How do you deal with ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments in professional settings?

This is something very difficult and delicate. There are many factors contributing to it, and you may have nothing to do with you to be picked on. We live in a society that nobody’s happy, and all is quite fake. It is mostly due to jealousy, your career, merits, the way you look or smile. It’s important to remember it’s their problem and not yours. If you can’t stop it trying to talk about it to the person , and if you move away and don’t feed the person, maybe it’s time to move on to another job. I always remind myself real friends are rarely found in job environments. The solution is to get mandatory professional development for all employees tackling these issues before they flourish, and having support for both sides

Responding to fallacies requires a calm, rational and thoughtful approach. To respond to an ad hominem attack, it's important to avoid getting defensive and instead focus on the actual argument being made. One way to do this is to politely point out the fallacy and then redirect the conversation back to the actual issue at hand. Straw man arguments, on the other hand, require a more nuanced approach. To respond to a straw man argument, it's important to first identify the misrepresentation and then clarify your actual position. By focusing on the actual argument being made, and clarifying any misrepresentations, you can help ensure that the conversation stays focused and productive.

Creo que es importante identificar el contexto. Habrá ocasiones donde el uso de falacias por parte de nuestro interlocutor será irrelevante, atendida la escasa importancia de la discusión. En otras ocasiones, tendremos que refutar la falacia desarmándola de forma elegante y sofisticada. Eso no siempre es fácil, pero sin duda, tener un profundo manejo del tema objeto de debate, permitirá esquivar con gracia cualquier estocada artera encaminada a cuestionarnos. La idea, será entonces, tener datos e información tan contundente, que permita apabullar cualquier intento de descalificación personal.

When dealing with Ad hominem one should avoid getting defensive and more open to criticism in a professional setting. With this in mind, respectfully acknowledge the attack if needed maintaining focus and keep to topic of discussion rather than engaging with unnecessaries. It can be challenging at times but being able to expound on how and why your input is imperative can sometimes give better clarity to those who misrepresent your argument. #reachandfrequency

Some examples of how to respond to fallacies: Your colleague says, "Why should we listen to you? You're just an intern with no real experience” Respond, "I understand that I am new here, but I have put a lot of thought and research into this proposal. I believe it has merit, and I would like to discuss it further." A team member interrupts your presentation, "So you want us to spend $$ on a software that we don't need just because you like it?" This is a clear eg of a straw man fallacy, as it distorts your actual proposal. Respond, "Actually, my proposal is not just about the software. It's about the streamlining process, which will save us time and money in the long run. The software is just one part of the overall strategy."

We’ve made many of the same changes in the workplace that we mistakenly made in raising a generation or two of children - failing to call out BS immediately is harmful to all. Ad Hominem attacks are no accident; they are intentional, rude and disrespectful. Any real leader, titled or not, should intervene clearly and directly. No sugarcoating, and no allowances to justify it. I’ve seen brilliant insight from young people fresh out of college, and train wreck level suggestions from industry vets. Each person in the room can weigh experience in their personal review of the discussion without allowing a bully to run the show.