OK. Hive mind: I was struck as an undergraduate (so early 90s) by a paper talking about TV astrologers. Probably a poststructuralist lit theory type thing. Want to bang on about how great the concept was, but also want to credit it, so does anyone recognise the argument in the next post? -
(paraphrased) TV astrologers are mannered and ridiculous. Russell Grant, Mystic Meg etc. We ask 'how do they expect to be taken seriously wearing that jumper, talking like that?' This *sets up a notional TV astrologer who we would treat seriously, if only they wore a suit and spoke normally*.
(paraphrase continues) And this objection 'Russell Grant shouldn't wear silly clothes' overshadows, removes in fact, our objection 'astrology is silly'. So, consciously or not, it's a brilliant tactic, a lightning rod that channels 'this is silly' away from the core activity.
(paraphrase last part) ... and this is a very common, very successful rhetorical tactic in every walk of life. People will object to you. If you can get them to object to you for your stupid bowtie, then they won't be objecting to the thing they should really be objecting to.
(wait, no, this is the last part) So, this process has an arc: 1. I can't take this TV astrologer seriously. 2. This one obvious thing prevents me from doing so. 3. If that one thing changed, I'd take them more seriously. 4. I have accepted I could take astrology more seriously.
I'd love to know if this rings any bells. Academic paper, early 90s at the latest. It has, shall we say, current political applications.
Flooding the zone with shit clothes?
It's kind of that, but it's not just 'distracting' or 'overwhelming' or 'straw man', it's the conceptual sleight of hand that's the good bit. It creates the idea of a competent version. It's kind of what I've seen called 'steelmanning', but at a conceptual level, not point by point.
It's interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional from some in the astrology game, depending on how much of a believer they are. It is not too dissimilar to the kind of sensory overload distractions used by pickpockets or the deliberate mistakes in scam emails
Yeah, I'm not going to get into their intentions! It's a tactic that works. They stand out, they get rehired, they develop a career. If you have a tactic that's working, you try it again. I don't think you need to be malicious or deceptive to do that.
True - I'm also reminded of cold reading. Obviously something that can be done intentionally to deceive (or as a magic trick) but there are a lot of cases of people who genuinely believe they are psychic who are cold reading unconsciously