Knowledge and Information in Global Competition: A New Framework for Classifying and Evaluating Manipulative Communication Techniques

Mass media initiated exhibitions of information and knowledge streams account for a significant factor of opinion-forming in modern digitalized nations and thus influence their country's political development. Within the framework of a globalized environment, this information has the ability to shape worldwide opinion and international policy decisions across geographical boundaries. Similarly, however, information and knowledge that does not flow freely has an impact on the behind the scenes decisions of world affairs. Selective manipulation, consumed through hidden channels, is therefore a powerful tool for shaping both social and organizational environments. Currently no classification approaches exist in order to identify and evaluate this type of manipulation. Therefore, this article will discuss this type of manipulative communication and align each category into an assessment model. Forty-two varieties of manipulative arguments will be identified as well as classified along three-dimensions. A model has been developed which will serve as a tool to identify the degree and at which level manipulation was performed.


Introduction
Human behavior, thoughts and feelings are subject to certain mechanisms which can be influenced. While bringing up children, parents use techniques to get the children to behave in a certain way. In this case, there is no intentional manipulation behind this communication. Even a simple smile is a psychological means to positively approach the emotions and communication of the partner. If one wants to achieve something from their opponent, the chance of achieving the desired result becomes higher when their mood is similarly positive. Manipulative communication is omnipresent; it can be found in politics, the media, advertising, as well as communication with partners, superiors and friends.
Marketing experts focus specifically on certain communication channels to reach specific audiences. This transmission of information takes place this in a variety of different ways. For instance, if an advertisement awakens a customer's interest and thus encouraged them to look at the company's website then the manipulation had been successful. Even if the consumer had previously compared prices for a product from various suppliers, they might not ultimately decide on the best price. The Apple brand is a prime example which provides evidence that consumers often make a purchase decision not only based on the pure product features but on advertising campaigns as well. Over the years, the company has managed to consistently increase its value. With a value of almost 607 billion US dollars [1], it is by far the most valuable company in the world, currently worth more than the entire Russian stock market [2]. Apple knows how to bring the consumer to pay a much higher price for a product that is much cheaper to buy from other suppliers. Apple achieved this, to a large extent, by the use of targeted and dedicated manipulation. Bruhn's definition of 1. Child: <clings to the mother and cries> 2. Nanny: <leans to the child> "We go not only shopping and to the cafe, we visit your sister Anna at school too" 3. Nanny: <to the mother> "When Anna has lunch break?" 4. Mother: "At twelve clock." 5. Child: <takes the hand of the Nanny> In this example, a goal is set into the child's mind, which coincides with her interests; namely, visiting her older sister at school. The interests of adults are silently met. It is observable that the influence of the communication partner, in this case the child, certainly can be considered as an act happening in her senses. The child is not aware of the manipulation. The gesture of the nanny, which leans to the child, acts soothingly and helps to reinforce the interests of the mother and herself. Parents act effectively on behalf of their children when they themselves cannot correctly assess their own situation. Because the influence of the child was not pursuing improper intention and acted only in her sense, there is no manipulation.
Between adults a similar situation can be considered differently, as they are (unlike the child) aware of their own interests. An example between a client and contractor serves to further delimitation of the term manipulation [5]: 1. Client: "When can you create the copies?" 2. Contractor: "Wednesday?" 3. Client: "Is it not possible to do so earlier? I need them on Tuesday." 4. Contractor: "All right, then, I'll have them by Tuesday afternoon." 5. Client: "Thank you! Can you let me know in case something unexpected happens?" <Looks expectantly> 6. Contractor: "Of course! I'll call you if something goes wrong. But that will not happen." 7. Client: "Great, thank you." The customer needs his copies on Tuesday. After the contractor has offered to provide the copies by Wednesday, the client tries to influence him. He has had success with the influence, and he strongly hedges his interest by the use of the demand and his expectant look. Again, there is no manipulation in the sense of the conditions previously defined, because the client puts his interests explicitly open and does not try to influence his opponent silently. In this case, the contractor is willing to reprioritize his tasks in order to meet the desire of the customer.
A manipulation can be affirmed in the slightly modified case of this example, where the client would come up with: "Wednesday only? If I have to wait that long, then I might have to look around in the future for someone who is faster in processing". The customer does not express his interests clearly, instead he only says that he needs the copies earlier. He wants to influence his opponent so that he will deliver the required copies earlier. The further course of the conversation runs parallel to the original example, but with the difference that the customer downgrades the contractor by concealing and not explicitly expressing his interests.

