Breakout Topics – Logical Fallacies
These ideas are so much better Shared!!
The First Tools. (Written November 2022)
As I’ve worked on building The Toxicity Toolkit, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking of times that I was able to let go of the toxicities I was raised in, or choose a replacement SCRIPTT to change my outcomes. It occurred to me that starting college was a very instrumental move in transforming myself from the toxic me I was trained to be. One of the biggest catalysts for this change was exposure to knowledge about Logical Fallacies.
Logical Fallacies
Logical Fallacies are flawed ways of thinking, that don’t hold up to reason. I was raised on the lot of them, and it’s no wonder that when I left home, it took time and work to become a reasonable human being. Once I learned to recognize arguments that don’t stand up to reason, know them for what they are, and combat them by being reasonable, it changed me as a person, and the course of my life forever. It allowed one of the first layers of forgiveness that eventually led to me loving myself.
Logical Fallacies are not unrelated to gaslighting; the lack of reason comes from the same place. It’s actually rather interesting that the study and understanding of logical fallacies developed in response to arenas for debate, like political, academic, and business dealings. As we go through each type, notice how it applies in these arenas, but also in a family setting.
The next several blog posts will take on each logical fallacy individually. Several of them are listed here and I encourage you to check it out.
Happy Healing
Human Trafficking- We have to see the big picture!
Ad Hominem – November 2, 2021
An Ad Hominem fallacy is an argument in which personal characteristics of the other party are attacked instead of the facts at hand.
As a child this was a daily part of the exchange for me. It wouldn’t matter the situation, or how well I had gathered facts or information to present a case, in the middle of presenting that case, the other party would reliably say something about my weight. I would “become smaller,” give up on the logic, and the other party would “win” the argument.
It happened so often that I really believed that I didn’t deserve a point of view because I was fat. I thought that people would listen to me if I just lost weight.
Here’s the thing… everybody has imperfections. Those imperfections don’t change the facts at hand during an argument. Any imperfection, real or imagined, can be used as an Ad Hominem attack which enables the other party to ignore the data being presented.
The effects last long after the incident. The next time something happens and you want to be heard, you may just stay silent, because you know that if the other party doesn’t want to hear it, they will injure you with their words. Silence becomes self defense, and you hide away parts of yourself to protect them.
2 things
- It’s so powerful to be able to recognize it, name it, and disengage from it.
- This is exactly the type of exchange that DEAR MAN, GIVE, and Fast were designed for.
When we recognize that this is happening, we stop internalizing that we somehow don’t deserve a fair discussion.
“I hear you saying that I’m fat, but that doesn’t relate to the information that we’re dealing with. I’m trying to present you with facts and information, and what you said ignored the points-at-hand for the sake of being hurtful. You thinking I’m fat doesn’t change the facts of the situation. Please let me know when you’re ready to deal with this logically and rationally, and I’m happy to revisit the conversation.”
Think of a time when you’ve been part of, or witness to an ad hominem attack. Was the person using the attack the person with more or less power in the situation? We’re they in fear of losing power or control? We’re they defensive? We’re they afraid of losing face? How did it change the interaction? How did the interaction turn out? How should it have turned out?
Unfortunately, this form of silencing goes deep. It may take time for you to be able to recognize it. It may be scary to start to address it. Please know that when someone aims an Ad Hominem attack at you, it is a reflection of their character in the situation, not yours.
Examples of Ad Hominem attacks.
Recognize it. Name it. Replace it. Find you voice!
Are you being controlled by Love Bombing?
Straw Person – November 3, 2021
According to The Purdue OWL “This move oversimplifies an opponent’s viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.”
There are several examples here.
The Straw Person Attack is trickier to recognize than the Ad Hominem attack, and I encourage you to go look through the examples, but they may not help. Sometimes discussions about logical fallacies are by academics for academics, and their explanations may not immediately indicate everyday relevance.
You can recognize this happening when the other person in the argument engages with another presumed piece of your argument that isn’t the point you are currently discussing. Frequently this requires putting words in your mouth. It may come from something you previously said, but usually it relies on invoking a bogus portion of an associated argument, which deflects the conversation away from the point you were making.
When this happens, we feel unheard. We become defensive because our point was ignored, and we’re literally being invalidated by an unassociated point that we’re being made to defend.
It’s easy to see how this prevents equal exchanges. You find yourself thinking “I wasn’t saying that, and now all of my points are dismissed and reduced to something I didn’t even say.”
When someone veers to a point that you aren’t making.
“That has nothing to do with the point we’re discussing. If you would like to talk about other points, I’m happy to do so after we handle the topic we’re on. Please stay focused. Reiterate the point.
If you find this happening a lot, refer to DEAR MAN, GIVE, and FAST for more help.
Appeal to Ignorance – November 4, 2021
If you dig into researching the Appeal to Ignorance, the internet does a great job of making it very confusing. I’ll try to break it down for you.
