For example, with younger students, some teachers may wish to focus on diction, the choice of words used in ads. Within the "Composition" sub-section of the schema, then they could point out there how word choice is also related to syntax and larger structures, such as the 1-2-3-4-5 pattern of "the pitch." (I'd recommend starting with that easy "fingertip formula.")

Or, if a college class in logic is studying the "informal fallacies," teachers may wish their students to get an overview of the whole "Downplay" section of the schema to see how the traditional lists of informal fallacies can be more coherently grouped and analyzed in terms of omission, diversion, and confusion techniques.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited "Life is short and information endless: nobody has time for everything. In practice we are generally forced to choose between an unduly brief exposition and no exposition at all. Abbreviation is a necessary evil and the abbreviator's business is to make the best of a job which, though intrinsically bad, is still better than nothing. He must learn to slmplify but not to the point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the essentials of a situation, but without ignoring too many of reality's qualifying side issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not indeed the whole truth (for the whole truth about almost any important subject is incompatible with brevity), but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and halftruths which have always been the current coin of thought." --Preface, 1958

Good Guys / Bad Guys ? Avoid polarized thinking, avoid that either / or mentality. Anytime dichotomies are used, there's a danger of being oversimplistic. Yet, such contradictories are a useful starting point in an initial sorting process. There's a basic need for us to generalize, to categorize, to intensify the similarities and downplay the differences of things. But, we also need to define and distinguish, to intensify the differences within a category, to recognize the individual and the exceptions. This schema begins with an elegant two-part base (intensify/downplay), but after that emphasizes multiplicity, simultaneity, complexity, variation, degree, contraries, context and situation, "dominant impressions" and "spectrum thinking." Don't nit-pick. For example, I created -- from observation -- a list of 24 common audience-centered "associations" used by advertisers. Do you want 23, or 25, or 30? No problem. Use your common sense. If anything violates reason, sanity, or your experience, don't use it. Be temperate, moderate, prudent, and wise.

Reductionism? Empiricism?

Perhaps. Maybe. Sort of. Technically. Are my charts and diagrams "too" simplified? But, I'm not writing speculative philosophy, just useful teaching aids for wide audiences.

For example, the four-part grids, the quadrants, used in describing Benefit-Seeking behaviors and Benefit-Promising behaviors are useful as the intermediate step between a complete generalization and a specific example, both of which can be unclear.

For instance, specific ads for lawn mowers, baby powder, pet food, and savings bonds all appeal to our general benefit-seeking for "Protection." But it becomes clearer if we add the intermediate clustering of caretaking behaviors, protecting our existing goods: lawn care, baby care, pet care, money care.

I realize the risk of using dichotomies and grids. However, I've tried to encourage a more holistic attitude by frequent qualifications and warnings. I've collected (below) my various attempts within the website to qualify and to warn:

Seek dominant impressions, but relate them to the whole. You can't analyze everything. So, focus on what seems (to you) to be the overall tone, or the general feeling, or the most noticeable, or the most interesting elements in an ad: for example, an intense urgency appeal, or a very strong authority figure, or a warm "feel good" emotional tone. By relating these to the overall context of "the pitch," your analysis can be systematic, yet flexible, appropriate to the situation....

Categorize, but don't pigeonhole. Anything can be put into many categories at the same time, depending upon the observer's interests. Clusters and mixes are common. For example, a "pretty face" may be classified as an attention-getter, and a confidence-builder, and also in other ways (sex appeal, intimacy, celebrity) simultaneously.

2. Benefits (as in the chart above) offered in any ad can be multiple and simultaneous; commonly in tandem (relief & acquisition; protection & prevention) and have variations (Relief, protection, and prevention ads often use a "scare-and-sell"technique, emphasizing a problem, then offering a solution). Don't try to force an ad into one category, but get used to viewing ads by the benefits they offer to a specific target audience.

.... Political language can be analyzed in many ways. Without denying the complexities of intent and consequences, degree and proportion, truth and deception, and other important related issues, it doesn't hurt to start off simply by focusing with what is being said and how. We need to anticipate the basic content, and to recognize the common forms of political rhetoric.

Many websites, from various political perspectives, are much more sophisticated analyzing politics (usually about the bad intent, or warning about the bad future consequences of the Other) with psychological, economic, and social insights.

However, just as our awareness of the "little" function words (prepositions, conjunctions) in language is basic to our understanding, so also our awareness of some "simple" basic techniques (repetition, association, composition, omission, diversion, confusion) helps us to understand better.

Eventually, a good analysis of political language is a complex, rational activity. As such, it is in sharp contrast to the emotional rantings by many demagogues -- including talk-show commentators and online blogs -- with their partisan invectives, ad hominem attacks, sneers, slurs, and slogans. A good reasoned analysis is also in contrast to the little sound bites of TV news which are the source of most people's information and opinions.

"I" - Ignorance -- You need to develop a "healthy skepticism" -- a moderate position -- avoiding the extremes of being gullible (believing everything) or being cynical (believing nothing).