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Vol. 72
An insult downgrades the opposite as well; however, it does not aim (as opposed to manipulation) an influence but rather a direct illustration of the devaluation. The same can be observed in discriminations, with the difference that not individuals but social groups are being devalued [6, p. 85]. Insults and discrimination are different from manipulation, as they are explicitly presented to the interlocutors where one's own interests are not veiled and inequalities are openly expressed.

Model Construction
The purpose of this section is to form a weighted classification model for manipulative communication using the wealth of existing literature. The aim of this model is to classify and mutually evaluate manipulative communication without losing the scientific claim of objectivity. To this end, assumptions and considerations which are relevant for the model construction are defined below. The amount of classifiable material will be qualifiedly illustrated along the basic consideration that is inherent in the actual classification. A detailed list of examples on the different types of manipulative communication is given in a subsequent section. The conclusion on the necessary nature of the model is based on the manipulation arguments and classification. The method of model construction will be set out in detail. After a review of the model construction, a critical evaluation of this model with regard to validity and reproducibility will be performed.

Preliminary Considerations and Assumptions
To form the scientific model, the authors refer to numerous sources that are largely different in their timeliness, quality and audience; however, they nonetheless provide a holistic basis. The considerations on this model rely on four main sources, whose information was unified and brought to a common scalar base.
The sources correlate in their respective research aspect to each other and they partially overlap in their results. Hence, during the classification of manipulative arguments, congruence of sources must be considered. Thus, in this study of manipulative arguments we examine Schopenhauer's book, "The Art of Being Right", which outlined a list of 38 stratagems, which individuals attempt to use to manipulate an argument. Edmüller and Wilhelm provided further results, developed on Schopenhauer's basis and have adapted them in their topicality to parallel circumstances of the 21st century. Each named author of an argument always corresponds to the original/principal author. The three abovementioned authors identified, all with their own style, and focus on specific arguments in manipulative communication. The model is derived here in its nature from these 42 different manipulative arguments. A fully featured model from the Department of soft science (social science) requires consensus on some contentious issues that could provide the raison d'être of such a model in question. It therefore established the following assumptions which are relevant for the understanding and acceptance of the model: 1. Manipulative communication is to be regarded in this model as a value-free term and subordinated unlike the bourgeois word understanding no malicious intent. Manipulative communication is evaluated only in conjunction with the design of the manipulators. 2. Manipulation can be done consciously and nonconsciously. 3. Manipulative communication is more effective (ie. Manipulative), if it is not perceived by the manipulated person [7]. 4. Manipulative communication is not an absolute concept and thus can be increased. An argument may be more or less manipulative than another. The model is built on these premises which will be assumed to be true without exceptions in the following. Changes to these premises would have ramifications on the objectification and

30
Volume 72 evaluation of the arguments considered during modeling and thus could invalidate the model. Premises one and two aim to exclude valuations commonly found in colloquial language from the model at hand. Instead, an evaluation of arguments using only objectively determined criteria is established in the following paper. The third premise is used as a tool for evaluation and therefore for modeling. The fourth premise validates the distinction between "strong manipulation" and "weak manipulation" thus legitimizing the model.

Manipulative Arguments from Various Sources
The following 42 arguments are taken from research by Schopenhauer, Edmüller and Wilhelm as well as Kahneman. Two of these 42 arguments were found during modeling and have been included because they belong to the topic of manipulation, both argumentatively and qualitatively. A selection of arguments is presented in this chapter to shed light on the conclusions and to support comprehension of the modeling process. A detailed explanation of each kind of argumentative manipulation as well as examples taken from business and politics follows in the next chapter. The background colors represent the source of each argument (Table 1). This table contains the set of arguments with a manipulative nature identified during construction of the model. The names have been taken from their original sources. Names for arguments identified through practical experience were chosen with a consistent naming in mind. In this spirit, the name "The lie of true improvement" was not explicitly chosen by Daniel Kahneman but is used here as a title for his texts on this kind of arguments. The arguments defined by Schopenhauer in his "Eristical Dialectic" show a slightly different naming convention and are slightly different from the arguments of other authors. This is most likely due to historical conditions and the different language cultures being used during the lifetime of the Schopenhauer (1788 -1860).
It is important to note that the table above does not claim to be a complete list and can be extended by further arguments. Some arguments have been deliberately omitted because they were too close to other arguments already contained in the model. Such arguments could either not be clearly distinguished from existing arguments or would reduce the clarity and thus the value of the model. The following model is meant to be a framework that has been derived from a set of manipulative arguments and can therefore be extended with additional arguments provided that the same classification method is used.

