Attacking the Person instead of addressing the issue at hand - An Ad hominem Fallacy—

A blunt approach to stop doing what makes things worse and begin to make things better.

"Ad hominem" is a Latin term meaning "to the person," and it refers to a logical fallacy in which an argument is entered in by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the situation itself.

According to the evidence-based Gottman Marriage reserach, this is the number a major cause of marital discord and unhappiness: personal attacks instead of addressing the issue at hand.

_______________

Ad Hominem Fallacy Explained To A Six-Year-Old:

Imagine you and your friend are talking about whether cats or dogs are better pets. Instead of saying why they think dogs are better, your friend says, "Your idea doesn’t count because you wear silly socks!"

That’s not fair, right? The kind of socks you wear has nothing to do with whether cats or dogs are better. In an Ad Hominem Fallacy, someone tries to win an argument by attacking the person, not their idea.

It's like saying, "You’re wrong because I don’t like you," instead of explaining why the idea might be wrong. Always focus on the ideas, not the person!

________________

Ad Hominem Fallacy Explained To An Adult:

Don't attack the person, address the issue.

〰️

Don't attack the person, address the issue. 〰️

1. Personal Attack: Instead of discussing the issue or the complaint presented, the focus shifts to the individual, often highlighting perceived flaws, inconsistencies, or negative traits.

2. Distraction: This tactic diverts attention from the actual topic of discussion, making it difficult to engage in a rational conversation of differences or resolution.

3. Emotional Response: Ad hominem attacks often provoke emotional reactions, such as anger or defensiveness, which can escalate conflicts rather than facilitate constructive dialogue based on what each person actually needs which is the true motivation in marital and family relations.

Example:

In a marital argument about budgeting, one partner might say, "You’re just being unreasonable because you always spend too much money and never listen!" Here, instead of addressing the specific budgeting issue, the comment attacks the other partner's spending habits and character.

Why It's Problematic:

It erode trust and respect in relationships.

Using ad hominem attacks undermines healthy communication and problem-solving, as it shifts the focus from resolving the issue to personal grievances about things that are best addressed when that is the purpose of the conversation, instead of bringing it up when something else is being addressed.. It erode trust and respect in relationships, making it harder to achieve understanding and compromise. Recognizing and avoiding this fallacy can lead to more productive conversations and a greater likelihood of resolving conflicts effectively.

1. Criticism: Attacking the person instead of the behavior

Ad Hominem Example:
"You’re so lazy—why can’t you ever help around the house?"
Explanation: Criticism focuses on attacking the person’s character rather than addressing the specific behavior.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I feel overwhelmed managing the house. Can we work out a plan to share responsibilities?"

2. Contempt: Mocking intelligence

Ad Hominem Example:
"How could anyone be dumb enough to think that's a good idea?"
Explanation: Contempt is laced with superiority, belittling the other person’s intelligence.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I have some concerns about that idea. Can we talk through it together?"

3. Criticism: Comparing to others to belittle

Ad Hominem Example:
"Why can’t you be more like [friend’s spouse]? They actually care about their family."
Explanation: This attacks self-worth by unfavorable comparisons, implying inadequacy.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I appreciate everything you do. Let’s talk about how we can support each other more."

4. Contempt: Dismissing feelings as irrational

Ad Hominem Example:
"You're so sensitive—it’s impossible to talk to you about anything."
Explanation: This invalidates the person’s emotions, suggesting they’re inherently flawed for feeling a certain way.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I didn’t realize this was upsetting for you. Can you help me understand why?"

5. Defensiveness: Redirecting blame through attack

Ad Hominem Example:
"You’re accusing me? Look at yourself—you’re the one who always starts these arguments!"
Explanation: This avoids responsibility by counterattacking instead of addressing the issue.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I see your point. I didn’t mean to come across that way—let’s figure this out together."

6. Contempt: Sarcasm and mockery

Ad Hominem Example:
"Wow, what a genius plan! Let’s do it your way and watch it fail—again."
Explanation: Sarcasm communicates disdain and erodes trust and respect.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I’m not sure that plan will work, but I’d like to explore it with you to see."

7. Criticism: Highlighting flaws instead of collaborating

Ad Hominem Example:
"You can’t even handle simple tasks—why should I trust you with anything important?"
Explanation: This undermines confidence and escalates conflict by attacking competence.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I know things have been tough lately. How can we work together to make this easier?"

