Given That…. Not!

Reading a Fox “News” “article” criticizing America’s support of Ukraine, I was struck by the heavy use of a tactic often seen in the courtroom: the use of non-given “givens”. But this isn’t a Faux News rant, it’s a rant about the slippery use of “Given that…”

In court, counsel will look the judge right in the eye and proceed with language such as “Given that the accused has such a small and distant criminal record…” Small, perhaps, because it’s only two violent bank robberies, and distant because it was way back almost five years ago.

Judges aren’t stupid, but they are human, and all of us possess a natural inclination to be agreeable. If the speaker says “Given that…”, or “As you well know…”, we tend to think, “OK, if you say so” and let the speaker continue. This is particularly true where the listener is under time or task pressure, as is surely the case with judges.

The great tactical advantage for the “Given that, as you well know” crowd is that most of us want to keep things pleasant, and we’re reluctant to call someone out. We also don’t want to look uninformed or stupid, or in the case of we septuagenarians, senile.

The funny thing about court language is that it is considered bad form to preface remarks with “I think…” or “In my view…” The court does not want to know about counsel’s feelings or opinions, the court wants to know what are the facts and the law. Yet by not challenging “As Your Honour well knows…” or “Given that…”, the court is effectively countenancing a more slippery form of the forbidden language.

So how do we handle these communication tactics in everyday life? Well, as in most cases, slowing down the tempo is the first and best step. This is because the speaker has every intention of turning the discussion into a stampede and run you off a cliff.

So, we slow the tempo. Respond “You say ‘As you well know’. I’m not sure I fully understand. Could you flesh that out a little for me so I can be sure we’re on the same page?” Then stick with it until you’re satisfied that they’re correct, or they understand that you know they are in the mushroom fertilizer business.

Another powerful device when someone is trying to run you off the cliff is to take notes, pausing from time to time to repeat what the speaker is saying and ask, “Did I get that right?” More often than not, doing so demonstrates that their position is more smoke than fire.

Slowing down and challenging the “As you know” crowd is a far better tactic than just listening to them pontificate, then when they’re finished, presenting your challenge to their completed campaign. If you allow them to present the whole case without asking for clarification, they will typically be so emotionally committed that a climb-down would be impossible.

It’s even possible that by asking for clarification, amplification, or examples, you may actually learn something which will modify your position. (No point having two opinionated fools in the same room.) But more likely than not, your opponent will not be able to put a full suit of clothes on his bare assertion, thereby eliminating or reducing the need for your challenge, and increasing the likelihood of finding common ground.

This is a form of verbal judo, using the opponent’s momentum to your advantage and his disadvantage. As you learn to deal with the “As you well know…” crowd, you’ll find that they are mostly shallow thinkers and easy to handle. Either they’ll acknowledge they jumped the logic gun, or they’ll stomp off in a huff. The former are amenable to logic.

One last note on “non-given givens” is that they are frequently coupled with non-sequiturs: “Given that pigs can’t fly, it’s clear that the price of celery can only increase.” But that’s the subject matter for another rant, another day!