Features of the use of critical thinking skills in countering manipulation in modern communication.

Katunin Aleksandr Viktorovich ORCID: 0000-0002-6408-8924 Junior Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation alexandrkatunin@gmail.com Other publications by this author

A word can kill, a word can save,

In a word, you can lead the shelves behind you.

In a word, you can sell, and betray, and buy,

The word can be poured into striking lead.

Vadim Shefner ^[10]

Per dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus.

Through doubt we come to the truth.

Cicero.

Introduction

In the modern world, interpersonal and professional communication skills play a particularly important role. They are used not only to express thoughts and feelings, but also to exchange ideas and effectively collaborate on research and project work. In the 21st century, the professional environment is increasingly forming new demands and competencies for both experienced employees and university graduates. Soft Skills (flexible skills, supra-professional competencies) are becoming more important in the professional world. Unlike Hard skills, "hard" professional skills that are formed during education and in experience, "soft" skills cover a wide range of interpersonal competencies and communication abilities that are necessary for success in almost any profession. Flexible skills include the ability to build and develop relationships, creative thinking, adaptability and flexibility, effective communication strategies, active listening skills, leadership qualities, diplomacy, critical thinking and the ability to analyze presented information.

At the turn of the XX and XXI centuries, science, education and business joined together in order to understand which skills will be most in demand in the new millennium. The so-called concept of "4K" competencies ("critical thinking, communication, creativity, cooperation") was formulated. The formation of these competencies is becoming increasingly important for modern specialists. With the development of technology, employers' expectations and demands are increasing. In an ever-evolving digital world, employers are looking for employees with the skills and knowledge to stay ahead of the competition. Competitiveness in the conditions of the modern labor market is largely ensured by the competencies of the 4K concept. For the effective work of any organization, employees who are able to think outside the box, solve problems quickly and have a high level of critical thinking, quickly navigate changes in industry trends, and have a positive attitude to work are increasingly important. It is worth noting that in this regard, in the education system, both higher and secondary/specialized secondary, the tasks of forming students' critical thinking skills are emerging more clearly and are gaining new relevance. Not every faculty and field of study has a separate critical thinking course. Critical thinking is a meta—competence that consists of many other competencies. Individual critical thinking skills are trained in the following training courses: logic, rhetoric, theory and practice of argumentation, theory and practice of public speaking.

In this article, attention will be focused mainly on two competencies — critical thinking and communication; the specifics and features of critical thinking in modern communication conditions will be investigated; special attention will be paid to the use of critical thinking skills in situations of countering manipulation.

The concept of a communicative goal

All communication proceeds from the goal pursued by the initiator of the interaction. The communicative goal is called "the mental anticipation by the participant of communication of the desired result of communication for him, the orientation of consciousness towards such a result" ^[11]. Communicative goals are divided by the type of statements: narrative (the desire to share new information), interrogative (the need to get new information), motivational (an attempt to encourage the addressee to change opinions, beliefs, behavior). Any type of communicative goal of the initiator of communication requires the interlocutor to critically comprehend the incoming information. Otherwise, the latter may become the object of manipulation. The situation of an incentive communicative goal requires special care, since it implies the movement of the interlocutor to commit a specific action necessary for the initiator. In this case, it is important for the interlocutor to understand to what extent the initiator's intention is consistent with his own interests. Advertising can be cited as an example of a motivational communication goal. However, if the communicative purpose is obvious in advertising, then in a dialogue or dispute it may be hidden.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking in the broadest sense is the ability to navigate the flow of information. Understanding the essence of critical thinking is revealed in its comparison with non-critical thinking. Uncritical thinking is the ability to accept received information as true or reliable, to take it "on faith", without proper analysis, reflection and the requirement of sufficient grounds and argumentation. D. Kahneman points to the human ability to pay attention only to the obvious, clear at first glance: "What I see is what it is" ^[3]. Critical thinking is an integrated system that includes assessment, careful analysis of information flows directed at the subject, "an active desire to understand what is happening by understanding it, evaluating evidence and deeply comprehending the process of thinking as such" ^{[9, p. 16]}; critical thinking implies attention to the choice of justifications for the formulated statement. It should also be noted the importance of selectivity in the preference of one or another information source. Any information forms the specifics of the perceiver's thinking, therefore, the quality of thinking directly depends on its quality. Critical thinking involves paying attention to the reliability of the source of information, questioning assumptions, collecting and analyzing the evidence presented, considering alternative points of view and making logically consistent judgments about what is true or false. In order for critical thinking to be effective in communication, the context of a particular communication act must be taken into account.

In addition, it is worth taking into account that there is always some discrepancy between the form in which an idea is formed in thinking and how the same idea is formulated in language and expressed in speech. It can be said that there is a peculiar problem of translating thought into speech form. This problem in itself is difficult to overcome, but it is further complicated by the fact that this translation must be carried out for another, for an interlocutor with a different experience, knowledge, perception of the world, way of thinking. But this translation must be carried out in order to be correctly understood. The use of critical thinking skills makes it possible to reduce this gap, avoid the pitfalls of natural language and misinterpretations, which contributes to improving the quality of communicative interaction. The success of the implementation of ideas and research projects directly depends on the quality of communication interaction.

Manipulative influence in communication

Modern researchers pay special attention to the topic of manipulation. Manipulation is one of the ways of communicative influence on a person. The ultimate goal of such an impact is to achieve the manipulator's communicative goals, which may have completely different specifics, including unethically pragmatic ones. In the modern world, manipulation of human opinion, beliefs, and behavior is broadcast not only through human-to-human communication, but also through media, advertising, and the media.

The use of critical thinking skills is especially important for countering manipulative influence and is inextricably linked to argumentation strategies. There are three types of argumentation in modern rhetorical art:

·               Logical — the impact on the consciousness of a person based on objective data and the rules of formal logic; the instrument of argumentation is proof and refutation.

·               Psychological/emotional — an impact based on uncritical perception of information; the tool of argumentation is suggestion.

· Rhetorical — synthesis of the first and second types of argumentation, the purpose of which is to form a state of conviction and confidence of the interlocutor in the reliability of the transmitted information; the tool is persuasion.

Manipulative influence on consciousness can occur on two levels — logical and rhetorical (in order not to get confused in terminology, it is important to clarify that in this context, "rhetorical" means primarily an impact on the emotional sphere). Knowledge and use of the tools of logic will make it possible to understand whether there are errors in the judgments and conclusions (the so-called sophistic manipulations), and knowledge of the tools of rhetoric will help determine whether excessive and biased effects on the emotional component take place during communication. Let's take a closer look at both levels.

The logical level of argumentation

The scientific foundation of critical thinking is logic. Thanks to logical science, we can formulate either fully justified judgments with the qualities of universality and necessity (using deductive reasoning), or judgments with a certain degree of probability (using inductive reasoning). These types of judgments reflect two forms of rational perception of the world in thinking.

Correctly constructed deductive conclusions give us guaranteed truth if we proceed from true premises. If a judgment has true premises at its core, it can be put to work. It is important to avoid unsubstantiated, that is, unsupported conclusions. So, for example, the judgment: "All students who have entered the university must pass the exams well. This student entered the university. This student passed the exams well" is correct. The judgment of "All chameleons is hard to notice. This animal is hard to spot. This is a chameleon" is incorrect because the conclusion is not justified.

Manipulations at the logical level are most often based on violations of the general rules of syllogisms:

1.      We know that there should be only three terms in a syllogism. In everyday speech, we can find a quadrupling of terms associated with the ambiguity of natural language words. Let's give an example: "Movement is eternal. Going to the institute is a movement. Therefore, going to the institute is eternal." ^[8] The use of the word "movement" in different senses destroys the harmony of the syllogism and leads to manipulation of meanings.

2. Violation of the rule on the distribution of the middle term leads to an unreasonable conclusion: "Some people are dishonest. All deputies are people. Therefore — ?". It seems to suggest here that all deputies are not honest. From the point of view of logic, such a conclusion would be incorrect, this step cannot be taken. But the logical manipulation inherent in this judgment and aimed at forming a false opinion in the participant of communication will lead the latter to exactly such an incorrect conclusion. This technique of manipulative influence is widely used, for example, in the work of the "yellow" press.

3. Another rule says: if a term is not distributed in the premise, then it should not be distributed in the conclusion. Violation of this rule also leads to manipulation of meanings clothed in a pseudo-logical form: "All judges are fair. Prosecutors are not judges. Therefore, prosecutors are unfair" ^[8]

4. Violation of the requirement that it is impossible to deduce from two negative premises is also actively used as a method of manipulating meanings: "Big managers are not mistaken. Ivanov I.I. is not a big leader." The conclusion suggests itself: Ivanov I.I. is mistaken. However, logically such a conclusion is wrong (although it sounds quite convincing), since at least one of the premises must be an affirmative judgment.

