“Never trust a statistic you haven’t falsified yourself!” is a familiar saying. Yet the moment we hear, “A Harvard study recently published this,” we listen closely again. Name-dropping is rhetoric’s equivalent of a Gucci designer handbag or a bulky Rolex watch. Like fashion labels, the names of renowned thinkers, publications and universities are intended to impress. Nietzsche, Foucault and others are used to enhance the speaker’s image.

Name-dropping — just smoke and mirrors?

What happens? Dropping a name such as Harvard is easy. It suggests expertise and competence. Listeners transfer the cited authorities‘ prestige to the speaker, raising their status. They suddenly seem superior and their arguments carry more weight, skillfully masking gaps in knowledge. Credibility rises too: psychologist Carl Hovland conducted a study at Yale University in the US and found that credible sources from trustworthy experts are more likely to change behaviour than unreliable sources. Credibility combines expertise and trustworthiness, raising the questions:

  • Is the source an expert in this field?
  • Do I want to, and can I, trust this source? Is it on my side?

Skilled name-droppers therefore choose not only subject experts but sources listeners feel emotionally aligned with. In politics, CDU audiences hear Adenauer cited, SPD audiences Willy Brandt. Name-dropping also aims to intimidate: the speaker’s supposed expertise makes us question our own position. We may no longer dare to voice opposing opinions after such intellectual heavy artillery. Who wants to argue against Adorno or an Ivy League university?

My strategy against name-dropping:

  • Question its relevance to the discussion. Is there any substantive connection? A Harvard study or a wise quote from Plato need not be decisive for the current topic!
  • Check the numbers, data and facts! If you doubt the cited source, ask where you can read the study.
  • Numbers are not absolute truths but a narrative. A doctor can say, “The mortality rate is 50%,” or “One in two survives.” The content is identical. Do not be taken in: you decide whether to accept the narrative!
  • The same applies to political language: “More safety in public spaces!” and “surveillance state” are two sides of the same coin. Point out the biased framing!
  • Expose quotes taken out of context and counter with your own statistics and experiences. Put the other person to the test!
  • By the way, moderate name-dropping never hurts — as this article’s Yale professor reference shows 😉. Just make sure your source is verifiable and relevant, and use it with sufficient background knowledge.

PS: Want even more strategies and rhetorical tricks? Then subscribe to our newsletter, book our individual Lilit public speaking coaching (Lilit seminar: defending against dark rhetoric and manipulation) or our Lilit training in the art of argumentation.