5 ‘Argument Tactics' That Narcissists Rely On — By A Psychologist

Forbes

3 days ago

To strip the power from an emotional abuser, you must recognize their argument tactics for what they ... More are: logical fallacies.
Narcissists tend to vastly overestimate the accuracy of their own beliefs. They become defensive, or even combative, when confronted with viewpoints that don't align with their own. As a 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology explains, this is due to the fact that narcissists often exhibit very low levels of intellectual humility.
As a result, they rely heavily on manipulative argument tactics that serve to protect their inflated self-image. At face value, these tactics might seem clever, or maybe even intellectually sound. In reality, however, these tactics focus more on control than they do logic.
A 2024 study in published in Memory & Cognition also notes that individuals prone to such poor argument tactics are highly likely to accept and perpetuate information that confirms their existing beliefs.
Narcissists exploit this cognitive bias to others' wits end: they frame their arguments to align with their victims' fears or insecurities, or in ways that defend their warped self-image.
As such, they're adept at spinning webs of flawed reasoning that feel convincing — but, under any actual scrutiny, they fall right apart. In other words, many of their go-to argument tactics are riddled with errors that are designed to deflect blame and derail conversations. In turn, they keep themselves in a position of control.
Here are five logical fallacies narcissists often rely on, and why they keep them in their repertoire.
The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone chooses to attack the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual argument itself. They refuse to engage with the issue that was brought up, and instead discredit the speaker by focusing on their personal traits, emotions or past behavior. As a result, they shut down the discussion in its entirety.
For instance, say you confront a narcissist about their manipulative behavior. With an ad hominem attack, they might respond with, 'You're just insecure and bitter, that's why you're making such a big deal out of this.'
Rather than addressing your very real concerns, they attack you instead. As a result, your criticisms are rendered 'irrational' in their eyes.
Narcissists heavily rely on ad hominem attacks, largely due to the fact that they will avoid engaging with facts that threaten their self-image at all costs. By turning the discussion into a critique of the accuser rather than their own actions, they change the course of the conversation. They make the victim feel self-conscious about raising concerns, which ensures the narcissist remains in control.
The false dichotomy fallacy arises once someone presents two extreme options as the only possible choices; they ignore the existence of middle-ground or nuance. This type of reasoning serves to force the victim (and the conversation as a whole) into a total gridlock. In turn, they prevent the possibility of any thoughtful discussions ensuing.
For instance, if you critique something that a narcissist says or does, they might respond in black-or-white statements like, 'Either you agree with me, or you're against me.' They equate any disagreement whatsoever with outright hostility.
But, in reality, relationships cannot function without compromise. Nor can discussions be productive without acknowledging the existence of both parties' perspectives. Regardless, the narcissist limits the conversation to two opposing sides, which takes reasonable discourse out of the question entirely.
Narcissists favor false dichotomies given how well they simplify complex issues in ways that solely benefit them. By forcing you to choose between two extremes — total compliance or rejection — they pressure you out of thinking critically or independently. More cunningly, this also serves to instill you with guilt: as though refusing to align with their viewpoints equates to a signal of disloyalty.
'Strawmanning' refers to the distortion of another person's claim, which makes it easier to attack, refute or ignore. They refrain from acknowledging any of the actual points that were made, and opt instead to exaggerate, oversimplify or misrepresent the argument.
Consequently, the argument is painted as unreasonable or extreme. This eschews them from accountability, while simultaneously dismissing your concerns.
Imagine that you've calmly expressed your discomfort about a narcissist's behavior. In response, they start a tirade with, 'Oh, so now I'm the worst person in the world? I guess I can never do anything right!'
But by grossly exaggerating the complaint, they turn it into an extreme accusation (which was never never actually made) and trick you into focusing on damage control instead.
Strawmanning is useful when a narcissist feels the need to redirect the conversation, or when they want to put their victim on the defensive. They turn your genuine concerns into a caricature, or create an entirely new, false version of it, to ensure the discussion revolves around their feelings instead of their actions.
Not only does this discourage you from bringing up concerns in the future, but it also allows them to cherry-pick which of your points are worth giving credence to — even if they aren't based in reality.
A red herring is a distraction tactic in which an unrelated topic is brought up purely to steer the conversation away from the real issue at hand. This technique is used to discombobulate the opposition, and to, once again, make it impossible to hold the person accountable for their actions.
For example, when confronted about emotionally hurtful behavior, a narcissist might suddenly say to you, 'Well, remember when you forgot my birthday last year?'
With this completely out-of-left-field rebuttal, your attention is diverted away from their actions. In lieu of admitting any kind of wrongdoing, they portray you as the aggressor and themselves as the victim.
Red herrings are ideal when a narcissist is confronted with an argument that makes them feel uncomfortable, as they can derail the discussion in a manner that still allows them complete control over the narrative. Much like the other fallacies, red herrings divert your focus in a direction that ultimately only benefits them.
You're forced into a position in which you must now defend yourself. Distractions like these are thrown in the hopes that their behavior will pale in comparison to yours — or that you forget you even brought it up in the first place.
An appeal to hypocrisy, or tu quoque fallacy, is made by deflecting criticism with the fact that the accuser has likely done something similar in their lifetime. Once again, rather than addressing whether their behavior is right or wrong, the argument is sidetracked to whether the other person has ever made a similar mistake.
In charged discussions, this appeal may actually seem like a valid rebuttal, which is what makes it so reliable. Ultimately, however, it's simply another way to avoid taking responsibility.
For instance, imagine that you're trying to call a narcissist out about lying. Instead of explaining why they lied, or admitting that it was hurtful, they instead say, 'Oh, so you've never lied before?'
Dishonesty is no longer the topic at hand; your past mistakes are instead. With this logic, they make it seem as though only a 'perfect person' has the right to call them out.
Narcissists employ appeals to hypocrisy when they have no desire to engage in a meaningful conversation about their actions. They choose instead to create a false equivalence that vindicates them — a reality where there's neither a need to take accountability or admit that their behavior was unjustified.
Concerned that you might have narcissistic tendencies? Take this science-backed test to find out if it's cause for concern: Narcissism Scale