Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: dandylife on July 03, 2008, 11:57:07 AM
-
Carl Sagan provided these guidelines in his book, The Demon Haunted World
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
o Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o Argument from "authority".
o Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
o Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
o Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
o Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
o Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
o Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
o Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
o Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
o Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
o Confusion of correlation and causation.
o Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
o Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
o Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
for more: http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/ (Critical Thinkiing Community)
“Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.” Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
Dandylife
-
Hi Dandy,
Thank you, for such a marvelous insightful article, truly very much appreciated.
Yesterday, I engaged in a study of the power of words at http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html (http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html)
I shall now enjoy a study of the above - common fallacies of logic and rhetoric.
Hope all is well with you.
Love, Leah
-
I'm going to read this several more times.... then again.
Lighter
-
Thank you, Dandylife!
Wish I could remember all of these... but copied and pasted them for reference.
Sent the link to one of my daughters, too. She could argue the calf out of a cow!
Carolyn
-
I am enjoying your two threads on logic, Dandy.
This is something that I worked with kids on when I was schooling them, and we enjoyed it a lot. Understanding these ideas illuminates newspaper articles, campaign speeches, TV news magazines. And it has taught us to be critical thinkers about even our own pet ideas.
Used to be, these things were taught in secondary schools. I don't think they do that any more.
Thanks for sharing these.
CB
-
I think on this board almost limitless energy could be spent addressing #1 alone. Recently there was a thread on that old kid's chant: "sticks and stones"...etc.
People here know that words can be weapons. We've lived it, for many that's why we're here. Weapons are instruments of violence. I've seen words used that way on this board many times. Intentional instruments of control, bullying, violence...anger aimed scattershot, against anyone who dares cross the wrong path.
The thing about this sort of victory won through violence is: it's always fleeting. And often not a victory at all, just an empty sense of "yeah, I got 'em!" while everyone else shrugs, crosses the abuser off their list, and walks away.
To be clear, I'm in total favor of walking away. I believe in boycott, rather than barricade, as a tool for change. Worked for Gandhi, and he's no small potatoes. It won't change the abuser, but I don't care about that any more than he did. I don't owe anyone my attention, any more than they owe me theirs. I know what good I can do. I know what good I'm looking for from others, and sometimes find. But any relationship is a privilege earned, not a right. And every action we take, and every comment we make, is a choice.
-
Wow,
This is the wake up posting. I wish I knew these ideas when I was growing up. How to sort the bear shit from the rhubarb.
Sea
-
Thank you, Dandy, much appreciated.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem - which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.
It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Straw Man / Woman - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack
Suppressed evidence or half truths-
Poisoning the Well - eg:
"Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."
"Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer."
In the examples above, unfavorable information (which may be true or false) is given about the target individual or subject in order to discredit the target and his/her arguments and statements.
Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B.
Hence, Assumption and Presumption -- deadly!
All of the above function well in any setting: "Relational Aggression" and "Cyber Bullying" and/or "Cyber Ousting" (as in any political setting!)
Leah x
-
Doublespeak
The term doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term does not appear in that novel, although Orwell did coin newspeak, oldspeak, and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them." The term double talk (with a similar meaning) dates back to at least 1936.
Forked Tongue
The image has given rise to the expression "to speak with a forked tongue," meaning to say one thing and mean another, or, in more general terms, to act in a duplicitous manner.
Quote: "Nothing more completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity, than straightforward and simple integrity in another." Charles Caleb Colton
The Pot
The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative behavior that could equally be applied to him or her. In former times cast iron pots and kettles were quickly blackened from the soot of the fire. If personified into animate objects, the pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's colour.
When used in debate, the "pot calling the kettle black" - it is a form of the argument ad hominem.
-
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
I can honestly say that I have, I do, apply this, generally. In particular, with applied research.
Brilliant thread, Dandy
"thank you"
Love, Leah
-
As always, real life depictions are great examples.
One thing my partner tends to do is minimize whatever my complaint is, and MAXIMIZE his discomfort. One time he had a newspaper in front of him and he tore out one tiny piece of the newspaper and held it up saying, "Here's your problem." Pointing at the rest of the newspaper he said, "And here's MINE."
He also uses the, "Please don't yell," tactic when I'm beginning to get upset and raise my voice slightly. Makes him appear so much more calm.
