Arts Entertainments

Arguments that seal themselves and learn to fight fair

A particularly powerful reasoning fallacy in arguments from

personal beliefs, ideologies or worldviews is the

self-sealing argument.
Self-sealing arguments take

positions that no evidence can refute. while this

can look attractive, and a good way to win any argument,

Self-sealing arguments are useless and potentially

detrimental to relationships.

One of the most common forms of self-sealing.

arguments is to assert that the other person is not sophisticated

enough or learned enough to understand the concept of being

plot.
It is evident in the following conversation:

John: All families are dysfunctional.

Mike: My family was not dysfunctional. I had a good

childhood.

John: That shows how dysfunctional he was. You are in

denial.

Mike: I’m not in denial. She was fine.

John: You’re in denial too much. You’re too dysfunctional

look at how dysfunctional your family was.

No matter what argument Mike offers, John will use it as

“proof” your point. Self-sealing arguments often focus on

personal beliefs, attributes, or attitudes. The arguer – John,

in this example–for some personal reason it is set

as the expert, the one who knows, and Mike is relegated to

the subordinate position. Nothing Mike can say he will.

refute John’s position. Just try it. John will tell you that you are

wrong!

Carolyn, her mother, and two sisters appeared at a

television talk show as an example of a separated family.

All four agreed that they had been upset and angry about

each other for many years.

Carolyn spoke of many cases in which her sisters did not treat

she lovingly or fairly. She was angry with her mother for

siding with her sisters in disputes and not supporting her.

Meanwhile, Carolyn’s mother and sisters agreed on things

It hadn’t always gone well for Carolyn. she was hard to be

around, and they hadn’t spent much time with her. She

mother kept trying to say that she loved Carolyn, that she wanted a

relationship with her, but Carolyn rebuffed his advances.

Then the show’s host suggested that Carolyn sit closer.

to his mother, rather than at the edge of the set. Carolina

jumped up and yelled, “They’re only doing this because

We’re on TV They don’t really love me. She said yes,

but not her”.

Seeing Carolyn was very painful. She didn’t just say no

one loved her, but seemed to feel unloved. she does not

I want to stop being angry. She wanted revenge on her.

family for what they had done, not getting over the past hurts

everyone had experienced.

Carolyn’s self-closing logic kept her stuck. It does not matter that

her relatives said, or anyone else said, she

interpreted it as, “They don’t love me. They don’t care

me.” Nothing they did or said could change her mind.

Whatever they said wasn’t the right thing to say, they didn’t

mean it, or more repeatedly, things should have been

different or better many years ago, so nothing can be done

today to make it better.

Carolyn was caught up in getting even instead of putting

the problems behind them.
she loved her family

the members suffered as much as she was suffering. She used

their interpretations of their behavior to support their pain.

Logicians call the personalization of an argument an ad hominem

fallacy, or attack the person, not the argument.

As a child psychologist, Leon often tests as an expert

Witness in child custody cases. He is used to harshness.

examinations of lawyers who fight for the rights of their clients

and objectives Sometimes those lawyers seem to attack

him personally, his credentials, or his goals for the

cash register. After a particularly grueling court appearance,

Leon’s young partner asked him why he was smiling when

he was being attacked so viciously by one of the lawyers.

“Simple,” Leon answered. “When they start attacking me, I

I know I have won. There’s nothing I’ve said that you can disagree with

with.”

Leon had learned that when the attacks turned

personal, there was nothing else that could be attacked.

His work was unassailable. So they had to go after

him personally. Attacking the person is the reserve position

of a fighter who has to win at all costs and knows that it is

losing.

Facing these types of arguments is really frustrating.

Nothing you say will be accepted as proof that

they are right.
Anything you say can and will be crooked for

provides more proof that your opponent is right. even carrying

in a conversation with someone who is self-sealing is a

true judgment. No matter what you say, your words prove that they are

straight.

One of your best responses might be to say, “If your

holds the argument, you must be able to predict what will be or

won’t happen. If it can’t be used for predictions, then really

says nothing Think of a specific example so we can

talk about it.” They will usually trample or claim you

they are not smart enough to see it. Just smile at this point. You

I got them

Or if you want to get out of discussion mode, just say, “I

don’t buy it I don’t think all families are dysfunctional. Us

I do not agree with this”.

Self-sealing arguments sometimes occur when one

person adopts an idiosyncratic view of a problem and then

arbitrarily fires or avoids the position of another because

is different. Again, no matter what you say, they won’t.

agree and say you are wrong.

What passes for conventional wisdom, or the worst of

stereotyped thinking, they can be self-sealing arguments.


“Everyone knows that Latinos are great lovers,” or “Women can’t

be counted as leaders because they are not trustworthy

several days a month”, or “All men are only interested in one

thing.” When people actually believe that these claims are

“truth and reality, the way the world really is”, there is no

amount of evidence that will make them change their minds.

Howard missed an important meeting and lost face with

Your boss. He was furious with Elaine, his administrative support

person. He said that she had not given him the message. She

he said he had. He said that she was a liar. Howard didn’t have

the message and Elaine was unable to produce the piece of

paper with message on it. Therefore, Elaine was lying.

When Elaine tried to explain that she had emailed him

message with the information, Howard responded to that email

didn’t count Everyone knew the email wasn’t real.

communication.

Howard and Elaine were part of a task force that was

scattered over several buildings over eighteen acres. Tea

group had agreed to use email for important programming

messages instead of physically tracking each other

below. Howard wasn’t the only one who didn’t like the

change, but he was the only one who would not use the new

system. He would only use “real communication”– written in

paper or spoken in person.

No matter what Elaine said, Howard claimed he was

right and she was to blame for him losing the

appointment. His definition of notification did not include

what he had done to warn her.
Dismissing email

like no real communication, I could tell that she was wrong to

use it, and not have to admit that I was wrong for not using it.

With arguments that seal themselves, whatever happens

prove a point, so the position loses its ability to predict what

can and/or will happen. Logicians call this kind of

vacant or empty arguments. They are a form of logic.

fallacy or logical error.

Self-sealing positions are difficult to refute and argue

around. They often take on the fervor of a religious or

political argument and serve as sounding boards for a point

of view, rather than represent any attempt to engage in

discussion or dialogue. It is often more effective to declare

what is happening, to face the process of interaction,

instead of trying to change someone’s position or

influences your thinking.

This becomes an example of knowing when to count.

your losses and stop playing the game.
The only way

“winning” is to stop playing.

Conflict is unavoidable. We will always have differences with

our loved ones, friends and colleagues. is not having

arguments that is the problem, but how we argue that is

hard.
Arguing can bring people closer together and increase their respect for each other and for themselves. Or you can put a wedge between people,

pushing them further and even destroying them

relations

When we are focused on winning at all costs, overcoming

another person, it is easy to fall into logical errors, problems

with clearly defining our positions, or even not using

accurate data to support our positions.

By understanding the types of logic errors we can

do in the heat of an argument, we can refocus on the

problems, clarify our positions and come to a better resolution

of the issues that divide us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *