Guilt by association and ad hominem
The logical fallacies of guilt by association and ad hominem are very commonplace. They are both prevalent in the media, particularly in political situations that get polarized and dramatized. Both are strikingly similar, but both have their own aspects.
The guilt-by-association fallacy is best defined as an attack on someone’s position or policy based on its association with another policy that was used by a notorious person or organization. The ad hominem fallacy, however, is a direct attack on an opponent. Its name, in fact, is a Latin term meaning “to human.”
Both the guilt-by-association and ad hominem fallacies ignore the argument that someone’s opponent is trying to convey. They do not see the merit of the argument, the main ideas. Someone using the ad hominem fallacy turns toward the other person and subconsciously turns his or her argument into a personal attack. Thus angered, the person begins hurling insults at his or her opponent, who might fire more insults back.
Similarly, guilt by association can be a somewhat personal insult to the integrity of an opponent’s character based on a similarity between their policies and more frightful policies of the past. No one wants to be associated with a vile politician or regime, and the insult therefore becomes more potent against powerful figures (who depend on their good reputation and risk losing status and prestige).
The ad hominem fallacy is a direct attack on a person. Everything the person likes, dislikes, and votes for is targeted by that person’s opponent in a visceral way. Someone using this fallacy might be using it because they do not want to know the other person’s argument or how he or she reached that conclusion (likely due to anger or frustration at the candidate). With this ignorance, the person resorts to just calling their opponent “nuts,” “loser,” “idiot,” and so on.
On the other hand, the guilt by association fallacy seems not to be so direct in attacking its enemies. Instead, it merely finds a comparison between someone’s policy and a more disreputable policy held by someone else. This becomes the grounds for attacking the person in a somewhat “softer” manner. The fallacies are compared to each other because both attack people in ways that ignore the bigger issues at hand or the key ideas of someone else’s position. These fallacies arguably show disrespect, ignorance, and a lack of emotional control from one person towards someone else, or between two or more people.
Exclusively for our VIPs: 'Soft' Terminology and Hard Numbers
Wishful thinking and self-deception
Wishful thinking and self-deception are typically not logically sound choices for humans to make, but they do have temporarily good consequences occasionally (which may be part of the reason humans sometimes resort to these logical foibles in the face of challenges). Wishful thinking and self-deception are not the only defense mechanisms that humans use to cope with problems. Rationalization and procrastination also come into play during challenging life situations. Each defense mechanism is distinct, but can lead to similar consequences.
A good consequence of wishful thinking is the idealism that sustains someone, temporarily, through a troublesome life situation. The idealism provided by wishful thinking spares us the anger and tears of disappointment when reality, as it inevitably does, comes around to demolish our deepest dreams; another good consequence of the fallacy. Wishful thinking serves two purposes: one, to temporarily assist us when dealing with challenging situations, and two, to keep us clothed in the happiness of unbridled idealism and dreams that spare us of any negative emotions.
Self-deception is similar to wishful thinking in its function and consequences. There is a difference between the two; wishful thinking is not a consciously planned action while self-deception is conscious and aware of the disparity between reality and false beliefs. The conscious nature of self deception gives us one good consequence in its illusion of control. We can consciously believe that we are better off than we truly are. Reality, once again, is cast off as self-deception takes control and we are fully aware of the whole thing. Self-deception provides another good consequence, similarly to wishful thinking, by the way people have used it to deal with challenges in politics and war to reassure their audience that everything would be okay. Self-deception generally seems to form some illusions of control and protection in someone who uses it.
Rationalization and procrastination are similar, but also different, despite having roughly the same outcomes. Rationalization allows someone to justify some controversial action or decision by downplaying (or ignoring altogether) the evidence against it. Procrastination, in contrast, allows someone to put off some difficult task for a later time when they feel they can handle it. College students, sadly, are a rather infamous example of procrastination by putting off hard assignments until the last minute. In some cases, rationalization and procrastination can be used at the same time. A college student might wait until the last minute to complete the dreaded class presentation or research paper, then rationalize the decision with “I had too much on my plate. I had other projects to do and didn’t have time to catch up with this assignment.”
Procrastination can sometimes lead to rationalization, too. The real-world outcomes for both systems of self-deception are not pleasant. An instructor might dock points for late work, for instance. This might make an already-bad grade much worse, staining that student’s transcript forever, or it could change even a high grade into an average one. Rationalization, procrastination, and wishful thinking are all forms of self-deception. This makes all of them similar in function. There are undesirable real-world outcomes for all of these; they negatively affect the person who uses these personally, among other people, or in the workplace.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member