By David Mansheim

Besides the internet and social media, another reason for the rise of misinformation, conspiratorial
thinking, and political division is our lack of training in critical thinking. Many people seem to be
susceptible to sophistical trickery, but we can all tune up our B.S.  detectors by keeping in mind the
following logical fallacies:

1. Slippery Slope – a trivial action will start an irreversible chain of events leading to a catastrophe.
2. The burden of proof – is on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
3. Sequence is not causation – Just because B follows A does not mean A caused B.
4. Correlation is not causation – My knee hurting is not a cause of the weather change.
5. Self-interest – a personal stake in the outcome.
6. Appeal to tradition – the way it always has been done.
7. Appeal to authority – follow the leader or an authority with dubious credentials.
8. Appeal to emotion – anger, fear, sympathy.
9. Appeal to stereotypes or prejudices. “People from those S*** hole countries”
10. Appeal to popularity – bandwagon effect.
11. Appeal to analogy – an inference based on resemblances.
12. Non-sequitur – no connection between claim and evidence.
13. Strawman – arguing a claim that has not been made.
14. Hasty generalization – based on insufficient number of examples.
15. Circular reasoning – a claim should follow from the evidence and not the reverse.
16. Begging the question – making one claim dependent on other claims not proven.
17. Ignoring the question – use of a red herring to throw you off the trail.
18. Self-sealing argument – one that can’t be tested. “God wants us to …”
19. Testimonial – using one person’s experience to prove a generality.
20. Ad hominem – attacking the person, not the proposition.
21. Obfuscation – introduction of irrelevant facts or issues.
22. Misuse of statistics – figures don’t lie but liars will figure.
23. Confusion of facts with opinions.
24. Connecting unrelated dots – to find a pattern where none exists.
25. Bias – interpreting information that supports pre-existing beliefs.
26. Ends justifying means – overlooking lies if they serve a higher purpose.
27. Repetition – Madison Avenue knows to pound it into your brain.
28. Solution aversion – If we don’t like the solution, we try to deny the problem.
29. Dunning-Kruger – overestimating our competence. We don’t know what we don’t know.
30. Hindsight bias – In retrospect we knew it all along.
31. Gaslighting – manipulating reality to make someone question their own perception or memory.
32. Scapegoating – blaming someone else.
33. Truthyness – Steven Cobert’s word for a grain of truth in a false argument.
34. Intuition – “I feel X is true”. A gut feeling is not a substitute for factual inquiry.
35. Oversimplification – reducing complex issues to a slogan.
36. Short attention span – Won’t read more than a 25-word tweet. Don’t confuse me with facts.
37. I heard it on the grapevine – I saw it on Facebook or the internet.
38. Social pressure – the need to agree with my group, team, religion, party, tribe.

By David Mansheim

Do you know someone who seems perfectly reasonable and nice but has adopted irrational
beliefs that you believe are ludicrous or offensive? It will be a rare Christmas table where
someone doesn’t wonder how on earth his relative, neighbor, or friend can believe “those
things.” Will certain topics be ruled “off the table” to keep the peace at your house?

Dan Ariely in his new book, Misbelief, says misinformation has always been used for strategic
advantage, to promote a political agenda, or to gain financially. Social science tells us that we
start with an emotional response and then come up with reasons to justify it in a process called
conformation bias. Religious, political, or cultural beliefs become part of our core identity and
we resent having them challenged.

Studies show some personalities are more susceptible to misbelief, low institutional trust,
and political polarization. Unpredictable stressors like pandemics, wars, or losses for your
political team will make people feel events are out of control and in desperate need of an
explanation. Stress or scarcity reduces our reasoning capacity and causes us to grasp quick-
and-easy solutions.

Psychologists have proven people are more resilient to stress if they were raised in
emotional safety with secure attachments – believing that if something bad happens somebody
will catch us. Secure people focus more on the upside and less on the downside. When
insecure people compare themselves to others, they may feel they are at a disadvantage, that
their lot in life is harder than it is for “the elites”, resentful, and that someone must be to
blame.

