Information Distortion Techniques

Information Distortion Techniques [+ favourites]

Let's examine the tools people use on discussion forums to put up roadblocks in logic to defend their beliefs. These include methods of confusing the opposition, distraction, and subject related distortion.

Please note that users will transparently have their post priviledges reduced if these techniques are used.

If you examine these boldface "mechanisms" you will see how each of them have three general characteristics:

• They mimick the exact method of dispute an intelligent person would.
• If recognized, the point is easily ignored and quickly deflated.
• The subject of the point is less relevent than the implications of it, including the person who is actually stating.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

Questioning an assumed premise without fortitude

The forced digression of a discussion to an earlier (or assumed) point that is probable but not definite. In questioning this probable assumption the member is able to bring the discussion to a stand-still as a probable but not definite assumption can always be questioned. The main reason this is a roadblock is the member does not have any insightful information about the assumption to diss-prove it: they simply interject to assert that it is an assumption and can possibly be wrong. The reason this is anti-productive is that all the information the member contributes is already known by those in the discussion and does not serve to prove or dissprove the topic at hand. In general it is the result of an un-developed mind that is unable to accept probable assumptions in an attempt to ascertain higher truths. This process is necessary given the capabilities of gathering information by humans will always be flawed. A set of base premises must be developed for any deeper conclusions to be made, and although these base premises (and their conclusions) will never be definite, they can always be probable.

Alternatively, those that form a discussion with base premises that are improbable are more likely to ignore those that woudl question those premises than members of a discussion that is based on probable factors. This is why those are follow probable premises fall victim to this tactic of retardation.

It is very crucial during any form of discussion that those members that discuss any point have at the basis of their point of view probable premises. Without the awareness of these premises (or weaknesses in them) their points will quickly be de-stabilized by those that question the conclusions or simply attempt to derail the discussion.

Without the confidence of probable premises, one cannot hope to have an opinion that will not be questioned. With probable premises, it is important that all members of the discussion quickly ascertain and ignore those that would question those assumed premises without credibility.

Member who exhibits this trait: summit

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

Burying un-substantiated premises within a conclusive statement

This method of manipulation uses overwhelming the listener to confuse and jumble clairvoyant thoughts. This is achieved by making a statement that mimicks the same mathematical model for logical decuction (base premises equate probable conclusions) to disguise an illogical statement as logic.

The primary difference between a logical statement and this one is that a logical statement has as its roots probable premises that were themselves probable conclusions formed by other probable premises. All logical thoughts must, at some point, root back to a pyramid of thoughts that eventually leads to one or more of the human sensory inputs.

This is highly difficult for most people to achieve with complete certainty, but logical statements are far stronger in this perspective than illogical statements.

The key in this tool is that the member uses within his or her statement a logical pyramid with one or more false premises within its structure. The deeper the false premise, the more of the logic that exists above it must be de-constructed by other members of the discussion to spot the inherent weakness in the stated conclusion.

Once found and mentioned, the member will usually then digress the discussion into another tool of distortion. Namely, "Questioning an assumed premise without fortitude", whereby this base premise far below the topic of discussion at hand must then be argued and proven to be improbable in order to topple the pyramid of illogic above it.

This usually operates in a "black hole" fashion, whereby every premise presented by this member will have within it another false premise. One by one these false premises must be argued, and with each premise another group that must be proved is revealed. Unless the member does not have a gross number of miss-conceptions absorbed, such discussions almost never end because the member did not learn something incorectly, but rather chooses to believe what he or she believes. This then becomes more about convincing someone to accept that their are incorrect rather than proving or diss-proving facts.

With practice, many who discuss similar topics over and over will eventually find the most commonly assumed premises, given the subject at hand. They will also discover the different characteristics of another member that would lead them to believe such false premises and it is using this acquired experience that seasoned members can avoid digressing a conversation into an inescapable "black hole".

This is particularly noticeable for those who seem to explain the same things repeatedly. In the end such false premises/conclusions must be completely ignored in order to avoid the tumbling of a discussion.