The one I truly hate, though, is the ambiguous tactic. "I wish some people around here would do what they're supposed to do....." ETC. without directly confronting who he's talking about.
I also hate the money/thrown in the face trick. "I work so hard around here..." Implying he deserves some kind of special consideration (to be mean) because he's a good provider.
People tend to fall back on the same tactics/tricks over and over again - they are their defaults. Once you penetrate them, and expose them for what they are, they will be easier to make go away forever..... it comes to feel like you've pulled their pants down.
Dandylife
-
Thanks for the true-life examples, Dandy.
The ambiguous accusatory statement was always one of the most troublesome to me, too... because it usually involved him picking at one of my kids.
Any time he'd start that, I'd always know that there was something which to which HE should have tended, but didn't. Of course, he'd never admit it... so I'd go scuffling around looking for signs of something which might be about to fall apart.
Now I think it was just a game he played... because he like to see me scurry.
Glad I boxed up those scurrying shoes... once and for all!
Dandy, I tried to remain calm and even take a more light-hearted approach to addressing these old techniques... but that would only stir up more anger and attempts to retaliate. Maybe the reaction just depends on the degree of NPD involved... but I'm convinced that there is no making this stuff go away in some cases.
Love,
Carolyn
-
As always, real life depictions are great examples.
One thing my partner tends to do is minimize whatever my complaint is, and MAXIMIZE his discomfort. One time he had a newspaper in front of him and he tore out one tiny piece of the newspaper and held it up saying, "Here's your problem." Pointing at the rest of the newspaper he said, "And here's MINE."
He also uses the, "Please don't yell," tactic when I'm beginning to get upset and raise my voice slightly. Makes him appear so much more calm.
The one I truly hate, though, is the ambiguous tactic. "I wish some people around here would do what they're supposed to do....." ETC. without directly confronting who he's talking about.
I also hate the money/thrown in the face trick. "I work so hard around here..." Implying he deserves some kind of special consideration (to be mean) because he's a good provider.
People tend to fall back on the same tactics/tricks over and over again - they are their defaults. Once you penetrate them, and expose them for what they are, they will be easier to make go away forever..... it comes to feel like you've pulled their pants down.
Dandylife
Grateful thanks to you, Dandy.
for all your threads, containing much wisdom.
Leah x
-
Wow, that covered my NMs entire art of conversing. Unbelievable to see it in black and white. Funny that she "adores" Carl Sagan (she thinks she understands all of his ideas).
Love, Beth
Dandy, your descriptions of your partner make me cringe. Are you doing OK?
-
Leah,
Regarding "the power of words" I will take that as a heads up for something I must check out, too. Thanks!
Lighter, sometimes the simplest things make us go, "huh". I had never questioned when someone said something such as, "Would you like X, or Y?" without even realizing I could have also chosen Z. Hah! The world opens up. We are not prisoners to anyone else's communication challenges! Glad you found the posting interesting.
Carolyn, you sent it to your daughter? Excellent! The younger people learn that others might not have our interests in mind when communicating, the better! Also - I understand when you say that nothing might work with certain people - and that is Ohsotrue. Sometimes the clearest logic and the most earnest heart won't make a dent in a N-istic person in the throes of their disorder. Thanks for pointing that out. I think we all have experienced that situation. It really hurts.
CB123, I'm so glad that you have the open communication with your kids and that you discuss critical thinking! That so impresses me! I am fortunate to have a son who is a critical thinker and we discuss things on an almost adult level, although he's only 10. I will resolve to put some of these item in my original post into a discussion with him and see what he thinks! I can't wait to try that out. Thanks !
Gjazz, turning the other cheek. Yes, can be a very effective tactic, even when you're not intending it to be a tactic. I admire you for having such a great internal compass and high self-esteem. Thank you for the reminder that we don't always have to have a certain strategy up OUR sleeve to counteract the abuse. Sometimes, walking away can be the most important thing we can do.
Sea Storm,
Hah! LOVE your post. Yes! And sometimes what they are saying is so very hard to decipher as "sh*t". A honed BS detector is important in so many areas of life.
Leah - thanks for the additional examples. They will go in the arsenal. It so helps me to hear the actual words someone might use as opposed to an "idea." Thanks again.
And, Carolyn, oh my I hate it when the kids get dragged into it. That just makes my heart sink. That was ultimately, one of the reasons we broke up to begin with - our daughter was too often the one in between. I know how that felt.
