Logic and negotiations, for example, often do not go together. While many people might proclaim they are being rational, the complications are multiple opinions about what is true and convictions about what is “right.” Moreover, the problem is that the reasoning process can become faulted for many people, as in the case of informal fallacies.
Aside from negotiations, there are likely many times people will try to persuade you using informal fallacies. When well presented, informal fallacies can be very influential. Knowing them and understanding how not to be “sucked in” can enable you to achieve your agenda better.
What Are Informal Fallacies?
An informal fallacy is an attempt at making a logical argument where there is a failure in the reasoning itself. This can stem from several causes, such as the misapplication of words and phrases or misunderstandings based on inappropriate assumptions. Illogical sequences in an argument can also cause informal fallacies. While informal fallacies can result in inaccurate statements and false conclusions, that does not mean they cannot be very persuasive.
Some people can use informal fallacies to influence others significantly. Finding one side or both using informal fallacies is pretty common in negotiations. In negotiations, many self-made millionaires develop well-defined plans for using informal fallacies as part of their preparation and regularly incorporate them into verbal interactions with the other side.
What is very useful is to be able to avoid being persuaded by informal fallacies. Identifying informal fallacies and knowing how to counter them, for instance, is very characteristic of many wealthy entrepreneurs.
The fact that many self-made millionaires are using and can avoid informal fallacies when negotiating or in other business dealings is not surprising. The fact that few of them have likely studied a specific framework of critical thinking or debate indicates that they learned to weave informal fallacies into their negotiations and learned to spot them when other people choose to use informal fallacies as part of attempting to persuade them mainly learned by imitating other negotiators and through trial and error.
Powerful Informal Fallacies
The following are some of the more common informal fallacies. Knowing about them is a major step to avoiding being persuaded.
Straw person: The other person ignores your position while substituting a distorted version of your position and brutally attacking the distorted version. It is much easier to critique an exaggerated and misrepresented perspective than it is to deal with the issues you presented. They strive to create the perception that they are refuting your argument, but, in reality, they are substituting a much more extreme and distorted version.
Some ways this is done include:
- Quoting you out of context and then attacking that position
- Greatly exaggerate your position and then concentrate on the adverse implications
- Oversimplifying your position and explaining the negative implications of the oversimplified view
Avoiding the straw person fallacy requires devaluing how the other side presents your position. By denigrating the straw person and bringing the interaction back to the issues, you can avoid falling into the trap of this informal fallacy.
Slippery slope: The other person explains how some horrendous event will inevitably follow if you take specific actions. It is where they posit that one action leads to another, which leads to another, and so forth. Through a series of steps, you end up with some dire outcomes.
A metaphor used to help promote the slippery slope fallacy includes dominoes. It is where by knocking over one domino in a line of dominos, the other ones will all fall. Another metaphor is when the dam bursts and disaster follows, or the snowball effect, where the snowball rolls down a hill and gets larger until it crashes into the ground.
The fallacy is that there is no solid reasoning or proof that taking one action will invariably lead to the adverse outcomes that are projected to occur. You need to push for the other person showing how the chain of casual relationships produces disastrous results. When they fail to do so, their argument is debunked.
Middle ground: The assertion that the middle position between two extremes is the right compromise simply because it is in the middle. The mistake is that being in the middle between two positions is the fairest compromise.
The midpoint between the two sides does not have to be the most reasonable alternative. What happens, for example, when one side proposes an extreme stance? This skews the midpoint in the direction of the extreme position. As the saying goes: “halfway between truth and a lie is still a lie.”
You should not accept “splitting the difference.” Moving halfway does not mean it is fairer than getting the other side to move more. Therefore, you should concentrate on what is absolute instead of claimed equitable agreement terms.
Confusing causality for correlation: Events that happened simultaneously or one after another, even though one need not have caused the other, are nevertheless said to be the cause. In many ways, this is the foundation of superstitions.
In statistics, for example, this fallacy is referred to as a spurious correlation. Two variables are seen to be related (i.e., correlated) because a third variable influences both of them. Instead of accepting the false cause, you can negate the argument by showing that other factors can cause the relationship. It is all a matter of identifying another reason for the conclusion.
The bandwagon effect: The other person affirms that since most people do something, it must be the right thing to do. In effect, if something is popular, then it must be right. The need of many people for social validation makes the bandwagon effect very powerful.
The problem is that popularity need not have any connection with validity. For example, 1950s smoking was very popular, so how can it be bad for you?
You can negate the approach by focusing on the essence of the arguments and countering social validation with counter-examples like smoking is bad. It is all a matter of showing that if everyone is doing something, it does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Personal attacks: There are three kinds of personal attacks:
- Direct attack where the other side questions or vilifies your character, motives or trustworthiness
- Attacks based on circumstances such as claiming hypocrisy
- Showing that you have a hidden agenda that is in opposition to the aims of the negotiation
Personal attacks are quite common. They can generate strong emotions and distract you from your goals. You might act as if others want you to prove them wrong.
You are often well served by simply ignoring personal attacks. By sidestepping them, they quickly lose their potency. This often leads to the other person becoming annoyed or aggravated, which was his or her intent for you. A somewhat more forceful approach is to question if that is the best he or she can do.
Russ Alan Prince is the executive director of Private Wealth magazine and chief content officer for High-Net-Worth Genius. He consults with family offices, the wealthy, fast-tracking entrepreneurs and select professionals.
