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

  • News
  • Thread starter SimplePrimate
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses various rhetorical techniques that are commonly used to avoid confronting a disagreeable thesis or to undermine an opponent's argument. These include topic derailment, ad hominem attacks, and thought-stopping cliches. Other examples mentioned are amygdala hijacking, rephrasing questions for preferred answers, and using religion as a means of coercion. The conversation also mentions a resource for further study on logical fallacies.
  • #1
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
  • #2
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
  • #3
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
 
  • #4
You're welcome.
 
  • #5
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
  • #6
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:
  • #7
Rephrase the question, then answer it; happens all the time in "interviews."
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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

1. How can we identify rhetorical techniques of unreason?

We can identify rhetorical techniques of unreason by paying attention to the language being used. Look for overly emotional language, logical fallacies, and attempts to manipulate or deceive the audience. Also, consider the source of the information and their intentions.

2. What are some common rhetorical techniques of unreason?

Some common rhetorical techniques of unreason include ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, false dichotomies, and appeals to fear or authority. These techniques are used to distract from the actual argument and manipulate the audience's emotions.

3. How do these techniques affect our ability to reason?

Rhetorical techniques of unreason can cloud our ability to reason by appealing to our emotions rather than logic. They can also create false narratives and lead us to believe in ideas that are not based on evidence or facts.

4. How can we defend against rhetorical techniques of unreason?

We can defend against rhetorical techniques of unreason by being aware of them and actively questioning the information presented to us. We should fact-check and seek out multiple sources to verify information. It is also important to remain calm and not let emotions dictate our beliefs.

5. Why is it important to identify and defend against rhetorical techniques of unreason?

It is important to identify and defend against rhetorical techniques of unreason because they can be used to manipulate and deceive others. They can also lead to false beliefs and actions that may have negative consequences. By being aware of these techniques, we can make more informed and rational decisions.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top