Arguments that seal themselves and learn to fight fair

A particularly powerful reasoning fallacy in arguments from
personal beliefs, ideologies or worldviews is the
self-sealing argument. Self-sealing arguments take
positions that no evidence can refute. while this
can look attractive, and a good way to win any argument,
Self-sealing arguments are useless and potentially
detrimental to relationships.

One of the most common forms of self-sealing.
arguments is to assert that the other person is not sophisticated
enough or learned enough to understand the concept of being
plot. It is evident in the following conversation:
John: All families are dysfunctional.
Mike: My family was not dysfunctional. I had a good
childhood.
John: That shows how dysfunctional he was. You are in
denial.
Mike: I’m not in denial. She was fine.
John: You’re in denial too much. You’re too dysfunctional
look at how dysfunctional your family was.

No matter what argument Mike offers, John will use it as
“proof” your point. Self-sealing arguments often focus on
personal beliefs, attributes, or attitudes. The arguer – John,
in this example–for some personal reason it is set
as the expert, the one who knows, and Mike is relegated to
the subordinate position. Nothing Mike can say he will.
refute John’s position. Just try it. John will tell you that you are
wrong!

Carolyn, her mother, and two sisters appeared at a
television talk show as an example of a separated family.
All four agreed that they had been upset and angry about
each other for many years.

Carolyn spoke of many cases in which her sisters did not treat
she lovingly or fairly. She was angry with her mother for
siding with her sisters in disputes and not supporting her.
Meanwhile, Carolyn’s mother and sisters agreed on things
It hadn’t always gone well for Carolyn. she was hard to be
around, and they hadn’t spent much time with her. Their
mother kept trying to say that she loved Carolyn, that she wanted a
relationship with her, but Carolyn rebuffed his advances.
Then the show’s host suggested that Carolyn sit closer.
to his mother, rather than at the edge of the set. Carolina
jumped up and yelled, “They’re only doing this because
We’re on TV They don’t really love me. She said yes,
but not her”.

Seeing Carolyn was very painful. She didn’t just say no
one loved her, but seemed to feel unloved. she does not
I want to stop being angry. She wanted revenge on her.
family for what they had done, not getting over the past hurts
everyone had experienced.

Carolyn’s self-closing logic kept her stuck. It does not matter that
her relatives said, or anyone else said, she
interpreted it as, “They don’t love me. They don’t care
me.” Nothing they did or said could change her mind.
Whatever they said wasn’t the right thing to say, they didn’t
mean it, or more repeatedly, things should have been
different or better many years ago, so nothing can be done
today to make it better.

Carolyn was caught up in getting even instead of putting
the problems behind them. she loved her family
the members suffered as much as she was suffering. She used
their interpretations of their behavior to support their pain.
Logicians call the personalization of an argument an ad hominem
fallacy, or attack the person, not the argument.
As a child psychologist, Leon often tests as an expert
Witness in child custody cases. He is used to harshness.
examinations of lawyers who fight for the rights of their clients
and objectives Sometimes those lawyers seem to attack
him personally, his credentials, or his goals for the
cash register. After a particularly grueling court appearance,
Leon’s young partner asked him why he was smiling when
he was being attacked so viciously by one of the lawyers.
“Simple,” Leon answered. “When they start attacking me, I
I know I have won. There’s nothing I’ve said that you can disagree with
with.”

Leon had learned that when the attacks turned
personal, there was nothing else that could be attacked.
His work was unassailable. So they had to go after
him personally. Attacking the person is the reserve position
of a fighter who has to win at all costs and knows that it is
losing.

Facing these types of arguments is really frustrating.
Nothing you say will be accepted as proof that
they are right. Anything you say can and will be crooked for
provides more proof that your opponent is right. even carrying
in a conversation with someone who is self-sealing is a
true judgment. No matter what you say, your words prove that they are
Correct.

One of your best responses might be to say, “If your
holds the argument, you must be able to predict what will be or
won’t happen. If it can’t be used for predictions, then really
says nothing Think of a specific example so we can
talk about it.” They will usually trample or claim you
they are not smart enough to see it. Just smile at this point. You
I got them

Or if you want to get out of discussion mode, just say, “I
don’t buy it I don’t think all families are dysfunctional. Us
I do not agree with this”.

Self-sealing arguments sometimes occur when one
person adopts an idiosyncratic view of a problem and then
arbitrarily fires or avoids the position of another because
is different. Again, no matter what you say, they won’t.
agree and say you are wrong.

What passes for conventional wisdom, or the worst of
stereotyped thinking, they can be self-sealing arguments.
“Everyone knows that Latinos are great lovers,” or “Women can’t
be counted as leaders because they are not trustworthy
several days a month”, or “All men are only interested in one
thing.” When people actually believe that these claims are
“truth and reality, the way the world really is”, there is no
amount of evidence that will make them change their minds.

Howard missed an important meeting and lost face with
Your boss. He was furious with Elaine, his administrative support
person. He said that she had not given him the message. She
he said he had. He said that she was a liar. Howard didn’t have
the message and Elaine was unable to produce the piece of
paper with message on it. Therefore, Elaine was lying.
When Elaine tried to explain that she had emailed him
message with the information, Howard responded to that email
didn’t count Everyone knew the email wasn’t real.
communication.
Howard and Elaine were part of a task force that was
scattered over several buildings over eighteen acres. Tea
group had agreed to use email for important programming
messages instead of physically tracking each other
down. Howard wasn’t the only one who didn’t like the
change, but he was the only one who would not use the new
system. He would only use “real communication”– written in
paper or spoken in person.

No matter what Elaine said, Howard claimed he was
right and she was to blame for him losing the
date. His definition of notification did not include
what he had done to warn her. Dismissing email
like no real communication, I could tell that she was wrong to
use it, and not have to admit that I was wrong for not using it.

With arguments that seal themselves, whatever happens
prove a point, so the position loses its ability to predict what
can and/or will happen. Logicians call this kind of
vacant or empty arguments. They are a form of logic.
fallacy or logical error.

Self-sealing positions are difficult to refute and argue
around. They often take on the fervor of a religious or
political argument and serve as sounding boards for a point
of view, rather than represent any attempt to engage in
discussion or dialogue. It is often more effective to declare
what is happening, to face the process of interaction,
instead of trying to change someone’s position or
influences your thinking.

This becomes an example of knowing when to count.
your losses and stop playing the game. The only way
“winning” is to stop playing.
Conflict is unavoidable. We will always have differences with
our loved ones, friends and colleagues. is not having
arguments that is the problem, but how we argue that is
hard. Arguing can bring people closer together and increase their respect for each other and for themselves. Or you can put a wedge between people,
pushing them further and even destroying them
relations

When we are focused on winning at all costs, overcoming
another person, it is easy to fall into logical errors, problems
with clearly defining our positions, or even not using
accurate data to support our positions.

By understanding the types of logic errors we can
do in the heat of an argument, we can refocus on the
problems, clarify our positions and come to a better resolution
of the issues that divide us.