One of the many perplexities of the study of argument is that people often (but not of course always) deploy bad arguments to favorable audiences. You don’t straw man an opponent to their face–you do it to people disposed already to find your interpretation acceptable.<\/p>\n
This raises an interesting question: I’m guessing that at least sometimes these audiences know that you’re doing it. They know you’re lying to them about your opponent’s view. Do they just not care? Or do they put up with it for “strategic” reasons?<\/p>\n
This question came up yesterday in regard to Trump’s constant lying. It turns out, according to one report<\/a>, that his supporters just do not care. An excerpt:<\/p>\n Robin Pierce, the owner of a men\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s clothing store in Newark, said he doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think anybody wiretapped Trump. But Pierce, 70, was almost gleeful as he offered an explanation for Trump\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s claim.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153I think Trump just did that to freak them out \u00e2\u20ac\u201d they were giving him bad times, so he gave them bad times. Mess with their brains,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he said.<\/strong><\/p>\n He broke into a loud laugh.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153I like that,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he said. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Because we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve had so much crap in Washington for years, and now we have someone shaking \u00e2\u20ac\u2122em up really good.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, this is not reassuring. But here’s some research on point:<\/p>\n This research \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and those stories \u00e2\u20ac\u201d highlight a difficult truth about our species: We are intensely social creatures, but we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re prone to divide ourselves into competitive groups, largely for the purpose of allocating resources. People can be prosocial \u00e2\u20ac\u201d compassionate, empathic, generous, honest \u00e2\u20ac\u201d in their groups, and aggressively antisocial toward out-groups.<\/strong> When we divide people into groups, we open the door to competition, dehumanization, violence \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and socially sanctioned deceit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153People condone lying against enemy nations, and since many people now see those on the other side of American politics as enemies, they may feel that lies, when they recognize them, are appropriate means of warfare,<\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said\u00c2\u00a0George Edwards, a Texas A&M political scientist and one of the country\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s leading scholars of the presidency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unsurprisingly, people who tend to view these issues as a part of a contest or argument-as-war narrative are likely to act accordingly. This means foregrounding group-cohesion or coherence of a simple message has higher strategic value than getting some opponent’s view just right.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the many perplexities of the study of argument is that people often (but not of course always) deploy bad arguments to favorable audiences. You don’t straw man an opponent to their face–you do it to people disposed already to find your interpretation acceptable. This raises an interesting question: I’m guessing that at least … Continue reading Lying to my face<\/span>