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.
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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Effective Meetings:
- When Meetings Boil Over
- At any time, without warning, you can find yourself in a meeting that boils over. Sometimes tempers
rise, then voices rise, and then people yell and scream. What can a team do when meetings threaten to
boil over — and when they do?
- Mastering Q and A
- The question-and-answer exchanges that occur during or after presentations rarely add much to the overall
effort. But how you deal with questions can be a decisive factor in how your audience evaluates you
and your message.
- Our Last Meeting Together
- You can find lots of tips for making meetings more effective — many at my own Web site. Most are
directed toward the chair, or the facilitator if you have one. Here are some suggestions for everybody.
- When the Chair Is a Bully: I
- Most meetings have chairs or "leads." Although the expression that the chair "owns"
the meeting is usually innocent shorthand, some chairs actually believe that they own the meeting. This
view is almost entirely destructive. What are the consequences of this attitude, and what can we do about it?
- Start the Meeting with a Check-In
- Check-ins give meeting attendees a chance to express satisfaction or surface concerns about how things
are going. They're a valuable aid to groups that want to stay on course, or get back on course when needed.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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
- 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.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.