News How Can We Identify and Defend Against Rhetorical Techniques of Unreason?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SimplePrimate
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on various rhetorical techniques that can be used to evade meaningful engagement with opposing viewpoints. Key techniques highlighted include Topic Derailment, where one avoids addressing the original thesis by substituting their own, and Ad Hominem attacks, which undermine an opponent by targeting their personal qualities rather than their arguments. Thought-stopping clichés are also discussed, as they often serve as misleading premises for counterarguments. Additionally, the concept of "amygdala hijacking" is introduced, explaining how emotional responses can override rational thought, a tactic commonly employed by media to manipulate audiences. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing these techniques to maintain logical discourse and encourages the sharing of further examples for better awareness and protection against such tactics.
SimplePrimate
These are some rhetorical techniques, all too familiar to everyone. Handy to know and avoid, and I'd like to learn of other examples for my own protection.

Invariably these function to evade the task of fairly confronting a disagreeable thesis, and so, head off any possibility of being compelled by reason to agree with it. Sometimes these can be disarmed simply by naming them and promptly getting back to the issue hand.

Topic Derailment:
Avoid the thesis by simply substituting your own. Maybe all rhetorical techniques are variations on this.

The Ad Hominem attack:
Undermine the opponent by attacking his/her personal qualities (and/or their motives for even presenting their thesis). This be can be very powerful, since the opponent feels compelled the abandon the topic and leap to their own ego-defence. ("You're just saying that because you're a despicable A and you want B") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thought-stopping Cliches:
These are familiar false generalizations that have become so commonplace that they are often passed off as reliable premises from which to launch a counter argument. For example: "Anyone can be succeed at x if they're really hungry enough for it" (a favorite amongst mediocre teachers, and politicians presiding over imploding economies).

Got any more of these?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Buy the media. Fire anyone who doesn't sell your views. As my friend Cris said, "money is more powerful than logic."

Use Internet feedback. Try out 20 arguments and see what works. It doesn't have to make any sense.
 
  • Haha
Likes Tom.G
Hornbein said:
Buy the media. Fire anyone who doesn't sell your views. As my friend Cris said, "money is more powerful than logic."

Use Internet feedback. Try out 20 arguments and see what works. It doesn't have to make any sense.
OK, that's an excellent example of Topic Derailment. Thanks
 
You're welcome.
 
SimplePrimate said:
These are some rhetorical techniques, all too familiar to everyone. Handy to know and avoid, and I'd like to learn of other examples for my own protection.

Invariably these function to evade the task of fairly confronting a disagreeable thesis, and so, head off any possibility of being compelled by reason to agree with it. Sometimes these can be disarmed simply by naming them and promptly getting back to the issue hand.

Topic Derailment:
Avoid the thesis by simply substituting your own. Maybe all rhetorical techniques are variations on this.

The Ad Hominem attack:
Undermine the opponent by attacking his/her personal qualities (and/or their motives for even presenting their thesis). This be can be very powerful, since the opponent feels compelled the abandon the topic and leap to their own ego-defence. ("You're just saying that because you're a despicable A and you want B") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thought-stopping Cliches:
These are familiar false generalizations that have become so commonplace that they are often passed off as reliable premises from which to launch a counter argument. For example: "Anyone can be succeed at x if they're really hungry enough for it" (a favorite amongst mediocre teachers, and politicians presiding over imploding economies).

Got any more of these?
A technique used by cable tv propaganda channels and insane radio is amygdala highjacking.

The amygdala can activate a person’s fight-or-flight response as a reaction to a real or perceived threat of danger. Amygdala hijack describes the perhaps unnecessary triggering of this response and the actions that follow it...
When a person senses a threat, the amygdala may automatically activate the fight-or-flight response. However, the frontal lobes process the information to determine if the threat is real and what a logical response would be.

In a sense, the frontal lobes and amygdala are at odds with each other.

If a threat is not serious, the frontal lobes tend to take control, and most people will respond with a more logical, thought-out reaction. However, if the amygdala takes over in such instances, a fight-or-flight reaction takes over. This is amygdala hijack...
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/amygdala-hijack#what-is-it

Essentially, by activating the fight or flight response, the speaker can bypass the listeners ability to interpret information rationally.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Astronuc and strangerep
Ivan Seeking said:
A technique used by cable tv propaganda channels and insane radio is amygdala highjacking.

It's that ancient Eastern curse: "May you live in interesting times"

But sure, although Ad Hominen attacks clearly fall into that category, the full range of amygdala highjackings is far more varied and wonderous.

Closer to the OP, the strategy "Believe in my religion or I will kill you" was always a very effective argument clincher.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rephrase the question, then answer it; happens all the time in "interviews."
 
Bystander said:
Rephrase the question, then answer it; happens all the time in "interviews."
Like when a politician answers a question they prefer was asked.

I think this falls under the category of Topic Derailment. But it's a classic.
 
Screenshot-2018-05-09-14.25.17-1024x680.png


The image is too detailed to read on PF. So here's a link to location where you can download a PDF version and zoom in all you want:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/publicspeakingprinciples/chapter/logicalfallaciesinfographic-pdf/
 
  • Like
Likes gleem, strangerep and phinds

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top