| A reasoning fallacy particularly potent in arguments | | | | Nothing you can say will be accepted as evidence |
| ofpersonal beliefs, ideologies, or worldviews is | | | | that youare right. Everything you say can and will be |
| theself-sealing argument. Self-sealing arguments | | | | twisted toprovide further proof your opponent is |
| takepositions that no evidence can possibly refute. | | | | correct. Even carryingon a conversation with |
| While thismay seem attractive, and a good way to | | | | someone who is self-sealing is areal trial. No matter |
| win any argument,self-sealing arguments are both | | | | what you say, your words prove they'reright. |
| useless and potentiallydamaging to relationships. | | | | One of your best responses might be to say, "If |
| One of the most common forms of | | | | yourargument holds, it should be able to predict what |
| self-sealingarguments is claiming the other person is | | | | will orwon't happen. If it can't be used for predictions, |
| not sophisticatedenough or learned enough to | | | | then it reallydoesn't say anything. Think of a specific |
| understand the concept beingargued. It is evident in | | | | example so we cantalk about that." They will usually |
| the following conversation: | | | | stomp away or claim youaren't smart enough to see |
| John: All families are dysfunctional. | | | | it. Just smile at this point. Yougot 'em. |
| Mike: My family wasn't dysfunctional. I had a | | | | Or if you want to move out of the argument mode, |
| goodchildhood. | | | | just say, "Idon't buy it. I don't believe all families are |
| John: That just shows how dysfunctional it was. | | | | dysfunctional. Wedon't see eye to eye on this one." |
| You're indenial. | | | | Self-sealing arguments sometimes occur when |
| Mike: I'm not in denial. It was okay. | | | | oneperson takes an idiosyncratic view of an issue |
| John: You are too in denial. You're just too | | | | and thenarbitrarily dismisses or avoids another's |
| dysfunctional tosee how dysfunctional your family | | | | position becauseit's different. Again, no matter what |
| was. | | | | you say, they won'tagree and will say you are |
| No matter what argument Mike offers, John will use | | | | wrong. |
| it as | | | | What passes for conventional wisdom, or the worst |
| "proof" of his point. Self-sealing arguments often | | | | ofstereotypical thinking, can be self-sealing arguments. |
| center onpersonal beliefs, attributes, or attitudes. The | | | | "Everyone knows Latins are great lovers," or |
| arguer--John,in this example--for some personal | | | | "Women can'tbe counted on as leaders because they |
| reason sets himself upas the expert, the one who | | | | are unreliableseveral days a month," or "All men are |
| knows, and Mike is relegated tothe subordinate | | | | just interested in onething." When people really |
| position. Nothing Mike can say willdisprove John's | | | | believe these statements to be |
| position. Just try. John will tell you you'rewrong! | | | | "truth and reality, the way the world really is," there |
| Carolyn, her mother, and two sisters appeared on | | | | is noamount of evidence that will change their minds. |
| atelevision talk show as an example of an estranged | | | | Howard missed an important meeting and lost face |
| family. | | | | withhis boss. He was furious with Elaine, his admin |
| All four of them agreed they had been upset and | | | | supportperson. He said she had not given him the |
| angry atone another for many years. | | | | message. Shesaid she had. He said she was a liar. |
| Carolyn told of many instances when her sisters | | | | Howard didn't havethe message and Elaine couldn't |
| didn't treather lovingly or fairly. She was angry with | | | | produce the piece ofpaper with the message on it. |
| her mother fortaking her sisters' side in disputes and | | | | Therefore, Elaine was lying. |
| not supporting her. | | | | When Elaine tried to explain she had sent him an |
| Meanwhile Carolyn's mother and sisters agreed | | | | e-mailmessage with the information, Howard replied |
| thingshadn't always gone well for Carolyn. She was | | | | that e-maildidn't count. Everyone knew e-mail was |
| difficult to bearound, and they hadn't spent much | | | | not realcommunication. |
| time with her. Hermother kept trying to say she did | | | | Howard and Elaine were part of a work group that |
| love Carolyn, did want arelationship with her, but | | | | wasdispersed in several buildings over eighteen acres. |
| Carolyn rebuffed her advances. | | | | Thegroup had agreed to use e-mail for important |
| Then the show host suggested that Carolyn come | | | | schedulingmessages rather than physically tracking |
| sit closerto her mother, rather than on the edge of | | | | one anotherdown. Howard was not the only one |
| the set. Carolynjumped up and cried, "They're only | | | | who didn't like thechange, but he was the only one |
| doing this becausewe're on TV. They don't really love | | | | who wouldn't use the newsystem. He'd only use "real |
| me. She says she does,but she doesn't." | | | | communication"-- written onpaper or spoken in |
| Watching Carolyn was very painful. She not only said | | | | person. |
| noone loved her, but looked like she felt unloved. She | | | | No matter what Elaine said, Howard claimed he |
| didn'twant to stop being angry. She wanted to get | | | | wasright and she was to blame for his missing |
| even with herfamily for what they had done, not get | | | | theappointment. His definition of notification didn't |
| over the past hurtsthey'd all experienced. | | | | includewhat she had done to notify him. By dismissing |
| Carolyn's self-sealing logic kept her stuck. No matter | | | | e-mailas not real communication, he could say she |
| whather family members said, or anyone else said, | | | | was wrong forusing it, and not have to admit he was |
| sheinterpreted it as, "They don't love me. They don't | | | | wrong for not using it. |
| care aboutme." Nothing they did or said could change | | | | With self-sealing arguments, anything that happens |
| her mind. | | | | willprove a point, so the position loses its ability to |
| Whatever they said wasn't the right thing to say, | | | | predict whatcan and/or will happen. Logicians call |
| they didn'tmean it, or most repeatedly, things should | | | | these kind ofarguments vacuous, or empty. They are |
| have beendifferent or better many years ago, so | | | | a form of logicalfallacy, or logical error. |
| nothing can be donetoday to make it better. | | | | Self-sealing positions are difficult to refute and to |
| Carolyn was stuck on getting even rather than | | | | arguearound. They often take on the fervor of a |
| puttingthe problems behind them. She wanted her | | | | religious orpolitical argument and serve as sounding |
| familymembers to hurt as much as she was hurting. | | | | boards for a pointof view, rather than representing |
| She usedher interpretations of their behavior to | | | | any attempt to engage indiscussion or dialogue. It's |
| support her pain. | | | | often more effective to declarewhat is happening, to |
| Logicians call personalizing an argument an ad | | | | confront the process of the interaction,rather than |
| hominemfallacy, or attacking the person, not the | | | | trying to change someone's position or toinfluence |
| argument. | | | | their thinking. |
| As a child psychologist, Leon often testifies as an | | | | This becomes an example of knowing when to |
| expertwitness in child custody cases. He is | | | | countyour losses and stop playing the game. The |
| accustomed to toughexaminations by attorneys who | | | | only wayto "win" is to stop playing. |
| fight for their clients' rightsand objectives. Sometimes | | | | Conflict is inevitable. We will always have differences |
| those attorneys seem to attackhim personally, his | | | | withour loved ones, friends, and colleagues. It isn't |
| credentials, or his objectives for thecase. After one | | | | havingarguments that's the problem, but how we |
| particularly grueling court appearance, | | | | argue that'sdifficult. Arguing can bring people closer |
| Leon's young associate asked him why he smiled | | | | together and increase the respect they have for one |
| when hewas being so viciously attacked by one of | | | | another and themselves. Or it can put a wedge |
| the attorneys. | | | | between people,pushing them farther apart and even |
| "Simple," Leon replied. "When they start attacking | | | | destroying theirrelationships. |
| me, Iknow I've won. There's nothing I've said they | | | | When we're focused on winning at any cost, |
| can disagreewith." | | | | overpoweringanother person, it's easy to slip into |
| Leon had learned that when the attacks | | | | logical errors, problemswith defining our positions |
| becamepersonal, there was nothing else that could | | | | clearly, or even not usingaccurate data to back our |
| be attacked. His work was unassailable. So they had | | | | positions. |
| to go afterhim personally. Attacking the person is the | | | | By understanding the types of logical errors we |
| fallback positionof a combatant who has to win at | | | | canmake in the heat of an argument, we can refocus |
| any cost and knows he islosing. | | | | on theissues, clarify our positions, and come to a |
| Confronting this kind of argument is really frustrating. | | | | better resolutionof the issues that divide us. |