A Whackadoodle Logic Lesson: Beware the Appeal to Emotion
A Whackadoodle discussion with my student in which I explain why she should be aware of how often people use adjectives instead of logic to influence others.
“I don’t get why you have such a problem with adjectives,” she frowned at me from across the table.
“I don’t have a problem with adjectives. I use them all the time. I simply said that you should be more aware of how some people use adjectives.”
“How do some people use them?” she asked with a bit of snark.
“Instead of just using them to describe things, they use them to divide, manipulate, and distract from an argument that contains no factual evidence.”
Her eyes narrowed. “Exactly how do they use that?”
“They use words that appeal to emotions,” I replied. “You remember what an appeal to emotion is don’t you? We talked about it during our lessons on logical fallacies.”
“Oh yeah,” she drew the words out. “I remember those. There were a bunch of them.” She picked up her iPhone, and read the following:
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones (meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.
The appeal to emotion is used often to distract from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring").
The appeal to emotion encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Source: Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia
She looked up thoughtfully. “So how are adjectives relevant again?”
“Basically, when people throw a bunch of adjectives into an argument, instead of facts, they are trying to manipulate your emotions and sway you towards their point of view.”
“I think I could use an example.”
It took me some time to think of a decent example. “Okay,” I began slowly. “How about if someone sees a cat at a pet shop. They could just say, ‘I want to adopt that cat;’ but instead they say, ‘Oh look at that sweet, tiny kitten over there. She looks so lonely and sad. She’s such a darling, so soft and cuddly. I want more than anything to take that lonely baby home and play with her.’” I looked at her expectantly.
“I get it,” she admitted. “The first example is just a statement of fact, while the second example is an attempt to engage my emotions.” She frowned. “But what’s wrong with engaging people emotions?”
“Nothing, so long as they’re not doing it to manipulate you. So long as they aren’t using words as weapons to create division, guilt, fear, anger, distraction, and confusion. People who use too many adjectives tend to do that. They also tend to speculate, stating their opinions as if they were facts without any context or evidence. They use words that radicalize. It’s not enough for them to say, ‘He’s a boy.’ They have to add. ‘He’s a disgusting boy.’”
Her eyes narrowed, “What people are we talking about?”
“Oh, certain politicians, certain news media personalities, certain religious leaders, certain advertisers. The point is not who is doing it, so much as being able to spot when someone is doing it, so they can’t do it to you.”
“And noticing how many adjectives people use can help me spot it?” She sounded skeptical.
I could see that I needed to do something drastic if I were to make my point. “I have a suggestion. How about you spend some time over the next week listening to an hour or two of cable news? Not just one station, but at least two with opposing viewpoints. Like MSNBC and FOX. Keep a list of statements the guests and pundits use during the broadcast, especially the statements with a lot of adjectives and not much else. I also want you to listen to politicians this week, and look for the same thing.”
She went from skeptical to outraged. “You’re giving me homework?”
“You don’t have to do it if you don’t want to,” I assured her. “I just think it’s the best ways for you to see for yourself what I mean.”
She was still grumbling as she headed out the door. However, she emailed me with a list of statements she’d recorded a few days later, along with a note, “I think I get it. Next time, you’re gonna have to tell me what to do about it.”
I sent her a this reply:
Step one: Simply notice when you are being manipulated, and never jump to conclusions because of what one person has said.
Step two: Question the speaker whenever you can. For example, if someone feels the need to say, “He’s a disgusting boy.” You sincerely ask, “What exactly did he do to make you call him disgusting?” Once you have heard their explanation, you can form your own thoughts.
P.S. If you are unable to ask the question directly, there are also these concepts called independent research, healthy skepticism, source checking, and critical thinking. I highly recommend all four of them.