Straw Man Variants

There are no formal rules governing debate in the modern workplace. We're allowed to use whatever arguments we want to persuade others of a point of view we favor. But the decisions we reach are more durable and functional if we operate as if there were formal rules governing debate. One rule I favor personally is a ban on the use of rhetorical fallacies. And one of the most dangerous rhetorical fallacies is the Straw Man fallacy. First identified five hundred years ago, the Straw Man fallacy bedevils us even today, leading numerous groups, collaborators, and entire nations to adopt false conclusions and make bad decisions daily.

A rhetorical fallacy is an error in reasoning. There are dozens of different kinds of fallacies, of which the Straw Man fallacy is one. To employ the Straw Man fallacy to refute an opponent's argument, you construct an argument that isn't a refutation of your opponent's argument, but is instead a refutation of an extreme distortion of your opponent's argument — an extreme distortion of your own making. So, you set up a straw man, and then knock him down. [Brenner 2004]

Other forms of the Straw Man fallacy are perhaps worthy of just as much attention, because they're less obvious when used. In what follows, I describe several of these forms of the fallacy, using the term perpetrator to refer to the person using the fallacy.

Two variants

The standard form of the Straw Man fallacy — refute an exaggerated form of your opponent's argument — is perhaps the most common. But because it's also among the easiest to identify, other forms of this fallacy — Straw Man variants — could be responsible for far more damage. Identification of two of these variants is due to Talisse and Aikin. [Talisse 2006]

Weak man fallacy

In the One of the most common and most dangerous
rhetorical fallacies is the Straw Man fallacy. It
can lead groups, collaborators, and entire nations
to adopt false conclusions and make bad decisions.weak man variant form of the fallacy, the perpetrator doesn't create an extreme form or distorted form of the opponent's argument. To employ the weak man fallacy, the perpetrator selects a subset of the opponent's arguments, soundly refutes that selected subset, and then claims that the refutation of that subset is a refutation of the whole.

The term weak man derives from the supposition that the perpetrator of this form of the fallacy will likely select for refutation the weaker elements of the opponent's argument, because they're more easily refuted.

Hollow man fallacy

In the hollow man variant of the fallacy, the perpetrator doesn't provide a refutation of any part of the opponent's argument. Instead, in one form of the hollow man fallacy, the perpetrator refutes a fictional argument — an argument that has never been put forward by anyone, attributing it anonymously. For example, the perpetrator might assert, "People are saying X," and then refute X, even though the perpetrator has never encountered anyone claiming X.

Four tactics that generate variants of the Straw Man fallacy

To generate more kinds of variants of the Straw Man fallacy, consider four tactics perpetrators might use in constructing a placeholder for the opponent's argument — a placeholder they intend to refute. I'll use the letters in parentheses as a shorthand in the next section.

Extreme or exaggerated form (X)

Formulate an extreme form of the opponent's argument, and refute it. The fallacy here is that the opponent isn't arguing for the extreme form. This tactic, used alone, produces the conventional Straw Man fallacy.

Selected weak element (S)

Select a weak element of the opponent's argument, and refute it. The fallacy here is that refuting one element of the opponent's argument might not be (probably won't be) a refutation of the whole. This tactic, used alone, produces the weak man fallacy.

Anonymous (A)

The perpetrator refutes an argument, claiming that an unnamed opponent used it. The fallacy here is that the opponent might not be arguing in favor of what the perpetrator refuted. This tactic, used with F, produces the hollow man fallacy.

Fictional argument (F)

The perpetrator refutes a fictional argument, claiming that the opponent used it. The fallacy here is that the perpetrator hasn't refuted an argument that the opponent uses. This tactic, used with A, produces the hollow man fallacy.

How to generate more variants

The two variants identified by Talisse and Aikin can themselves appear in variant forms. For example, another form of the hollow man fallacy could be one in which the perpetrator falsely claims that an actual person P (whom the perpetrator names), made an argument A. But P isn't associated in any way with the perpetrator's opponent. Nor is there any evidence that the perpetrator's opponent has argued A. Still, the perpetrator asserts that the refutation of A is a refutation of the opponent's entire argument.

We can generate such variants by examining combinations of the four tactics above. The set of all combinations of the four tactics can produce seven additional variants:

A

Perpetrator refutes opponent's argument, after attributing that argument to anonymous persons. Perpetrator claims without evidence that the anonymous persons have used the argument.

F

Perpetrator refutes an argument that has never been used by the opponent.

XS

Perpetrator refutes an extreme form of one of the weaker elements of the opponent's argument.

XA

Perpetrator refutes an extreme form of an argument that the perpetrator attributes to anonymous persons. Perpetrator claims without evidence that the opponent has used the extreme form of the argument.

XF

Perpetrator refutes an extreme form of a fictional argument that has never been used by the opponent.

SA

Perpetrator refutes one of the weaker elements of an argument that the perpetrator attributes to anonymous persons. Perpetrator implicitly claims without evidence that the opponent has used the argument.

SF

Perpetrator refutes one of the weaker elements of a fictional argument that has never been used by the opponent. Perpetrator implicitly claims without evidence that the opponent has used the fictional argument.

Last words

It's likely that we can derive from most rhetorical fallacies variants that are more difficult to recognize than are their conventional forms. Try it. Let me know what interesting results you uncover.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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 Communication at Work:

Responding to Rumors

Have you ever heard nasty rumors about yourself? When rumors are damaging, they can hurt our careers, our self-esteem, and even our health. Sadly, our response to rumors often compounds the serious damage they do.

Feedback Fumbles

"Would you like some feedback on that?" Uh-oh, you think, absolutely not. But if you're like many of us, your response is something like, "Sure, I'd be very interested in your thoughts." Why is giving and receiving feedback so difficult?

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.

Please Reassure Them

When things go wildly wrong, someone is usually designated to investigate and assess the probability of further trouble. That role can be risky. Here are three guidelines for protecting yourself if that role falls to you.

Formulaic Utterances: I

With all due respect is an example of a category of linguistic forms known as formulaic utterances. They differ across languages and cultures, but I speculate that their functions are near universal. In the workplace, using them can be constructive — or not.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Rhetorical Fallacies for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 24: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 1

Knowing how to recognize just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can be helpful in reducing the incidence of problems. Here is Part 1 of a collection of communication antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure. Available here and by RSS on April 24.

And on May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info