8. Defensiveness: Dismissing concerns by attacking the person

Ad Hominem Example:
"Why are you always nagging me? Maybe if you weren’t so controlling, I’d actually want to help!"
Explanation: This deflects from the issue and attacks the person’s behavior instead.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I feel criticized when you bring it up this way. Can we talk about what needs to be done calmly?"

9. Stonewalling: Using personal attacks to shut down communication

Ad Hominem Example:
"Whatever, you’re impossible to talk to. I’m done."
Explanation: This dismisses the person entirely, ending communication in a hurtful way.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I need a moment to gather my thoughts. Let’s revisit this when we’re both calm."

10. Contempt: Using body language or tone to belittle

Ad Hominem Example:
"Of course, you’d say that. Typical you." (Eye roll or sneering tone)
Explanation: Contempt through tone or body language conveys disrespect, even without explicit words.
Supportive Approach (Antidote):
"I want to understand where you’re coming from. Can we take a moment to reset?"

  • Ad Hominem Fallacies often align with the destructive behaviors of criticism and contempt, which are major predictors of relational breakdowns.

  • Antidotes like using "I" statements, expressing appreciation, and maintaining respect can counteract the damage of ad hominem attacks.

  • Active listening, mutual validation, and fostering curiosity about each other’s perspectives are crucial for turning conflict into connection.

By fostering respectful and constructive communication, conflicts can become opportunities for growth and closeness and, more importantly, addressing actual problems that can be made better. A continued use of this approach toward your family builds resentment and can lead to a simmering underlying contempt in the family system: it is not safe to talk about what is real.

NOTE: A dumb argument: lacks accuracy, logic, and reasoning. It ignores evidence and instead relies on fallacies, avoids what is actually occurring and harms family relationships.







〰️

〰️

Middle Ground Fallacy: A False Compromise

A blunt approach to stop doing what makes things worse and begin to make things better.

_____________________

When you assume that the best or most acceptable solution to a disagreement is the one that lies in the middle of two opposite extreme positions, regardless of the merits of each, you are creating what is known as a "False Compromise Fallacy."

_____________

Middle Ground Fallacy Explained to a Six-Year-Old:

Imagine your friend says, "The moon is made of cheese," but you know the moon is made of rocks. If another friend says, "Let’s just say the moon is half cheese and half rocks," that’s not true either.

The middle idea (half cheese, half rocks) isn’t automatically correct because it’s between two different ideas. Sometimes, one idea is just wrong, and we shouldn’t mix it with the right one just to be nice.

It’s important to look for the truth, not just pick the middle!

_____________

Middle Ground Fallacy Explained To An Adult:

Don't Assume compromise is fair.

〰️

Don't Assume compromise is fair. 〰️

It’s important to look for the truth, not just pick the middle!

Key Characteristics of Middle Ground Fallacy in Marriage and Family Life:

1. Assumption of Equidistance:

You presume that a compromise that splits the difference between two viewpoints is automatically fair or reasonable without considering the individuals' actual core needs, values, or feelings.

2. Neglect of Individual Perspectives:

You ignore the complexities of each person's perspective, potentially leading to solutions that do not adequately address the underlying concerns, core needs or desires of either party.

3. Superficial Resolution:

Focusing on finding a compromise may lead to a comfortable resolution but fails to resolve the core issues, leading to ongoing resentment or dissatisfaction.

4. Avoidance of Deeper Discussion:

You deter open communication and exploration of the nuances of each person's viewpoint, as the goal shifts to finding a compromise rather than understanding each other.

In a marital conflict over whether to spend the holidays with one partner’s family or the other’s, a middle-ground fallacy might suggest that they alternate between families every other year. While this may seem like a fair solution, it may not account for the emotional significance of each holiday or each partner's preferences, leading to dissatisfaction and unresolved feelings.

Here are ten more examples of marital and family conflict conversations that exhibit middle-ground fallacies, along with explanations and more supportive statements that could be used instead:

1. Example: Decision-Making

Fallacy: "We should compromise on how to spend our vacation. Let’s go to the beach for half the time and the mountains for the other half."

