This is part 12 of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The true number of verbal fallacies is much larger than 12 but I’ve focused on some of the more common ones over the last 12 weeks, and this last one, the appeal to statistics, is potentially one of the most devious.

“Figures never lie, but liars figure.” –long forgotten statistics professor at The University of Alabama

While watching a television program recently, the narrator mentioned that six people die in a motor vehicle crash in the US every minute. The average person just accepts those type of statistics and believes that “something must be done!” But just doing a little math, yields that 3,150,600 people die each year in motor vehicle accidents … except that statistic isn’t true. The real number is closer to 42,000. Not anything to discount because each death is a tragedy, but a far smaller number than originally claimed.

With a shrug and a “wow,” people tend to accept most statistics as facts, after all, they sound SO scientific! But statistics are created by people, and many, if not most, of those people have agendas. When statistics about social problems (such as health care or teen pregnancy) are quoted as fact, many times the statistics come from activists who embellish the problem in order to increase funding or drum up concern. When not produced by activists, statistics are often created by a governmental agency, which may be motivated to play down or play up a problem … depending on which direction gives the politician the most power or television “face time”. Lastly, those statistics may be produced by corporations that have their own agenda, whether to increase sales or influence legislation.

How to dissect statistics

There are three questions that should be asked about any statistic:

1. Who created it?
2. Why was it created?
3. How was it created?

If the source has a motive for exaggerating or downplaying the statistic or if it was created to advance a particular cause, influence legislation, or to sell a product, the answers to questions 1 and 2 may give plenty of reasons to doubt the statistic’s accuracy. If you can answer the first two questions, you may be able to see through any bias embedded in the statistic. That just leaves question 3.

How flawed statistics are produced

1. Poor samples
   • The sample size is too small. Four out of five third graders haven’t taken a shower today really only means something if you check with more than five kids.
   • The sample isn’t representative of the population. Political pollsters regularly use this one by “poisoning the well” and using a sample that already meets their ideology.
2. Inaccurate measurements. Improperly worded questions, vague definitions, decisions to include borderline cases, generalizations, and misinterpretations can all lead to inaccurate measurements and flawed statistics.
3. Guessing. Believe it or not, many governmental statistics are outright guesses. Statistics on unemployment, unreported crime, or other unreported issues are next to impossible to accurately predict, yet policy is made on their basis. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

Statistics sound credible, authoritative, and scientific, but in the wrong hands, they can lead to wrong conclusions. They can help point out where advertising needs to focus, where management needs to staff more people, and where employee theft is an overwhelming problem, but they can also waste resources and get the wrong people fired.

The next time you’re presented with a statistic, take a moment and examine it. Does it make sense? How and why was it created? Who created it?

The accurate answers to these questions may lead you in an entirely different direction.

_{»crosslinked«}

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy on the site or on my About page.

This is part nine of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The False Dilemma is also known as “Black and White” reasoning. It states that there are only two options available and both can’t be right. Figure out which one isn’t and, according to False Dilemma “reasoning,” the other choice is automatically correct.

In some cases, it’s okay to use this line of reasoning, but only in isolated cases. For example:

• My dog is either alive or dead.
• My dog isn’t dead.
• Therefore, my dog is alive (thank goodness!)

In cases where the only two options are the ONLY two options, this reasoning works. Where it goes wrong is when there are more than two options but all the alternatives aren’t mentioned or the original options are wrong.

Example of lack of alternatives:

• To make a decent return, I have to invest in either stocks or gold.
• I’m not going to invest in gold.
• Therefore, to make a decent return, I must invest in stocks.

What about real estate, other commodities, ETF’s, mutual funds, CD’s or any one of a host of other potential investments?

Examples of wrong original options:

• 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 6
• 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 6
• Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5

Or something a little less obvious:

• Your friend is either lazy or a liar.
• Your friend isn’t a liar.
• Therefore, your friend must be lazy.

Could there be another alternative?

• Jack: We need to raise taxes across the board.
• Jill: Why would we do THAT?
• Jack: We have to either raise taxes or this deficit will destroy our economy

Why don’t we cut spending or identify what our true priorities may be?

