Misleading Vividness

Rhetorical fallacies are often defined as errors in reasoning. Most of them actually are errors of reasoning. Members of that class are easily recognized once we understand them. But rhetorical fallacies that exploit flaws in the human ability to reason often escape detection even after we know how they work. The fallacy known as Misleading Vividness is one of these.

Here's an example: "I wouldn't take a customer to lunch there if I were you. Remember when Grant was hospitalized? I heard that he got sick from the sour cream on their baked potatoes."

Admittedly this "argument" contains errors of reasoning, but its power comes from its vividness: we know that restaurant, we know Grant, we've been to hospitals, and we know the taste of baked potatoes and sour cream. Grant's co-workers can easily imagine the scene.

We humans evaluate the soundness of arguments, in part, in terms of the ease of imagining their elements. If the elements are especially vivid, we're more likely to process the argument heuristically, rather than systematically or analytically. When we do, logical errors are more likely.

When we think, we usually use both heuristics and logic, with each process influencing the other. Those who employ the misleading vividness rhetorical fallacy are often trying to tilt us toward heuristics, away from reason. When they succeed, we're more likely to accept unproven conclusions.

This phenomenon explains, in part, why advertisers use celebrity endorsers. They're trying to trigger heuristic thinking by relying on the good feelings we have for the celebrities. It also explains why politicians so often employ scare tactics. They conjure vivid, scary images that cause some of us to think more heuristically.

When we make decisions at work, we have to be more careful. Here are three indicators of the use of misleading vividness in workplace debate.

Sensory breadth

Messages that invoke more senses are experienced as being more vivid. The more direct the invocation, the more vivid the message. The story about the baked potato would have greater impact when told while baked potatoes were being served.

Sensory breadth We humans evaluate the soundness
of arguments, in part, in terms
of the ease of imagining
their elementsmight be necessary as part of a discussion about, say, a dinner menu while planning a conference. Sensory breadth that isn't required as part of the task at hand could indicate the use of misleading vividness.

Overly detailed examples

Although counterexamples can disprove general claims, examples rarely prove claims. They're useful illustrations — nothing more.

When examples offered as illustration contain powerful imagery that can invoke strong emotions, they could be instances of misleading vividness.

Personal stories

Clarifying stories can be helpful. When stories are personal, first person or not, they can evoke strong feelings.

Personal stories that evoke emotions are especially vivid. When listeners relive the experience of the story, or similar experiences, misleading vividness is a strong possibility.

Watch for vividness in your discussions. What is its impact? Is it always helpful?  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Meetings:

Let Me Finish, Please

We use meetings to exchange information and to explore complex issues. In open discussion, we tend to interrupt each other. Interruptions can be disruptive, distracting, funny, essential, and frustratingly common. What can we do to limit interruptions without depriving ourselves of their benefits?

How to Make Meetings Worth Attending

Many of us spend seemingly endless hours in meetings that seem dull, ineffective, or even counterproductive. Here are some insights to keep in mind that might help make meetings more worthwhile — and maybe even fun.

Asking Brilliant Questions

Your team is fortunate if you have even one teammate who regularly asks the questions that immediately halt discussions and save months of wasted effort. But even if you don't have someone like that, everyone can learn how to generate brilliant questions more often. Here's how.

The Perils of Piecemeal Analysis: Content

A team member proposes a solution to the latest show-stopping near-disaster. After extended discussion, the team decides whether or not to pursue the idea. It's a costly approach, because too often it leads us to reject unnecessarily some perfectly sound proposals, and to accept others we shouldn't have.

Action Item Avoidance

In some teams, members feel so overloaded that they try to avoid any additional tasks. Here are some of the most popular patterns of action item avoidance.

See also Effective Meetings, Critical Thinking at Work and Rhetorical Fallacies for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 26: Appearance Antipatterns: I

Appearances can be deceiving. Just as we can misinterpret the actions and motivations of others, others can misinterpret our own actions and motivations. But we can take steps to limit these effects. Available here and by RSS on June 26.

And on July 3: Appearance Antipatterns: II

When we make decisions based on appearance we risk making errors. We create hostile work environments, disappoint our customers, and create inefficient processes. Maintaining congruence between the appearance and the substance of things can help. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.