- Explanation: This assumes that both options must be equally represented, even if one partner is unhappy with the compromise.

- Supportive Statement: "I understand you love the beach, but I really want to explore the mountains. Can we find a way to prioritize one this time and save the other for our next trip?"

2. Example: Parenting Styles

Fallacy: "Let’s just do half of what you want and half of what I want with the kids."

- Explanation: This implies that splitting the difference is the best approach, ignoring the potential need for a more cohesive strategy.

- Supportive Statement: "I see that we both care deeply about our children’s upbringing. Can we discuss our values and find a unified approach that takes both our perspectives into account?"

3. Example: Financial Decisions

Fallacy: "We should split our budget so we can both have a little for what we want, even if it means cutting back on savings."

- Explanation: This assumes that sacrificing savings for personal spending is a fair compromise.

- Supportive Statement: "I think saving is important for our future. How about we set a budget that allows for some personal spending while still prioritizing our savings goals?"

4. Example: Household Chores

Fallacy: "Let’s just do half the chores each week and not worry about who does what."

- Explanation: This approach avoids addressing the distribution of chores based on personal capacity or preference.

- Supportive Statement: "I’d like to discuss our chores so we can divide them based on what we each prefer or have time for. What do you think?"

5. Example: Social Activities

Fallacy: "We should go to both of our friends' parties for an equal amount of time."

- Explanation: This assumes that equal time spent at both events will satisfy both partners, regardless of personal preferences.

- Supportive Statement: "I value our time with friends. Can we prioritize one party this time and plan to visit the other friends soon?"

6. Example: Communication Styles

Fallacy: "Let’s agree to talk only for a few minutes daily to keep it fair."

- Explanation: This assumes that limiting communication will solve deeper issues rather than addressing the quality or content of conversations.

- Supportive Statement: "I think it’s important for us to connect meaningfully. How about we set aside some uninterrupted time each week for a deeper conversation?"

7. Example: Family Gatherings

Fallacy: "Let’s alternate holidays between our families."

- Explanation: This approach doesn't consider the emotional significance each family gathering might hold for one partner.

- Supportive Statement: "I know both our families are important to us. Can we discuss which gatherings mean the most this year and find a way to balance them?"

8. Example: Career Moves

Fallacy: "Let’s split the decision on whether to take that job since it affects us both."

- Explanation: This assumes that a 50/50 approach will suffice, ignoring the impact of the decision on one partner's career and happiness.

- Supportive Statement: "I want to support your career. Can we discuss how this job might impact both our futures and make sure we’re both on the same page?"

9. Example: Health and Lifestyle

Fallacy: "Let’s just agree to eat healthily half the time and indulge the other half."

- Explanation: This assumes that a simple split will adequately address differing health priorities.

- Supportive Statement: "I’d love to support each other in our health goals. How about we create meal plans that incorporate healthy choices while allowing for some of our favorite treats?"

10. Example: Conflict Resolution

Fallacy: "Let’s just forget about our arguments and agree to disagree."

- Explanation: This suggests that avoiding the conflict is a suitable resolution, which may leave underlying issues unaddressed that continue to create more and more unaddressed disagreements inadvertently.

- Supportive Statement: "I think it’s important for us to address our disagreements so we can understand each other better. Can we take some time to talk about what’s bothering us?"

Instead of defaulting to compromise, you can strive to understand each other's perspectives and work collaboratively toward solutions that genuinely meet the core needs of both individuals. Then, the agreement can be tested to see how well each person’s core needs are being adjusted to consider each person as life changes satisfied and a.

NOTE: A dumb argument: lacks accuracy, logic, and reasoning. It ignores evidence and instead relies on fallacies, avoids what is actually occurring and harms family relationships.

A blunt approach to stop doing what makes things worse and begin to make things better.

Texas Sharpshooter: Painting a target around a bullet hole you already made

A blunt approach to stop doing what makes things worse and begin to make things better.

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone ignores the differences in data and focuses on the similarities to draw an inaccurate conclusion.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Explained to a Six-Year-Old:

Imagine you’re playing a game where you throw a ball at a target, but there’s no bullseye drawn yet. After throwing the ball, draw a bullseye around where the ball landed and say, “I hit the target!”

That’s not fair, right? You’re only pretending to aim because you made the bullseye after throwing the ball.

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy happens when someone picks only the information that makes them look right and ignores everything else. It’s like drawing the target after you throw instead of being honest about what’s true.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Explained To An Adult:

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is named after a hypothetical scenario in which a sharpshooter fires a gun at the side of a barn and then paints a target around the bullet holes to make it appear as though they are all clustered precisely around the bullseye. This fallacy highlights a common problem in reasoning and statistics: the tendency to misinterpret or manipulate data to fit a predetermined conclusion.

Key Aspects of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:

1. Post Hoc Reasoning:

It often involves looking at a set of data after the fact and finding patterns or connections that may not actually exist. In this way, a conclusion is drawn that does not reflect the actual nature of the data.

2. Cherry-Picking Data:

This fallacy can also involve selectively presenting data that supports a specific hypothesis while ignoring data that contradicts it. This can lead to misleading conclusions.

3. False Patterns:

The fallacy demonstrates how people may see patterns in random data, leading to the mistaken belief that those patterns have significance or that they provide a basis for a causal relationship.

4. Confirmation Bias:

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is closely related to confirmation bias, where individuals favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses.

1. Health Benefits of a Supplement: A company advertises a dietary supplement by highlighting a few studies that show significant health benefits while ignoring numerous studies that found no effect or negative outcomes.

This is a Texas sharpshooter fallacy because it cherry-picks favorable data to create a misleading narrative about the supplement's effectiveness.

2. Astrology Predictions: An astrologer points to specific instances where horoscopes accurately predicted personal events for clients, ignoring the many times predictions were inaccurate.

This fallacy occurs here as it focuses on select successful predictions while disregarding the vast majority that were incorrect, creating an illusion of accuracy.

3. Job Performance Statistics: A manager highlights a small group of employees who excelled after a new training program, neglecting the larger number who did not show improvement.

This is misleading because it presents a skewed view of the training's effectiveness by focusing only on a few successes rather than the overall outcome.

4. Sports Team Performance: A sports analyst claims a particular player is a "clutch performer" because they made several game-winning shots in a few critical games, ignoring the numerous games where they performed poorly.

This misrepresentation of the player’s overall performance creates a false narrative based on selective data.

5. Economic Growth Claims: A politician cites a few months of economic growth during their term while ignoring the longer-term trends of economic decline or instability.

This fallacy arises when selective time frames are used to present a misleadingly positive picture of economic performance.

6. Environmental Studies: An environmental group highlights one study that shows a specific chemical is harmless while ignoring a multitude of studies that demonstrate its harmful effects.

This example illustrates the fallacy by focusing on a single piece of data that supports a desired conclusion while disregarding the broader body of evidence.

7. Diet Trends: A nutritionist promotes a new diet by showcasing a few testimonials from individuals who lost weight, while neglecting the majority who did not see significant results.

This selective reporting creates an illusion of effectiveness that is not supported by the overall data.

8. Survey Results: A company promotes a new product by highlighting a small number of positive survey responses while omitting the majority of negative feedback from customers.

This instance exemplifies the fallacy as it presents a distorted view of customer satisfaction by cherry-picking positive data.

9. Crime Statistics: A community leader points to a decrease in crime rates in a specific neighborhood after a new policing strategy while ignoring other areas where crime has increased.

This is a Texas sharpshooter fallacy because it selectively focuses on localized data that supports a narrative while ignoring broader trends.

10. Medical Treatments: A researcher claims a new treatment is effective based on a few patients who showed improvement, ignoring the larger group of patients who experienced no change or worsened conditions.

This fallacy illustrates how focusing on a small sample of data can create an inaccurate portrayal of a treatment's overall effectiveness.

In each of these examples, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy highlights the dangers of selectively presenting data to support a specific conclusion while ignoring the broader context or contrary evidence. This can lead to misleading interpretations and flawed decision-making and can put your marriage and family at risk if it becomes a pattern of dealing with conflictual situations.

To avoid falling into the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, it's important to:

- Consider all relevant situations before concluding.

-Be clear about your intentions. Is it to appear correct and win, or is it to address what is occurring?

- Recognize and account for your own possible biases in what you are choosing to base your claim on.

- Use statistical info where possible to evaluate the significance of patterns rather than relying solely on your visual interpretations.