Rolley Grows Wise – Empathy

Transcript:

Rolley Grows Wise

Rolley walked and walked until he reached a horned pink being.

Horned Pink: Hey Rolley, Where are you headed?

Rolley: I’m going home.

Horned Pink: I won’t let you pass.

Rolley: Let me go!

Horned Pink: On one condition.

Rolley: Name it.

Horned Pink: I will tell you my opinion about rainbows, and you tell me if you agree or disagree.

Rolley: That’s a piece of cake, ok, it’s a deal, you tell me your opinion and I’ll tell you if I agree or not.

The horned pink being explained its view on rainbows. he talked and talked. The rainbow liked what it said and appeared in the sky and Rolley was quiet and listening.

Rolley: Are you done?

Horned Pink: Yes I’m done.

Rolley: Well, I disagree with you.

Horned Pink: You disagree with me huh? Ok, now come let’s play.

Rolley: Forget it, I want to go home.

Horned Pink: Don’t be rude or I’ll eat you!

Rolley: Alright, don’t go crazy. What game do you want to play?

Horned Pink: You and I trade places, I’ll be Rolley and you be the horned pink

Rolley: Ok

Horned Pink: Now speak in my place. Tell me my opinion about rainbows.

Rolley thought a bit.

The only thing he had in mind was that he disagreed with the horned pink’s opinion about rainbows, but he wasn’t able to explain the horned pink’s opinion.  In truth, he did so bad, that the rainbow got upset and hid.

Horned Pink: Rolley, you didn’t succeed, the rainbow ran away.

Rolley: But you only asked me to tell you if I agree with you or not!

Horned Pink: Rolley, remember, only when you are sure you understood someone’s opinion, are you justified in agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Rolley didn’t really get what the horned pink being was saying.

He said: Can I go home now?

Horned Pink: You still haven’t fulfilled my condition, you have to say if you agree with my opinion or you disagree, and as I said, in order to do that you have to understand what I say.

Rolley: Ugh what a pickle I’m in, well, say your opinion one more time.

Horned Pink: Nope I can’t anymore, the rain has stopped and the rainbow has gone and I don’t talk behind its back. Go and come back whenever it starts raining.

Rolley walked and walked sulkily and had to linger in the forest for two days until it started raining again.

He came to the horned pink being to hear his opinion about the rainbow once more.

This time Rolley listened attentively and tried to be sure that he understood everything.

At one point when he thought he didn’t understand something he asked:

Wait wait! Do you mean by saying this that….

And the horned pink explained more and more, and when it was certain that Rolley had understood, without asking anything, opened his path so he could go home.

Faulty Generalization Fallacy

Faulty generalization also called argument by generalization or hasty generalization is being explained in this video.

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Committing faulty generalization without sufficient evidence

– Iranians living in other countries are very shallow and sentimental in my opinion.

– Why? What makes you say that?

– Haven’t you seen the program “Befarmaid Sham”? It’s all full of shallow talk and actions and shallow jokes.


Generalization is one of the features of the human brain. Our words are the result of generalization. Generalization in itself is not only not considered a flaw, but a necessity. The problem starts when we generalize based on insufficient evidence or evidence that doesn’t symbolize what we are trying to explain.


National TV interviewer: What is your opinion on the government’s economic plans

People 1 – It’s amazing.

People 2 – Couldn’t be better.

People 3 – They work very well, we’re very satisfied.

National TV Conclusion: “People are satisfied with the government’s economic plans”

When is generalization justified? When we have enough evidence to support our generalization. The more diverse the group we are generalizing is, the more difficult it is to generalize it and the human being is one of the most complex beings in this world and his/her actions are full of diversity.


– In my opinion, women themselves want to be housewives.

– Why? What makes you say that?

– Because I myself am like that. I’d rather not work. My sister is like this too.

People that are looking to abuse would do anything for their claim to be accepted by their audience, without any evidence to support their generalization. Generalizations like our courage, our zeal for our nation, our sacrifice, their invasion, their hypocrisy, their deceitfulness, breaking their promises and etc…

These people use the positive generalization to prepare the public and use this way to have the public’s approval in order to reach their goals.