Identification of the models dimensions
The model construction was aimed to present the nature of each argument and then to classify it. First, existing methods of classification were considered and evaluated. Some methods of classification are proposed by Edmüller and Wilhelm. For the sake of completeness these methods are presented in the following because they have a similar goal to this work. These approaches are not directly used in the model derived here but are used as a source of inspiration and as a first approach for the classification based on shared features. Edmüller and Wilhelm propose classification based on goals (enforcement strategy or blockade strategy) and on methods (aggressive or passive). The features of these respective strategies are listed in Table 2 and 3 below.  Table 3. Enforcement strategy non-persuasion-oriented methods persuasion-oriented methods threaten / lies / black-mail flatter informing selectively make amends on emotional level to provoke a consideration on factual level personal attacks appeal to vanity / prestige working up emotions use authority (intimidate) dummy concessions unsettle: present own solution as lifeline "my last offer, then ..." use dummy arguments dismissing the topic as non-negotiable evoke time pressure evoke remorse Further approaches create the division in aggressive manipulation and passive manipulation.
The dominant goal during model construction was to unify the dimensions on the smallest basis possible to achieve an objectification during the identification of dimensions. To this end, terms like 'strategy' as well as more judgmental axes (e.g. "aggressive") were deliberately avoided. The considerations for the model presented here rest on the definitions of manipulation and communication presented above. Thus, it can be stated that any manipulative communication is the alteration of the information during its exchange. The available dimensions are adapted to this alteration of the information were divided into three levels, which will form the axes of the model. All axes correspond to an impairment of the flow of information, but they each use different methods of manipulation; respectively: • Lack of information (information quantity): The manipulator conceals information that is relevant for completely and correctly comprehending factual connections; and she therefore 32 Volume 72 has an influence on the decision. Typical procedures are partisan reporting or viewing, concealment of alternative courses of action or perspectives, making subjects taboo or the active renunciation of rectifying incorrect information. • Wrong information (information quality): Manipulation by misinformation is the deliberate alteration of valid information, which does not necessarily have all the facts or can happen when the facts are distorted, but might also occur when minor details are changed and thus have an impact on the overall context. Usual procedures are lies, inadmissible promises, generalizations, assumptions or deliberately chosen arguments whose validity cannot be verified. • Causal malrelationship (causal link to information): The manipulator seeks to suggest a false causal reference. Quantity and quality of information are sufficient. However, the relevance of the argument is doubtful. The manipulator suggests that an argument is a valid reason for a change in the conclusion, although these are no logical connections between the two. Typical elements in this case are sideshow, emotion, tradition, specious arguments and/or triviality.
We will call the three dimensions selected for this model "quantity [of information]", "quality [of information]" and "causality [of information]." Without exception, each of the 42 identified arguments of manipulative nature can be evaluated using these dimensions. The choice of these dimensions have several causes: • Logical Cause: These three-dimensions base in regard to the formulated objectives on an atomic substructure. • Prolific cause: The dimensions are well understood and the model is objectified by the small room for interpretation, since the reproducibility is facilitated. • Historical-Linguistic Cause: A similar classification of manipulative approaches along the dimensions of quality, quantity and causality can be found in various historical oaths, which are frequently used in court [11, pp. 756-759]: "... I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that the evidence I shall give to the Court (z) touching the matters in question, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ..." Such enumeration is (contrary to popular opinion) an Epipher as a stylistic device, but referred to different dimensions of a false statement (i.e. A deliberate argumentative manipulation). "The truth" refers to the qualitative false statement (lie), "The whole Truth" on the quantitative manipulation (concealment) and "Nothing but the Truth" on non-causal reasoning (dummy argument).

