p. 107 If a boat salesman says, “Of course, that is the lowest price I can offer the boat for,” then you should assume that he is really willing to bargain some more. In 1999, that is exactly what I heard from the boat salesman who was trying to sell me a twenty-one-foot Chaparral inboard/outboard. Except in my real-life case, the salesman said, “Of course, $34,000 is the lowest price I can offer.” If he had just said, “OK, Doc, $34K—that’s it, the best we can do,” I might have let him off. But knowing that numbers on a piece of paper are money, too, even though you don’t see the green, I replied, “I appreciate your candor in telling me that you have to talk to someone else before you can lower the price. In that case, talk to that person. Call me tomorrow with your best price.”
Notice the spin I put on the salesman’s statement. I didn’t argue that he could go lower. Instead, I emphasized the word I in his statement, construing it to mean that since he couldn’t go lower, someone else could. By emphasizing that someone else could go lower, I gave him the face-saving out of consulting with someone else or appearing to consult with someone else about a price reduction.
The next day, Charlie the boat salesman called. “Boy, have I got good news for you, Doc. We’ll let it go for twenty-four.”
By the way, incidentally, by the by, before I forget, while we’re on the subject, in passing, parenthetically—when you hear these words or terms like them, watch out. The idea is to make the statement that follows seem like a minor point, but the opposite is usually the case.
“By the way, this job involves some night work.” I’ll bet it does. No doubt about it. The job requires night work. The item was tossed in as a trivial matter, but it’s actually important. Hearing it, you might want to know more details about how much night work, where and when, and whether more pay is involved (or less) and why. You might want to know if the job is any different at night than during the day. It usually is.
“Incidentally, this office is in a one-family residential zone, but the zoning board has always overlooked it.” That’s not incidental at all. That the zoning board has overlooked the violation in the past doesn’t mean they will overlook it now or in the future.
“Before I forget, the renter sometimes will need to flush out the cesspool.”
You bet they will. And soon. And at the renter’s expense.
It is not possible because . . . or I wish I could but I can’t because . . . when you hear these words or words like them, it means the opponent is taking some pains to tell you why he can’t give you a certain special p. 108 consideration. He is often also telling you exactly what he can do. When you hear these words, you can be fairly certain that he can give you everything listed after the “because,” since it is highly likely that he can. Not only that, he can probably give you more. In general, the more they try to explain, the less sincere they are, and the more they can do. So don’t be fooled by what I call “can’t do words.” People who say “can’t do” frequently can do. They are just trying to dissuade you from seeking what they know they can give you, what they know you can get.
Thus, “I can’t raise your salary because it would throw our budget out of whack,” means “I can raise your salary. Show me why I should.”
“I usually don’t go to bed on the first date,” means you still have a chance if you play your cards right because “usually don’t” actually means “sometimes do.” Otherwise stated, he is saying that he does go to bed on the first date occasionally with the implication that he does go to bed if the situation merits it or he can be persuaded. The man’s statement also means that you definitely have a chance of getting him in the sack if you take him out again. Many are cold, but few are frozen.
Some hidden meanings might not be favorable to your position. They might, in fact, be downright unpleasant to contemplate. Take, for instance, “I don’t want you to leave. I hope we can reach an understanding.” The overt message seems clear enough. Do it his way or get out. But the covert message is worse. The covert message is that he wants you out. And he wants you out soon. Better start packing your stuff. Look for a new job or better still, retire.
“I still love you, but I am busy for the next few weeks. I’ll call when I surface.” Don’t expect a call. She is just trying to let you down nicely. The “still” sends the covert message that there might have been some doubt about her continuing love. If she loved you so much, she should be able to call. No one is that busy that she can’t call just to say I love you.
Or: “I can come tomorrow to fix your toilet, if I am able to finish another job I am working on, and if my apprentice gets over his bad cold.” Here you have a fairly good indication from all those qualifying words that you won’t be seeing the plumber tomorrow. Probably you won’t be seeing him for a while, perhaps even several days.
Or: “Both here and hence, pursue me lasting strife, if once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!” When Hamlet asks his mother, Gertrude, “Madam, how like you this play?” Gertrude rightly observed, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Gertrude knows the queen in the play is overdoing it. Not only does the queen in the play want to be punished p. 109 for remarrying, but also she wants the punishment to start now (here) before the event and to continue from now on (and hence), and she wants the punishment, the (lasting) strife, to last forever. That’s pretty harsh punishment for a contingent event in the future that may or may not happen, and when and if it happens, may or may not be justified.
Since the play queen’s curse on herself is so extreme, Gertrude reads the hidden meaning that the lady is exaggerating for effect and cannot possibly be sincere. The play queen’s statement is too much. Because the statement is too much, it is likely to be an insincere exaggeration, a supererogation.
Incidentally, the old meaning of protest was vow, affirm, or state positively, not our more modern object or dissent. Current dictionaries carry both meanings. “The lady doth protest too much” means the lady vows or swears too much.
The point is that knowing the covert meanings behind what the other person says provides important clues as to how you can win the negotiation, bargain to your advantage, predict behavior, or read the other person’s deep heart’s core.
Knowing the hidden messages can also help you intelligently address the hidden emotional needs of others. Here’s some dialogue from Leo Tolstoy’s famous novel Anna Karenina. What hidden need is Anna expressing?
Vronsky: The only thing I prayed for was to put an end to this situation, so as to devote my life to your happiness.
Anna: Why do you tell me this? You don’t think I could doubt it, do you?
Vronsky: Who’s that coming? They may know us![4]
What he should have said in that last line was “I love you, Anna, with my whole heart and soul. I don’t care who knows. And I don’t care who’s coming.” And then he should have kissed her passionately. Because Vronsky had not read Anna’s hidden anxiety, he missed his cue. Vronsky had not understood Anna’s need, her anxiety really, to be reassured about his love for her. He didn’t understand why his statement, whose overt meaning is quite clear, had caused Anna to react adversely. He didn’t realize that she had detected a possible hidden meaning in what he said.
Anna had assumed Vronsky’s devotion to her was an unquestionable given. When Vronsky tried to reassure her on the issue, she read p. 110 from his statement the hidden meaning that he did not or had not assumed the devotion was as unquestionable as she had. That understanding of Vronsky’s position, so different from hers, fed Anna’s anxiety. Hence, her reaction.
On the same page, Tolstoy explains the reason for Vronsky’s insensitivity: Vronsky was worrying about the duel he would have to fight with Anna’s husband. During that duel, honor would dictate that Vronsky would have to fire into the air and wait for Karenin to shoot back. If Karenin did shoot back, Vronsky might die. The thought of death had focused Vronsky’s mind away from Anna and caused him to temporarily lose his usual sensitivity. The prospect of death focuses the
mind. Vronsky’s mind was temporarily focused on the possibility of his death and temporarily focused away from his love for Anna.
Covert messages can signal danger.
Rocks and shoals ahead. Decoding hidden meanings can help you avoid trouble. Besides flag words, pay attention to broadcast definitions that are wrong. And especially pay attention to duplicitous behavior, for it often indicates deception. Investors who had paid attention to those two things might have avoided losing money in Enron. Let’s consider broadcast definition first and then go on to duplicitous behavior. Detection of either one or both gives evidence of falsehood and therefore can focus us in the opposite direction, away from falsehood and toward truth.
Remember we defined evidence as any sign leading toward the perception of truth. The broadcast definition that people use is a form of evidence that reflects individual thinking about an issue. When the broadcast definition is wrong, we have evidence that we are being led away from the truth toward error.
The January 28, 2002, edition of the New York Times (p. C2) reported the following statement from Dr. John Mendelsohn, president of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston: “Dr. Mendelsohn said he had been careful to avoid any conflict of interest with ImClone, a biotechnology company. ‘I give a lot of speeches and I always state that I am on the board of ImClone and I own stock in the company. I always say this.’ ”
What is the overt message? The overt message is that Dr. Mendelsohn wants us to believe that he is, and that he has always been, honest and above board with the public. The reason that he cites, the reason that he feels should convince us of his honesty, is that in his many speeches, he always mentions that he is on the board of directors of the p. 111 company that makes the cancer drug C-225 and that he owns stock in that company. Later in this book, we will learn that mere assertions not supported by evidence are unreasonable. Enlightenment philosophy requires that we believe only that which has been proven by relevant and adequate evidence. We are not supposed to believe anything that is merely asserted. Therefore, since Dr. Mendelsohn’s assertion is not supported by evidence, we need not believe it. That is one consideration. Another is the hidden meanings in his statement.
The doctor flags his statement for close examination by repeating the word always. Why say always twice? Once is enough. Or rather, once should be enough. Because he repeated always, he sent a signal to the alert listener that perhaps we might do well to question him on this issue. Because he repeated always, he has raised a doubt about his own truthfulness. If he himself believed what he said fully and without question or reservation, why would he need to apply such emphasis? The man doth protest too much, methinks.
By the way, what about always were we supposed to remember? Both here and hence, pursue us lasting strife, if once told, we ever fail to remember that always always means always.
So, if we are able to show that Dr. Mendelsohn did not mention his connection to the company ImClone in one of his many speeches, then we could prove his assertion wrong. But that is beside the point. What we want to examine here is the covert message that the doctor’s statement makes. What is it?
The covert message is that he doesn’t know the definition of conflict of interest. He is confusing a conflict of interest with disclosure of conflict of interest. Furthermore, he thinks that the disclosure of a conflict of interest excuses the conflict and (and this is worse) he wishes to confuse the public by confusing the definition. Dr. Mendelsohn is trying to confuse the issues and flummox us. If you can’t convince them with evidence, baffle them with bullshit.
Not convinced? Reread the doctor’s statement.
He says he has been careful to avoid any conflict of interest in his relationship with the company ImClone. Yet he admits he owns stock and he is a director. His care to avoid any conflict of interest was not of sufficient magnitude to prevent what he was so careful to try to prevent. In fact, he admits he has a conflict of interest and not just one conflict but two: he’s on the board of directors of ImClone and he’s a big shareholder.
