GAMES THAT PEOPLE PLAY, and HOW TO COUNTER THEM. LOGICAL FALLACIES EXPLAINED!

We live in a kingdom of fools and to the surprise, we are the fools! We are fools for two widely converse reasons. We are fools either if we resort to fool others or we are fools if we get fooled by others. But regardless of where we live, what's our family background, what ethinicity do we belong to, what food do we eat, what our sexuality is, what colour underwear do we wear or what career do we pursue, we all are eminent dickheads in our own right. And if I ask you what is the most widely played game on planet Earth, then what will be your answer? Well, in contrast to the superficial world, the game is not soccer, it's not golf, not basketball, not even PUBG. It's a game that is subtle. It's a game that people play. It's a game of manipulation ( ya cuz what else will you anticipate from a land of fools?). The game of manipulation is of diverse types, has various frameworks and of different uses that ultimately serve a common nefarious purpose— to deceive. And the people who resort to this strategy, i.e., the manipulators, come of different shapes and sizes. Sometimes they look shrewd and primed to push your buttons while the other times they look like the most innocent and victimized creatures in a not-so-good world. And sometimes they even appear the same as the one we find when we look into a mirror. After all, let's admit it, we have all been guilty of resorting to some kind of manipulative tactic at one time or another. That might have been either subconsciously or surreptitiously with intent. Either ways, it's fine. Rather not abuse yourself for ever doing so because to err is radically human. But however in this kingdom of fools, some fools have evolved into such an impudent state where they are scoundrel enough of playing this game so fervently that it's now their own benchmark. They are now just like a cannibal being unleashed and to delineate to them that how irrational they are being is just like shoving a dagger inside our own asses! Because you can't tell a stupid person that he/she is stupid, because the moment that person acknowledges that he/she has been stupid, he/she is no longer stupid. Manipulation is just another form of stupidity, but a very iniquitous and menacingly horrendous one. As already mentioned, there are a whole variety of manipulation types. But today, we are going to delve into one specific type. We are going to divulge about the games that people play on you, me and everyone with their words to prove their irrationality and vices to be true and enlightening. The game is also know as "logical fallacies."

        WHAT ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES?

By definition, logical fallacies or non sequitur are false arguments that have a flaw in their logical structure, which sound and look precisely logical. These type of statements and arguments have an underlying error in their reasoning and if went unnoticed, can literally turn the tables and make the most unethical and vile idea appear as the sole truth. Logical fallacies are all around us, from our educational system to the marketing world, and from news debates to political ideologies. People temerariously or deceitfully employ this strategy to their advantage to win arguments, acquire support, to get the upper hand or for any other Machievallian agenda. We have all been prey to this hellacious malpractice and we get butt-hurted when we know that what we are divulging about is true, is pure but unable to refute the other person who is spamming irrationality. The people who maneuver these fallacies are prodigious at it and it can be frustrating and depressing to argue with those assholes who just won't put their ego aside to accept the truth. To cater this need, I am back here with another impeccable blog upon to counter this game and radiate the essence of rationality all around. But before commencing, I urge you never to argue with an idiot because that would yield no good and only emaciate you own energy and peace of mind. But if you are in a public debate, burry that idiot alive by showing his idiocy to everyone! The purpose of this blog is to make you aware of this subtle game so that you can avoid from getting lavishly embroiled in a quarrel with an idiot and also to rectify your own flaws to become a better human. 

Anyways, enough of trash-talking.  this blog is gonna incorporate some exchange of dialogues between two distinct characters in a real life context. The correspondence of these characters to real world shall be either a mere coincidence or rather, my satire. Let's commence.

1.) Strawman Argument

A strawman argument is a type of logical fallacy that attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed. To do this, people either exaggerate, oversimplify or misrepresent your arguments or points and then answer them which makes it look like they have answered or even refuted your argument but in the reality, they just resorted to this tactic to make their position look stronger than it actually is. Let us ponder over an example between a citizen and an assistant:-

Citizen: Why doesn't the administrator host an open press conference to interrogate and deal with the matters of the public to whom he is accountable? Is he afraid?

Assistant: Why do you all cause such a commotion? Mr. Administrator is a very busy person and moreover he isn't afraid of anyone. Don't you watch how boldly he lives and how confidently he addresses our assemblies? There's no sign of cowardice in him.

Well did you observe how sharply the assistant deployed strawman argument in his answer? In this case, he oversimplified the citizen's question to an extenuated version about whether the administrator is afraid, while the core question was about accountability of the administrator that why doesn't he inaugurate press conferences in the first place! But by oversimplifying the context of the question, all the answers that had nothing to with the actual question (like he lives boldly and addresses his "own" assembly), seemed plausible.

Strawman arguments can be highly deceiving ( often an extreme version of the counter argument) and the people who maneuver them can sound very intellectual and logical, but as you saw, they are not. To counter strawman argument, be critically objective about your own question or argument and be vigilant of whether what the other person is telling is in allignment with the predisposed question or not. If not, then be gentle and show them how what they are telling is not the rational equivalent of what was anticipated. This way, you will reinforce your message and make your position stronger and prevent the discussion from getting veered to a bundle of bullshit.

