Latest news with #logicalfallacies
Forbes
4 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
5 ‘Fallacies' Narcissists Use To Confuse And Control You — By A Psychologist
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
Forbes
5 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
5 ‘Argument Tactics' That Narcissists Rely On — By A Psychologist
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
