When a conversation around a topic becomes heated either by absolutely dissimilar opinions on crucial matters for the parties involved, strong negative emotions (e.g. anger, jealousy, hatred, etc.), or conflicting interests, a wide range of attacks may emerge and one of them is the Ad Hominem argument.
These kinds of attacks are commonly present in politics, business scandals, and criminal cases coming into publicity, but also lurking in schools, workplaces, romantic relationships even families. The Ad Hominem Arguments intentionally focus on the targets' specific personality traits, inconsistency between words and deeds, past behaviors, or groups they have been affiliated with. Thus, the attackers using them, aim to damage their targets' reliability about a specific issue or in general by attacking their personal attributes rather than the substance of the argument (s) they make. The most simple form of an ad hominem argument is:
A makes a claim X
B asserts that A holds an unwelcome attribute leading to A's bad character (liar, unethical, idiot, etc.)
Therefore according to B, the X argument is wrong and A is non-credible
From personal experience, the most frequent form of Ad Hominems I have encountered in my daily routine is what I call the "Malicious Gossip Trap".
You see all of us have witnessed or participated in light gossiping about what the neighbor does for a living, how old is the woman in the office who had a facelift 5 years ago, why Mandy and John whom we barely know have broken up, and so on.
Although I am not very fond of gossiping as an act, I understand the need for people to discuss their social surroundings and be informed about the "talk of the town". It can be fun to watch everyone absorbed by a new situation that will be forgotten in a week.
Either way, I am not judging anyone's habits if they are harmless to others.
The Malicious Gossip Trap is another thing and definitely is not harmless. It is when an "inspired attacker" targets a person whose opinion was mentioned or somehow aligned to the topic of the discussion and starts to throw mud uncontrollably to distort the target's credibility and integrity. And at this point I am going to describe such an experience to you that took place in a cafe:
Old Friend: "Hey guys, look! Just finished this book about self-discipline. Quite tangible analysis and easy to read. It was really good I have to thank Maria for that. Her suggestion was very accurate. She said that it is one of her favorite books for personal growth."
Inspired Attacker: "Maria? I don't buy it. I am sure she just saw it online and wanted to play the intellectual to you. She is always snobbish to everyone, thinking that she is the smartest person in the room and she is totally disrespectful. No surprise that her boyfriend dumped her.".
Old Friend: "She is never snobbish to me".
Inspired Attacker: "Dah, because she is into you. She pretends, you can't trust her".
At that time, I knew Maria only a little personally, but the impression I had via some small chats with her was quite different from what I was hearing. She was more introverted than average, possibly shy and it was true that she read much. I always remember her holding a book in her hands. What I also knew was, that neither the attacker had a close relationship with her, that's why I decided to mingle in the conversation and challenge her a bit.
Me: "Are you talking from experience?"
Inspired Attacker: "Sorry what?"
Me: "You seem quite certain about her motives and character, so I wondered are you talking from experience?"
Inspired Attacker: "Yeah of course I have seen her".
Me: "Oh you have seen her doing what? being a snob, outsmarting others publicly, or getting dumped by her ex?"
Inspired Attacker: I have seen her being snobbish to a friend of mine and it was for absolutely no reason! She is just a hypocrite and I don't believe anything she says".
Me: "Which friend?"
Inspired Attacker: "Helen"
Old Friend: "The one who lied about being pregnant to her boyfriend just to keep him?"
Inspired Attacker: "That's irrelevant! She was emotionally devastated! I was there when that excuse of a person, Maria intimidated her."
Me: "Well, if you indeed were there and Helen told you that Maria's behavior was out of nowhere then we can't be sure that she is telling the truth either. According to your reasoning, somebody that pretends once is not to be trusted and if this applies to Maria it applies to Helen as well. Your way of thinking not mine. So, until you find a more reliable witness to persuade us about Maria's bad character we will have our opinion based on our experiences and you can have yours. No need to slander unless there is something else you're not telling us"
Old Friend: Yeah she is right. Let's stop this discussion there is no point. I am going to the restroom and then we can leave." My friend gets up from his chair and heads to the restroom.
Inspired Attacker: "What did you mean before?"
Me: "Haha I don't know maybe you are annoyed that she could be into our friend and you can't find another argument to make her look bad"
Inspired Attacker: "Who starts the nonsense now? I don't care about that and I don't care about her I just told you what I think"
Me: "Chill, just kidding. If you don't care then there is no reason to discuss it further. Is there?"
Inspired Attacker: "Okay fine".
Here the main Ad Hominem arguments towards Maria are two: that she is a person of low morals who doesn't respect others and a pretender therefore what she is saying about the book suggested to my friend and in general should not be taken as credible. Regardless of which side you identify yourself on, when reading the dialogue, let's explore together some important pieces of advice to keep in mind when you bump into an attacker. And most of them are related to the Ad Hominems nature:
No 1: Stay calm and examine the truth of the accusations in real-time
Is what the attacker says true? Is there objective or subjective evidence indicating that you have the negative attribute he/she argues that you have? How strong is it?
In the example above I suspected that the allegations about Maria were distorted, but I wasn't sure, so what I did is let the attacker unfold his reasoning and build her case.
In this way, I had more information about her strategy against Maria so if there was an informational gap in her attack this was the moment where it would be apparent.
On the contrary, If I took what the inspired attacker said about Maria personally and responded like: "Oh we got it ! You don't like her don't make it that obvious!" without having the base of her argument first then simply we would have been dragged out in a crazy fallout that would negatively affect my mood and certainly, I didn't want that. You may think "Yeah but what would have happened if the attack targeted you and not Maria? Would you be so calm?"