If a person makes a claim, it is their job to supply reasonable support/evidence for the claim. Someone else not being able to prove them wrong does not make the claim true. Claiming that the lack of contrary proof makes the claim true is an Appeal to Ignorance.
When you find this happening, remember, it’s not your job to prove them wrong, it’s their job to support their claim.
This tactic can be taken even further in the hands of a bully, who not only places the burden of proof on the other party, but also uses intimidation to make it unlikely that anyone will either provide proof, or put them in their place.
Can you think of any examples? View some here and here.
Happy Healing.
Find out why I’m so Triggered!
False Dilemma or False Dichotomy – November 5, 2021
The False Dilemma or False Dichotomy presents an issue as black or white, this or that, one thing or another. It usually takes two extreme stances and places them as THE ONLY options.
If you’ve been through the 13 week program, week 3 focuses on ways that untrue or incomplete narratives are used to manipulate situations. The False Dichotomy is a form of this type of gaslighting. By presenting just two options, nuances are ignored, alternatives are left unexplored, and it undermines a problem-solving atmosphere.
Watch for the dichotomies around you and ask yourself.
“Is it really this or that?”
“Is this all there is to it?”
“What are the other options?”
Remind the other party that there may be other alternatives, and ask them to reasonably problem solve with you.
Happy Healing
Tired of being Gaslit?
Slippery Slope – November 6, 2021
A slippery slope argument starts with a basic premise but then attributes exaggerative future outcomes to the first premise. This maneuver compels the other party to participate in an untrue/incomplete narrative (see week 3), frequently with the implication of consequences.
“If I don’t get my way, these bad things will happen.”
But the bad things are not directly related to the basic premise.
“If you don’t go cook dinner, I’ll waste away and starve to death.”
“If you run for city council, we will lose all of our friends and have to move.”
It’s difficult for me to write this one, because I want the second part to have something to do with the first part, but that’s the thing with the slippery slope, it doesn’t necessarily have to.
It’s coercive. It’s manipulative. It betrays reason and logic. Behaving like this makes a person unapproachable, and people who behave like this are the people that other people have to “handle,” or “deal with.”
Are you and your partner on the SAME TEAM?
Circular Argument – November 7, 2021
The key to recognizing a circular argument is to watch for unsupported assumptions.
The person presenting the argument will make a claim that is an assumption, then claim that it is true because of something else, which is also made true by the initial claim. Neither claim is supported by actual evidence.
“God exists because I see miracles, and I see miracles because God exists.”
While they may or may not exist, this is a circular argument about it.
When you recognize a circular argument, ask yourself if actual evidence exists to support a claim, or if the assumption relies on other assumptions. Do those assumptions also rely on the initial assumption? Require evidence and logic instead.
Are you dealing with an emotionally immature adult?
Hasty or Unwarranted Generalization – November 8, 2021
This type of logical fallacy is extremely common, and can be unfortunately compelling if your don’t recognize it for what it is.
These generalizations occur when someone takes anecdotal evidence and they apply it to a much larger group, without supporting evidence or investigation.
Say you have a 5-year-old who loves broccoli (mine does), and so you make the statement “5-year-olds love broccoli.”
The statement will likely be true for some 5-year-olds, but there is insufficient evidence to make the claim for all 5-year-olds.
I fell for this all of the time when I was a kid. Statements like these enabled much of the racism and bigotry I grew up in. We didn’t have google when I was growing up, and I certainly didn’t have enough social power at the time, to contest it.
Now we live in the information age. Use it. When someone makes a generalized claim, LOOK IT UP!
When anybody talks about ANY group of people as though all of the members of the group are the same, KNOW that it’s highly unlikely that the claim is true, because people are diverse.
Depending on the situation, it can also be very useful to ask for proof. Remember, it’s the person making the claim’s responsibility to support the claim, not your job to refute it. Ask for proof.
Want to know why you can’t get through to your children?
Logical Fallacies – November 9, 2021
I hope in our short series on Logical Fallacies that I’ve helped bring light to some of the ways that we rely on illogical and sometimes even underhanded means to make our points or get our needs met. There are so many more, and I may do another short series of posts in the future, but until then I encourage you to look into them on your own.
The Texas State University Philosophy Department, has an extensive list that I highly recommend that you work through.
In this exploration I’ve discovered a new love for the DBT skills. DEAR MAN, GIVE, and FAST are simple rule sets that don’t leave a lot of room for the manipulation that comes from interacting with logical fallacies. They’re like a shield of protection. To review them, you can find the DEAR MAN exercise in week 8, and the GIVE and FAST exercise in week 10.
Remember that knowledge is self-defense, and logical rational interactions bring so much peace…. well at least it does for me.
Cycle Breaking is lonely, but you are not alone!
Operation **Reclaim** Loveland 
What do you think?