2.) Appeal to Ignorance

Accused: My Lord, I wasn't the one who was driving the car. The C.C.T.V photage is still being examined!

Prosecutor: Stop lying! Since you have no evidence that proves you are innocent, then you must be guilty. 

The above fallacy is an example of appeal to ignorance. This type of fallacy transpires when someone argues that one's conclusion is true because there is no evidence against it or false because there is no evidence in support of it. This fallacy erroneously transposes the burden of proof from the one making the claim. As we observed in the above example, the prosecutor preached a mindset of "guilty until proven innocent" and thus pressurized the accused to prove his innocence irrespective of the fact that the burden of evidence lies on the accuser and not the accused. It is the same as telling since there is no tangible evidence that God exists, hence it is the truth that there's no God. Well, I am not debating the existence of God but this is a lame way of shifting responsibility.

To shun or counter this, focus on what the available information is there about the topic rather than waging war about something which you know in vague. For instance, rather than reprehending some aliens or spirits for the emanation of natural calamities, researchers scavenged and built rigorous theories based on the evidence available. And it worked!

3.) Appeal to hypocrisy

This type of fallacy intends to discredit and relegates the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behaviour as being inconsistent with what they are debating for. For example:- 

Opposition: Why the hell is the government persistently introducing tax hikes each month that doesn't even correspond with supply and market conditions?

Government: This precise tendency was yours when you were in power. This bespeaks a palpable legitimacy in our policies.

What transpired above is that the government in power resorted to appeal to hypocrisy and justified their actions to the opposition by a attacking their previous behaviours. Well if that was the case then why did the people elect a new government at the center if they didn't stressed for a change?  This fallacy is densely prevalent in the political world. It operates on a core philosophy of denying responsibility for one's own actions and showing that since the opponent behavior is the same then there's nothing wrong in doing the same. Well I admit that if one is not practicing what one preaches and anticipating it from others than that's hypocrisy but that doesn't justify if I replicate the same thing by slamming some alibi because that will be a hypocrisy of the biggest nature! It will be the same as a father delineating to his son the depraving effects of smoking by divulging about how smoking when he was young affected his health and the son is like,"Dad, how can you even think to confine me from doing something that you yourself used to do? Hence you are wrong, cigarettes are not harmful."

To neutralize this fallacy, accept your character flaws(that's the sign of being a human being, everybody has some) and reinforce your message gently by telling the other person that what you did was undoubtedly wrong but it doesn't justify his replicating the same because then how can he criticize you for the same?

4.) Appeal to authority

Marx: Bro, I just can't abstain myself from laughing that you believe we are living in a simulation created by super humans.

Bob: But you can't deny the truth! An eminent researcher has published an article in support of it.

This fallacy is known as appeal to authority in which instead of submitting actual evidence, the argument bargains on the credibility of someone or something of great perceived relevance. What we observed in the above conversation was that just because one researcher has published an article upon the existence of something doesn't actually tell us that it is true since there are a whole plethora of counter arguments with factual evidences for that matter. This argument is common in advertising world(but can practically be found anywhere) where an embalmed actor who knows nothing about A.I. and software endorses a company selling futile courses about the same. And the people go after it because of the conformity engendered by this influence.

To counter this, all you need to do is be mindful that people can be wrong. Just because one is reputed in one's field, doesn't necessarily mean that he/she can't be mistaken. In these cases, it is better to adhere to the evidences and facts rather than relying upon opinion since a heart doctor might be a savant when it is about heart issues but will be a layman when it comes to joint pain.

5.) Appeal to pity

Prosecutor: My Lord, there's no point in taking this further. The evidences at the sight palpably indicates that she is guilty of the blast attack.

Defense: I can't even imagine that you are believing that! Look at her! She is a lady and on top of that a spiritual leader! Her pure hands can never do this. Don't take advantage of her poor condition!

Appeal to pity fallacy relies upon playing with the opponent's emotions and making him/her doubt their own empathic character. This is done to shift attention from evidence and make others feel pity or guilty to compel them to believe in some product or some idea. As you got to see above, the defense lawyer turned the tables by making others feel pity about the condition of the accused irrespective of the facts. Moral of the story— always be rational even when the other person is acting like a fanatic!

6.) Loaded Question

Loaded question is a type of fallacy in which the question being asked has already a built-in assumption that limits the direct replies to what caters to the questioner's agenda. Take a look at an example:- 

Party spokesperson: Stop assisduosly opposing our policies. Tell me one thing. Do you consecrate to help our PM in fighting against corruption.

Common man: Hey but my question is different.

Party spokesperson: Just shut up! You proved that you are anti-national!

