🚈 👑 ⤴️ Rhetoric as a safety tool 💃🏼 🍝 👩🏽‍🎤

Employees are sometimes small children. You say one thing - do another. Or they don’t do it at all. You ask not to stick stickers with passwords on the monitor - they hide it under the keyboard. You remind you to be attentive to suspicious mail - they nod and immediately forget. This situation always reminds me of a fire safety logbook. Did you get training? Passed by. Signed up? Of course. Does anyone remember anything from learning? * the sound of a critical Windows error * That's the same with IS questions.

There is a hackneyed phrase about the effectiveness of disease prevention. But time after time the instructions sent are forgotten, and any punishment is perceived by the collective as repression and oppression of honest people. The security guard is perceived as a sort of bear from an anecdote who walks around the office with questions a la “Why without a hat?”. Well, why did it happen?

The fact is that in this situation, the difference between paper and real security is clearly visible. For the first, it’s enough for all of us to get something to listen to, view and sign in papers. Then, in case of violations, you can mercilessly wave a saber. But this approach does not solve real problems. It will be possible to achieve the desired effect only when the employee himself understands why certain measures are needed. If an employee knows why it is not necessary to connect the found flash drive to the corporate machine, but does not believe in the reality of such a threat, this is your flaw. You were not convincing enough that the employee not only knew about the danger, but also understood that this would happen to him.

This article was written under the impression of the manual S.V. Konyavskaya “Applied rhetoric for information security specialists”. Under the cut your own vision of the theory and practice of applying rhetoric to information security problems is described.

Greek flavor theory

Applied rhetoric - these are the rules for building effective speech. By "effective" it can be understood that the statements made in the speech will find the right response from the audience, and not "flew into one ear, flew into the other." Well, under the "audience" is hiding from 1 to N people.

There are 4 types of communication with the audience:

Written from one to one. A note to the boss, a letter to the top, etc. In general, any one-on-one written communication through messengers, mail and other channels.
Written from one to many. Company mailing list, notification of a new threat, reminder of an old instruction, etc.
Oral from one to one. Conversations, interviews and more.
Oral from one to many. Webinar, conference report, meeting report.

What could go wrong? Well, at least this:

They won’t believe you. For example, they will not believe in the relevance of the problem that you are talking about. Yes, yes, the very thing “this is not about me”, “this will not happen to me”.
They will believe you, but they will not agree with the above arguments.
They will believe you, agree with the arguments, but will not agree with the proposed solution.

Therefore, whatever type of communication is, the main tasks are valid for him. The speech should consistently call the audience:

confidence;
Consent
joining.

Well, if you dig the theory, we get the levels of speech: ethos, logos and pathos. Each of the levels is responsible for its own piece of work.

It with

Needed to ensure the relevance of the statement. Such a stage of preliminary preparation. It is necessary to take into account in advance who, what, whom, when, for what purpose and how it will be told.

There are a number of tips that you should follow to gain the trust of your audience:

Speak definitely. Few people love mummies, and streamlined language, devoid of specificity, can anger and confuse the audience.
Emphasize common goals. If the audience does not understand why she needs what you are talking about, hoping for her consent is the height of optimism. Just avoid the cliche. Somewhere nearby, they are already making a fire under the boiler for those who use "we are all in the same boat."
, . , , . , , .
, , . . «, , » .
, . 2-4 .
, – . .4 (, , to assert – , . ).
. , .. , « ».
. , . «», , «», «, ».
. «», ? , «» . – . – . , «».
. « », « » .. .
. , .
. , . « », « » .. -, - . -, , , .
. , , , . - .
. , .
Speak on your behalf. The audience perceives information through the one who conveys it. Distance from the subject of discussion will lead to the fact that in the dialogue “you-audience” will be replaced by “company-audience”. Almost certainly the company is loved less, which means that all proposals voiced on its behalf will initially be greeted less friendly. By the way, if you are still reading this article on behalf of SearchInform, it means that I could not implement this item -__-.
Speaking on behalf of someone else or on behalf of the team, emphasize your agreement or disagreement. The advice is similar to paragraph 15.

