our real challenges and weaknesses. Practicing is a constant state of evaluation and correction. Subjectivity can lead to excuses, which become easier and easier until we have convinced ourselves that “this is too hard” or “John has more talent” or “I don’t have enough time” or any other story. Needless to say this will not take us where we want to go.
Second, it is very easy to become caught-up in the fact-twisting ways of others and quickly lose our way. Without awareness of these tricks, large parts of our lives can be wasted in meaningless political and emotional games. It may become necessary to move away from those that choose to manipulate reality, lest we become part of the problem.
Questions:
- Have you caught yourself using any of the “slippery” techniques listed above?
- Do you find yourself the target of these tactics?
- Are you able to have a “leveling” conversation?
Leave a Reply