 

Refrence:
Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

 

Appeal to Common Belief Fallacy

In this video, the logical form of appeal to common belief is explained and examples of its usage are provided. It is also called “appeal to popularity” (Argumentum ad populum).
 

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Appeal to common belief
Because most people perform an act, that action is right, because most people believe in something, then it’s true, because most people say this, it must be correct.

– Dad, I would like to study genetics.
– What do you mean? Everyone is killing themselves to go to medical school and you want to study genetics when your ranking has been so good?
– But this is my passion and I really don’t like medicine.
– Hey girl! Who picks genetics with a two digit ranking? Look around you! Everyone is after money and social standing! By studying medicine you can reach both.

A very common example of appealing to common belief is appealing to custom, because most of the people in the past would act in one way, it’s correct and we have to do the same.
 
Here’s an example:

– “Saeed” and I have come to the conclusion to marry without “Mehrieh”.(Money given by the groom to the bride as a gift, the amount is decided by the families
– No, no it won’t work without a “Mehrieh”. Right now, everyone asks for some, if not much, between 100-200 gold coins as a “Mehrieh”. We’re the same.

Most people feel secure to be the same as the crowd and are worried to do something that defies the public or society’s opinion and custom. Abusers know these thoughts and preferences of people very well and by appealing to the common belief, convince people that what they say is true.
 
Refrences:
1- Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

2- Parker, B. N. (1986). Critical Thinking.

Dirty Trick: Shift the Burden of Proof

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Shift the Burden of Proof

Make a claim, and instead of bringing reasons forward to prove your reasoning, ask your opponent to bring up reasons.

These natural catastrophes, flood, earthquake, drought, do you know the reason behind them? People’s ungratefulness, being ungrateful.

Someone stands up and says:

— Do you have a reason, proof, explanation or evidence to support your claim?

He says:

— Prove to me that it’s something else. Prove that the reason is not people’s ungratefulness. If you prove this, I’ll take back my words.

The person made a claim, and when asked what their reasoning was, took the responsibility of proving it if their own shoulders and put it in someone else.

Let’s see another example:

— Hey, are you in a relationship with that girl?

— No.

— I know that you are!

— I’m not.

— Prove that you’re not.

In this case who should bring proof? The person making the claim. The person saying I know you are in a relationship, they have to prove what they say themselves.

A dirty trick is that a person states a claim and put’s the responsibility of proving it on other people’s shoulders.

Refrence:

Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

Straw man Fallacy

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Turn your opponent into a straw man

If a real man confronted you and you couldn’t beat him, make a straw version of him and break that. This way, many people will think that you have defeated the real hero. In the same way, when confronted with a solid argument, change it into something completely different from the first version.

Then, disagree with the fake argument and win the conversation. 

— In order to have a healthier community we need to educate students regarding sexual matters according to their age group within the schools. 

— So you’re saying we should encourage children to experience sexual relationships? Do you know what effect such an education has on children?

Encouraging children to have sexual relationships? We know that the first person did not say that. The point that the first person was trying to make was that we should educate children about sexual matters according to their age. The second person changed the first person’s words and after, disagreed with the fake words that had no relevance to the first.

Let’s see another example: 

— Look, the main idea of feminism is that men and women have equal rights. No more and no less. 

— Aha, so you don’t believe on the differences between men and women, you think that men and women are exactly the same, even though we all know that men and women have very distinct differences, and this shows that what you’re saying is nonsense?

We know that the first person didn’t say that men and women are exactly the same. He/she said that men and women have equal rights. The second person interpreted what was said wrongly and disagreed with the wrong words.

With this trick, the person makes a straw version of what her/his opponent has said and opposes that and runs away from the actual argument using this method.

Refrence:

Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

Dirty trick: Causing Suspicion

Causing suspicion is in many ways similar to the “poisoning the well” (a type of ad hominem argument) fallacy. In this video, numerous examples of this dirty trick are provided.

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Causing suspicion

— When we accuse someone of something, the person won’t be able to get rid of it completely as much as he/she tries.

— We have all heard the expression “No smoke without fire”. Most people really believe in this expression within their minds.

— Have you heard that “Roya” and that guy “Sepehr” have slept together?

— I didn’t believe it but I feel sorry for them.

— Shut up! Wasn’t she in a relationship with “Pedram”?