Members who exhibit this trait: Patrish, tanker, etherealmeekle

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

Proof by irrelevent comparison

When one wishes to diss-prove a conclusion without aseessing the premises that formed it, they may use a tool of distortion in which they compare the overall object of discussion with something similar in order to pigeonhole both with the same characteristics. This is a tool used to shift the topic to the compared item and its association to the topic at hand rather than the topic at hand.

This has an effect of association whereby the logical members will then, naturally, feel the need to defend the compared item rather than the topic at hand. This makes it easier for the member who is trying to distort the point to argue with some validity because there is much more acceptance of their side of the topic that is now argued.

A popular example is as follows: member A criticises the current leader for particular reasons. member B enters the conversation and states that our current leader isn't any better than our previous leader. member A then begins to discuss the merits and flaws of the previous leader versus the current leader in order to prove that the current leader is in fact not better than the previous leader.

This may, but usually does not, address the initial points member B was trying to make. But the discussion will almost immediately take a turn into another area that does not scrutinize the validity of our current leader.

This example illustrates the effective use of subjectivity on a conversation when well applied. It must be relevent, but not too relevent. If member B where to state that the current leader is good instead of providing a comparison, member A would have nothing to respond to and the conversation would not be distorted. Also, most members of a discussion will generally ignore such comments. On the other hand, if member B compared the two leaders by the same points that member A was scrutinizing, then those points will still be addressed.

This tool almost always works by "Burying un-substantiated premises within a conclusive statement ", and in this case, that buried premise would be the initial conclusions made about the compared item. Then, the conversation shifts almost completely to the compared item rather than the topic at hand.

Members who exhibit this trait: Patrish, etherealmeekle

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

Arbitrary assumption of an umbrella theory

This tool is used quite often by people who wish to diss-prove a probable theory by unique examples. It works very well with inexperienced members of a discussion who state a probable theory as fact (in a literary sense) even though they mean it in a probable sense.

This play on words provides the member using this tool a legitimate argument, for most all-inclusive theories can be diss-proven in one way or another. By arbitrarily assuming and thereby forcing the author of the theory into the belief that his or her statement was all inclusive, this member can legitimately argue the validity of their point, and will, in the end, be correct.

This falsehood of correctedness seems to diss-prove the theory (or at least lessen its fortitude) whereas it does not, in any way, address the probability of the source author's theory.

A good example of such discussions and topics involves the use of stereotypes. Most stereotypes serve to insult one person or another, and it is these insulted people that usually enter a discussion with volatility in an effort to diss-prove that stereotype. However, they do not do this using the group sterotyped as a reference, but rather use themselves as an example and representative of that group. This is a form of "Proof by irrelevent comparison", for they compare themselves to that group and fool the rest of the discussion into thinking that by proving them wrong they will assert the validity of the stereotype.

This is of course incorrect as no one member of a group (especially one who may be an exception) can serve as a representative to diss-prove a stereotype unless the group is extremely small, and they form a large part of it.

An easy simple way of avoiding such tools from working is to state all stereotypes and umbrella theories based in probability in a passive manner. In other words, the use of words such as "most" instead of "all", or "usually are" instead of "are" serve as clear cut defenses against those that would naturally (or unnaturally) be offended by a theory.

This will not remove the possibility of this tool, but will most definitely lessen it and serve as a clear response to this tool when engaged.

Members who exhibit this trait: etherealmeekle

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

Nitpicking

Nitpicking is the use of attacking a member's comments by attacking a miss-defined or miss-used word in an effort to cripple the entire argument. The reason this is highly effective is that it very easily mimicks legitimate arguments posed by people who use members' comments to prove their point of view or point out a lack of logic. Often, little words or statements hold great meaning and in this sense it is legitimate to analyze such things in detail. However a nitpicker will mimick this behaviour with words or statements that are not indicative of what they conclude it is. Often, it is a miss-placed word or a statement that is not entirely clear.

I have included a comic strip to explain what nicpicking is. This also includes methods of distortion whereby one argues about semantics or definitions:

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Quasi-intellectualism + Groupthink

This form of information distortion exists mostly within people who tend to surround themselves with people who are somewhat less acute than they are (or less confident in their thoughts). In doing so in their private and/or professional lives, these individuals evolve to believe that they are 'Supermen' of thought. This type of character has a few general properties: