Note to self (1):

From Book 2, Chapter 21, Section 15 of On Rhetoric (pg. 186):

Maxims make one great contribution to speeches because of the uncultivated mind of the audience; for people are pleased if someone in a general observation hits upon opinions that they themselves have about a particular instance.

I don’t especially agree with Aristotle singling out “the uncultivated mind” as being solely susceptible to someone who presents himself as one of like mind. I think it’s possible for anyone to be taken in by an agreeable, flattering speech. I think this also provides a good description of some of the methods Ogas and Gaddam used to build trust with fandom.

~*~*~

From Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 4 of On Rhetoric (pg. 222):

As a result, authors should compose without being noticed and should seem to speak not artificially but naturally. (The latter is persuasive, the former the opposite; for [if artifice is obvious] people become resentful, as at someone plotting against them, just as they are at those adulterating wines.)

This statement does a good job of describing why Ogas’ and Gaddam’s overly technical responses were so irritating and seemed so patronizing to those who received them. Had they responded with a more natural style of language, they would have gotten further. Or perhaps not — it seems likely the language choice was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate their true purpose. Though honestly, it’s difficult to say what their true purpose actually was. Neededalj, a neuroscientist herself, tried to parse out their intentions, and even she wasn’t convinced she sorted it out. She did, however, make a fairly compelling case for what she thought might be going on.