Thus, the man contradicts himself. If he were careful to avoid any p. 112 conflict of interest, how come he has two such conflicts? Two contradictions cannot be simultaneously true. One must be false. Two contrary assertions can’t be simultaneously true. One must be false or both must be false. Conclusion: the doctor is confused, or he is lying.
The definition of conflict of interest is that a person in a fiduciary position, that is, a position of trust, has a conflict of interest if he has a personal interest in the outcome of his decisions or actions related to his fiduciary position. This is not the definition the doctor uses or wishes us to use in the evaluation of his conduct.
Once again, reread the doctor’s statement. See what I mean? Not only does he tell us that he has a conflict of interest, he tells us that he has two of them. He tells us what those conflicts are. Furthermore, he tells us that he uses an erroneous definition of conflict of interest to excuse his conflicts. Changing the definition, in my opinion, is more offensive than the actual conflicts. And using the changed definition to excuse the conflict is even more egregious. The change in definition smacks of Newspeak and shades of 1984, George Orwell’s famous book.
Principle: When the broadcast definition is wrong, a fraud is being perpetrated on language, and, chances are, a fraud is also being perpetrated on you.
From which follows:
Lesson: When the definition you hear does not match the definition you know, watch out. Chances are that someone, usually the person who has misstated the definition, is up to no good.
With that lesson in mind, would you trust Dr. Mendelsohn’s statement about the value of C-225, ImClone’s anti-cancer agent, which Dr. Mendelsohn helped develop and test? Would you trust him or his statements about Enron profits? Yes, Dr. Mendelsohn is on the Enron board of directors, too. We’ll examine his directorship in more detail soon.
This book is about clear thinking and how to tell when they are handing you bull. It is not a book about psychology or psychiatry, but it wouldn’t hurt at this juncture to give you some further insight into the full implications of Dr. Mendelsohn’s statement. These implications are based on what I learned in my psychiatry training at Columbia and p. 113 my experience in dealing with patients during a medical career that spanned over thirty years.
Defensive statements flag conflicts that require further examination.
Dr. Mendelsohn’s statement is defensive. As such, it suggests he is using the unconscious mental mechanism of denial and displacement to conceal a concern that he himself has on some level, perhaps unconsciously, about a more important and more serious conflict of interest in another realm. The disclosure of a conflict of interest in giving a speech is, after all, a relatively trivial matter. Because it is trivial, the question arises: Is that disclosure designed to focus attention on it and away from something else that might be of much greater import? In other words, is the doctor’s defensive statement a form of misdirection? Is it a kind of magic trick to throw us off the track and conceal the real? Psychiatrists are trained to reason darkly. I can’t help it.
Dr. Mendelsohn was the developer and at one time the principal investigator of the drug C-225, now known as Erbitux, the drug once touted as miraculous and now at the center of a scandal over stock trades by executives, board members, and friends of executives (like Martha Stewart) of ImClone, the company paying for the testing of the drug. Dr. Mendelsohn was at the time of this writing the president of the University of Texas M. D. Andersen Cancer Center, an institution that tested the drug on 195 patients without informing them that its president, Dr. John Mendelsohn, had a gigantic financial interest in the medication and in the results of the study.
On June 30, 2002, a center official (according to the Houston Chronicle, July 1, 2002, p. 1) began telling patients in November 2001 about the financial conflict of interest. That was one month before the Food and Drug Administration refused to consider the drug, callin
g its study—that designed and conducted by Dr. Mendelsohn and others—too flawed to tell if it benefits patients. That was only one month before ImClone tanked.
So Dr. Mendelsohn might have been careful to tell audiences (which mainly consisted of medical doctors) about his conflict of interest, but he failed to tell the patients about a much more important conflict of interest: He was experimenting on them and yet had a personal financial interest in the outcome of the experiment.
Thus, the conclusion that he might have been diverting attention from a real disclosure issue to one that was minor appears justified. His was a diversionary argument to conceal the real issues. All this discovery p. 114 of truth, mind you, followed from a careful analysis of his original statement. That is the beauty of dissecting hidden meanings. That is why such dissection can be so helpful.
ImClone’s collapse cost investors and pension funds millions, left hopeful cancer patients in limbo, and brought a congressional investigation into charges of fraud and insider trading, the last of which has been directed against lifestyle maven Martha Stewart, a former girlfriend of ImClone’s CEO Dr. Samuel Waksal, arrested by the FBI and subsequently convicted of securities fraud.
Marcia Angell, a Harvard lecturer and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said that “disclosure is the bare minimum—involves the possibility that financial interests could put pressure on researchers to produce favorable results and to play down harmful outcomes.”[5] Dr. Mendolsohn knows this or should have known this. His e-mails to the faculty certainly focus on conflict-of-interest issues. His e-mails don’t yet focus on the more important ethical issue of carrying a conflict despite its disclosure. Not only was the conflict not disclosed, the conflict of interest was also continued throughout the testing of the drug, a drug the testing of which the FDA subsequently said failed to meet minimal scientific standards.
Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference Page 13