I understand that when someone tries to distort your character in front of others you may feel rage, sadness, embarrassment that you can't always control. If you know though that the accusation is false or half-truth then you have nothing to fear.
If the only thing the attacker does, is attacking ruthlessly your character, while leaving your argument's premises around the polarized issue untouched then that is all he's got against you. The option to proceed with attacking you personally means that he/she cannot construct a logically valid argument to contradict your opinion, your work, or your talent. For this reason, the attacker resorts to tactics such as exaggeration, oversimplification, manipulation of facts, and misleading half-truths, by constructing an ad hominem to prevail and damage your credibility.
And this is not your weakness, but the attacker's.
No 2: Demand Relevance, Indicate Irrelevance
And here we are, where somebody, somewhere, someday brings up your past against you. It can be your friend, your relationship, your boss, your colleague, your rival and I would say anyone who wants to harm you either because of personal differences, competing interests, or simply because of his/her internal insecurities.
Imagine that someone uses delicately your licentious and unstable personal life to erode your reliability as an expert. Even if it's true is it relevant to the context of the conversation? If you are indeed unreliable in your romantic relationships this automatically means that you're an unreliable professional as well?
Overall, it is logically fallacious to undermine arguments' integrity and reliability in every context only based on a person's character. Not in all contexts, your character attributes are relevant to the validity of your arguments.
An argument either is valid or it is not, and this is determined by seeing whether it conforms to the relevant rules, not by looking at the motives or personality traits of the person advancing the argument, If Hitler advanced an argument using modus ponens, it would be valid; if the Pope committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent, it would be invalid. Their background or motives are simply irrelevant to the question of validity under these circumstances.
No 3: Expose your Attacker's motives with humor
You have been fired by a previous employer, and a colleague of yours uses that to undermine the reliability of your current business proposals in your team's meeting. This is simply a hit below the belt. At the same time though, it is both true and relevant what do you do?
.
Remember: Personal attacks in the form of ad hominem arguments can be a powerful tool in persuasion and defense and potentially painful for you as a target especially if the character plays a key role in the discussion you're in. But it is rarely unmanageable.
Even if the ad hominem is relevant and true, is this redundancy an adequate piece of evidence to generalize that you're not good at your job therefore your business proposals are unreliable? One event cannot necessarily determine your overall quality as an employee. In this case, humor can be your friend. A good answer to this type of attack could be:
"Okay, [Colleague's Name] I know you admire me so much that you read my CV details before going to bed and I am flattered, but we have deadlines to catch up with so you can give solid feedback about the proposals and we can cheat-chat later about how unlucky my previous employer is for not having me on board "
It is highly unlikely that your colleague will continue his narrative especially in front of other people since he/she will make his/her dislike towards you a reason to delay business procedures and this will be perceived as unprofessional. However, if he/she does continue attacking you personally, simply end the conversation with confidence.
"I see you have an appetite but too bad for you I don't. When you're ready to talk about business just show it so. I will be at my office".
Remember no one can intimidate you if you don't let them.
No 4: Use the attacker's weapons in your favor (without being an abuser)
In the discussion about Maria, the truth is that I used the inspired attacker's reasoning against her, while not agreeing with the validity of the argument I used. I don't personally believe that if someone has pretended circumstantially, he is automatically unreliable overall. The thing is that she did and even if she didn't that is what she argued.
The reason I did this was the attacker's attitude and knowing her, this was the only way to make her stop talking. This tactic though demands attention and its use is depended on your goal, what is at stake, and the relationship you have with the attacker. If the attacker is someone superior (e.g. your boss) or a person being emotionally overwhelmed (your best friend being through a predicament and not thinking straight) I don't recommend it since it can have serious consequences to you, the person you're talking to, and your overall relationship. So pay attention to when, how, and to whom you're using this against.
No 5: Ignore and Smile
Last but not least, some attacks do not deserve extra value. We do not live in a society of angels and there will not be a few people who will exploit your hot temper, your ego, your pride to attack you personally and drag you in fallouts or in situations where you explain yourself more than it's necessary, just to bring the worst out of you or expose your weaknesses.
When you receive a personal attack, ad hominem argument, or other, assess your environment, think of your goals, the risks and opportunities of getting entangled in a conflict, and of course, your wellbeing. When a person attacks you out of nowhere just to underestimate your work, your integrity, your overall credibility, and you're not in the mood of talking then don't.
Don't give them the satisfaction that they affect you. If it is an attack camouflaged by a question then answer the question smiling, with confidence and faith in yourself, while throwing the attack into the trash. You put the boundaries to which discussion you're part of and no one else should do this for you.
You can see more about when to end or continue a conversation in my article: "We know we talk, we think we listen but do we understand how we communicate?"
Suggested readings about Ad Hominem Arguments the article was based on:
Hinman, L. M. (1982). The case for ad hominem arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 60(4), 338–345.
Macagno, Fabrizio and Walton, Douglas, Character Attacks as Complex Strategies of Legal Argumentation (December 6, 2012). International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse
Walton Douglas, Ad Hominem Arguments (1998). The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. (Book)
You can be up-to-date about my material if you:
Connect with the (In)vincible community via the Spaces Mobile App with the invite code: LHD1WT
Follow _1nvincible on Instagram
Follow Demi Michail on Instagram and/or connect to LinkedIn