— Well, it isn’t so farfetched because she was always flirting with “Sepehr”.

— [somebody else] Did you hear what has happened? “Roya” and “Sepehr”…

And this event repeats every day in the virtual and non-virtual world. A screenshot of the messages and Boom! An accusation of financial corruption and Boom! An accusation of sexual assault, cheating, selling out your country, and etc…

Of course a lot of these accusations are true and right. But the fact that it’s true or false does not make a difference in most people’s reactions. Most people tend to share news just by seeing the headline and without knowing it’s source or details and in less than a second the internet is filled with that piece of news.

We live in a world that people and their phones have turned into busy judges, assessing many articles a day just by reading the headlines, without even opening the case files, and abusers know very well how to use peoples emotional and hasty reactions to their advantage.

For example, a week before the elections, during an election debate, one of the candidates accused his opponent of a very heavy case of financial corruption, and this very accusation causes the candidate’s credibility to suffer a lot of damage in the audience’s minds.

The rival candidate will not be able to clear his name completely from the minds of the people coming to vote in the space of one week, as much as he tries. It might come out after the elections that the accusation was false, but it’s too late. His rival has won the election and it’s extremely difficult to change the results of the election.

Causing suspicion is one of the dirtiest tricks. Even if there is nothing, people still talk.

 

Reference:

Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

Appeal to Fear Fallacy

Appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is explained in this video. Several examples from politics and everyday life are provided to make the audience familiar with its usages.

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Appealing to fear

There are a lot of fears hidden within the inner depths of each person. Fear of death, fear of disease, aging, going broke, being alone, feeling unsafe, rejection. A dirty trick is to manipulate the person using these fears to get out of coming up with a logical argument to reach our goals.

If we allow woman inside stadiums, their safety will be compromised.

The structure of this fallacy is as such: If you don’t believe in A, something bad shall happen, hence A is right.

An artist, a writer, a musician has produced an artwork which hasn’t obtained a license. They are explaining why they didn’t agree to issue the license: 

Look, this kind of talk is for the western culture, if we allow such things to seep into our culture, our culture shall be destroyed.

This method is very commonly used by politicians, but it’s not limited to them, people also use this trick in everyday life.

You always say no to every boy that comes your way, if you say no to him also, you’ll be alone forever.

People who use such a trick try to divert other people’s attention from their non-existing or in-complete argument by employing their inner-most fears, so others would do the thing that they want.

Reference:

Richard, L. E. (2012). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

In this video, I explain the appeal to authority fallacy (also called the argument from authority or argumentum ad verecundiam), its logical form and several examples of its usage.

 

Transcript:

Dirty trick: Appealing to authority

A lot of people look up to people with power, fame, or a high place in the world. A dirty trick is to appeal to these sources of power instead of bringing real evidence, in order to prove a point.

Dr.health, who is a specialist in traditional medicine, says that eating dairy can cause cancer, so eating dairy is the cause of cancer.
The logical way of putting this fallacy is: 

because X says that A is correct, hence A is right.

Check out another example: Dr. Pretentious with a special degree in nutrition claims that traditional medicine is all nonsense, hence traditional medicine becomes nonsense.

In these two examples the two people appealed to the opinions of specialists to prove their claims and did not bring any specific proof of their own.

This is a clear case of fallacy. The opinion of a specialist without proof should not have validity of its own. But in action we see that a lot of people get influenced just because a specialist has spoken. Somewhere on the internet you may come across this question: 

Do you know why men lower the volume when they want to ask for directions? Because men’s brains are single-dimensional. They can only focus on one thing at a time.

Afterward, someone wrote in response: 

Men’s brains have a single-dimensional quality? I don’t think so.

The person answered: 

My dear friend, this point is scientifically proven. You can understand that yourself with a simple search on the internet.

The fallacy in this case is that the person has appealed to science in order to prove his point without there being enough evidence to support his claim. In these fallacy cases it doesn’t matter whether the person’s claim is right or wrong, the point is that the person is using the word of a specialist, celebrity, or someone with a good position within the community to prove that what they say is right and tries to use these resources to convince the latter.

The Milgram Experiment: Obedience to Authority

Transcript:

Many people would obey any command and do anything if they find themselves in a situation where they feel forced or that they have no responsibility for their actions.

