[forexsoft]

How to win any argument (part 1)
Garth Sundem
Jul 25, 2010

Here’s how I roll: my wife loves three-dollar bagels from the Sunday farmers’ market. And so she says, “Let’s get a loaf of bread, some flowers, and a flat of strawberries!” When we jog the double stroller home with only bagels, I feel I’ve won. It’s only the next day that I start thinking…wait a minute!

No more.

But Kristi’s a PhD candidate in Clinical Psychology and is thus armed with all sorts of sneaky mental trickery, in this case “anchoring” my expectations to bread, flowers, and berries, so bagels seem like a bargain (Steve Jobs did similar by intially pricing the iPhone at $500, so that $299 seemed like a steal).

So I’ve decided that rather than trying to out-logic Kristi, I will deal in its opposite: illogic (which happens to be right up my alley, anyway.) Specifically, I’ve armed myself with the tools of the ancient Roman Senate, thus guaranteeing I win every marital argument from this point forward.

Here, for your use and enjoyment, are the illogical strategies for success in any dispute:

• Appeal to Ignorance: if it isn’t proven, it’s false-”Did you SEE me bogart the last of the jamocha almond fudge? No? Well, there you go.”
• Ad Hominem: Discrediting an argument by discrediting the person making it-”I am right because you suck.”
• Affirming the Consequent: If x, then y. Y, therefore x-”When you’re wrong you get defensive. Oooh, oooh, you’re getting defensive. You’re wrong! I win!”
• Argument to Logic: if an argument offered is false, then the entire claim is false-”Actually, that’s not my spoon in the sink! Thus am I exonerated!”
• Loaded Question: Any answer validates an assumption-”Why must you always persecute me unjustly?”

[forexsoft]

How to win any argument (part 2)
Garth Sundem
Jul 25, 2010

Today is Sunday and that means Kristi has her sights set on three-dollar bagels from the farmers’ market. I, on the other hand, would prefer to spend this money on important things like our children’s education and/or beer. In other words, we have a marital conundrum.

On Kristi’s side is many years of education leading very soon to a PhD in Clinical Psychology. But on my side is the power of illogic. For more of this extremely important background information, please see yesterday’s post. Or just skip to the strategies below, which will ensure your success in any and all disputes.

• Denying the Antecedent: If x, then y. Not x. Therefore not y-”If I had fudge on my chin, you’d know I bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Do you see said fudge? No. Thus am I exonerated!”
• Disjunctive Fallacy: X and/or y. Not x. Therefore not y-”So, I see you accuse both me and the dog. But in fact the dog is allergic to chocolate! Thus am I exonerated!”
• Division Fallacy: assuming that all individuals posses characteristics of the group (this is stereotypical stereotyping)–”It’s in the nature of a middle-aged woman to bogart the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. Thus you, my dear wife-and not I-have done exactly that.”
• Existential Fallacy: Are there any members in that category?-”Standing before you are all the people who have not bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge. You are the only other suspect. Thus, j’accuse!”
• False Analogy: A misleading comparison-”Gandhi, a man similar to myself in many respects, wouldn’t have bogarted the last of the jamocha almond fudge.”

[forexsoft]

How to win any argument (part 3)

Garth Sundem
July 26, 2010

Kristi wanted bagels. I wanted…well, NOT bagels (see previous posts for details). Do you think we are now in possession of three-dollar bagels from the Sunday farmers’ market? Actually, the answer is no, we’re not. But don’t congratulate me yet! The only reason we have no three-dollar bagels is because Kristi ate them all yesterday. In other words, my illogic failed to penetrate her firewall of years of psychology training. Nuts!

Don’t worry, though. I’m only getting warmed up. Here’s another five strategies from the annals of illogic that will certainly (this time!) help you win any dispute:

• False Dilemma: There may be other options…-”Either you admit that you ate the ice cream, or you admit once and for all that you’ve been spiriting away jamocha almond fudge to a secret freezer in the basement.”
• Golden Mean Fallacy: The truth is found in compromise-”Okay, okay, let’s just admit that we’re both wrong.”
• Mistaking Logic for Truth: The argument is logical, only, the premises might not be-”If I bogarted the very last of the jamocha almond fudge, I would have at least one almond stuck in my teeth. I have no such almond(s). Thus am I exonerated!”
• Naturalistic Fallacy: Making a moral judgment based only on a statement of fact-”I bought the ice cream in the first place. Thus, it’s only right that I eat the last of it.”
• Nominal Fallacy: Naming is explaining-”You see, I’m thermophobic and thus must seek sugary, icy-cold desserts.”

[forexsoft]

How to win any argument (final entry!)

Garth Sundem
July 27, 2010

So you still haven’t won that argument? Perhaps you need to take your powers of confusion to the next level! After reading this post, your confusion-meter will go to eleven, allowing you to squish the logic circuits of your poor spouse until he/she caves to your evil will. (If you’re into that sorta thing. If not, I hope these final secrets of illogic are worth at least a chuckle or two.)

By the way, by continuing to read this post, you agree to use this illogic only for the purposes of good and not for the purposes of evil and/or against me. (Or start from the beginning by checking out the first post.) And now I will go immediately to donate to the March of Dimes in hope of repairing the karmic damage I’ve wrought over the past four days.

Here you go:

• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: Because x follows y, y caused x-”See? Now you have an upset stomach! Thus, my dear wife, j’accuse!”
• Red Herring: An unrelated fact throws off the scent-”You will, of course, have noticed that even now every piece of pickled herring remains firmly jarred!”
• Slippery Slope: A supposed string of causes and effects, with a massively undesirable endpoint-”Honey, if you keep fixating on the fate of the jamocha almond fudge, you won’t be able to sleep and you’ll lie awake all night wondering if maybe you’re the one who ate the ice cream, and then you’ll start questioning reality in general, and before you know it, you’ll be pulling your hair and muttering gibberish down by the waterfront.”
• Straw Person: mischaracterizing an opinion to the point of parody-”So you’re saying that I’m incapable of love and was likely the second shooter on the grassy knoll?”
• You Too: Distracting from fault by counterattack-”Yeah, but last week you drank the last Redhook Double Black Stout! Seriously, have you no speck of human decency?”

[GfBTWMmV]

Loaded Question

Is there any other kind?

Slippery Slope: A supposed string of causes and effects, with a massively undesirable endpoint-”Honey, if you keep fixating on the fate of the jamocha almond fudge, you won’t be able to sleep and you’ll lie awake all night wondering if maybe you’re the one who ate the ice cream, and then you’ll start questioning reality in general, and before you know it, you’ll be pulling your hair and muttering gibberish down by the waterfront.”

Seems they saved the best for last