The Psychology behind Arguments

by Monica Islam

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Logical reasoning is an indispensable “soft skill” that today’s graduates need to demonstrate at work. It is an attribute that is tested during college admissions; Graduate Record Examinations (GRE); and undergraduate essays. Outside academia, a well-formed argument enables us to persuade others and win their admiration.

An argument consists of three parts: claim, support, and warrant. The claim attempts to prove a point, while the support aims to convince others of the authenticity of the claim through evidence and motivational appeals. The warrant is a given assumption and hence, becomes a reliable link between the claim and the support. There are, however, plenty of common logical fallacies which betray the veracity of the argument.

One of these argumentative errors would be forming conclusions based upon insufficient evidence. In other words, we “leap before we look”. This is a matter of hasty generalization, whereby we make a judgment without painstakingly scraping for factual information. Consequently, prejudices surface. As an instance, we often accuse an entire community based on experiences with a few of its members. We tend to ascribe traits to the group which only a handful of its members may have exhibited. Superstitions, too, fall under this category. An unfortunate event followed by the breaking of mirrors, for instance, does not mean that broken mirrors signify bad luck.

Following from the aforementioned error is the post hoc or doubtful cause theory. Because one event follows another, we cannot establish a causal relation. The first event may not have caused the second one. The order of events could be coincidental, and there may have been other factors involved which would be better able to explain the occurrences. Not only superstitions, but scientific statements too can fall prey to such a false argument. For instance, we cannot blame a nuclear reactor test for any subsequent inclement weather in the area where the test was conducted.

This argument fallacy is one that we come across too frequently. Stating testimonials of experts is a valid means of supporting our claims. However, how do we judge the validity of these “expert opinions”? A new expert emerges every other day because s/he seems to have a post-doctoral degree or a strong political affiliation. We could be guilty of a faulty use of authority if we do not scrutinize the credentials of the experts. We must also assess the reasons for their opinions. For instance, if we want to uncover corruption committed by an organization, we need to ask a non-partisan group outside of the organization to submit an evaluation. Even then, we need to ensure that this “audit group” does not consist of rivals who will take the opportunity to place a lower score.

Ad hominem attack is another common source of erroneous arguments. A person is attacked, completely ignoring the substance or validity of the person’s argument. The spotlight is placed on the person rather than on what s/he has to say, and if the speaker is found to be unacceptable in any way, then the speaker’s argument is also razed to the ground. We destroy the thin line between personal and professional lives. Infidelity, promiscuity, atheism, and even the socio-economic strata could be a point of contention. For instance, the personality and character of an artist is often under scrutiny which is irrelevant to the artist’s work. In another instance, we bring to attention the past mistakes of politicians and other public figures to deride whatever good they may be doing at present.

Related to the error above arises the “straw man” fallacy. It is a method of distraction. Hence, when the opposition attacks us, we bring up a view similar to, but not the same one as our opponent holds. Usually, the view that we bring up is also lighter in context. For instance, when a person is accused of huge fund embezzlement, s/he talks about other trivial gifts that s/he received but which no one had questioned or requested to return. The main concern, i.e. large misappropriation of funds, is sidelined.

This error is quite similar in nature to ad hominem attacks. The fallacy is called “two wrongs make a right”. It is a diversion strategy as well. When we denounce a person for his wrongdoings, s/he immediately points out our shortcomings, instead of answering or accepting our accusations. For instance, whenever the United States tries to bring China into account for its misdeeds, such as pollution and human rights abuses, the latter country answers by decrying the former country’s fierce foreign policies in the Middle Eastern and North African regions.

Non sequitur, meaning “it does not follow”, is an error of irrelevance. The popularity of a book, for instance, does not indicate its scientific or literary soundness. The book series Fifty Shades of Grey falls neatly into this category. While the authors may have sold well over 125 million copies around the world and signed contracts to turn the series into sleek motion pictures, the content itself is not highly rated in literary circles because of its primitive use of language and its controversial genre (i.e. BDSM). Simply put, the number of copies sold is irrelevant to its literary acclaim.

The next error in this list, called ad populum, is one that appeals to the prejudices of people. Instead of logical reasoning, the arguer decides to satisfy the hidden biases of the people to support his/her claim. For instance, many advertisements appeal to nationalistic pride of the people, i.e. made in Bangladesh (or insert any other location). In postulating such an ethnocentric view, the advertisers detract attention from other objective proofs of quality. Consequently, the audience is unable to form a neutral evaluation of the product.

The concluding error on this list is the use of faulty emotional appeals in an argument. They appear to conceal self-serving motives. The two common emotional appeals made are rooted in pity or fear. As an example, charitable organizations often use the tactic of pity to persuade us into donating to them. This is legitimate if the donations actually benefit the alleged beneficiaries. It is illegitimate when only a small percentage of the donations go into directly serving the poor or the victims. Fear is an effective appeal to move us into action. Insurance companies, for instance, use this technique (i.e. fear of poverty).

Apart from the nine errors listed here, there are plenty of other logical fallacies. They are often taught in the English language or GRE preparatory courses. However, the actual use of these fallacies goes beyond the classroom and into the real world. Mastering these errors to our advantage and knowing how to either refute or form arguments are recommended life skills.