Timeless High-Impact Verbal Techniques: In the 3rd Obama-Romney Debate, Each Candidate’s Most Talked-about Rebuttal or Parry Employed One Such Skill

Immediately after the last presidential debate between Obama and Romney--the one on Monday, Oct. 22, in Florida--one rebuttal from each candidate instantly became airborne. And that was no surprise to me because each of those two parries employed one of the simple but powerful verbal techniques that are standard fare among highly effective communicators. Nor should the cogency of those two rebuttals have been a surprise to anyone who has attended my flagship seminar “Power of the Spoken Word & Techniques to Communicate with Impact and Sway.”

• Obama’s highly effective line: Responding to Romney’s contention that our navy is weak because the number of ships is fewer than what it was a hundred years ago, the president said: “We also have fewer horses and bayonets!” In other words, he used an analogy--one of the half dozen or so most effective verbal techniques to emphasize a point--to assert that the strike power of a single modern-day weapon can easily overwhelm a sea of 100-year-old weaponry.

• Romney’s highly effective line: More than once, when responding to Obama’s criticism of the Republican nominee’s stand (or flip-flops) on an issue, the latter began: “There is no point attacking me…” Why was this choice of words so effective in parrying Obama’s criticism, why did it resonate so wildly with Romney supporters? Because “attack” is a negative word, and telling someone to their face that they are “attacking” you immediately disarms that person, puts them on the defensive. Users of my book “The Articulate Professional” (3^rd Edition) know that I have a whole chapter (Category V) featuring words employed by smart communicators to disarm and neutralize their critics and detractors (words such as denigrate, aspersion, reflexive, foist, puffery, apologist, nostrum, meretricious….).

© Copyright 2012  V. J. Singal

My Testifying at a Public Hearing; Exhorting the Government to Adopt Tougher Public-Health Measures; Invoking the Gettysburg Address

Yesterday, I traveled to Dallas to speak at an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) public hearing. The issue: should the federal government tighten the regulation of coal ash disposal by coal-burning power plants.

Here is my approx. 2-minute presentation. Most of the words that I emphasized (by using vocal variety, hand gestures, and other body language) are in bold. Also note my liberal use of fresh words and synonyms.

“Good Afternoon!

I am a resident of West Houston. My name is V.J. Singal, and I am testifying as a member of the general public—I should say, a member of the concerned public.

Whenever I get a chance to appear before a highly consequential government body, as yours surely is, I like to invoke a key phrase from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address—the phrase “a government for the people” which, when translated into today’s issue, would mean putting the clamps on any industrial activity that is detrimental to the public’s health, any activity that is endangering the public.

Gentlemen, you have in your possession incontrovertible evidence that coal ash is highly toxic, that it is unquestionably deleterious to the public’s health. And you have similarly irrefutable evidence that the TCEQ has been utterly lax in monitoring and implementing the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations.

A case in point: The Fayette plant outside Austin, where coal ash has so badly contaminated the water that it has been rendered undrinkable—a perfect testimony to the TCEQ’s apathy in matters environmental.

And so, if we are to adhere to that maxim of “a government for the people,” then it is imperative, and mandatory, that the EPA, which is, after all, a protector of last resort when it comes to the environment, takes firm and speedy steps to issue new regulation—regulation that is (i) tough, (ii) unambiguous, and (iii) enforceable.

And if you do that, you will have every reason to feel truly ennobled!

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on the subject."

Difficult Negotiations, Such As With Someone You Don’t Trust or Who is Adversarial

People with a relatively capacious view of what effective communication is all about include negotiating strategies and tactics within its fold, hence this post.

This past Thursday, August 26, “PBS Newshour” featured a remarkable segment on difficult negotiations—negotiations that are particularly challenging because, say, you are dealing with somebody you don’t trust or who is a tough adversary, an SOB!

During the short feature—less than 6 minutes—which you can either listen to or read, “negotiating guru” Prof. Robert Mnookin of Harvard, author of “Bargaining With the Devil,” suggests that the person in the weaker position (in other words, the poor supplicant) stands a much better chance of success if he or she uses the “economic approach.” And in explaining that approach, Mnookin uses a cogent and evocative metaphor: “the carnivore is eager to trade his broccoli for a lamb chop owned by the vegetarian.” The professor also points out that “the words you use, the tone you use, your language…” (in other words, some of the very verbal and nonverbal techniques that have been the subject of my previous posts) play a big role in one’s negotiating success.

Well worth a listen or read.

© Copyright 2010 V. J. Singal

The Contagion of Two Adjectives—“Narcissistic” and “Self-Aggrandizing”—Triggered by LeBron James’s Media Event on Thursday Night

In the brouhaha following LeBron James’s decision and the way he let that decision be known to Cleveland and the rest of the world, two words have been on every critic’s lips: “narcissistic” and, to a lesser extent, “self-aggrandizing.” In fact, since the Thursday night sensation, I’ve seen many a media interview during which the guest--some noted sportscaster or the other--has used narcissistic as his only term of opprobrium and that too several times within just a few minutes. So, for talking heads and others who want to vent strong criticism of the way James handled his highly anticipated announcement, here are about a dozen other terms--in the order of mildest to the harshest--that could help break the annoying monotony of “narcissistic” and “self-aggrandizing” and thus quash this verbal contagion:

self-glorifying; self-centered; vain; egocentric; distasteful; tawdry;
egotistical; odious; conceited; egomaniacal; megalomaniacal; ignoble.

A One-Sentence Articulation of the Central Issue Raised by the BP Oil Well Disaster

Over the past 4 weeks, we’ve been witness to the offshore oil industry’s “Three Mile Island” (what with the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez-sized spill every 4 or 5 days) and BP’s series of desperate, amateurish, and unsuccessful attempts to get a grip on the situation. Because of the unprecedented nature of the disaster and the catastrophic consequences for both the environment and businesses, I am sure this will be Topic No. 1 during some of your casual conversations with friends and colleagues. Here is one approach to articulating the central issue raised by the calamitous event in just one sentence:

“The state of affairs following the April 20 oil well accident demonstrates unambiguously that while the technology for drilling in very deep water is sophisticated, the technology for remedying some of the possible accidents deep in the ocean is relatively primitive and pathetic!”

Communicating For Results: Citing the Mona Lisa, or David, When Justifying the Preservation of an Endangered Bird or Animal Species

“The monarch has the most fantastic migration of any insect in the world,” says Lincoln Brower, the world’s leading expert on that butterfly. So, last month, in a CBS “Sunday Morning” segment about the rapid decline in the monarch’s population (being caused by massive illegal logging within “protected zones” in Mexico), when he was asked how the world would be different without this phenomenal migration, Brower responded: “My answer to that is: What good is the Mona Lisa? What good is Mozart’s music? We could live without it, but we would be diminished as a culture and as a people. There’s nothing like it. It’s unique.”

The moment I heard Brower’s reply, I realized that his is an unusually compelling and effective response to anyone challenging wildlife preservation. In the past, whenever someone has asked me why I care so passionately about conserving wildlife, I have tended to wax eloquent on the morality issue, saying that other animals have the same basic right to exist as does homo sapiens. Of course, this argument does not appeal to many, especially those who take a more egocentric view of man. Well, in future, when talking about the need to save, say, the ocelot and the red wolf--two North American animals that are fast becoming extinct--I will simply resort to the analogy used by Brower, citing things like the Mona Lisa, the Sphinx, and Michelangelo’s David, to make my point.