The Tartt Take

This is a short list of things that bring conversations to a halt and tend to turn them into hostile exchanges. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is a list of issues I frequently see and which frustrate me whenever someone uses them in one of my conversations. For the sake of intellectual honesty, civility, and the growth of all participants and onlookers, these should be avoided at all costs.

1. Red herring: A point that is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The red herring may be interesting or relevant elsewhere, and thus may warrant another conversation, but serves only to distract from the main point (either intentionally or unintentionally) in the present conversation.
2. Strawman: Intentionally misrepresenting the other person’s point and then arguing against that misrepresentation as if one were arguing against their point. It’s often easier to argue against a strawman or use one to make someone look bad, making it a popular tactic for uninformed or unscrupulous debaters.
3. Gish gallop: Blurting out tons of arguments in a short time (without caring if the arguments are sound) in an attempt to overwhelm the other person. Whoever is more assertive and talks or types faster has the advantage with this fallacy. Often accompanied by interrupting the other person while they’re still addressing the first argument.
4. Loaded question: Trying to trick someone into giving an answer that is inaccurate. For example, asking a friend if he still hates himself. If he says yes, then it implies that he once hated himself. If he says no, then it implies that he has hated and is continuing to hate himself. The framing of the question disregards the possibility that he has never hated himself.
5. Appeal to authority: Stating that one’s position must be correct because one is an expert on that subject or is quoting someone who is. Even if someone is an expert in a particular subject, they don’t know everything about it and may be wrong.
6. False dichotomy: Assuming that there are only two available options when there are actually more options from which to choose. This needlessly limits the range of conversation and reinforces constrained thinking rather than facilitating thinking outside the box.
7. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Thinking that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second event. Ignores the possibility that the two events could be totally unrelated and that the second event may have been caused by something else. For example, someone who gets an idea after hitting their head and thinks that hitting their head gave them the idea; they may still have gotten that idea even if they hadn’t hit their head.
8. Assuming that someone is incorrect on a particular subject because they are cruel and want other people to suffer. Even if they are truly cruel, they may still be correct about the subject at hand and someone else who is caring may be incorrect about that subject. However, they may have arrived at their opinions because they are a caring person and think that their ideas will make everyone better off. Disagreeing over means to an end doesn’t necessarily mean disagreeing over the end itself.