You have a problem with intellectual dishoneness?
If so, you may want to consider how to best use it as a political tool.
This article will explore three basic ways to use it to your advantage: • You can use intellectual deceit to gain the support of a hostile audience: A friend or a family member of yours is critical of your position, and you feel obliged to make the case to them.
But that support might not be there, or it might be too late.
You can make your case in a manner that will give the enemy reason to be wary of you.
• You use intellectual integrity to create a political image: If you are the most intelligent, well-read, and articulate person in the room, you will surely be able to persuade the rest of the room.
But your intellect will not necessarily be your strength.
If you can demonstrate that you are smart enough to make reasoned arguments, the opponent will likely think you are less of a thinker than he or she thinks.
This is a risky strategy, but one that can be effective.
You could try to demonstrate your intellectual integrity by saying something clever about the subject of your argument, or by pointing out an argument from someone else’s point of view.
But this is difficult, because opponents will not always think that way.
It may take some time for the rest to understand what you have said, and to respond to it with a rebuttal, or, at worst, to dismiss you.
The best strategy for your own case is to use the argument from ignorance.
Your opponents might say, “Well, I’ve never heard of that thing you’re talking about, so I don’t know what you’re saying.”
Then you can make an argument like, “I’ve been in the field long enough to know that it’s a waste of time to try to explain the details of my theory.”
This is another strategy that works.
You might be able, for example, to show that you were a participant in a scientific conference in which your colleagues gave the most convincing presentations, and then ask the question: “What would you have done if your colleagues had presented a different way of thinking about the problem?”
It is also possible to say something like, “[t]here are people who are so smart that they are better than most of us at describing the details.”
The most successful use of intellectual dishoniness is to show the world that you understand their arguments.
This technique is especially effective when you can show that your opponents understand what they are saying.
• When you are on the receiving end of a political attack, you can use the tactic of misrepresentation to your benefit: The enemy is trying to make you appear stupid.
So, they are trying to give you an unfair advantage by presenting you as the kind of person who would make you look stupid.
In this case, your opponents can accuse you of using intellectual dishonuity, but you can also claim that they have been duped into thinking that you think stupid.
A simple example of this tactic is the accusation that I am a racist.
It is tempting to respond that I have never seen or heard of such a thing.
But, in reality, I have been involved in a number of activities that are thought to have made me appear stupid in the past.
I have written books that I thought were racist, and I have published articles that I think are racist.
In fact, I wrote a book that was published as a response to a recent debate in which my colleagues and I were critical of the views of the people who were speaking.
(In addition to the book, I also wrote a piece for the American Prospect titled, “Why It Matters that I’m a White Guy.”)
If you do the math, it is very hard to show, to your own face, that your critics have been tricked into thinking you are stupid.
• Another tactic is to claim that the attack is a form of racism, but this is false.
You know, you’ve had some bad experiences.
It would be better for the enemy to portray you as being a racist, rather than to paint you as having some sort of “unwillingness to admit your own faults.”
The best way to use this tactic, in addition to simply making the case that you have had bad experiences, is to suggest that the enemy is ignorant of these things.
So the question is, “Is this someone who is ignorant, or is it someone who simply wants to discredit me?
Is it an act of pure prejudice or is there something else going on?”
If the answer is that it is something else, then you are right on target, because it may be a form.
But it can be an act, too, if you use the technique of misrepresenting.
For example, you could say, “[p]rovide an example of a case in which the adversary was unable to refute my arguments, but then you