User blog:Sebs1346/Team Wiki Project 2

Fallacie 1

Attacking the person.

attacking the person is a form of destaction, forcing them into defending themself and away from their argument. most peopel, when personally attacked, respond with a fight or light reaction and either jump to their own defence or cognitively flee.

attaking people in publi frames you as an aggressive person who attacks those wo oppose you.

Fallacie 2

personal inconsistency

just because what is said now does not align with the past, it dose not necessarily mean taht it is wrong.There are many times in the past htat the person could have produced contadictons to the single pont being made " we are not fully rational beings and do contradict ourselves on many occasions.

personal inconsistency sends mixed messages and will normally decrease trust. when a person clalims that another person is sending mixed messages, they are very close to calling a persona liar. it the accusation stands, then everyone who hears is likely to reduce their trust in the accused person.

APPEAL TO PITY

Appeal to pity often uses calues as emotional levers to gain compliance. This can be particularly powerful, as its is a stong coical force. it is about bing good and can easily lead to further commitment.

WISHFUL THINKING

Des[ite the obvious falshood of this fallacy, it is surprising how often it appears. it is often also suprising how often people do not realize that they are doing it ,as subconscious desire appear through assumptions of truth.

peoeple who use wishful thinking often supplement it with emotional states such as aggression or pleading, seeking either to batter others into accepting their assertion or otherwise adopt a child position.

wishing can actually lead to something beconing true, where the pweson acts to reduce the dissonace of confictiong reality and wishes.

APPEAL TO EMOTION

The arousal of emotion is known to smother rationality, hence if it is introduced into an argument, then it is likely that logical reasoning will be ignored. many arguments thus deliberatley seek to evoke emotions of the listeners. ther word 'good' is built into the language to support this. we talk about 'good fellings' and 'bad feelings' when good and bad are really about values. this association makes it easier still to bring emotion and value based decisions together.