The biggest problem with the False Dilemma is that you’re left with only two choices and any decision is only as good as the choices available. Avoid creating false dilemmas in your own reasoning and learn to recognize them when they’re used.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy on the site or on my About page.

This is part 10 of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

Once upon a time, a Bedouin was making his way across the desert with his camel. Night was fast approaching and he began putting up his tent to provide shelter from the bitter cold of the nighttime desert. His camel asked, “Master, can I please come inside the tent to stay warm?” The Bedouin said no and went inside to sleep.

All night long the Bedouin heard the camel shivering and loudly complaining about the cold night. The camel asked again, “Master, can I just put my nose into the tent to warm up?” Frustrated the master said yes and rolled over to go back to sleep. The Camel asked again, “Master, can I just put my forelegs into the tent? They’re freezing!” Again the master acquiesced. Then the camel said, “I have to put my back legs in as well, otherwise they will freeze and we won’t be able to travel in the morning.” The Bedouin agreed, but by now the tent was overcrowded and though he was very uncomfortable, he fell asleep.

The Bedouin awoke in the middle of the night, outside the tent and realized that the camel now had the tent completely to himself.

It’s a funny story, but it’s also the basis that many verbal cheap shot artists use to justify their position. The Camel’s Nose is a fallacy in which a person claims that some event must inevitably follow another with no argument for the inevitability of the event in question. Just like in the story, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why any intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

The Camel’s Nose is known by many different names:

• Slippery slope
• The “foot in the door”
• The Domino effect
• The boiling frog
• “Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
• Fairness policy

There may truly BE a series of steps that inevitably follow each other, but the fallacy portion of the argument comes into play when there is no evidence given that those steps are indeed inevitable. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples:

We have to stop these tax cuts. Next thing you know, NO ONE will be paying their fair share.

We can’t let Competitor ABC get a grip on our customers or we will go out of business.

Don’t give anything to the homeless people begging at intersections. That just encourages more people to do that sort of thing.

We have to stop the board of education from banning those books on [pick a subject]. If we don’t, they will ban every book they don’t like.

We can’t let people carry handguns. What do you want, a bunch of old West shootouts in the streets?

We can’t let store manager A have two assistants. We would have to do that for every manager in the chain if we did.

The Camel’s Nose fallacy is considered a fallacy because it isn’t supported by facts. It may actually be true, but the argument itself usually requires a leap, and ironically, the larger the leap, the more easily it’s believed.  Certain events DO follow other events, but to thwart illogical thinking, always include proof.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy on the site or on my About page.

This is part nine of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The red herring is much like other verbal fallacies – it relies on distraction as its main strength. The phrase “red herring” is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scent trail. The herring’s strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one.

Using an ad hominem attacks could be considered a red herring since it tries to deflect attention away from the real issue and focus it on a person. The straw man argument could also be considered another form of a red herring.

Examples of red herrings

• The governor’s tax policies may not be good for the state, but he’s getting a free pass with all his marital “indiscretions” that are being ignored by the media. Real issue – tax policy, red herring – marital indiscretions.
• You really should consider investing in my favorite mutual fund. The return isn’t that great but they use their profits in such great ways to benefit mankind. Real issue – poor returns, red herring – how they invest profits.
• Insurance fraud isn’t really much of a crime. Insurance companies make billions and my client shouldn’t be subjected to such a lengthy trial over a minor offense. Real issue – insurance fraud, red herring – insurance company profits.
• My chemistry professor deserves to win the Nobel prize for his work in medicine. After all, he has donated so much of his time to helping people. Real issue – does the professor deserve the Nobel prize for his work in medicine, red herring – his work in helping people.

How to respond to the red herring

The best way is “what does THAT have to do with the real issue?” What does the governor’s marital indiscretions have to do with his tax policy? What does how a mutual fund use their profits have to do with their ability to generate a return I want? What do insurance company profits have to do with your client breaking the law? Why does a professor deserve a Nobel prize in chemistry or medicine because of his work in helping others? Answer to all of these? Nothing.

If none of these have anything to do with the real issue, why use them other than to distract from the real issue? Chances are, the real issue is relatively weak, otherwise the speaker wouldn’t have to resort to verbal cheap shots.