Almost every of these rules can be violated. But this should not be done thoughtlessly. So, violating the 1st and 11th rules, we will be able to sow a vague panic in the audience. If this is the goal, then the method is correct.

Violation of paragraphs 7-8 has its consequences. In an audience for which our authority is very high not only as a professional, but also as a person, this can turn out to be quite productive, however, by accidentally hitting someone’s feelings in this way, you can shake your authority. Therefore, first you need to think about whether we know well enough those in front of whom we are giving a speech. As an illustration, I would like to give a case from my own practice. Together with another speaker, we conducted a seminar on the prevention of information leaks. About the audience it was known "in general terms" - the heads of IB services of banks. The speaker, in the process of speaking, not greatly limiting himself in expressions, tried to convey to the audience the idea that the information security and IT services are two different “camps” that should be at war. To the audience’s objectionthat it would be more constructive to live peacefully, a colleague exponentially violated paragraphs 7 and 8 (from the list above), saying that he knew exactly how best. The result was predictable: the audience ceased to perceive him as a competent speaker and was unhappy with this part of the seminar. Why? Because most of the listeners were former IT professionals who visited "on both sides of the barricades."

It is worth noting that the trust of the audience is also rising well through the “personal brand”, on which it makes sense for the security guard to work. For this, various methods of attraction are used. But it’s better to put them in a separate article, because this one is already quite loaded.

Logo

Logos is the use of argumentation. For example, if someone shouts, “Where are the proofs, Billy?” We need proofs, ”they must be in the logo.

There are several types of speech content, which in rhetoric have traditionally formed names:

Demonstrative argumentation is the establishment of principles and values on the basis of which problems are discussed. Moreover, they are considered as independent of changing circumstances, relevant.
Judicial reasoning - the establishment, analysis and assessment of facts.
– , , .

The full substantive cycle of argumentation consists of the sequential development of indicative, judgmental and deliberative argumentation in speech.

They should be deployed in exactly this sequence, since it makes sense to discuss the initial provisions only at the beginning, and not having discussed them and not having agreed on the principles for considering issues, it is very difficult to avoid all kinds of misunderstandings. It makes sense to make decisions about future prospects at the end, after all the facts have been comprehended and all the estimates have been given.

Depending on the specific situation of speech - circumstances, purpose, audience, etc. - A particular type of argument may prevail in a speech. And the rest, it happens, is not worth spraying at all.

In order to correctly plan how, in what correlation demonstrative, judgmental and deliberative arguments should be combined in a given speech, you just need to clearly articulate for yourself the task of speaking and analyze what kind of content is most important for solving this problem information.

For training, it is useful to try to make three different speeches on the same topic - with the predominance of each of the types of argumentation, thinking through under what circumstances, to whom and for what purpose they could be delivered. But what am I hoping for? It is unlikely that you will do this regularly, but at least once try to see the difference.

Pathos

If the logos is an intellectual argument, for example, with the help of facts, then pathos is emotions. The speaker needs to form an appropriate emotion with the audience in order to achieve joining.

An attempt to influence the emotions of a large number of outsiders at once seems crazy only as long as we consider the audience to be a lot of disparate people about whom we know nothing. It would seem, how do we know what kind of characters they have, what they think about, what motives motivate them in which cases. In fact, this is not so at all, we always know quite a lot about the audience. And the first thing to always keep in mind is not random, scattered people: the very fact of joint participation in a public speech - a fact common to all of them - unites them into a single entity. Here someone can see a reference to Asimov’s “Foundation”. Well, not without it. As for me, there is a rational kernel in psychohistory.

People in the audience share their role. Obviously, they are also united by a field of interests, and this, as well as their participation in our speech, unites them not only among themselves, but also with us. This is very important to understand, especially when we and the audience are, in fact, opponents. No matter how different our views are, we are united by the subject of these views.

The nature of the interests uniting the audience can be different. First of all, it is worth stopping at the fact that the audience can be united:

Spiritual and moral values.
Material and practical interests.

These things should not be opposed, since audiences united only by spiritual and moral values or only by practical interests are quite rare.

Paphos, uniting the audience in terms of spiritual values, is faith, hope, love, conscience, desire to know the truth, self-esteem, responsibility, respect, honesty, sobriety of mind, constancy, determination, justice, sensitivity, dedication, readiness for action , courage, generosity, mercy, creativity and other beautiful things. This type of pathos is usually called ascending .

Paphos, uniting the audience in terms of practical interests, is materialism, the pursuit of profit, common sense (meaning the desire to choose optimal solutions, save effort, etc.), humanism, criticism, relativism, adventurism, hedonism, pragmatism, thirst for power, ambition, competitiveness, fear, anger, etc. This type of pathos is called descending .

Focusing on one kind of pathos is not the best way. Any audience in reality experiences both those and other emotions, has both spiritual and material interests and motives.

The upward pathos is aimed at substantiating the adoption of the proposed solution to the problem from the standpoint of morality. Downward - from a position of practical interest.

The pathos of a speech oriented to solving problems in a practical field will undoubtedly be based on a downward pathos. However, in order to unite the audience, to raise their self-esteem and form a high level of internal harmony and a positive, creative attitude, it is more advisable to resort to elements of upward pathos.

From theory to practice

I don’t know how for you, but for me, any theorizing without concrete examples “from the fields” sharply starts to smell like spherical horses in a vacuum. In other words, the idea immediately arises that the proposed theory is good only as a theory or maximum in a couple of special cases. Therefore, I urgently propose moving on to examples and their analysis.

Written from one to one. Example 1. I need to orally discuss a number of issues with the CEO. To do this, you need to clarify his employment by writing in the messenger.

First, recall the profile characteristics of the chef. One of the expressed basic radicals in him is epileptoid (This is a reference to characterology and profiling. The article was laid outcolleagues on a corporate blog.). For epileptoid in messages, clarity, clarity, clarity are important. You can’t “spread your thoughts on wood”, write long sentences, use fuzzy / nonspecific language. All this epileptoid will be annoying, because the basic reaction for him is anger.

Now is the time of ethos. My boss and I are not close friends, so using Daroff or Aloha as a greeting is unlikely to be appropriate. There is no place for the logo and pathos - the task is too small.

In summary, the message is as follows:

“Oleg, good afternoon. There are 2 quick questions not for chat. 3 minutes maximum to discuss. When can I come in? ”

At the very beginning, the “Proper Name” technique from the attraction is used (I will talk about them separately in the next post). Further, the proposals are intentionally arranged shortly, without complex structures and turns. If possible, a maximum of specificity is given. Not “discuss 3 minutes”, but “3 minutes”. Not a “couple of questions,” but “2 questions.” At the end, a question is left to be as specific as possible. The boss doesn’t have to think out what I need: to call or verbally discuss. He is asked to give a short response to the action.

For comparison, an example of a failed message.

“Oleg, hello. There are several issues that need to be discussed. A lot of time is not needed: a couple of three minutes, no more. A maximum of five. In general, the issues are not urgent, but it would be better to discuss today. The faster the better. Let me know when you could come. ”

This message can infuriate epileptoid. Well, if "hello", then the middle name is worth adding. Or without a name. Further along the text there is practically no specifics and continuous streamlined formulations, a subjunctive mood. The message is overloaded with unnecessary "empty" information.

Example 2 . It is necessary to apply for a business trip by mail. Purpose: a trip to a specialized conference.

This is official correspondence. At the other end, someone processes this application and makes a decision. If we know who, we can use both attraction methods and knowledge of a person’s profile.

But suppose the opponent is unknown. Therefore, one must rely on the power of the word. The main goal is to convince the interlocutor of the necessity and validity of this business trip. Therefore, we use pathos. The upward pathos is aimed at substantiating the adoption of the proposed solution to the problem from the standpoint of morality. Downward - from a position of practical interest.

