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:

Games for Meetings: IV

We spend a lot of time and emotional energy in meetings, much of it engaged in any of dozens of ritualized games. Here's Part IV of a little catalog of some of our favorites, and what we could do about them.

FedEx, Flocks, and Frames of Reference

Your point of view — or reference frame — affects what you see, and how you experience the world around you. By choosing a reference frame consciously, you can see things differently, and open a universe of new choices.

What Makes a Good Question?

In group discussion or group problem solving, many of us focus on being the first one to provide the answer. The right answer can be good; but often, the right question can be better.

The Fallacy of Composition

Rhetorical fallacies are errors of reasoning that introduce flaws in the logic of arguments. Used either intentionally or by accident, they often lead us to mistaken conclusions. The Fallacy of Composition is one of the more subtle fallacies, which makes it especially dangerous.

On Facilitation Suggestions from Meeting Participants

Team leaders often facilitate their own meetings, and although there are problems associated with that dual role, it's so familiar that it works well enough, most of the time. Less widely understood are the problems that arise when other meeting participants make facilitation suggestions.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect

When we speak or write, the phrases we use have both form and meaning. Although we usually think of form and meaning as distinct, we tend to assess as more meaningful and valid those phrases that are more beautifully formed. The rhyme-as-reason effect causes us to confuse the validity of a phrase with its aesthetics. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: The Trap of Beautiful Language

As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenrDUDwWaUxOAJtKFRner@ChaclWPJpPZohNvtYLEJoCanyon.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, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

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 June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.