Classification of the arguments into dimensions
The identified arguments can now be classified along each dimension in a three-dimensional model. To this end, a rating for each dimension is required. Such an evaluation expects that subjective assessments will inevitably occur, which are symptomatic of a non-exact science. The following valuation methods are plausible and can be used in the preparation of the model: • Subjective assessment of each argument: Assessing each argument subjectively along the defined dimensions is highly prejudicial in terms of reproducibility, validity and objectivity of the model. • Assessment based on numerous subjective ratings (collective intelligence): A measurement series of numerous subjective assessments, which has been statistically adjusted is advantageous in terms validity and value. This approach is, however, particularly cost-and resource-intensive. • Subjective assessment of each argument in a matrix against each other: Using a matrix, the existing arguments are pitted against each other and assessed for their manipulative element according to the dimension. That argument, which is (according to premise 4manipulation is gradable) in a dimension more manipulative (for example restraining more information) is rated with 1, that another argument with 0. From 42 different arguments,

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Vol. 72
which are to be rated along three dimensions, 2583 individual assessments arise. This statement is based on the quotient y(x 2 -x)/2, whereby y is the number of dimensions and thus the number of matrices to be considered and x the number of arguments to be evaluated. The division by 2 takes into account the indirect proportionality of reverse ordered argument ratings (Argument 1: Argument 2 = 1: 0 → Argument 2: Argument 1 = 0: 1). This set of individual ratings leads to an objectification of 1st degree. The individual arguments are not rated independently along one dimension, but the assessment of each individual argument against another objectifies the results and harmonize the end result due to reduced impact of individual ratings (1 rating → 0.38 ‰). In the course of modeling the evaluation by matrices was selected, as this ensures an adequate objectification without having to extraordinary effort (e.g. High number of participants in collective assessment). Using examples per dimension, the evaluation of arguments will be clarified below. An objective-scientific model claims content congruence in reproduction by third parties. To ensure this, the method must be explained, and the parameters of the model may leave no room for interpretation. These requirements were taken into account under the previous course. The method will be illustrated by examples.

Classification into the dimension of quantitative manipulation
Below the manipulative argumentation "taboo tactic" and "an attack on the person" are compared and weighted against each other. The dimension to be considered is the quantitative manipulation, i.e. manipulation by conscious or nonconscious withholding of information in an information exchange.

The taboo tactics
The manipulator avoids any conversation about a (mostly unwelcome) issue by giving this issue taboo status. Any exchange of views on this issue is suppressed in case of success of the manipulation attempt. This taboo tactic is also part of a 1: N conversational flow and probably more effective there. The manipulator, e.g. as a speaker at a staff meeting who makes taboo an employee's question on dismissals and thus he takes the audience's potential role as a follow up questioner.

The attack on the person
The manipulator attacked his victim on a personal or professional level. The manipulated is attacked in his professional or personal expertise and the attacker spawns a dummy argument or opens a sideshow. The attack on the person has (in its manipulative form) usually no substantive connection to the origin of the conversation. Although the attack on professional or personal peculiarities of the victim may be valid (because he has a real expertise gap in a particular field), this is usually not relevant and the causality between the original discussion and manipulative argument is not given.
In the following excerpt from the evaluation matrix for the first dimension "quantitative manipulation" the evaluation approach is exemplarily explained ( Table 4). The attack on the person (A2) is subsequently evaluated against the taboo tactic (B1) in regard of the lack of information. Both arguments are evaluated on the strength of retaining information. The evaluation in a dimension that assumes to the argument in the vertical direction (A2) a higher manipulative value than the horizontal argument (B1) leads to 1 in the rating field (B2). In a reverse case, as in the example below, the rating field contains a 0. If the values are in reverse order (vertical / horizontal), as shown by Table 5, the rating field (B2) will accordingly contain a 1, which means that the Taboo tactics is still rated higher than Attack on the person with respect to the quantitative dimension. In this binary classification, after having completely evaluated a dimension, a total value for an argument can be determined by row-wise summation of the ratings. This total value is a numeric comparative figure of the manipulation's strength opposite to other arguments. In a comparison the total values can be used to bring the arguments in a descending (or ascending) order, which enables us to globally evaluate and visualize the manipulation's strength (always according premise 4 -Manipulation is gradable).