Beth, ah, thanks for asking about me. I am doing well with all this, actually. I feel like someone armed heavily with extensive....research, psychological background, experience, ideas, support...you name it. I don't feel so alone in this anymore - the Board has been a big help, actually. I'm sorry you have this to deal with...with your NM. I'm glad to see you posting. I value your input and ideas.
And, in all fairness - Beth - thanks for reminding me - I am not lily white in my argumentation techniques. If I were to critique myself as an argument partner, I'd have to say that I tend to clam up at times. I sometimes don't know how to say what needs to be said, so I don't say anything at all. This leads to resentment buildup on my part. AND I also have a very strong streak inside me that values privacy so at times I'll shop or do something I don't think my partner NEEDS to know and not tell him. He will sense something's up and maybe let his brain go to...maybe she's cheating on me or whatever....when really I'm just protecting my privacy. Also I get flooded very easily. I also find myself at times telling my daughter things I probably shouldn't - which would be boundary violations - such as "oh my god your dad is so stressed out right now. I really wish he'd mellow out." I FEEL bad after I tell her, and I think that tells me I shouldn't have said it. But it feels kind of good to have someone who understands just to hear me. I know she's not the right person - a therapist is. I've got to stop that. And that's got to make my partner feel or sense ganged up on.
So..... just presenting the other side. Yes, his tactics are hurtful, but he's doing it under stress when the reptilian part of the brain takes over and does the "default" thing it does. I understand that and I now know to demand a time out and become calm before trying to discuss things further. Thanks, Beth, or prompting me to think further on this!
Much love and thanks to all who read and responded on this thread,
Dandylife
-
Dandylife:
I like your exploration of argument techniques, here. I don't necessarily advocate turning the other cheek. I DO advocate respecting yourself enough to hold yourself to a standard equal or higher than that which you demand of others. In my case, specifically, my NF chose not to respect me (or anyone, for that matter). He chose to say cruel things. He's a master of snarky little insults and putdowns and sneak rage attacks. Once I decided that all this says something very negative about HIM, not ME, the same standard had to apply to me if I allowed his behavior to dictate my own. Can't have it both ways. This is not to deny the hurt he caused and continues to try to cause, given the opportunity. In schoolyard parlance, "he started it," at least where my generation is concerned (though I suspect his father started it, and perhaps his father's father as well, who knows), the point is it's my decision to try to end it, for the sake of the rest of my life, however I can. Therefore, I take him at his word, and insist I be taken at mine. I don't assign subtext, I reply directly and without the anger he's trying to provoke, and his every little jibe just fizzles. Once he even resorted to the tried and true "you think you're so above it all." My answer sent him into rageaholic orbit, because I just said, "I don't think that, actually, I still have a lot of insecurity, I still see myself as worthless at times. But I'm trying, every day, to rise above it all, and be the best and highest person I can, and it helps to know you see me that way." Poor thing! :-)
-
Therefore, I take him at his word, and insist I be taken at mine. I don't assign subtext, I reply directly and without the anger he's trying to provoke, and his every little jibe just fizzles.
Superb, Gjazz!!! :D
And I'm taking notes on this:
Once he even resorted to the tried and true "you think you're so above it all." My answer sent him into rageaholic orbit, because I just said, "I don't think that, actually, I still have a lot of insecurity, I still see myself as worthless at times. But I'm trying, every day, to rise above it all, and be the best and highest person I can, and it helps to know you see me that way." Poor thing!
:D :D :D :D
Thanks!!
Sincerely,
Carolyn
-
It was hard for me to learn that words used as weapons can be defused like real bombs. My NF's habit is to try to control responses to his aggression by assigning beliefs/positions/arguments to others. It is common for him to start a sentence with "YOU think..." or "It's YOUR opinion that..." This is intended to put me (or whomever he's addressing) on the defensive. His needing to do this right out of the gate signals, to me, a fundamental weakness: he's afraid that if he can't dictate the conversation, he'll hear something that hurts. But you know something? He's doing it less and less. It's like, once he realized it's not so dangerous to listen after all, he'll give it the occasional try.
-
gjazz,
very interesting your experience with your NF.
With some people, it takes a certain response to "get on their level". Then, it's almost like magic, they look in your eyes and are seing you for the first time.
Dandylife
-
Once he even resorted to the tried and true "you think you're so above it all."
