Sophist's Gambit
A rhetorical trap engineered for a controlled collapse.
TL;DR
“I knew you knew I knew, all along, all along, all along.”
- Freddie Wong as “Asian,” Mexican Standoff, feat. Key & Peele (RocketJump)
HeadOn!
HeadOn! Apply directly to the forehead! HeadOn! Apply directly to the forehead!
“Dawg, I… HATE this commercial.”
“Yeah, bro. Wait, how did we get to 2006?”
“Doesn’t matter, but this has gotta be the worst 10 seconds of advertising ever…”
“TiVo was around in 2006, right? Just skip it.”
“Yeah, let’s get back to Liz Lemon’s shenanigans.”
“You know, dawg, you’re supposed to hate that commercial.”
“Bro, what?”
hoity-toity ehh-umm in a way that implies I have an M.B.A., so I know I’m right:
“The point of the commercial is to make you annoyed so you remember it. Just like any other jingle.”
“Plop, plop, fizz, fizz. Oh, what a relief it is!”
“Exactly, but this is negative attention. They can sometimes be more effective than a well-crafted one. It’s called ‘negativity bias.’”
“Super Bowl commercials are always good. Bro, remember that Bud Light one with the bear?”
“Yeah, dawg. I also liked the one with Leonard Nimoy… what was that one for again? Eh, oh well.”
narrator from the sky into their subconscious
“Aleve.”
“Oh, I remember that one. I can’t believe companies pay random celebrities to push a product that has nothing to do with the celebrity.”
“Diddy and Diet Pepsi.”
“Jackie Chan, too.”
another unfortunate M.B.A.-ehh-umm:
“Anyway, marketing is a crazy topic. Pretty deceptive stuff that tricks our animal brains. I wonder what advertising will be like in 2025…”
“This all gives me a headache. You got anything for that?”
“I only use Aleve, I’ll grab some for you.”
“Thanks. Maybe I’ll buy some for myself.”
narrator from the sky to reader
“Little did they know, big-pharma owns both HeadOn and Aleve.”
Concept
A Sophist’s Gambit is a contrivance of a contrivance. On its face, it’s meant to fuel conspiracy theories by obvious motivated attribution bias. The first step is to create something, like a bad commercial. The commercial is produced in such a way that the majority of viewers easily recognize, 1) it’s awful; 2) mocking and critique will follow; and 3) this fuels conversation.
The conversation mocking the commercial is the point. That’s the marketing. Many people recognize this and can’t be manipulated into discussing how bad the commercial is; and people who don’t recognize it are distracted by discussing how annoying the commercial is, which means the commercial is effective.
However, there must be one or more additional layers after the initial contrivance to be a Sophist’s Gambit. In the case of the HeadOn commercial, the catalyst sparked a conversation where the two individuals focused more on the commercial itself than the product, and actively resisted the product because of the method of advertising. A conversation followed about marketing in general, but with the seed of headache relief planted, the two unknowingly progressed to Aleve, and a new customer was born.
The HeadOn / Aleve relationship of course isn’t true, and my example is a bit too convenient (and quite unlikely). It was simply to provide a framework to describe:
Layer One:
- Proponent has the desired outcome [B]
- Proponent engineers sophistic claim [A]
- Opponent rejects claim [A] on its face
Layer Two:
- Opponent finds they rejected claim [A]… a bit too easily
- Opponent recognizes the proponent wanted claim [A] to be rejected
- Opponent is aware any further discussion over the rejection of claim [A] gives the claim “air time”
- Opponent either:
- Stops here, and proponent achieves outcome [B] because the opponent was distracted by shutting-up about claim [A]; or
- Is skeptical claim [A]’s rejection was a decoy, and there may be something else afoot: proponent wanted opponent to reject [A], AND wanted opponent to stop giving air time to [A], AND wanted [A] to be forgotten as to not raise any suspicion over [B]
- If the former under (4) is what happens, the gambit succeeds because opponent never considers there may be a [B]. If the latter, the gambit may fail because the opponent “rejected the rejection” of [A], so there must be a [B], and [B] may also be rejected
(with the latter under layer two’s (4), the gambit can keep going while the opponent rejects subsequent claims [B], [C], [WHATEVER]. Eventually, the opponent will stop at [WHATEVER]. And as long as the proponent’s desired outcome is [WHATEVER+1], the gambit is successful. this is described below)
Layer [WHATEVER]:
- Opponent is satisfied they didn’t succumb to claim [WHATEVER], nor the manipulation
- Opponent thinks that recognizing and countering claim [WHATEVER] was the end of the proponent’s manipulation
- Opponent is oblivious to anything further
- Opponent unknowingly / subconsciously succumbs to the desired outcome [WHATEVER+1]
- Proponent was successful
For example, a coordinated group of individuals act in a calculated way that hints at a conspiracy [A]. The hinted conspiracy isn’t outlandish, nor do the individuals overtly conspire, but it’s believable. Critics mock, and the actors continue to perpetuate [A], keeping the conversation alive. Meanwhile, other more-sophisticated critics begin to identify the actors are simply distracting from [B]. The trouble is this “something else” is also an orchestrated faux-conspiracy… and on, and on. Success is when this “something else” isn’t discovered because of manipulation by the actors, and that this non-discovery was the actors’ original intent. Whether that leads to manipulating someone into doing something (“I’m gunna buy some Aleve!”), doing nothing at all (“Meh, there’s no political conspiracy to pit people against each other so the global elite can pick my pocket.”), or something in between.
Upshot
Careful… you may come to believe in Jewish Space Lasers or Lizard People. Wait, what if that’s what they want me to believe! What about Pizza Gate? Was that just a conspiracy theory gone too far driven by projection? It must be more than John Podesta being Italian! What about “Alternative Facts”? Was it more than vain attempt at normalizing doublethink? I better buy 1984 from Amazon to learn about doublethink. Or is that what Lizard Bezos and Money-Grabbing Orwell want me to do…?
Sophist’s Gambit in My Professional Experience:
“That is the stupidest argument I have ever read. I am now dumber for reading it. Is my opposing counsel an idiot? Or… are they pretending to be an idiot? They had to have gone to law school, right? Should’t a lawyer not be an idiot? I wonder how many idiot lawyers there are…”
Sophist’s Gambit in Art
The Usual Suspects.