Ad Hominem: Attacking the Person, Not the Argument
- jordanpeterman
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read
The internet really brings out the worst in people. You can hardly make a point or express an opinion without being immediately attacked. Just yesterday, I was browsing a Human Evolution group on Facebook and, naturally, it's flooded with insane rants about lizard people all posted by one passionate lunatic. Out of morbid curiosity I read the comments and discovered that every single critical comment was responded to by the poster with a string of slurs, insults and disparaging comments complete with screenshots of the commenters' families. Not a word about evidence or interpretations, just straight to "Lizard People don't exist? Well you're a whore!"
There are a few lessons here. First of all, stay off Facebook. I know this yet I still occasionally torture myself on there. Secondly, learn to recognize the Ad Hominem fallacy, an underhanded tactic where instead of addressing the argument itself, you attack the person making the argument.
On social media, in person, at work, we've all heard it: "Dave says he knows the hottest new stock that is going to explode in value this year, but that guy got drunk and pissed his pants at the company Christmas party! I'm not going to take investing advice from him!" Maybe Dave is a drunk, maybe Dave lacks self-control. Do either of things indicate his stock tips are bad? Not necessarily.
The Basics
The Ad Hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. The Latin phrase "ad hominem" translates to "to the man," so the man is attacked instead of the argument. Right or wrong, if the opponent can convince people that you shouldn't be trusted, you're wrong. Or you're intimidated into shutting up, or get flustered and off topic, or realize that arguing with strangers on the internet is that dumbest thing that many of us seem to do.
5 Examples
Politics: Politics today is absolutely insane, and lobbing the most heinous personal attacks has unfortunately been normalized and become a damn successful strategy! Everyone prioritizes the pithy soundbite or the character assassination that will make a good commercial later rather than using that energy to prove that their policy proposals are better. And sadly, voters hear the drama over the details most of the time.
Online Discussions: People online jump straight to the personal attack. Anyone who disagrees is a loser, lives in their mom's basement, and eventually, is called a Nazi. Could we possibly know if any of these things are true? And if true, what the hell would it have to do with the argument?
Reviews: When a business is in the news for a controversial reason you'll see their Google Reviews flooded with negative feedback as a means to hit back at the company, but not as feedback for the quality of their products/services.
Academia: In academic circles, researchers will criticize each other's credentials over the strength of their argument. Peer review is important, but it isn't about reviewing your peers, it's about reviewing their research.
Everyday Conversations: "You're just saying that because you're jealous" or "You don't know what you're talking about." This is all too common and never leads to productive discussions or reaching an understanding. Things escalate to insults and name-calling while you try to remember what the hell you were disagreeing about in the first place.
Negative Consequences
Distracting from the Issue: By focusing on the person instead of the argument, it can distract from the real issue at hand. If you actually care about the answer, stick to the question. If someone turns an argument to you personally they probably have a shitty argument to make or don't actually care.
Creating Hostility: Personal attacks make it impossible to have a productive conversation. Nobody wants to be attacked or belittled because someone disagrees with them, so we strike back, increasing the tension and eliminating any chance at understanding.
Promoting Misinformation: The Ad Hominem fallacy is used as a tactic to obscure the truth and deflect criticism. When a journalist asks Donald Trump a tough question he'll ignore the question and say "Where are you from? The corrupt and discredited NBC? You're fake news!" without even addressing what the question was. Attack the person, ignore the argument and walk away without admitting fault or even acknowledging that a question was even asked.
Practical Tips to Avoid Ad Hominem Fallacy
So, how can we avoid falling victim to the Ad Hominem fallacy? Here are a few tips:
Focus on the Argument: When evaluating an argument, focus on the logic and evidence presented, not the person making the argument. It's a challenge to take the high ground when the other person is being an unreasonable asshole, but in the end you'll be glad you made a proper argument and didn't resort to the tactics of idiots.
Be Open to Different Perspectives: Be willing to consider different viewpoints, even if you disagree with them. I love the "They Say/I Say" approach. Reframe the opposing view in a reasonable way, then explain why you don't find that opinion to be correct and outline your own position. Sometimes you'll change your mind but more often you'll just make a stronger argument.
Challenge Ideas, Not People: Challenge the ideas being presented, not the person presenting them. The biggest dumbass on Earth can (and will) make a bad argument, but the argument is shit because their logic is shit, not because they are the biggest dumbass on Earth.
Be Respectful: Treat others with respect, even if you disagree with them. You may think it's satisfying to sink to personal attacks and get that awesome shot in, but it's infinitely more satisfying to let the other person reveal what a bad person they are while you sit back with a smile. That is where real arguments are won.
Seek Common Ground: Look for common ground and areas of agreement, even if you have different perspectives. Be generous. Concede that the other person has a good point when they make one, and they will find it harder to attack you.
Conclusion
The Ad Hominem fallacy makes productive conversations impossible. You can't control whether or not other people are going to use these underhanded tactics to make themselves feel smart, but you can actually be smart and that's the real victory. If you really believe in your argument and have the facts to back it up then you don't need to resort to name calling. Once someone starts with the personal attacks they have already lost, they just don't know it yet. So keep an eye out for this tactic and CALL IT OUT every single time you see it. They want to bring you down to their level and win a shit-throwing battle instead of an intellectual debate, so let them be the only shit thrower while you be the bigger person.
Additional Resources
Comments