5.      The manipulator can also speculate on the rule of the syllogism, which implies that if one of the premises is a negative judgment, then the conclusion must be a negative judgment. In this case, the following example can be given: "All teachers must undergo advanced training. This person is not undergoing advanced training. This man is not a teacher."

6.      The conclusion cannot follow from two particular premises. Violation of this rule is also often used by manipulators. For example: "Some marketers are good specialists. Some of the employees of this company are marketers." It begs the conclusion that the marketers of this company are good specialists, but from the point of view of logic, such a conclusion cannot be drawn.

7.      The last rule of syllogisms is as follows: "The conclusion must be private if one of the premises is a private judgment." If the conclusion of the conclusion is general, then this leads us to a violation of the second or third rule.^[8]

Analyzing certain presented conclusions, it is important to check them for compliance with the rules of deductive reasoning. In more detail, the rules for checking syllogisms can be found in the works of A.L. Nikiforov and A.D. Getmanova ^{[1, pp. 111-150],[7, pp. 110-147]} Using a deductive method of analyzing information and speech, it is necessary to analyze the structure of the argument and take care of the sufficiency of the conditions for its truth. In addition, syllogisms differ in figure and mode: the figure is determined by the position of the middle term in the premise; the mode is a characteristic of the judgments included in it in terms of quality and quantity. When analyzing speech, it is important to take into account which figure the syllogism is based on and what goals can be achieved with its help. For example, a correctly formulated syllogism for the first figure allows you to check how general provisions are applicable to particular cases; syllogisms of the second figure are used to refute incorrect conclusions; syllogisms of the third figure are used to refute incorrect generalizations, etc.

Inductive reasoning makes it possible to justify a judgment with the help of prerequisites, but guaranteed truth is not feasible, only a certain probability of such a judgment is achievable. Depending on the degree of persuasiveness of the grounds brought under the judgment and their number, it is possible to talk about the greater or lesser reliability of the judgment under which they are brought. For example, from the judgment: "In the entire history of this company, only men have been directors," we can say with a certain degree of probability that the next director will be a man, but this probability will be less than 100%. Researchers often use the term "Black Swan" to denote events that go beyond the scope of existing experience. It was based on the example, beloved by many logicians, of the statement that all swans are white, until the moment when a black swan was first discovered, which led to the refutation of the conclusion based on experience that all swans are white.

The rhetorical level of argumentation

Let's move on to the consideration of the second level of argumentation — the rhetorical one. Rhetorical skill is an important persuasion tool that allows people to effectively identify and express their point of view, exerting a certain influence on the interlocutor. Rhetoric appears to us as the practice of using language in order to directly influence the opinion and beliefs of the listener. The rules of rhetoric imply both the presentation of arguments to prove a particular point of view, and the impact on feelings and emotions. In a broad sense, rhetoric is the use of effective speech techniques in order to create the necessary vivid image in the minds of listeners or readers. If used correctly, it can serve as a tool for building an effective form of communication; however, the techniques of rhetoric can also be used in manipulation, in the case when the initiator's goal is not effective communication, but deception of the interlocutor. Through such rhetorical techniques as emotional appeal tactics, ethical errors, and cognitive biases, manipulators tend to try to gain the trust of the target audience in order to impose their own opinions on listeners and encourage them to act accordingly to their own goals.

Although manipulating someone with the help of rhetorical techniques may seem like a fairly simple action, nevertheless, certain efforts are required for successful manipulation. There are many factors that need to be kept in mind during manipulative communications: a certain effect of the influence of specific phrases on different people, depending on their individual characteristics (character, level of education, profession, taste preferences, etc.), maintaining vigilance against any potential logical inconsistencies, expressing sincere sympathy in conversation, observing the reaction the interlocutor , etc .