Classification into the dimension of qualitative manipulation
In the following manipulative argumentation "Poisoning wells" and "Tradition tactics" will be compared and weighted against each other. The dimension to be considered here is the quality manipulation, that is, the manipulation by conscious or nonconscious alteration or falsification of information, which is elementary for the related exchange and communication. A strong qualitative manipulation is especially found in lies, inadmissible promises, generalizations or imputations. Here a false statement must not necessarily be made -claiming non-verifiable arguments, e.g. "The leading scientists in the US have discovered…", lowers the quality of information exchange and is thus manipulative.

Poisoning wells
The manipulator eliminates, by hostile and mostly inadmissible insinuations, any chance of freedom of expression and, a priori, he turns communication participants that differ from his opinion into negatively charged antagonists. A typical example could therefore be read as follows: "Anyone who is genuinely interested in the welfare and growth of our company and has not been dropped entirely from the mind will endorse that this roadmap gives our company growth and a forward-looking orientation." The manipulator defines in his words everyone, who supports a different opinion, as business-adversarial and "dropped from the mind". He thus creates a subliminal pressure situation against which the rebellion is difficult. The hierarchical position of the manipulator is also an important factor that decides on effect of this manipulation.

Tradition tactics
The manipulator relies on past positive or negative experiences, and uses this as a valid argument in order to influence current decisions. These experiences are not always to be regarded as reliable and up to date and they carry errors in reasoning, especially when temporally variable environmental factors are disregarded. An exemplary sentence of a manipulator, who argues in the tradition tactics could be: "No, I do not think we need a new feedback system in our department. Until now everything works as it has always worked and we have practiced this well-established approach for years". The manipulator relies on past experience and classifies them as authoritative for a decision to be taken. It is usually forgotten that environmental influences vary with time (e.g. Department has increased / new employees would like a new feedback system).
Below the poisoning wells will be evaluated against tradition tactics in regard of the manipulative strength in the dimension of qualitative manipulation. Table 6 provides the result -the poisoning wells (A2) is higher rated in its manipulative strength (B2) than the traditional tactics (B1).
While in the case of the traditional tactics, the arguments mostly are in a non-causal relationship ("we have practiced this well-established approach for years" is no valid and causal argument), but the quality of the argument ("we have practiced this well-established approach for years" most likely a qualitative proper statement that is correct in substance) undisputed and not manipulative. The manipulation is performed using the traditional tactics primarily not on a qualitative level. The poisoning wells, however intentionally draws highly false information. As in the aforementioned example, the manipulator does not manipulate others by a shortage of information and the supplied arguments are mostly in a causally correct context, but the information itself is flawed -"Anyone who … has not been dropped entirely from the mind will endorse that …" is an insinuation. It is probably not true that opponents are automatically "dropped entirely from the mind". The quality of the argument is low and therefore in its form manipulative. The review and examination of the arguments thus lead to classify poisoning wells as qualitatively more manipulative than the traditional tactics ( Table 6). The review and examination of the two arguments led to the result classifying poisoning wells as qualitatively more manipulative than the traditional tactics. The Rating field B2 will be assessed accordingly with 1. In reverse order (A2 → tradition tactics / B1 → poisoning wells) the rating field B2 will accordingly be inversely occupied with 0. Poisoning wells 1

Classification into the dimension of causal manipulation
In the following the manipulative argumentation "Emotional appeal" and "black-whitethinking" will be compared and weighted against each other. The dimension to be considered is the causal manipulation, i.e. the manipulation by bearing substantively correct arguments, but which are causally deceptive. Strong causal manipulations include secondary theaters of war, emotionality, tradition, specious arguments or triviality. This type of manipulation is most effective when it is not perceived by the manipulated person and when he regards the raised argument as valid, although no necessary and valid relationships in a logical consideration exist and the argument used in the context of the specific communication is mostly worthless.

