Here’s more from Wikipedia’s Manual of Style/Words to Watch, followed by my own examples of sneaky rhetoric. What makes the rhetoric sneaky is its use of insinuation to instill bias in the mind of the reader (or listener). Insofar as this bias takes hold under the radar of one’s awareness, it interferes with clear-headed examination of the matter at hand.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch (accessed on 8/25/15 at 3:41pm).

Expressions of doubt

“Examples: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called …”

 “Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.”

Synonyms for said

“Examples: reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify…”

“Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker’s carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement’s credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.”

Other examples of sneaky rhetoric

Here are some of my own examples of words that aim to create an impression, to bias for and against, without contributing useful information:

Whine: Conveys selfishness, self-pity, being spoiled and small-minded

Be inconvenienced: implies an expressed concern is based on the desire for convenience and an unwillingness to give up comfort and selfish ways.

Rant: Indulgent and unthinking

Hysterical: Out-of-control emotions (as opposed to “passionate” if you happen to agree with the speaker)

Rambling: the flow of words become an associative chain with little relation to reality

So-called: some descriptor is not legitimate

Hype: nefarious others are exaggerating

Nefarious [sarcasm]

Wrack and ruin [sarcasm]

Scare Tactics: reducing warnings of potential danger to motivation to frighten

Orthodox: accepted as truth by blind sheep (not to be confused with “the consensus”, which conveys authority but not the type to be questioned)

These posts are selected quotations from Wikipedia’s Manual of Style/Words to Watch, followed by a few of my own examples of sneaky rhetoric. What makes the rhetoric sneaky is its use of insinuation to instill bias in the mind of the reader (or listener). Insofar as this bias takes hold under the radar of one’s awareness, it interferes with clear-headed examination of the matter at hand.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch (accessed on 8/25/15 at 3:41pm).

Puffery

 “Examples: legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome …

“Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as “peacock terms” by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject’s importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.”

More examples of puffery: scholar, prominent, pioneering, highly-respected, revolutionary, amazing, leader in his field.

 Unsupported attributions

“Examples: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of    the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said …

” Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.”

More examples of Unsupported Attributions: experts agree, the latest evidence shows, cutting-edge research reveals, it is an established fact that,…

Heuristics that are useful except when they aren’t:

1. It depends
2. Context is everything
3. The devil’s in the details
4. Avoid categorical thinking
5. Dose matters
6. What are the trade-offs?
7. What’s the pay-off?
8. Pause
9. What’s being left out?
10. Behavior speaks louder than words
11. Motive is less important than merit of the case
12. Subjectivity is not the opposite of objectivity
13. Acknowledge what you don’t know
14. Nothing is obvious
15. Action does not require certainty
16. Hold fast to principle and be willing to compromise
17. What matters most right now?
18. Be nice
19. What’s the other side’s best argument?
20. No heuristic works all the time

My beef with cognitive approaches to motivation, emotion, and behavior: cognitivists  tend to consider what happens in the head as products of what goes on in the head, with the implicit opposition to what happens  “objectively” “in the world”.  I see what happens in the head as tethered to the world that exists beyond the head.

Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, in Modernity, Cultural Change, and Democracy, assume a similar perspective. They contrast  “existential” to “cognitive” as sources of values.   They discuss the concept of existential insecurity, in which survival is not taken for granted because of lack of economic development. They then propose that the shift from survival to self-expression values in developed societies follows from existential security rather than propagation of self-expression values (e.g., through authorities, elites or the media). One is not taught self-expression values, one does not learn self-expression values; self-expression values take root when the existential conditions are right (of course, the examples of others may have influence, but only if one is receptive and one can only be receptive if one is existentially secure).

To explore the problem space begins with an acceptance that one is deep within a dark forest of uncertainty, albeit one with numerous paths and partial clearings.

Exploration implies uncharted territory but not helplessness. There are maps and means and a sense of purpose and direction. Of course, one will take many wrong turns – that goes with the process.