Red herrings pop up all over the place

• Politicians use them to deflect attention away from unpopular policies.
• Mystery writers use them to make you think someone is the bad guy when it’s actually someone else.
• Football coaches use them to trick an opposing defense.
• In Guatemala, I witnessed my host family using a red herring in bargaining sessions in the local market with shopkeepers. These folks were professionals!

Learn to recognize the red herring and avoid using it yourself, that is unless you’re trying to use the Chewbacca Defense.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy on the site or on my About page.

This is part eight of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day! Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The Straw Man is perhaps one of the best named of the fallacies simply because it instantly brings to mind a vision of a fight where one of the contenders sets up a scarecrow, attacks it, then declares victory. Meanwhile, the real opponents escapes unscathed.

The straw man argument explained

In an conversation with a friend, she presents a point with certain key points that you disagree with. As a way to show your disagreement with those points, you bring up an alternate point. You then attack this alternate point and believe you have shown the original point to be flawed on the basis of your attack. You just set up and attacked a straw man!

Some examples of the straw man argument:

• Jack: I’m hungry. Let’s go out to that new restaurant.
• Jill: We went out last weekend. We don’t have the money in the budget.
• Jack: What – can we never go out to eat again? You are so CHEAP!

Senator: All these disagreements with my position on healthcare are rooted in [fear, anger, racism, egalitarianism, any ism will do here].

Congressman: Could they be rooted in people’s sincere, honest disagreement with your point of view?

Senator: Don’t cloud the issue with facts, man!

• Jack: Free market capitalists are pigs! They only care about profit.
• Jill: Oh, I’m sure they care about other things too, Jack.
• Jack: No they don’t. They should either care about profits or people. They can’t have it both ways.

Boss: That new project isn’t working out so well. Sales are down. Gross profit is down. Net profit is down. Sigh …

Employee: But sir, we’re in a recession, remember? And we’re also seeing the effects of a weakened dollar with the material we’re buying from overseas. And when we built that plant we didn’t know our top manager was in talks with our competitor and that those new regulations would actually kick in. Plus, the steel we used in those custom CNC machines was softer than we thought.

Boss: All I know is we’re not performing. I may have to replace some people working on that project.

How do people use straw man arguments?

1. Taking words out of context. By choosing words or phrases that an opponent has used in one context and using them in another. Sometimes called “quote mining,” taking words out of context is a favorite past-time of political campaigns.

2. Using causal oversimplification of an opponents position. Later, the verbal cheap shot artist will attack the opponent’s supposed oversimplification.

3. Completely distorting the opponent’s position. This is the classic straw man argument. It’s easy to attack and be victorious over an imagined argument.

4. Inventing a person with characteristics that are then criticized. Later, the verbal cheap shot artist (VCSA) will imply that this person is representative of a group holding views that the VCSA also criticizes.

5. Present a weak debater as “the” defender of  position. Then, after soundly defeating him or her, announce that the debate has been settled once and for all.

All kinds of groups use the straw man argument

• Creationists and evolutionists
• Republicans and Democrats
• Protestants and Catholics
• Plaintiffs and defendants
• Parents and teenagers

It doesn’t matter which view you hold to, you’ve probably found yourself on one or both sides of the straw man argument.

Although the misrepresentations characteristic of straw men can be intentional, many times they are simply indicative of the pathetic effort people make to understand another point of view. We think the straw man is inadequate, but what’s really inadequate is our measly attempts at understanding someone else.

The world isn’t black or white

Too often, we demand that our world to be clear cut and simple, made up only of black and white. If we attribute hopelessly false, inadequate, unsubstantiated, or repugnant views to others, the blissful virtue of our own position seems obvious. But if we cede that our opponents have an arguable case, then our own views suddenly don’t seem so perfect, lofty, and unworthy of scrutiny, and our opponents don’t seem to be so clearly wrong.

Don’t fall victim to straw man arguments. Learn to recognize them and steer the conversation back on track. Don’t attack a straw man in your own arguments because from this point on, you’ll know only an empty victory.

photo credit: Jar0d

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy on the site or on my About page.