The above question from the party spokesperson was the paragon of loaded question fallacy. The question he asked had a pre-induced assumption that whether he is in support of the progression of the nation to which the man had literally no choice since had he answered "no" then that would have been a matter of treason and had he answered "yes" then the argument would have come to an unconditional end. The assumption was about that whether he espouses PM's battle against corruption while the question that was needed to be asked was whether the PM himself is fighting against corruption or just being a barrister of it!

7.) Slippery slope fallacy

Next comes the slippery slope fallacy. In this fallacy, an individual hypothetically exaggerates and tries to misrepresent that an inconsequential or harmless action will eventually lead to a series of circumstances that will be disastrous. A classic example is—"If you don't study well, you will fail the exam. If you fail the exam, you won't be able to graduate. If you don't graduate, you won't get a good job. If you won't get a good job, you would be in debt and without a family. If you don't have any family to look after you, you'll die in misery." 

This type of fallacy is used for fear mongering among the masses to buy a certain product or follow a certain ideology. While we all know what the truth is. And interestingly, Bill Gates and Zuckerberg were college drop outs but we all know anything like the exaggerated hypothesis didn't happen. In fact, the precise converse did. 

8.) False Dichotomy

This type of fallacy intends to confine the available options for the people to drive them to choose the option that serve the manipulator's agenda ( quite similar to loaded question). The options often involve too extreme choices by which it becomes a cup of tea to polarize and demean the other person to get the upper hand.  For example—"Either you are in support of putting that criminal to death or you are just a defender of crime yourself!"

Here false dichotomy confined the options to two extremes while there could have been a whole spectrum of choices. If someone is debating about not putting a criminal to death, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is an advocate of crime. It can also mean that he is just against death penalty. Mostly the people who resort to false dichotomy have ludicrous judging skills or just can't handle differences in opinion. So as a civilized species, it is our job to illuminate the spectrum of options available to those who spurn to catch up with them.

9.) Hasty Generalization

This type of fallacy transpires when one cherry-picks the options that reinforce and support the ideology of the claim-maker and then tries to emphasize that the whole tribe or community is the same. This is nowadays a touchstone in our civilization to evoke hate, prejudice and stereotypes for a group. For example a guy saying, "All the girls are bitches! They are all after my money." Well if that's the case then how come he is not yet living on the streets? To counter this all you need to know that in a group of hundreds of bulbs, if 5-6 bulbs come defected, then that represents a very weak probability because a person is wrong not the whole community.

10.) Red Herring 

The name of this fallacy comes from a fish that had a very strong smell which was used to distract hunting dogs. As aptly as it is, this type of fallacy is used to distract the course of the argument to something out of context. Take a look at this deplorable conversation to conceive the concept in a more a comprehensible way.

Journalist: Why there is so much inflation on essential goods and services? Even the staple onion is over Rs.100.

Finance minister: I don't eat onions.

It's quite obvious, that the finance minister is just trying to delude everyone by hiding the failure of their government but after this horrendous answer, I am literally unabashed to say that there are never gonna be enough middle fingers in this world for someone who does anything equivalent. For shunning this, you need to vigilantly revolve around the topic and ignoring any alludance for jumping on to something trivial or irrelevant.

11.) Casual Fallacy

Casual Fallacy refers to the false assumption that transpires when one mistakenly assumes that just because one event is followed by another, therefore the prior is the cause of the latter. For example—"Whenever a rooster crows, the Sun rises. The rooster must be the controller of the universe." When people commence to assume such bullshits, any hope for rationality is endangered. You have to always be primed to scout for the bigger picture in order to tackle such fallacies.

12.) Ad Hominem

Dentist: Too much of calories is a cardinal retarding factor for our health. It makes us sluggish and tarnishes our immune system by decelerating our metabolism. We should stop chasing short term highs of sweets and cultivate healthy eating habits.

Confectioner: Shut up you idiotic ego maniac. This is just a tactic of defaming me. Every one knows that I give people delights by my sweets which you are ignorant of.

Dentist: But you are denying the facts! Stop this fooling game.

Confectioner: Just stop this all out attack against me you phony! You are the biggest fool. You deserve an award of fool. And look at your face, it almost looks like an assistant wrecked by a carbon footprint.

This is perhaps the most vicious fallacy I know of. Through Ad Hominem, the user tries to sardonically demoralize someone by personal comments, cynical jeering remarks or physical violence. This is done typically because one has no factual or rational point to make so he/she focuses on demeaning the morale of the other person. The people who fervently and naturally use them often fall in the dark triad of manipulators (The guy in the above picture being a notable brand ambassador of Ad Hominem).

If you ever encounter one skilled Ad Hominem practitioner, then I apologise on his/hers behalf and I wish you great luck because they just won't comprehend their assholery.  You have to keep yourself as a badass and just ignore their bullshit.

                    *******************

★And that was the list guys. There are a whole bunch of more fallacies available which I was unable to cover in this one. Lemme know down in the comments below how was this one. Hope you learned something valuable and stay tuned until next time.★

               ************************