Gjazz,
That's a pretty typical ploy when someone has absolutely no other defense to offer. If it's any consolation, its the ultimate last-ditch weapon.
The ultimate ad hominem attack--not on your faults that could disqualify from your position, but on your good opinion of yourself being the reason why you are disqualified to speak. Very N.
Love
CB
-
Right. Accusations leveled under the guise of "honesty" has always been one of his tricks. In my late teens I told him that if he wanted to know how I felt about something, or my opinion on a matter, etc., he could ask. If he "assigned" me a position, I would simply assume he was really talking about himself, because so often, he was. "You don't know what love is." "You aren't capable of loving anyone." "You're not worth anything anyway." ALL these things, I honestly believe, he felt at some level about himself, and he wasn't (isn't) man enough to face them, so he threw them at the most vulnerable person around. When I told him I would always replace "you" in these sorts of comments with "I," it opened up a whole new range of responses when he hurled them. Oddly enough, even compassion. Rarely, but it did crop up now and then. It was pretty hard to act on it because he sees compassion as weakness and steps up the attack, so I'd only go there if I had the time and energy.
-
gjazz,
Yes, Yes, Yes... I also have heard the conversations about how I feel... which is really how he feels.. then about how he feels about other people doing... wrong things.. which was really him... but answered through examples of other people.. even presidents.... Long and extensive with details... but something he would never think of or has done..... lonnng.. extensive..and detailed....along with statistics.....this is when he was really feeling pressure..... then after the answer.......that look... the glazed over mystified eyes... like when you are in love and gazing into the others eyes....only it was with himself... he was so pleased, so taken back, so in love, with himself.. his answers... he just glorified himself.. he was truly mystified by his own self....
Has any of you ever seen a look like that...it was so bizarre.....the watery, glazed..starry eyed look.......
Love
Deb
-
Debkor:
Oh yes. The Presidents! Mine too! So bizarre. And yes, I've seen that look you describe. Generally, when he knew he'd be holding court (ie people over for dinner, etc), he'd prepare his speeches and arguments and etc. mentally, then lay them out, proudly, for all to admire, and sit back with that glazed look on his face, as though he could actually hear the applause (none was forthcoming, more likely an uncomfortable clearing of the throat or, more likely, another cork popping somewhere in the background).
-
gjazz & deb,
I don't really get that glazed look, but I do get a giddiness and anticipation when he knows he'll have people around.
It can shift really fast. He can be hammering into me about something he's unhappy with, the phone will ring and without further ado, he's all charming and kind and nice.
He used to do this to me when we had cats. We had a sweet, sweet little cat and he'd get mad at me and go right over to her and pet her and talk sweet to her and I could tell he was doing it for my benefit. yuk. Like, "look what you're missing out on..."
Dandylife
-
Yup. I've had that dynamic too! Amazing how the patterns play out over and over.
-
Me too Dandy and gjazz....... only the dog... and inbetween telling me off... by the way do we have milk.. then back to the conversation.. then raising of the eyebrows at the end and say.. I still love you anyway... give me a kiss.. :shock: :lol: :lol:
Or did you get full details that they can remember back to when earth was created.. then.. I do not recall.. I do not remember... so then it can't be true....selective memory.. my butt....
Love
Deb
-
My NF cannot go back to "earth created" scenarios as he doesn't know enough about the science and has (quite understandably) long denounced all religion. To the POINT, I might add, of verbally assaulting (privately, with just us) the grandfather of a child murder victim, saying the child's grandfather should rot in the hell he clearly believes in for defending the murderer, because the grandfather advocated forgiveness.
Yes, yes. I know.
And I must say that he now has dogs, whom he loves to distraction. No expense has been spared. I kid you not when I say: a team of men was hired to go through all the rosebush beds, and there are many, and BY HAND remove every thorn. So the dogs would not be injured, running through them. This is a man who tried to kill his (first) wife twice and orphan his four kids.
-
Hi dandylife,
You and CB have inspired me to revisit the subject of critical thinking. Thanks!
I thought these would compliment the list in your opening post. Some may overlap.