I ask you to consider the possibility of participating in the conference “The Ugly Security of Russia 2020”, which will be held on March 32 in New Vasyuki.

Justification:

Ivanov I.I. announced by one of the conference speakers and moderator of the round table. We, in the interests of the company, have long wanted to meet with him.
Reports on topical issues for us: “New tools in social engineering and ways to counter them”, as well as “Practical implementation of hacking Android 3000 and higher”.
- . ., .
., . .
. .

As you can see, emphasis was placed on the downward pathos. The arguments are designed to show that sending a specialist is advisable. You can close several tasks at once with one trip (for the same money). In clause 5. ascending pathos is also used when the image is mentioned.

Written from one to many. Such communication is typical for posts on the Web (social networks, forums, chats in instant messengers), as well as for mailing lists (new instructions, actual threats, reminders, etc.). Again, everything rests on the situation: to whom, why, and why you are addressing. Ethos to help.

Example 3. Sending a letter of reminder to the office staff about printed documents left in the printer.

A few words about humor. In my opinion, humor in adequate doses is appropriate and even useful. It helps smooth the corners of a “dry” official message. The main thing is not to overdo it and not to "petrosyanyat".

Colleagues.
I remind you that it is unacceptable to leave printed documents in the printer. The cleaner then reads them and earns millions on insider information.

Sending a document for printing and not picking it up is like going to the toilet and not flushing it after yourself.

Therefore, we ask in a good way, take printouts immediately! We will calculate the violators by IP and apply worse sanctions than the United States to North Korea.

"Colleagues" is a neutral appeal. Still, the newsletter is for informational purposes and "Yo, people!" somehow does not fit.

“I remind you,” not “please,” “please be careful,” etc. sets the tone. The mailing list initiator requires compliance with the rules, and does not leave a field for maneuver. In the case of “request”, the reader formally has a choice. The request is not an order. So, you can only take note, and not necessarily perform.

Now let's deal with the logo and its role. The main idea is expressed clearly, shortly and unequivocally. This is an indicative argument. We found that "it is unacceptable to leave printed documents." The rest of the text is intended to enhance the action of the main idea through humor and association. The passage about the cleaning lady is a convincing argument. He analyzes and evaluates the fact that the printed document was left and read by an outsider.

The following sentence uses upward pathos. In particular, through the analogy with the toilet, pressures on conscience, conscientiousness. We form an emotion so that the reader shares our point of view. Do not flush after yourself in the toilet - bad. Do not clean up printouts in the printer - it's like not to rinse after yourself in the toilet. Therefore, also bad.

Finally, the conclusion concludes and once again formulates the main idea. For clarity, the phrase is additionally highlighted in the text. Do not disdain the placement of accents. The font can be increased by 1-2 points, highlighted in bold, highlighted with color, sprinkle with sparkles, connect a hypnap. You can all together. The main thing is not to overdo it.

The message ends with a joke. It uses the popular slang phrase “Yes, I will calculate you by IP”, as well as “sanctions” that have already become common nouns. But as you know, every joke has a fraction of a joke. This is a veiled threat, a warning. The message is simple: violators will be found and punished.

Not quite the end

Oral communication to one and to many is significantly tied to a personal image and methods of attraction, so its analysis in the framework of this article will be unnecessary. And so a sheet of text, and even without pictures. In the next post, everything that is left will be analyzed.

The main idea, which runs through the whole article with a red thread, but practically not voiced explicitly, is simple - training. No matter how well you know the theory, no matter how well you understand the methods of attraction, without training you will not achieve anything. It will be easier to start with writing, as unlike oral, there is time to prepare for possible answers and objections. Train with colleagues, friends, relatives. Train constantly. This is necessary so that speech (and the techniques used in it) become your integral part and look / listen organically. Falsity is recognized instantly, and losing a “credit of trust” is an order of magnitude easier than making it.