BKNOTCON.RVW 940708 Mens Sana Foundation 565 Bellevue Avenue, Suite 2402 Oakland, CA 94610 Voice 510/835-2946 fax: 510/832-5370 "You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake", Shapiro, 1993, U$30 74464.113@compuserve.com As far as I can determine, I am in full agreement with the stated aims of this book. Shapiro asserts, and I agree, that much of what passes for information in our world is unreliable--deliberately written or spoken in such a way as, at best, to allow misinterpretations, and, at worst, to deliberately mislead. The introduction says that the book is intended to provide training in detecting deception. Part one of the book is six chapters: Language, Information, The Mind, The Anatomy of A Conversation, Go Directly to Jail, and Words, Words, Words, under the general heading, Fundamentals. The basic tenet of this first section is that there are two types of communication intertwined within our language, and, even, thinking. One aspect of language deals strictly with concrete, observable information which relates to the "real world". The other involves intangibles which are used either for meaningless exchanges or for deception-- cons. Shapiro's view of language and the mind is presented with primarily anecdotal evidence and would likely meet with little acceptance among linguists, sociologists, and the like. It runs counter, for example, to psycholinguistic theory, in that Shapiro states concepts can be removed from their linguistic framework, and can even be seen more clearly for the removal. Part two, entitled, "Practice", details various types of deceptive language practices, and how to detect them. From Argumentation Cons through Classic Con Strategies, The Experts and Authorities Con, The Statistics Con, The Psychology Con and The History Con, pointers are given to various spurious arguments. As an example, the careful reader will soon note that the vast majority of Shapiro's anecdotes and stories are sympathetic to the socially and politically conservative, or, antagonistic to the left. It might therefore be said that the book should be discounted because of this obvious bias. In fact, the political and social bias of the book has no bearing on either the central theme of the book or the usefulness of Shapiro's suggestions. The argument is therefore a spurious one, based solely on a perception of ability in certain ideological groups. We live in a supposed "information age". In reality, while bombarded with audio, visual and print media, ads, marketing campaigns, promotions from special interest groups and other data, we may actually be less informed than those of the Victorian era, a time of rich amateur scholarship. The central purpose of the book, therefore, is vitally important in this day and age. Unfortunately, Shapiro may not succeed in the practical application of that purpose. In the first place, the dichotomy between concrete, real world language and the misleading language that Shapiro suggests we do away with, is not clear cut. Those interested in this book should consider reading, in addition, "The Abolition of Man," by C.S. Lewis. Lewis argues the other side of this very point and concludes that reducing language in the way that Shapiro describes leaves us with a descriptive capability only, unable to determine any prescriptive statements. Since the very title of the book contains a moral imperative statement ("You *must* not...") there appears to be an internal contradiction here. Further, Shapiro's work is entirely negative, in terms of identifying what you cannot believe in a given statement. Even heavily biased statements can provide you with some definite and useful information. For example, in the computer world, one often sees the terms "compatible" and "compliant" in describing technology related to certain standards. While compatible tends to have more cachet with the general public, compliant is actually the stronger term. Compliant means one must comply with the whole standard; compatible need only refer to a part. Therefore, the term "compatible" is an indication to the alert technology purchaser that the issue of compliance must be examined more closely. A work promoting these positive skills in interpretation would have been much more valuable. The question of bias in the text is not automatically relevant to the book's utility, but in some cases it has a bearing. Whether or not this is Shapiro's own bias, his enthusiasm for certain illustrations has ironically weakened the related arguments. One example occurs in the chapter on statistics, where Shapiro cites a lengthy series of pieces arguing the relative safety of commercial aircraft. These pieces appear to use the same figures to come to different conclusions, and Shapiro uses this as an example of the uselessness of all statistics. In reality, the careful reader will note that the quoted pieces are careless in their use of "fatalities", "accidents", "passenger miles" and "miles travelled" (vehicle miles). Again, Shapiro promotes the uselessness of "experts" by citing Gould's statement in the evolution / Creationism debate, that Creationism is not a science. Shapiro asks how it can be determined that Creationism is not a science. A fair question--but one that Gould did answer. Science can be disproved. The first time someone sends information faster than the speed of light, then special relativity fails. There is, however, no possible way to disprove Creationism, and therefore, it is not a science. Since these and other examples are easily refuted, the related points in the book are weaker than they could be. Ultimately, though, Shapiro breaks his own rules, a much more serious violation. The last chapter is a list of what to do in order to avoid conning others. Shapiro uses the emotionally charged words and phrases he tells readers to avoid. He gives partial evidence (only that which supports him). He even refused to give his book a price, referring to copies ordered by "donation". And one has only to read the author's bio to see his failure to follow his own rules about "experts". He holds four college degrees (statistics con) -- what level? what subject? He is a member of Mensa (labels con) -- so could many people be, if they wished to pay the fees. He was an adjunct professor (mother knows best con) -- so have I been: it's not a big deal. He had a brief stint as a Ford Foundation Fellow and Harriman Scholar (spokesman con) -- where these, perhaps, bursaries? He co-founded a California Bank (shift topics con) -- well, he either has money or knows those who do. He worked as a talk show host (experts con) -- this is a good point? he practiced architecture for 13 years and hold four design awards (statistics con) -- what does *any* of this have to do with language or the discernment thereof? This book *does* give some good tips about how to pinpoint spurious arguments - - although you will have to use those tips in order to spot the spurious arguments at places in the book. Much of the material is unfortunately negative, and is of little value in enhancing communications. The brief list of tips in chapter thirteen may help you clarify your own spoken and written communications. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994 BKNOTCON.RVW 940708 ====================== DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca, RSlade@sfu.ca, Rob Slade at 1:153/733 DECUS Symposium '95, Toronto, ON, February 13-17, 1995, contact: rulag@decus.ca