Emotional appeal
In an emotional appeal, the manipulator addresses the manipulated on a personal or emotional level and aims to change his position and course of action by empathy (or comparable intensive and mostly negatively charged emotions such as guilt). This type of communication is shaped by causally unconnected arguments. The manipulator suggests that at a decision (e.g. a promotion at work) also includes emotional aspects of another nature (e.g. volunteering outside of work) that should play a major role and thus cannot outmaneuver even substantive valid arguments (performance, reliability, leadership). The quality and quantity of these arguments is mostly valid; however, the argument in its nature and in this context is not usually allowed.

Black-White-Thinking
The manipulator suggests the exclusive existence of only two (at less frequent cases more but severely limited) alternatives. A typical example of a black-and-white portrayal would this: "Mr. Miller, you can solve the problems with your employee either by terminating or by relocating him. Please decide quickly." The manipulator is silent in this case regarding other alternatives (debate, compromise, amicable agreement) in order to reach its own target (rapid change, cost savings). This type of communication is in the dimensions of quality (proposed alternatives are valid) and causality (proposed alternatives are purposeful) harmless and he manipulates instead on a quantitative level (action alternatives are incomplete).

36
Volume 72 The following excerpt from the evaluation matrix shows the evaluation of the arguments in the causal dimension ( Table 7). The emotional appeal (A2) was thereby ranked as more manipulative, and accordingly the rating field (B2) is filled with l. The emotional appeal is, as in the example above, probably mostly quantitatively and qualitatively valid. Raising emotional arguments in the context of a substantive discussion is causally incorrect and does not appropriately match the content in the context. The black-white-thinking, however, is content-related and logically in the correct causal relationship, and thus the emotional appeal predominates in its manipulative nature. In an inverse rating (A2 → black-white-thinking / Bl → emotional appeal) the score field (B2) is occupied by 0.

Creating order of precedence
After complete processing all of the ratings in the above manner, three matrices arise. The values in the score fields (l or 0) result as a sum per line (that is, per argument) in the number of reviews that are classified as 'manipulative'. The minimum value of this sum is 0, the maximum value at 41. From these 42 row sums an order of precedence (c) is formed, which is exemplified by Table 8 using a cut of six arguments. The precedence value lies within an interval of 1 to 42, since the values are an actual excerpt of the entire matrix. The trick of sets 18 23 5 4 Emotional appeal 2 40 1 5 The analogy trap  8  36  2  6  Pessimism  34  7  9  7 Attack on the person 0 42 0 After the total was calculated, the arguments are ordered according to this sum in ascending order. The resulting list is provided with ascending precedence numbers that actively arranges the arguments according to their manipulative value. The argument with the precedence number 1 is, accordingly, the most manipulative argument in that dimension, while the precedence number 42 expresses a very low value. If multiple arguments have the same row value, they receive the same precedence number, wherein the corresponding number of subsequent precedencies remains unoccupied (e.g. four arguments with the same sum get the precedence number 10, the numbers 1 1, 12 and 13 thus remain unoccupied, and only precedence numbers greater or equals 14 continue being assigned to an argument). The dimension value (d), which defines a coordinate point for each argument, is subsequently determined from the respective precedence number. For this, the order of precedence is simply converted to an interval from 0 to 10, wherein the number 1 corresponds to the dimension value 10 DIN 1333). After having determined all dimension values as described, three coordinates arise per argument, which can be axis-based converted into a three-dimensional model that is spanned by the three manipulative dimensions (Fig. 1) which we introduced. The red quadrant in Fig. 2 corresponds to extremes of manipulative arguments that have high scores on all three dimensions and thus can be considered as highly manipulative. These are "Amount trick" (5,6,5) "Authority tactic" (8,6,7) "Poisoning of wells" (6,10,10), "The Evidence tactics" (7,8,7) "Guarantee tactics" (6,6,6), "Precision trap" (8,6,9) "Slide tactics / avalanche argument" (9,9,9), "Straw man tactics" (8,5,5) "Black dyeing" (9,7,6) and "The true improvement lie" (5,8,8).

Explanation of manipulation techniques
In this chapter the 42 types of manipulative communication are explained. The dimension value per dimension (interval 0 → 10) is specified, and a recent example from business and politics will be given and explained. It is noted here that with the provision of an example no subjective evaluation and expression by the author will takes place. In this contribution, the authors treat manipulation in an unbiased manner. It should be noted that these citations have been mostly taken and translated literally.

