There is a magnificent scene in the film "Whiplash" (2014) that shows Sleight of Mouth at work in everyday "hard-nosed negotiation". What is interesting is that in some families digs are not the exception but the ordinary way of talking to one another.
By way of a preface: Sleight of Mouth patterns are verbal templates for parrying the other person's verbal attacks. And for a great deal else, but let us not rush: "you eat an elephant a piece at a time". The basics of these devices can be found here:
On these verbal devices, on dodging the dig, with examples, read the article:
So, the scene: a family sitting at dinner. Among them is one "grey swan", Andrew. He is a musician, and a very gifted one. But not recognised in the family.
The tone, the style and the rules of the conversation are set by the head of the family:
Well, Jim, you have overcooked it! It cannot be chewed!
A dig by the father, the head of the family
Jim laughs, keeps quiet, does not defend his boundaries.
If you have not returned the tennis ball, next time it is a brick flying at you. So the next dig follows:
And he is still laughing!
A dig: the father goes on "pressing" the silent, laughing Jim
Then in come Travis, who has been named Player of the Year, and Dustin, who is leaving for a placement at the UN. The mother also praises Jim, who has won a Teacher of the Year award. And Andrew, the unrecognised talent, does not fit into this picture of modern "success"...
So much talent at one table. And Andrew "drums" as well
A dig: the mother mentions Andrew in passing.
Andrew is stung, and with reason. He is not merely the younger brother. If you ever want to put someone down, place him at the end of the list with the words "AS WELL" added. Andrew goes on the defensive and starts explaining what a first-rate drummer he is and how he takes part in competitions. A losing tactic: he is justifying himself, and so showing weakness.
Weakness is followed by the next dig:
- And how can you tell who wins a music competition? It is subjective, surely!
- No!
A dig: Travis puts Andrew down.
- Do they pay you at that studio?
- No, it is a student band, after all, but it is a breakthrough in my career!
A dig: Andrew is finished off with another put-down. And he goes on justifying himself
And again Andrew does not answer. So there is more to come:
Good that you have grasped that! It is a brutal business, no doubt about it!
the father says to Andrew
The reply shows the Redefining pattern used in Guru style (it is used to create dependence). Andrew boasts, whereupon the man answering steps into the role of the "universal sage". First he praises, using Intent. Then he shows that Andrew has not quite understood, using Redefining. Andrew will feel that he has made a mess of it again, and a wish to see the thing through will appear. The man quickly changes the subject, giving Andrew no time to react. Andrew has lost, but...
Revenge always comes quickly. Exactly THREE SENTENCES LATER Andy attacks. While Travis is describing what a fine footballer he is, Andrew attacks with Redefining
That is Division Three. Not even Division Two...
Revenge for the defeat: Andrew lobs a "grenade" at Travis
The attack has worked, everyone is shocked. It would be a mistake for Travis to start arguing about which league is the impressive one. So he cleverly changes the subject:
- Andrew, do you have any friends?
- No
A dig at Andrew with an Appeal to Consequences. Andrew does not answer, so there is more to come:
- And why is that? - I do not see the point.
A dig: another dig at Andrew, this time with Reality Strategy
And who are you going to play with? Lennon and McCartney were friends from school, after all!
A dig with an Appeal to Consequences and Model of the World
A reference to celebrities always works. The tactical mistake is that Andrew knows more about musicians, and he seizes the initiative:
Charlie Parker did not know anybody until a cymbal was thrown at him
A reply with a better Model of the World
And that, in your view, is success?
A dig with Redefining
Being the best musician of the 20th century is success whichever way you look at it
A reply with Redefining and Meta Frame
Dying poor and drunk at 30 is not much of a success
A dig with Redefining and Chunking Down
I would rather die young, poor and drunk and be talked about at a dinner table than live to 100 rich and sober and be remembered by nobody
A reply with Chunking Down, Consequences and Hierarchy of Criteria
Your friends will remember you - that is the point
A dig with Hierarchy of Criteria
None of us were friends with Charlie Parker - that is the point
A reply with Hierarchy of Criteria and Consequences. The reply hints that the people around the musician did not accept him, and that he perished.
Travis and Dustin - they have plenty of friends, plenty of intentions
A dig with Model of the World
A reference to other people only works if they are celebrities. Here the reference is to two ordinary students, Travis and Dustin. The dig fails, and Andrew replies:
A straight road to being school president
Andrew strikes with Consequences
Travis and Dustin are stung, and they make a mistake. They get personal, and they lose:
So that is what it is about, Andrew! You are better than we are?
A dig by Dustin, with Redefining and Intent
Quick on the uptake! Have they taken you at the UN yet?
Andrew replies with Intent and a more concise Consequence. The hint is that Dustin has not achieved anything yet.
I will answer you, Andrew. You think Carleton is nothing? Come and play with us!
A dig by Travis, with Apply to Self
Those are words you will never hear from a famous musician
Andrew replies with Model of the World
Has Lincoln called yet?
A dig at Andrew with Consequences. The hint is that Andrew has not become a famous musician yet.
For Andrew this is too much. He is unprepared, because he never learned to "dodge the dig" at the meetings of the "Freud's Legacy" club.
Fancy some practice?
How do you learn to answer in a politically correct way in situations like these? Here is a "practice drill" to train on:
