Pete or Repeat? (A Question on Rhetoric)
I've been studying rhetoric and persuasion lately to help me de-escalate potentially violent students at work and sharpen my social skills in general. The two books I'm currently reading are Language Intelligence by Joseph Romm and Verbal Judo by George "Doc" Thompson. The Verbal Judo is particularly relevant, as it directly addresses deescalation strategies. I've already internalized some of its lessons. Others I was familiar with from this lecture by the late Dr. Thompson.
The books tend to complement each other well, but I found an interesting digression in the authors' opinions on repetition. Dr. Romm makes the point that "repetition is the central element of all persuasion." He illustrates his point quite well over the course of the book, citing, for example, the number of times the word "freedom" appears in Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. The idea is that readers and listeners gloss over a lot, and if you want to get a message across, you have to find creative ways to repeat the same simple message. Makes sense, right?
Dr. Thompson states something which appears to be contrary to Romm when he concludes one of his strategies. "You will never again be trapped into repeating orders over and over, which is a great sign of weakness in a parent, a police officer, an executive, or anyone in a position of authority. Repetition reveals weakness. Flexibility and variance of approach shows strength."
From what I can gather, both authors are making valid points about different things. Part of the reason I'm writing this post is just to parse out why the authors aren't contradicting each other. I will say that Thompson's point absolutely rings true at my job. You can order these kids around till the cows come home and they'll tell you to fuck off or throw a desk at you, depending. Persuasion gets you everywhere.
I'd welcome people's thoughts on this. Is this a question of whether to repeat yourself or not? Is it how and when to do so? What's the story here?