This essay will attempt to determine whether a point or argument made to an audience repeatedly, can therefore be believed to be truer.

by chanellejerger (student)

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Chanelle Jerger 7th December 2011

“What I tell you three times is true.” (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula – or a more sophisticated version of it – actually determine what we believe to be true?

This essay will attempt to determine whether a point or argument made to an audience repeatedly, can therefore be believed to be truer. It will furthermore tackle the significance of an authoritative figure oozing credibility in order to determine what we believe to be true, and last but not least, the fashion in which such a speech or intention is being delivered. In order to start on this analysis we have to determine what we deem true for ourselves and if what we deem true for ourselves is in fact a universal or ubiquitous truth or if it is far more subjective than that. Lewis Carroll’s quote suggests that a truth can still be established even if it lacks evidence or factual justification; it can be created by appealing enough times to a person’s belief in something until that person’s belief on this matter is so fortified that it turns into its own reality, its own truth.

In the advertising industry repetition, or conditioning, is a powerful marketing tool to deliver persuasive product messages to a company’s target audience. The most recent popular slogan of McDonald’s – I’m lovin’ it – has targeted millions of people around the globe. This tag line is embossed on all product packaging and marketing means, including employees’ name tags, in-store television screen commercials while queuing, all wrappers, children’s toys (free with every happy meal) and media tie-ins. This relentless reappearance of the slogan, as well as the prominent display of McDonald’s infamous trademark (The Golden Arches), in publications, commercials, and billboards, is one of the finest brainwashing exercises of a sophisticated marketing machine. It creates an implied truth to the unsuspecting customer, an illusion of customer satisfaction.

While we have established above that McDonald’s are masters of persuasion of their brand to the urban customer on the move and targeted children with their families, we are yet left wondering where the goodness of the food is.

A few years back, McDonald’s suffered a disastrous blow to their reputation when Morgan Spurlock’s documentary Supersize Me was released in 2004. The film highlights the dangerous health effects of eating an excess of McDonald’s food over the course of a thirty-day experiment.[1] Not long thereafter McDonald’s received more negative press when the feature film Fast Food Nation hit the box office; the company was directly implicated in a contaminated beef patty scandal. Both of these events were based on evidence and fact; they were true. Therefore, where truth is based on fact, no repetition may be necessary, much in contrast to Lewis Carroll’s statement, which does not differentiate.

By definition, repetition alone, without any argument of substance can simply not equal truth, particularly not if the origin or essence of the product ingredients remains a non-discussion point. Conversely, if the burger meat were proven to be as contaminated as described, and a successful guilt attribution could have been made, should this not mean that McDonald’s would have gone out of business by now or been shut down by the US Food and Drug Administration? Let us not forget that McDonald’s felt compelled to change its product offering after the release and bad press from Supersize Me

Now ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Now that we have established what a successful, well received, and engrained in everyone’s brain campaign McDonald’s is able to run we should ask ourselves whether this is in fact synonymous with a superior food product.

Drawing a conclusion from both above arguments without siding for one or the other is challenging, as my claim and counterclaim are extreme and diametrically opposed. This begs the one and only question of what is true or untrue. For McDonald’s is by no question the best marketing industry in the world, however is that what makes the quality of the product excellent? Well, no. In my opinion McDonald’s is a machine that serves quick food but results in extreme health problems as proven in the documentary. I personally would avoid visiting the fast food restaurant on a regular basis and go to a restaurant where they can confirm that their nutritional information is completely accurate.

Further to the importance and various nuances of repetition in the context of truth and belief another aspect needs a mention: the credibility or authoritative nature of the person conveying the actual message. We are going to proceed with an argument that the higher the social standing and credibility of that person is – with or without elements of repetition - the more likely he or she will succeed in placing his truths. Tiger Woods, the world’s former long-standing number one golf player and the once highest paid sportsman, was also known as the advertising guru embodying integrity and morality for numerous promotional efforts within sports and non-sports industries. His name repeatedly became the brand, any kind of brand he would enter into a contract with, and his name and persona became synonymous with discipline and moral and ethical high grounds. By way of example, the advertising campaign for Accenture (a prominent management consulting firm) once used the following slogan for their campaign: “Go on. Be a Tiger.” Tiger Woods’ strength, mastery, discipline and relentless focus on winning are universally qualities that mirror the characteristics of any high performance business, making him the ideal representative for marketing & brand positioning. “Tiger is the best at his game and we want our clients to be the best at theirs”[2].

