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.

The Psychology of Victim and Offender Reversal

Transcript:

Victim and offender reversal

What has happened here?

To understand, we will go back a little to see where the story starts. Someone is standing on the right side, and another is on the left. There is a crowd in the middle.

The one on the right starts shouting that the one on the left has harmed me, has committed a crime against me, has done a bad thing to me and that person is a criminal. He makes that claim and says: here is the document proving the crime. And the two people standing down there are witness that the person has committed the crime towards me.

After this is said most members of the crowd that were standing there and were neutral prior to this, come and back the plaintiff, they support him and are on his side. A few are probably supporting the accused person. They are probably the person’s family and friends standing behind him. Some are still neutral and don’t pick a specific side.

From now and on we can call the accuser “the victim” and the accused “offender”.

What happens now? The offender starts to defend himself. How does he do that?

Jennifer Freyd is an American psychologist who has done research on violence amongst individuals. She describes a model called “DARVO” and believes that people who commit acts of violence against others use this pattern a lot in defending themselves.

“DARVO” is an abbreviation for “DENY”, “ATTACK”,”REVERSE VICTIM AND OFFENDER”.

We will learn more about the rest of these stages as the story continues.

Stage 1: Denial

The offender starts denying having ever done the crime. He says: 

You’ve gone crazy! I could never have done such a thing! What makes you think I could’ve said such a thing? There is no way I could say such a thing or do such a thing! 

With these words a contradiction happens. The offender and victim are each saying a different thing. These words don’t change people’s stance to support the offender, but makes them turn to the neutral group were the belief is that you have to hear both sides and you can’t judge without it and we must give the offender a chance to speak. These people go to the neutral side so as to hear both sides without bias.

Stage 2: Attack

The offender attacks the victim. He says

Why did you even check my phone to see those messages?

or he says: 

If you weren’t an attention seeker yourself you wouldn’t wear clothes like that or fix your make up like that. He says: I invited you, but why did you accept? 

And words like that.

Now, I would like to make an assumption here that people don’t like to believe that bad things happen to good people, in that case of we consider ourselves good people, we have to accept that bad things can happen to us too. So we prefer to think that the good person wasn’t that good, he had insecurities and there was something within him. These types of thought make more people have doubts and go to the neutral side. Also a number of people change their mind and come to support the offender.

Stage 3: Reverse victim and offender

The offender says: the things that you said have had a terrible impact on me and have ruined my life. I have been hurt very badly after what you said, after which he starts crying and says: 

You have broken my heart with your words and the judgment you made of me.

Thus most people who hadn’t chosen a side come to the offender’s support and a number of the victim’s supporters become neutral, leaving the victim alone.

There are different examples of how the three stages of “DARVO” are executed and they can be seen in daily life or within the news. For example, you are standing in line and someone cuts the line. You tell the person: My friend, this is a line. At first they deny it. They say:

I’ve been here since morning and you have just arrived half an hour ago. 

Then they might attack you by saying:

Are you the line monitor? Who are you to say such things to me?  Mind your own business. Make sure no one takes your own turn from you. 

And in the end they reverse the victim and offender by saying: 

Like everything in this country is a dream come true and it’s only me cutting the line that’s a problem!  Billions of Tomans of money have been embezzled and you are upset over cutting the line? Will our country’s problems be solved if I don’t cut the line?  We’re so miserable and it’s our fault that we are!

They pretend to be the victim even though they have made a mistake. Even though they have cut the line they fake being a victim.

Refrences:

Violations of Power, Adaptive Blindness and Betrayal Trauma Theory by Jennifer J. Freyd

The Psychology of Victim Reversal by Zulie Rane.

Originally appeared on my Instagram in March 2019.