The 'Ad Hominem'

Logical fallacies - Part 3

This third piece on logical fallacies looks at the ad hominem or in english, argument directed against the person, not their position. So in the sense of a logical fallacy, the cognitive bias rests in shifting the conversation to attack the individual - and not their reasoning on a said topic.

The ad hominem is often a sign that the person who decides to use it, has lost the logical argument - or their position or claim has been debunked. In Australia, we often hear the term 'play the ball not the man.' This is the inverse of the ad hominem whereby someone is saying object to the argument or claim made by refuting the argument itself, not the person who made the claim.

There's plenty of examples out there on this one:

Why is this logical fallacy so easy to detect and relate to? Well mostly because we're very emotional creatures when we're not thinking with our higher order brain centres, so we can quickly degrade into attacking the person and their presumed character rather than the learnings we could take from their point of view.

Example 1

Person 1: "Well I think that, generally speaking, the data is quite clear when it comes to using exercise in contrast to anti-depressant medications for depression, exercise is at least equally as good but has the advantage of having a lower side effect profile."

Person 2: "Of course you'd say that, your a chiropractor and a strength coach, so you exercise people for a living."

In the above example the first person is making a data-driven claim that exercise is at least an adjunctive treatment for depression and equally as effective as medications, meanwhile the second person is attacking the title of the person and not bringing a different datapoint to consider for ongoing discussion.

PS - There is a good rationale for this, as per all the examples used I'm making them up but I'm also using literature to support the statements.

Example 2

Person 1: "We may need to change our vision and marketing strategy to attract more customers for our business."

Person 2: "Look your opinion isn't that valid just yet; you’ve only been with the company for six months."

In this case, instead of considering the suggestion about the vision expansion and marketing strategy, person 2 attacks person 1 and their short tenure at the company.

Example 3 (I definitely borrowed this from another source I liked, because it drives home the epitome of an ad hominem fallacy)

After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

In the above case, we see a drastic attack on character despite a reasonably presented idea on how to better have many benefit from a newly introduced taxation system.

Closing thoughts

I hope you see the purpose of this particular logical fallacy, it's a useful one to be aware of because frankly - it happens all the time if you pay attention.

My advice? Pay particular attention when it happens to you, so you can respond by sticking to the position at hand and not biting back with your own personal attack on others - control your emotions, use sound judgement and reasoning. Calmness almost always prevails, as hard as it can be. Second of all, pay attention when you hear it or see it in the third person, if it has something to do with you then spotting this on behalf of someone else can be one way to bring the argument, debate or discussion back into context - and minimise 'playing the man'.

What do you think? Does this fit with your own experiences? Feel free to leave a comment or voice concern.