3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on the Dynamics of Disagreement
Bulverism, Introspection Illusion & the Backfire Effect
By far the most common question I never get asked is this: “Do you practice what you preach?”As a 1,000 subscriber special, I’ve now addressed this question in a free bonus piece about the true story of everything I may be doing in a day.
I. Bulverism
Arguments should be evaluated based on their merits. Unfortunately, that’s not how we usually approach them. Instead, we assume that whoever uttered them is wrong and then go on a quest to find out why. British writer C.S. Lewis noted this fallacy in the 1940s and named it Bulverism.
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism".
—C.S. Lewis, Bulverism
The fallacy is named after Ezekiel Bulver — its imaginary inventor Lewis created with a complete backstory.
Bulverists tend to attack the speakers and their motives instead of the substance of their claims. This is why Bulverism is considered an ad hominem, one of the lowest forms of dissent according to Graham’s Hierarchy Disagreement.
On a similar note, check out my post about Informal Fallacies: 11 Argumentative Errors Worth Avoiding.
II. Introspection Illusion
Introspection Illusion is a cognitive bias coined by psychologist Emily Pronin. It occurs if we assume we understand the inner workings of our thoughts and actions better than others understand theirs. Because when it comes to other people’s insights into their minds and decision-making processes we think they’re unreliable.
In reality, all subjective introspections are flawed. But we trust ourselves more with the results than we have confidence in other people's ability to understand their mental states. That can make it quite challenging to assess our own biases accurately.
Source: The Mind of the Market
III. Backfire Effect
The Backfire Effect states that the more we’re confronted with evidence that challenges a dearly held belief, the stronger our conviction becomes. We cling to them as if they were valuable possessions. According to David McRaney, author of You Are Not So Smart, this is particularly true for online debates:
What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.
—David McRaney
On the question of how to overcome the backfire effect, check out my earlier bonus newsletter on Rapoport’s Rules. 🐘
Have a great week,
Chris
themindcollection.com