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!
“I… HATE this commercial.”
“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, you’re supposed to hate that commercial.”
“Huh?”
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. What do you think gets more exposure? A well-crafted commercial, or a horrible one? It’s called ‘negativity bias.’”
“Super Bowl commercials are always good. Remember that Bud Light one with the bear?”
“I 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.”
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 start using it at home, too.”
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 about the commercial, mocking it and the product that is pushed, is the point. That’s the marketing. The majority of people recognize this and can’t be manipulated; and people who don’t recognize it are easily convinced by the former that the commercial is trying to manipulate them.
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 a desired outcome
- Proponent engineers a sophistic claim
- Opponent rejects the claim on its face
Layer Two:
- Opponent identifies fallacies, manipulation of cognitive biases, or both
- Opponent finds they rejected the claim… a bit too easily
- Opponent recognizes the claim’s rejection was the proponent’s desire
- Opponent is aware any further discussion continues to give the claim “air time”
Layer [X]:
The opponent may recognize the sophistry in this layer, too. “Big-pharma wants me to think that’s what big-pharma wants me to think.” If so, it is a repeat of Layer Two. Otherwise, continue…
- Opponent is satisfied they didn’t succumb to the claim, nor the manipulation
- Opponent thinks that recognizing and countering the manipulation was the end
- Opponent is oblivious to anything further
- Opponent unknowingly / subconsciously succumbs to the desired outcome
- Proponent was successful
So long as an opponent does not deconstruct the final layer, layer [X], the gambit was a success. For example, a coordinated group of individuals act in a calculated way that hints at a larger conspiracy. The hinted conspiracy isn’t outlandish, nor do the individuals overtly conspire; but it’s believable. Critics mock, and the actors continue to perpetuate. Meanwhile, other more-sophisticated critics begin to identify the actors are simply distracting from something else. The trouble is this “something else” is also an orchestrated faux-conspiracy. And on, and on. Success is when the “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 someone doing something (“I’m gunna buy some Aleve”), do 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 Orwell wants…?