Fear of events rather than trust will drive people to seek villains, to malicious conspiracies, to
vitriol, and to hate. We all love to get on our high horse and hate villains whether Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Occams Razor is the proposition that the simplest explanation is usually the best one absent
contradictory evidence. Hanlons Razor states one should never attribute malice to that which
is adequately explained by mistake or human fallibility. Conspiracy theories thrive because
humans are not wired to be satisfied with the randomness or bad luck of events but instead
look for reasons, and then attribute evil intent.

A conspiracy believer feels they have the comfort of unique knowledge, whereas the rest of
us are mere sheeple. They often become moral crusaders fighting outrageous evils. The sad
fact is most of us find facts to be dull but alternate-reality stories exciting.

Besides all the psychological processes at work, misbelief is furthered by lack of critical
thinking skills. We all know people who throw up their hands in frustration and declare they
don’t know what to think. They may refuse to inform themselves or even to vote. Is it possible
Covid not only damaged some people’s sense of smell but also destroyed their BS detector?

As an old debate coach, I plan to write a follow-up column addressing logical traps and how to restore our BS detectors.

Bleeding Heartland is a community blog providing original reporting and commentary about Iowa politics, especially campaigns and elections, state government, social, and environmental issues. Head over to their site to check out the latest submission by Butler County Democrat David Manheim.

When race came to dinner

By David Manshiem

It may be political heresy not to support Iowa’s first-in-the-nation- caucus status, but I believe it is time to move to a presidential primary, even if that means, as it most certainly will, not being first in the nation.

The Democratic National Committee is currently questioning the process that puts a small state that is unrepresentative of the country as a whole in the driver’s seat.

Iowa has undoubtedly been the beneficiary of the national attention and the money spent here. But now is the time to reexamine what is workable, what is democratic, what is not and recognize that what is good for Iowa may not be good for the country.

Democratic caucuses over the 54 years that I have chaired them have become too complex, with a Rube Gold-berg set of rules. They depend on over 1,900 precinct locations that need to be Americans With Disabilities Act-compliant and internet-accessible. They are chaired by volunteers with various degrees of training and with shaky technological skills and equipment.

What started out years ago as polite living room discussion over coffee and cake turned into ever-larger gatherings that now need a bullhorn. Political parties simply do not have the machinery, workers, or money to conduct a massive statewide election, but the government does. Our statewide county auditor system of running elections works quite well and it should be running primaries.

Caucuses are inherently undemocratic because of the barriers to participation caused by work, child care, travel, weather, and a specific meeting time. Democrats in particular should be for the most democratic solution; after all, it is our DNA, it is in our name.

The caucus process is not even wanted by most of the participants. Ninety percent want to just vote their choice of presidential candidates and leave. Instead, they are made to stand in line to register, then stand in a corner to be counted again and again amid the chaos and confusion over delegate math. The most touted reason for keeping the caucus is for party building, but there are other ways to do that, just like primary states do.

The caucuses turn a lot of people off after their first exposure to party politics, so the process can be counter-productive to party building. Few people will stay to conduct party business like electing precinct committee people. It is impossible to reverse the order of business and make them eat their spinach before they get dessert because they are there mainly to register their presidential preference. The Democratic Party should abandon the caucus process in all of the few remaining states that have them. Primaries can be rotated around the country in small groups to lessen the advantage of moneyed candidates buying media instead of spending face time with voters.

This change will not be welcomed by activists who wield an outsized influence over caucus results. In the Democratic Party it is left-of-center activists who show up, and in the Republican Party, it is right-of-center activists. A primary would lessen the influence of extremes on both sides and, depending on how it is set up, could moderate the extreme partisan divide in our country.

___

This editorial first appeared in The Des Moines Register on April 3, 2022. David Mansheim is a retired lawyer, educator and businessman living in Parkersburg.