The argument against making Tiger Woods repeatedly the epitome of integrity and perfection is a rather obvious one: Tiger became a victim of his own humanity in a way; he fell off the proverbial pedestal when news about repeated committed acts of infidelity seeped out into the public. The supporters of the fallen Tiger argue that his private life and allegations pertaining to it should remain just that: private. However, literally within minutes of news breaking about being caught red-handed, the majority of his advertising contracts had been withdrawn. The truth that the industry had created, a sophisticated fabricated truth synonymous with a person, namely Tiger Woods, a truth created so people would believe in it, was wiped out in one scandal long before he was “convicted” of a crime.

Overnight Mr.Woods went from a loved and adored icon to a fallen pedestal in minutes. Tiger Woods made the complete wrong turn in his scandal and should have kept it personal and not have made it a public matter for the press to write about.

Private matters should be kept private and should not undermine the iconic standing of a first-class sportsman but in my point of view, I feel his infidelity whether it was proven or not has damaged his integrity so severely that to “be a Tiger” is no longer appropriate. The image of the symbolic and iconic golf player was furthermore damaged for both the sports and business industry.

No one should underestimate the significance of how a speech is being made or the power of its persuasion. Many public audiences are more likely to fall for emphatic speech deliverance by an animated speaker, often regardless of the believability of its contents. It is fair to say that fanatically conveyed messages to a target audience are even more of a prerequisite in the context of contents lacking substance rather than based on plausibility and facts. For example, in many of his speeches, Hitler used passionate voice and dramatic bodily gestures in order to convey his message effectively[3] coupled with tireless repetitions of his basic mumbo jumbo on world domination. Hitler was a master of manipulation, a motivational speaker of note, in the way he appealed specifically to the emotions of his listeners, to the point of their guaranteed infatuation; it is a well-documented propaganda technique where the speaker persuades his audience to embrace the ‘inevitable victory’ as the ultimate truth and jump on the bandwagon.

The emphatic deliverance of a speech without noteworthy facts or plausible evidence is only successful as long as the audience is proving susceptible to it, for example because of economic hardship. Followers become gullible, eager to listen and want the promised imaginary goals and objectives of a powerful leader so much that they become their preferred belief – the ultimate truth. If I can choose an emphatic and enthusiastic speech over a bland and boring one I would definitely choose the former because it would be easier to keep following the red thread. This creates a more interactive and motivated audience. However, if this happens at the expense of a substantiated speech, including facts, proof, plausible content and evidence, and creates purely a blind following I would fail to see the point. Sadly, even in more modern times, the significance for emotional speech delivery, often coupled with repetitions ad nauseam, is still at the forefront of our world leaders. As President Bush put it during his presidency: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda"[4]. Perhaps we need to settle for this as long as no fanatical movement ensues in the process.

Repetition as a summary of what the question is asking us to answer is simply a method of persuading someone to believe what you are telling them is true. However, if different people repeat the repetition several times in a more convicting way, I am more likely to belief what I hear is true.

Start with repetition and the belief, which easily turns into creating one’s own truth

Briefly argue the benefit & detriments of this – briefly as argued ad nauseam … the making of subtle or strong truths through repetition …

In the knower’s point of view, because I am more of a sceptic if someone were to repeat something to me three times I would be more likely to believe it to be a fact and form a truth; for example, when I was a child I also deemed it annoying when my mother told me to keep my hands away from the hot stove or the electrical socket, unfortunately with little success, I felt the need to experiment it on my skin in order to justify the advice and the cautious warnings I have been told

On the other hand, if today something were to be repeated to me three times, I would view it in a more sceptic way and find that what is in fact being told to me could be the complete opposition of the truth. I would feel that rather being told what may be true, I am being manipulated into something that someone feels needs to be repeated several times in order to convey a message. In result, I find that telling me something three times is contradicting to the idea of what is being told is true.

In summary it is fair to say that truth does not lie one hundred per cent in repetition. Far from it, although certain examples above will have made a case for the opposite but they represent the exception from the rule. It has furthermore been successfully argued that the credibility of the person delivering the message, instigating the belief, creating the truth where it is not based on sufficient facts, is of utmost importance.

Last but not least, the fashion in which a prospective truth is delivered can be an incredibly powerful tool as long as the desired delivery of truths has a plausible foundation and a relatively critical audience so not to encourage fanatical movements based on hot air.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]