5 ‘Fallacies' Narcissists Use To Confuse And Control You — By A Psychologist

Forbes

5 days ago

Narcissists rely on these five 'logical fallacies' like a crutch. But, with a little bit of probing, ... More their arguments ultimately fall flat.
Narcissists may come across as confident and convincing during arguments. But as soon as you peel back the surface layers of their reasoning, it begins to lose its integrity. That's because, as research shows, narcissists aren't interested in understanding opposing perspectives. They only care about winning.
A 2023 study from Frontiers in Psychology found that narcissists tend to score low in intellectual humility. In other words, they're quick to assume they're right — and just as quick to reject any and all evidence that challenges them. Instead of engaging in good-faith dialogue, they usually resort to manipulative tactics that prop up their ego and snuff dissent.
Beyond protecting the narcissist's self-image, these tactics also serve to exploit their victims' vulnerability. As a 2024 study in Memory & Cognition explains, people are more likely to accept weak or poorly reasoned arguments if those arguments align with what they already believe or fear.
Narcissists leverage this cognitive bias by framing their arguments in emotionally loaded ways: they reinforce your insecurities by twisting the logic just enough to make you second-guess yourself. This allows them to arm themselves with a suite of flawed but familiar tactics; each is designed to confuse, derail and dominate both you and the conversation.
In a previous article, I covered five of the most common fallacies that narcissists rely on. In this follow-up, I'll explore five more tactics they keep in their arsenal — and how they use them to stay in control.
A causal fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes there to be a cause-and-effect relationship between two events. This can be achieved in various ways: by oversimplifying an obviously complex situation, by falsely attributing blame to a victim or simply by jumping to conclusions without any evidence.
These fallacies are especially dangerous in confrontations, as they serve to manipulatively distort the victim's sense of reality.
For instance, a narcissist might claim, 'You made me yell at you by stressing me out.' Here, they imply that their anger was a direct result of the victim's actions. In one sentence, the aggressor suggests the victim is responsible for their behavior, while simultaneously ignoring the fact they chose to react aggressively.
Narcissists employ causal fallacies as a means to shift blame onto their victims, all while avoiding accountability for their actions. They represent their behavior as an inevitable reaction to something external; in turn, they spin a narrative in which the victim is the one at fault.
Unlike many of the other fallacies, the burden of proof fallacy doesn't serve to conjure up false narratives, nor to ignore or refute the points that have been made. Instead, it occurs when someone shifts the responsibility of proving a claim onto the person who initially made it.
Yet, in great similarity to the other fallacies, this tactic also serves to evade accountability. Specifically, because it demands an unreasonable — or even impossible — level of evidence from the accuser.
For instance, if a victim says, 'You've been lying to me,' the narcissist would simply respond with, 'Well, then prove it.' Even if there's very clear circumstantial evidence to support the claim, they refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. That is, unless the victim provides absolute, irrefutable proof, which makes it all the more difficult to hold them accountable.
Narcissists rely on the burden of proof when they are acutely aware of how challenging it will be for their victim to distinctly or undeniably evince their deception or manipulation. Naturally, deferring this responsibility sets an incredibly unfair standard: it makes it nearly impossible for their victim to gain closure or defend their dignity.
The appeal to nature fallacy erroneously assumes that something is good, right or acceptable simply by claiming that it's 'natural.' Despite how persuasive these arguments may sound, it's important to note that this reasoning completely ignores whatever ethical concerns surround the behaviors.
The appeal to nature oversimplifies objectively harmful human behaviors; by attributing these behaviors to biology or tradition — rather than personal choice — the victim is falsely led to believe that they're impossible to condemn.
For instance, a male narcissist might justify their aggression by saying, 'Men are just naturally dominant. You should accept it.' Or, on the other hand, a female narcissist might say, 'Women are naturally overprotective. You can't blame me for that.'
Arguments like these suggest that harmful behaviors, such as control or possessiveness, are merely unavoidable. But, in reality, these behaviors are always a conscious decision — ones that can and should be challenged and changed.
Narcissists appeal to nature purely so that they can normalize their unacceptable or abusive behaviors. They frame their actions as either natural or inevitable, and, as a result, they render any meaningful discussion regarding boundaries futile.
More insidiously, these appeals make their victim feel unreasonable for expecting a different or better relationship with the aggressor. Cyclically, this reinforces control by making it seem as though the victim is resisting something fundamental, rather than rightly rejecting their mistreatment.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy is, in many ways, quite similar to the burden of proof. However, it rests on a different, faulty (yet equally cunning) assumption: that a lack of evidence against something automatically makes it true. Or, conversely, that a lack of evidence for something automatically makes it false. In reality, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When narcissists use this fallacy, they exploit uncertainty by twisting it into certainty. For instance, if someone says, 'You've been acting strangely lately, and I get the feeling that you're hiding something from me.' In turn, a narcissist might respond with, 'If you can't prove I've done anything wrong, then I haven't.'
Unlike the burden of proof — which pressures others to produce impossible evidence — the appeal to ignorance shuts down the conversation by pretending that not having definitive proof is the same thing as being exonerated. It reframes ambiguity as innocence, which urges the victim to discount their own judgment.
This tactic is especially effective in emotionally complex situations. If intuition, patterns or past behavior may point to wrongdoing, but hard proof is hard to come by, narcissists lean on this fallacy to rewrite the narrative in their favor.
The appeal to personal incredulity fallacy serves to dismiss something as false simply because it sounds unbelievable or difficult to understand. This reasoning invalidly relies on gut reactions, rather than any hard facts. Consequently, it allows aggressors to reject evidence of their wrongdoings — purely because they don't like or can't comprehend it.
Say, for instance, a narcissist is presented with evidence of their manipulation tactics. In response, they might say something like, 'That's ridiculous! I would never do that.' Here, they reject reality simply because they don't want to acknowledge it. As opposed to taking the time to disprove the claim or apologize, they merely dismiss it outright as being absurd.
Narcissists often rely on personal incredulity fallacies, as it allows them to shut down conversations without expending any effort whatsoever. They simply act as though an idea is too far-fetched to even consider, which makes it nearly impossible to challenge.
In turn, it's futile for the victim to attempt to discuss their behavior in any meaningful way. And, even if they do, they'll more than likely tire themselves out by over-explaining their concerns.
Concerned that you might have narcissistic tendencies? Take this science-backed test to find out if it's cause for concern: Narcissism Scale