here - Donald P. Corriveau

Reprinted from PsychNews International Volume 2, issue3 [May-June 1997]REFLECTIONS ON "TO SPEAK AGAINST":IDENTIFYING DOUBLESPEAKDonald P. Corriveau, Ph.D.In his column, Jeffrey A. Schaler exposes the controlling influences ofcontradiction. Drawing inferences to George Orwell, the process of controlling othersthrough rhetorical devices is called "doublespeak." Consequently, the successfulimplementation of this process results in contradiction of thought, "doublethink."Dr. Schaler argues that dictators deliberately and intentional use doublespeakto control the behavior of others. This method of behavioral control appears particularlyeffective with individuals who use peripheral-route processing and is less effective withcentral-route processing. Thus, if we are to free the masses from the shackles ofdoublespeak, we need to empower people to become central route processors.Dr. Schaler raises several important points and challenges all of us to examinethe nature of our own cognitive functioning. The purpose of this paper is to expose andexplore the presence of doublespeak in Science and to suggest methods of inoculatingourselves from its deleterious effects.THE ROLE OF CONTRADICTIONDr. Schaler argues that contradiction serves to contradict the authority of another. Iagree. However, contradiction is not necessarily manipulative or exploitative. In aDarwinian sense, contradiction allows variation, the prerequisite to natural selection.Contradiction is a necessary first step in the identification of peripheral-routeprocessing. In science, peripheral-route processing is akin to "The Method of Authority"and stands as a warning label to validate our hypotheses in an objective manner.Historically, the method of authority held that the earth was the center of theuniverse around which all other heavenly bodies circled. Clearly, at one time, manypeople agreed with this notion. While the belief itself may have had religious-politicalbenefits, I cannot believe that ALL individuals who held this view did so in an intentionalattempt to exploit others. Instead, I am more inclined to believe that misguided beliefsare fueled by a lack of attention to underlying premises and a failure to subject ourhypotheses to the rigors of scientific method.

Occasionally, Science is blessed with a Galileo - a person who challenges authorityand has us reexamine our assumptions. This is not to say that everyone who challengesauthority should be commended for it! Divergent thinking simply lays a foundation forScience to evolve. Through processes of natural selection, the strongest ideas survive.Of course, in science, ideas must be presented in a testable format. Otherwise, wemight all continue to believe that the world is flat. Fortunately, inquiring minds want toknow.In Science, pioneers should be commended for their contradictions. While pioneersskew the distribution of thought, their contributions are certainly not in bringing us tothe extreme as much as it is in bringing us back to the middle. B.F. Skinner's contributionto our discussion of freedom and dignity is the realization that at least some of ourbehavior is controlled by its consequences. Thomas Szasz's attention to the myth ofmental illness shares a similar contribution in drawing attention to the dangers of using"mental illness' as an excuse to gain political, economic and legal goals. However, inabsolute terms, is ALL behavior controlled by its consequences? Similarly, do ALL mentalhealth professionals use the concept of mental illness as an excuse for self-servingneeds?While contradiction is an important first step in discovering new truths, how do weprotect ourselves from the ravages of doublethink? Strangely, the scientific method maybe our strongest ally. Principles of the scientific method may help us identifydoublespeak. Identifying doublespeak may be the best vaccine for doublethink. As anexercise, let's try to identify components of doublespeak in Dr. Schaler's presentcolumn. In doing so, I'll share three useful tools.THEY-ISMSIn my own view, one notable characteristic of doublespeak is over-generalization.Doublespeak can include limitations in both sampling and generalization of results. Onestrong hint of over-generalization is what I have called "They-ism." They-ism is found atthe central core of bigotry, terrorism, and dictatorships. As we will see, they-ism alsoaffects scientists and philosophers and rests as a particular danger whenever extremepositions are presented.A close reading of Dr. Schaler's column reveals a multitude of they-isms. As oneexample, Dr. Schaler conveniently lumps all spokespersons for psychiatric survivors intoa single category and subsequently refers to them as "they." Thus, all spokespersons forpsychiatric survivors are ascribed the same motivation, thought, and behavior. How can

this be? In my own observations of human behavior, I have never found even twopeople with exactly the same thoughts and feelings.To cite another example, Dr. Schaler appears to agree with Thomas Szasz inthinking that mental health professionals use the concept of mental illness to justifytheir existence. Thus, not only do all mental health professionals have the samethoughts and behaviors but they presumably also have the same motivations. Tocontinue with our exercise, examine the content of Dr. Schaler's writings and his radiotalk show dialogue. Can you identify more they-isms?SUBSTITUTIONS IN LOGICA particularly powerful form of manipulative doublespeak includes substitutingfaulty logic with even more faulty logic. Consider Dr. Schaler's assertion that all editorsof the Washington Post oppose religious freedom (drug use) in America. Let's dissectthis conclusion. Artful doublespeak often begins with a term or phrase that facilitatesstrong imagery or visualization. "Religious freedom" is such a phrase. Notice how Dr.Schaler parenthetically juxtaposes the term drug use behind the term religious freedom.Hopefully inconspicuous, this substitution of terms may manipulate the reader intothinking that the editors of the Washington Post are in fact opposed to religiousfreedom. Notice the implication that anyone who opposes religious freedom should besomehow despised. Careful attention should be placed on the fact that it is Dr. Schaler'srhetoric that equates religious freedom with drug use.A variant to the substitution in logic approach is to include ill-defined premises intopropositions. At one point, Dr. Schaler wrote, "The mind cannot be sick." In studying thispremise, my immediate question is, "How do you define the word mind?" There areseveral variants in the definition of this term. If one finds support for a subsequentproposition using a single variant, do the propositions hold for other variants as well? Ithink not.GENERALIZATION OF RESULTSAnother strong warning taught by the scientific method includes the overgeneralizationof results. While Freud's case study of little Hans may have provided thefoundation for a theory of psychosexual human development, I'm hard pressed tobelieve that little Hans is an exemplar of humankind. I'm equally hard pressed to agreewith Dr. Schaler's central thesis.

Incidentally, what is Dr. Schaler's central thesis? His article appears devoted tospecific examples in which his "letters to the editor" were not published. His selection ofradio talk show transcripts are used to present further validation of his major points.Overall, his selectivity illustrates the tremendous potential of bias that accompaniesover-generalization. Presenting anecdotal accounts is useful if it makes us think and if itleads to further hypothesis testing. However, drawing unsupported conclusions basedon anecdotal evidence is faulty and not particularly scholarly.In his article, Dr. Schaler cites four specific examples of letters that were notaccepted for publication. The letters were meant to be examples where he exposedcontradictions to news stories. He writes, "What is interesting is how the editors chosenot to publish any letters contradicting their editorial positions on their news story."Let's carefully examine Dr. Schaler's conclusion. Was he in fact discriminated against forhis views? First and foremost, we are not presented the actual data. In a more globalsense, how many of Dr. Schaler's letters actually get accepted? How does he fare againstbaseline acceptance rates? How many letters to the editor did the editors have to selectfrom? Were his letters any good? The point here is that there are many plausiblereasons why Dr. Schaler's specific letters to the editor mentioned in this article were notpublished. His conclusion that he knows the "real reason" why editors deliberatelyrejected his letters is an example of over- generalization. His conclusion reflectsdoublespeak and lays the foundation for doublethink.CONCLUSIONSThe irony of course is that Dr. Schaler's conclusion may in fact be correct. Theproblem with doublespeak is that we have no way to objectively test our hypotheses.Finding they-isms, substitutions of logic and over-generalizations are tools that I use tosight the red flags of doublespeak.What do you think? Are you aware of other examples of doublespeak that pervadesour professions or, for that matter, society? Perhaps we should invite submissions ofexamples to a new column called DOUBLESPEAK. George Orwell would be proud.--------------------------------------------------------Donald P. Corriveau, Ph.D.; Assistant Editor, PsychNews International, Professor ofPsychology, University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth