Back in 2013, I took the time to read a book by Henry Thouless about examples of faulty thinking. It’s made me almost incapable of talking to some people – I just end up dropping my default “you’re wasting my time” response on them and I walk away – “We’re done talking.”
Is it a failing on my part? Not at all. It’s a realization that some people engage in thinking so flawed it literally does nothing more than waste my time and energy talking with them. It is an actual impossibility to demonstrate the validity of my position – because their thinking is so flawed they refuse to listen.
While a rehash of the 31 examples of faulty thinking is beyond the scope of this blog post, there’s one guaranteed to drive me nuts. I’m going to describe it, demonstrate why it’s faulty, and demonstrate exactly how to disabuse someone of it – and why most people who use this thinking refuse to allow you to do so.
Reductio Ad Absurdum
The Reductio Ad Absurdum means “reducing to absurdity”. This is when you take someone’s position and reduce it to the lowest common denominator. The usual form of the argument is to be told something is not permitted, isolate a single part of it, and ask the question, “So I’m not allowed to _?”
Example – let’s say you’re working some place, and someone is sleeping in the doorway, blocking the doorway into the business. You go ask them to move so customers can come in. “I wasn’t asleep.” “Your eyes were closed, your arms inside your jacket. You were asleep.” “So I’m not allowed to close my eyes?”
Your immediate reaction is to say, “I’m sorry, you’re an idiot, aren’t you?” But that would be mean and… incorrect. They’re obviously not stupid, just argumentative.
His intent is to diminutize your argument and try to make it seem absurd. The usual intent is to make you look like a fool. In reality, it labels the person using it as argumentative and dismissive – in short, a jerk.
Here’s the funny thing. They know they’re wrong and just don’t care. That’s why they’re choosing this argument method.
Appropriate response
To show the absurdity of the tactic is the appropriate response. One time someone said it to me, and I explained Reductio Ad Absurdum to the person who just used it. “In short, you’re trying to win an argument using an argument you know to be fallacious. What does that make you?”
His response was to (after blinking several times) agree the argument was fallacious. It did three things – it got him around to my way of thinking, stopped the argument, and it even fostered mutual respect. He respected me for analyzing the argument and tactic, and also for treating him with the respect it requires to reason together.
When it doesn’t work
When it doesn’t work, the arguer is not giving you respect. They’re still trying to make a fool of you, which is an indication of their mindset.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face. They will not give. They will not admit you are right, so they’re treating you with disrespect. You’re not going to win because they’re being a jerk. So here’s the only appropriate response. Refuse to be drawn into further argument.
Sometimes the only appropriate response is to refuse to argue. Share on X“We’re done talking.” Walk away. If they remain in the doorway, call the police. Or whatever the case may be. If it’s a simple rational argument, they’re being irrational. Don’t give them the respect they’re not giving you.
Conclusion
Anyone who is not interested in listening is… not interested in listening. In today’s world, arguments are often won by who shouts loudest. Debates must always be done with integrity, honesty and respect, or neither side truly wins and both lose.
Have you ever used this faulty argument? How can you learn from this?