Black-White-Thinking (quantity=7, quality=2, causality=0)
The manipulator suggests that there are only two possible options or perspectives. He embezzles alternative ("gray") possibilities for actions or views. Example [12]: "A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe do not share Western values, they bifurcate themselves into parallel societies and do not want to culturally integrate." The manipulator suppresses the argument by using black and white painting; a goal-oriented conversation which divides Muslim fellow citizens into only two categories.
The fallacy of the wrong alternative (9,3,2) The denial or falsification of one apparent variant is considered as sufficiently confirming the verification of an alternative variant, although there are numerous possibilities, a comprehensive consideration of the subject will not be made here. An example often heard in politics is: "Things cannot get any worse thus it is time that the somebody else comes along" [13].
The wrong dilemma (9,2,3) The wrong dilemma suggests that there are only two options, although there are more. Example: Q: "Why are there so few active politicians or bankers that openly address the problems of the euro zone?" A: "Either they are responsible for these problems or they shy away from the conflict with those who are responsible for these problems" [14].
The analogy trap (2,8,4) In order to accentuate his point, the manipulator draws an analogy to established views (natural laws, facts) and he tries to make his argument benefit from the well-known fact-based truth of the analogy or to verify his argument. The quality and causality of this statement is usually logically incorrect. An example from an immigration debate: Q: "We have 0.4% Muslims in Dresden, for example, where there is abundant fear of Islamization; can you explain that?" A: "Well, Germany is also demonstrably against deforestation, although there is no rain forest in Germany" [15].
Pessimism (9,7,6) The manipulator illuminates with a special and often myopic focus on negative elements in a discussion, thus preventing a comprehensive view of the circumstances.
The slide tactics / avalanches argument (9,9,9) In order to secure his position, the manipulator portrays a number of negative consequences, which will occur upon actions against him. Often these are baseless or not causal contiguous. For the most part, this kind of manipulation does not allow for sufficient consideration. Example [16]: "If the state determines the salaries, then next they will start to fix the prices. Soon it will look like the GDR, only without a wall." The precision trap (8,6,9) The manipulator bolsters his argument with very precise details (mainly statistics and/or percentages) that are unverifiable for the manipulated due to the form and precision; that however suggest a significant and real value to the conversation.
The authority tactic (8,6,7) To confirm his argument, the manipulator refers to authorities without concretely quoting them, or without verifying the veracity of the authority's statement. The manipulator uses either a specific, but irrelevant authority or an undetermined but relevant authority ("US scientists say …"). Example: Since 2012 Roger Federer makes advertisement for the coffee machine manufacturer Jura [17].
The well-poisoning (6,6,10) The position of the opponent will be undermined before he can establish his position at all. Delivering a statement on this position leads to one's own defamation.
The evidence tactic (7,8,7) The manipulator claims inadmissible proof; this is when a (mostly) contentious statement is generally recognized. He often introduces his statements by saying, "It's beyond dispute … The guarantee tactic (6,6,6) The manipulator inadmissibly guarantees improvement.
The tradition tactic (3,2,5) The manipulator relies on a tradition, which does not provide significant justification. Example [18]: "Our beloved Christmas markets will become Winter markets, so as not to injure religious feelings. The word 'Moor', which has been in children's books for hundreds of years, has to be changed. It should disappear from our language. It's simply wrong." The manipulator argues with tradition, but conceals that the circumstances and history of the concept of this term has changed nowadays.
The taboo tactic (10,0,9) The manipulator taboos a (mostly) disagreeable subject, and he does not allow any exchange of information about this or he eludes the communication via passivity.
The trap of perfection (6,3,8) A manipulator rejects an argument because it does not provide a complete solution to an issue, although no better solution exists.
The irrelevance tactic (4,3,8) The argumentation, yield by the manipulator, has no causal relationship. Example: "The Muslim faith clearly brings down his followers' willingness to achieve, which is fully in tune with the colossal backwardness of the Islamic culture: 1.5 billion Muslims and not a single one with a Nobel Prize" [19].
Attack on the person (0, 10,10) The manipulator uses irrelevant insinuations without causal relationship. Example [20]: Q: "Why do you speak of degeneracies that have taken place in the last four years in politics and indeed here in this country? Why do you speak of a sediment, which might be there, which would come into this country?" A: "Mrs. …, I really wouldn't have expected you were capable of discussing at this level, Sorry." The manipulator ignores the question completely and attacks his opponent on a personal level. Without causal relationship he makes the suggestion of an inappropriate level.