There are many famous experiments in the history of psychology that prove this claim.

One of these experiments is the experiment that Stanley Milgram performed at the university of Yale.

—

Hello, good day, this is an experiment regarding punishment and we would like to analyze the effect of punishment on memory.

In this experiment some participants become teachers and some others the pupils. Please pick one piece of paper out of the two within this container to see whether you are a teacher or a pupil.

Very well, you are a teacher right now, do me a favor and please sit behind this desk. There is an electrical shock device in front of you. The shocks have been distributed very specifically from 15 to 450 volts by 30 buttons. 

The first button creates 15 volts, the second button 30 volts, the third 45 volts all the way until the last button that creates 450 volts of electricity. The amount of shock produced is written under the voltages.

On the other side of the glass you see a man with his hands tied to a chair. He is your pupil. The end of the two wires coming out of the electro-shock machine, is connected to the two wrists of your pupil.

Your instructions are as such: You are the teacher. Here is a list of words. Read the meanings of the words for him and ask him the multiple-answer questions. Whenever he answered incorrectly give him a shock and increase it each round, meaning that the first wrong answer he gave give him 15 volts, the second 30 volts, the third time 45 volts and so on and so forth. I’m going to go sit behind my own desk. Please start.

The participant in the role of a teacher starts and reads the list of words and then asks his/her pupil, if the pupil answers wrong he/she gives him an electric shock and asks again, if he answers right it’s alright but if he answers wrong they increase the shock by one button.

Up to a shock of 300 volts there is no sound of protest from the student. He just answers the questions. When it gets to 300 volts he thrashes around and yells.

It is said in the article that not one of the participants quit giving the shocks until 300 volts, that means that all the participants gave their pupil at least 300 volts worth of shock.

At this point the participants go to the conductor of the experiment for help, because the pupil is protesting. The instructor uses a four stage method on them. At first he says: Please continue, if they are not convinced he says: It’s essential that you continue, if they still were not convinced he says: It is completely essential for you to continue the experiment and if they were still not convinced he says at the end: You have no other option you have to continue.

And after this stage when the person gives a higher level of shock, the pupil makes no noise and doesn’t react, meaning it is unknown whether he is alive, unconscious or dead.

The result of the experiment:

In actuality there was no shock and the device did not transfer any electrical current. The person receiving the electrical shock was part of the staff and was acting during the experiment, and when asked to pick a piece of paper to see if they are a teacher or student, they both had teacher written on them.

This information was told to the participants at the end of the experiment.

Stanley Milgram, the conductor of this experiment writes in his article:

Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands. To disobey would bring no material loss to the subject; no punishment would ensue. It is clear from the remarks and outward behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim they are often acting against their own values. Subjects often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his objections, and others denounced it as stupid and senseless. Yet the majority complied with the experimental commands.

Reference:

Milgram, S. (1963), Behavioral Study of obedience.

Ad hominem Fallacy

In this video, the logical form of Ad hominem fallacy is explained and several examples from politics and personal relationships are provided.

Transcript: Dirty trick: Attacking the person (Not their argument) If someone brought an argument to the table that you felt stuck and couldn’t answer, don’t worry at all, ignore their argument and attack the person themself. For example:
Your long term plans are not efficient for such and such and such reasons. It won’t solve the problems.
The opposed person directly attacks the person bringing forth the arguments instead of answering the arguments:
What do you know about governing a country? What have you yourself done for this country? You only know how to talk. And by saying these words the person gets out of answering the arguments.
The people who use such tricks know very well what makes people get defensive and instead of answering the argument they label the opposite person and say for example:
This person is a communist, they have no religion, they are pro-government (specific to antagonists in Iran), they are from the same side as the people causing problems…
With these words divert the audience’s attention from the arguments brought by the person they oppose. It’s not just limited to politics; let’s see an example of everyday life.
Honey, the fact that you embarrass me in public is not only not funny, but very upsetting.
The opposite side answers:
You’re worse than me, you’re always putting me down in front of others and now that I did it for once you’re upset?
The person evades explaining their wrong behavior by attacking the person opposite them, and this is a fallacy, the person attacks the person bringing forth the argument instead of answering the argument straight.