ATTRIBUTES OF A CRITICAL THINKER:
-asks pertinent questions
-assesses statements and arguments
-is able to admit a lack of understanding or information
-has a sense of curiosity
-iinterested in finding new solutions
-is able to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas
-is willing to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against facts
-listens carefully to others and is able to give feedback
-sees that critical thinking is a lifelong process of self-assessment
-suspends judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered
-looks for evidence to support assumption and beliefs
-is able to adjust opinions when new facts are found
-looks for proof
-examines problems closely
-is able to reject information that is incorrect or irrelevant
S. Ferret
tt
-
I am finding this thread really interesting. However, a lot of it goes over my head and I would love to hear stories or examples. I guess I am a visual learner.
The story about the n dad who made a show of loving his dog and getting the thorns removed from the roses plays over and over in my head and I find it helpful.
ss
-
The story about the n dad who made a show of loving his dog and getting the thorns removed from the roses plays over and over in my head and I find it helpful.
ss
Sea Storm,
On reading that, I thought, Well, you haven't seen the last of this man's demented behavior. Way off the charts, red flag, heads up. Dangea, dangea, dangea as Steve Erwin (the crock man) used to say.
tt
-
Really? Did that happen? Hiring a bunch of guys to that, meanwhile minimizing the importance of his chidl?????? Yikes.
I can see that.
It is fortuneate that this image imprinted on the childs mind. It is a guidepost for starting to understand the impact of the n parent. Sometimes all someone has is an image of linoleum. But for some reason strong feelings are attached. Like "rosebud" i guess.
Sea
-
One of my favorite NF stories is the year he bought himself a brand new, very fancy car for Valentine's Day and gave his wife the keys to the car he'd spent the past ten years driving into the ground. If that doesn't say "I love me" I don't know what does!
-
the car story sounds exactly like what my ex did with me...when I said no, it was passed onto our eldest as his first car. An '88 volvo, my ex ran it into the ground for only 5 years instead of 10. nogadge
-
Re: cars
Interesting. One Christmas, my partner bought a car for me and presented the keys to me Christmas morning. It was HIS choice of car, the color HE likes, etc. etc. I kept saying I love to look at cars. I would love to test drive a car before I buy it, etc. etc. before this. But, he did it all himself anyway, to "look good", "generous", the "guy with the big heart" or whatever on christmas morning. Maybe it sounds ungrateful, but my heart sank when I saw the keys. Is that weird?
Dandylife
-
Christmas and Birthday -- frequently, being told of what he had thought of buying me -- but, did not!
Followed by; "it's the thought that counts" !
Leah x
-
Sea Storm,
I tried one day to reply but got an error message. Have been seeing that alot here on the forum. Anyway, I echo your plea for more real-life examples!
1- attacking the arguer - that's pretty obvious to us all, eh?
2 - arguing from authority - my partner says this all the time, "I know more about that than you." or "I'm the expert in that area." etc. etc. or the ultimate, "Trust me."
3 - Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
When we were negotiating getting back together after a dramatic divorce / being with other people/ reconciliation period, I worked for a nearby city as their Planning Division Secretary. It was a job with some pretty big responsibilities, including recording the weekly planning commission meetings/minutes/ and appearing on local cable tv as such, etc. Well, he really wanted me back working fulltime / only for HIM. So, when I agreed to get back together with him (on a Friday) he said "I expect you to start working for me full time Monday morning!" I said "Why? I need to give 2 weeks notice at least!" He said, "This will show me how committed you are." (strains of "If you really love me, you will ___")
5- Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). My company bought a service for providing web site video. We kept going over our bandwidth every month and they kept sending emails each month saying how much more it was going to cost. Finally, I questioned the guy and said "Hey, on your website, it says 'unlimited bandwidth' so what gives?" and we argued for a bit and finally I said I'd find another service. He shot back with,
(actual email) "After reading your email reply back to xxxx last evening, we have made a decision to part company with you. No one will ever treat you more fairly than we have tried to do. Your bandwidth usage is a simple statement of fact. File size(s) times the number of times someone plays your video equals bandwidth.
You have the right to disagree and make personal attacks.
We have the right to respond too and our choice is "to turn the other cheek". As I have been taught, "if someone wants your cloak, don't stop them when they also take your tunic." (Luke 6)
To be sure, the terms of service will be more clearly defined on all of our sites as a result of us having you as a customer. So in that sense, you have helped in your own unique way to make our business stronger, and thus better.
All of your videos have been deleted from our servers and your account will not be charged for any of your excess usage. Good luck to you in finding someone else to provide quality video service to your site visitors."
More later!
Dandylife