40
Volume 72 The attack on the impartiality (0, 9,10) The neutral, unbiased attitude of the conversational partner is being challenged by the manipulator.
The principles trap / Fallacy through dismissal of facts (2,7,6) Using the principles trap the manipulator sticks to learned principles, and he is convinced that these are to be viewed as absolute.
Emotional appeal (1,2,9) This manipulation method consists of an appeal to certain feelings or values of others. There is no causal relationship between the appeal and argumentation.
The triviality trick (4,4,7) The manipulator evades a serious conversation and refers to or pivots on trivialities. Example [21]: Q: "Dr. Kohl, good afternoon, Studio Panorama. One question: For what purpose have you received the funds from Mr. Kirch?" A: "I do not have the intention to make an interview with you!" Q: "Why not?" A: "You are from Panorama!" The manipulator does not answer the question, he evades and refers to trivial reasons. The rejection of a news channel is not the answer to a valid question in this context. Circular reasoning (4,5,10) This type of manipulation is an assertion that is explained by the same assertion.
The trick of sets (5,6,5) The manipulator refers to a great quantity of supporters that is not available or verifiable.
The fallacies of perspective (6,1,3) The manipulator argues exclusively from his own perspective and thus he prevents a comprehensive, full-fledged consideration all of the circumstances.
The fallback to definitions (7,4,2) The manipulator uses a vocabulary that allows him to revise the meaning of his statements when he gets confronted with criticism.
Fallback tactic and double nets (3,5,1) The manipulator expresses himself in vague language and withdraws from his vulnerable position to a less dangerous position.
The lie of true improvement (5,8,8) The manipulator uses a formulation wherein it is impossible for the speaker to be wrong. The speaker uses phrases like, "It is necessary to get worse before it gets better." If the situation deteriorates (e.g. sales), then the manipulator's prognosis proved and a melioration is to be expected (in indefinite time). If, instead, an improvement occurs immediately, the manipulator's actions or statements are similarly verified. Example: "Things are to get worse before they get better." Salami-slicing (10,0,0) Information is always gradual verified by the manipulator, namely only when further information is discovered by others.
Unspoken assumption (10,9,2) The manipulator postulates prerequisites for steps of actions or assumptions that are not well founded. Example from immigration debate [22]: "Citizens have the impression that politics is indeed always very quick to affirm immigration, but that little is talked about, by what criteria and in what quantity immigration must take place, in which neighborhoods immigrants are supposed to live, how they should earn their living, what jobs they should take and who should teach them our language, our understanding of law and democracy." Denying applicability (2,10,1) The reasons for an argument are recognized and accepted by the manipulator, but he denies the applicability to concretely give facts due to unspecifiable additional conditions.

Critical appraisal
The present work has attempted to distill a classification system from the variety of sources and types of manipulative communication. The predominant claim was to minimize the subjective factors and to objectify the model as far as possible in order to maintain the claim of reproducibility. For this purpose, various measures have been taken. Especially by assessing the arguments against each other by the use of a matrix approach which contributes to this objectification. Even if a third party tries to reproduce the model, thus changing some individual ratings, although no excessive deviation from this model should occur within the very high number of individual evaluations. Similarly, the linear transformation of the precedence numbers into dimension values exclusively classifies by precedence order, not by specific characteristics, so that the weight of individual assessments will be reduced again. Hence, the dimension values reflect primarily trends rather than individual characteristic values. A reproduction of the model should not expect that all the arguments will have the exact same dimension values, but the method of modeling allows the assumption that the individual arguments would be in the same quadrant as in this case.
Despite all of these possible measures taken, which intend to objectify the model, a tendency to subjectivity is recognizable and thus open to criticism from a theoretical point of view. To a large extent, this is caused by the different interpretation of manipulative arguments, whose manipulative value even may increase or decrease on changes in tone or body language. Since every person has their own experience, views and ideas about/with individual arguments, every person will perform some individual evaluations differently and will slightly modify the model.