The rhetorical strategy of information transmission is the most widespread and most effective, since it uses both the tools of logic and the tools of rhetoric. The quality of such a strategy is determined by the ratio of logical and emotional, and its effectiveness depends on the degree of development of the opponent's critical thinking skills. The abuse of tools affecting emotions is an essential aid for manipulative influence ^[5]. S.G. Kara-Murza in the monograph "Manipulation of consciousness" defines several goals that an experienced manipulator can choose: thinking, feelings, imagination, attention and memory ^[4]. Analyzing the features of manipulative influence, A.V. Dyakov shows: "By influencing thinking, the manipulator distorts the logical chain, thereby pushing the victim to the conclusion he needs. In addition, it is possible to replace logical with associative, introduce and maintain the necessary stereotypes. Influencing feelings, especially such as fear, hatred, envy, allows you to weaken the logical thinking of the victim and make her more susceptible to influence, ready to make the decision needed by the manipulator. Feelings and imaginations are closely related. By giving the victim the right image, the manipulator forms feelings that weaken logical thinking, which pushes the victim to the right decision for the manipulator. The repeated repetition of the same information creates in the victim's mind a sense of its truth — this is the mechanism of influence on memory. This effect is more productive if attention is diverted at the same time" ^{[2, p. 52]}. Highly developed critical thinking skills allow you to counteract this kind of inappropriate behavior of your opponent. Therefore, a person with undeveloped critical thinking skills is a desirable target for a manipulator.

The methods of manipulation at the rhetorical level can be structurally divided into the following key areas:

1. Incorrect arguments. As one of the most common ways of manipulation, one can single out the arguments of "ad hominem" (an appeal to the personality, to the emotions and feelings of a person). The essence of such an argument lies in the fact that the subject of discussion is imperceptibly directed to the interlocutor's personal beliefs, assessments, beliefs and peculiarities. As special cases of incorrect arguments, the following can be distinguished: appeal to authority (mentioning a name is presented as a weighty argument in favor of the truth of a particular statement, whereas in fact a reference to authority indicates only the coincidence of the positions of the speaker and the one to whom he refers); appeal to the audience (sympathies, fears, interests, moods of listeners, readers, etc. — such speculations are quite effective in disputes, since they are aimed at winning the favor of a wide audience and using the support of a large number of people as proof of their own rightness); arguments against the rules (the purpose of such a strategy is to disrupt the dialogue by any means — provocations, extravagant antics, depriving the opponent of the opportunity to speak out unmotivated termination of the discussion, etc.) All these techniques violate the rational nature of communication. The opposite strategy of conducting a discussion is to use arguments "ad rem" (to the essence of things), which represent the basis for correct argumentation and are a kind of foundation for critical thinking. Such arguments are used in the logical procedure of proving a judgment, have a causal relationship with it and exclude the rather common error "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after that, it means because of this). These arguments are universal, i.e. they can be applied in any communication context. It is a well-developed critical thinking skill that allows you to recognize the "ad hominem" argument used in time and return the line of conversation to the original subject of discussion, transfer the manipulator's evidentiary line to the "ad rem" argument, thereby avoiding the undesirable result of manipulative influence.

2. Incorrect rhetorical techniques. One of the most common incorrect rhetorical techniques is thesis substitution. There are both pronounced substitutions of the thesis, when the opponent simply changes the original statement on the basis of which the discussion was based, and non-obvious substitutions of the thesis:

A. The expansion and narrowing of the thesis is based on a change in the scope of the concept included in the judgment, or a change in the type of judgment in terms of quantity – from particular to general or from general to particular. For example, a dialogue between two employees of the HR department: "–Many people who come to an interview are terribly stupid. – Yes, you're right, all candidates are incredibly stupid" - a person critically evaluating this dialogue will identify two techniques at once – an expansion of the thesis and a hasty generalization. Or an example of narrowing the thesis: "Well, what, a "philosopher" – one student to another – said that you know all philosophy, but you didn't pass the exam! – No, no. I said that I understand only the European philosophy of the XVIII century."

B. The strengthening and softening of the thesis is based on a similar principle as the expansion and narrowing of the thesis. Only instead of changing the scope of the judgment, in this case, the value judgments change to a lesser or greater degree. Let's compare the two formulations: "This man is a bribe taker!" "I just wanted to say that this man's expenses greatly exceed his income and this is suspicious." Or: "The students of this group are not diligent enough" and "These students are completely stupid and ignorant!"

In addition to substituting the thesis in different variations, there are other techniques in which a critical assessment of what your opponent says is important. For example, reframing involves changing the assessment of what is happening without changing the essence of the event. An employee can do nothing for half a day and when asked by his superiors why he is lazy for such a long time, he answers: "I am not lazy, but I think over the most effective ways to solve the task." Even if we assume that this is the case, the essence of what is happening does not change.

The hasty generalization technique is a type of incorrect inductive inference, when a more general judgment is based on an insufficient sample of particular judgments. Let's give an example with students on the exam. The first one passed for a three, the second passed for a three, the third, etc. "Yes, they are all three!" the examiner may exclaim, but using the example of several unsuccessful answers, it is hasty to formulate an opinion about the whole group. In such situations, it is most reliable to turn to full induction.

There are a number of other techniques that lead the discussion away from a rational course: making a bet, trying to unbalance by insults, trying to use intonation to introduce meanings that were not originally intended (Bernard Shaw said that the word "yes" can be said in fifty ways, and the word "no" in half a thousand ways). In order to exclude manipulation of a person's opinion, beliefs and behavior, it is important to critically evaluate the course of the discussion and any information that a person may encounter.

3.      Pragmems. Pragmems are lexical units that represent evaluative concepts. According to the method of evaluative use, M.N. Epstein ^[12] identifies three classes of words: 1) words whose direct meaning in no way reflects the speaker's attitude to the objects or phenomena they designate (house, tree, student, talking, walking, glass, etc.); 2) words whose meaning contains an assessment without specifying a specific subject (beautiful, ugly, good, bad, nightmare, delight, etc.); 3) words in which the subject and evaluative meanings are inextricably linked. To demonstrate the third type of words, Epstein gives the following example. The ideologically marked words "helper" and "associate" correspond neutrally to the word "helper" in the definition, and the emotional coloring of these words is diametrically opposed — the use of the word "helper" in speech clearly indicates the speaker's disapproval of the relevant actions, whereas the use of the word "associate", on the contrary, indicates a rather high assessment the talking type of activity in question. In the case of manipulation, words with a pronounced pragmatic component of the content are often used, for example: dilettante, scoundrel, incompetent, genius, etc. This technique is also often used in the media and advertising. The use of pragmatics is a fairly effective way of manipulation at the rhetorical level, since it seems quite difficult to object to a statement that already contains one or another assessment. In addition, in such a situation, the risk increases of unwittingly agreeing with the position of the manipulator, because statements based on the use of characteristic pragmemes usually sound confident and categorical. Effective opposition to rhetorical manipulations of this kind also requires developed critical thinking skills — it is necessary to clearly fix the fusion of subject and evaluative meanings in one concept and be able to distinguish the semantic levels of words used by the manipulator, appealing in communication precisely to the primary meaning of concepts.

The role of critical thinking skills in improving the quality of communication interaction

To improve the quality of communication impact, it is necessary to solve a number of tasks, which, in turn, requires a high degree of development of critical thinking skills.

1.      It is necessary to determine the communicative purpose of the interlocutor. It is necessary to understand what purpose the initiator of the dialogue or the author of the text, article, reportage pursues (if the communication is one-sided): does the initiator of the communicative interaction set tasks to influence the opinion and beliefs of the interlocutor, to correct his behavior; does this goal correspond to the interests of the interlocutor?

2. For successful and effective communication impact, it is important to identify and analyze its context. This will help to more accurately determine the communicative purpose of the addressee of the information and identify the nature of the argumentative impact.

3. It is necessary to analyze the grounds provided by the opponent for the ideas being broadcast. If the opponent uses a rhetorical approach that synthesizes logic and emotions, it is worth paying attention to the ratio of logical and emotional components in speech.

4.      It is important to check whether the logical arguments are correct, to evaluate the type of conclusions used. It must be taken into account that when persuading using the inductive method, the conclusion is only probabilistic in nature; in this case, it is necessary to determine the degree of probability of such a conclusion.

5.      It is necessary to assess how acceptable the techniques and arguments aimed at feelings and emotions are.

6.      If manipulative influence is detected, it is worth pointing out to the opponent the inadmissibility of such persuasion strategies; if communication is one—sided, do not take manipulative arguments into account.

7. It is necessary to assess the expediency of accepting the opponent's ideas. It should be borne in mind that the positive result of communicative interaction may also be abstinence from any judgments due to insufficient grounds.

8.      When working with information, it is necessary to critically evaluate changes at each stage (verification, interpretation, analysis and synthesis).

Critical thinking plays an important role in modern communication, allowing you to assess the situation from different angles, determine the balance of logical and emotional techniques and arguments, thereby making decisions based on sound reasoning, and not on emotional impulses or opinions. By applying critical thinking skills in a professional context, we can ensure more effective communication of information, as well as demonstrate respect for those with whom we communicate, whether they are colleagues, partners or friends. One of the most important advantages, which is provided by a high level of development of critical thinking, is the ability to keep in mind and pursue at all stages of the dialogue the true goals of any effective communication (it is important to emphasize that here we are talking about the effectiveness of communication), namely, the search for a common solution, an attempt to come to a consensus, the establishment of the truth.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.