25 rules of disinformation
- Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what
you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure,
news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you
never have to deal with the issues.
- Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key
issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
- Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by
describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth
may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent
press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are
through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with
the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch
of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
- Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make
yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue
you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of
the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a
way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
- Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents
with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia',
'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label,
and you avoid dealing with issues.
- Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of
your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely
well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady
stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain
criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack,
never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response,
for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
- Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could
be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the
accuser on the defensive.
- Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate
yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
- Play dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument
is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any
credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point,
have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
- Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative
of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high
visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were
already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have
your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as
part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless
of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with
the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need
to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is
or was involved with the original source.
- Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a
minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but
that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.'
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call
for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right
thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming
clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious
issues.
- Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall
umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes
those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more
quickly without having to address the actual issues.
- Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the
issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
- Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works
best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
- Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
- Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
- Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of
the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to
a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with
companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
- Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you
can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you
can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are
to criticism.'
- Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This
is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the
material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may
be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as
a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it
may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media
or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even
deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts
or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or
impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with
contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated
from the fabrications.
- Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all
sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence
and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For
instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this
technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
- Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),
group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or
testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually
address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
- Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem
to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news
stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
- Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail,
consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by
their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of
theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by
destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their
health.
- Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen
False flag
Source
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
- ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
- When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
- In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Logical fallacies
- Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or
advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding
to the argument.
"Ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument." - Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
- Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is not credible.
- Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
- Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
- Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
- Correlative based fallacies
- Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
- Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
- Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
- False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
- If-by-whiskey: An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
- Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis.
- Is-ought problem: the inappropriate inference that because something is some way or other, so it ought to be that way.
- Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
- Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
- Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.
- Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
- Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
- Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
- Red Herring: also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.
Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws.
- Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
- Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
- Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."
- Begging the question (petitio principii): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
- Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
- Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
- Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
- Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim
- Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
- Etymological fallacy: which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
- Fallacies of distribution
- Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
- Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
- Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
- Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
- False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an
irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in
support of an argument
- contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning
- False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct
- Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
- Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
- Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
- Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
- Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
- Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
- Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
- Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. (ex: Thousands of experiments have conclusively proven that beating drums and clashing cymbals brings back the sun after a total eclipse.)
- Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium) (proof by intimidation): submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. see also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.
- Prosecutor's fallacy: a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
- Psychologist's fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
- Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
- Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
- Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
- Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
- Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
- Well travelled road effect: estimates of elapsed time is shorter for familiar routes as compared to unfamiliar routes which are of equal or lesser duration.
- Wrong direction: where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
- Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.
- Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
- Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
- Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
- Proof by example: where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. ("This apple is red, therefore apples are red.")
- Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
- Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
- Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms.
- Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
- Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
- Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
- Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
- Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
- Dicto simpliciter
- Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
- False analogy: false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument
- Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
- Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
- Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem
- Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume
- Pathetic fallacy: when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects
- Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media
- Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
- Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
- Argumentum ad baculum (literally "appeal to the stick" or "appeal to force"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
- Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
- Association fallacy (guilt by association)
- Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
- Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument that concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
- Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
- Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
- Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
- Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
- Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
- Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
- Appeal to nature: an argument wherein something is deemed correct or good if it is natural, and is deemed incorrect or bad if it is unnatural
- Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
- Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum): thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is financially poor or incorrect because the speaker is financially wealthy
- Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam): concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor
- Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
- Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it
- Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
- Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
- Judgmental language: insultive or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
- Poisoning the well: where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say
- Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
- Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
- Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument
- Texas sharpshooter fallacy: information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning
- Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out
- Tu quoque: the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
- Definist fallacy: involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other
- Luddite fallacy: related to the belief that labour-saving technologies increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour
- Broken window fallacy: an argument which disregards hidden costs associated with destroying property of others.
- Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact
Source 2
Cognitive bias
- Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink, herd behaviour, and manias.
- Bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.
- Choice-supportive bias — the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
- Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
- Congruence bias — the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
- Contrast effect — the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.
- Déformation professionnelle — the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one's own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.
- Endowment effect — "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it".
- Focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
- Hyperbolic discounting — the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.
- Illusion of control — the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.
- Impact bias — the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
- Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
- Irrational escalation — the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.
- Loss aversion — "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it". (see also sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
- Neglect of probability — the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
- Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
- Omission bias — The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
- Outcome bias — the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
- Planning fallacy — the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
- Post-purchase rationalization — the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
- Pseudocertainty effect — the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
- Reactance - the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to reassert a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
- Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
- Status quo bias — the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same (see also Loss aversion and Endowment effect).
- Von Restorff effect — the tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.
- Zero-risk bias — preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Sophism
- A plausible but fallacious argument.
- Deceptive or fallacious argumentation.
Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion
Your Business is to shine; therefore you must by all means prevent the shining of others, for their Brightness may make yours the less distinguish'd. To this End,
- If possible engross the whole Discourse; and when other Matter fails, talk much of your-self, your Education, your Knowledge, your Circumstances, your Successes in Business, your Victories in Disputes, your own wise Sayings and Observations on particular Occasions.
- If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar.
- If another should be saying an indisputably good Thing; either give no Attention to it; or interrupt him; or draw away the Attention of others; or, if you can guess what he would be at, be quick and say it before him; or, if he gets it said, and you perceive the Company pleas'd with it, own it to be a good Thing, and withal remark that it had been said by Bacon, Locke, Bayle, or some other eminent Writer; thus you deprive him of the Reputation he might have gain'd by it, and gain some yourself, as you hereby show your great Reading and Memory.
- When modest Men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will chuse[choose] ever after to be silent in your Company; then you may shine on without Fear of a Rival; rallying them at the same time for their Dullness, which will be to you a new Fund of Wit.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, November 15, 1750
-- Benjamin Franklin
Source
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html
