On [ir]relevant points

I have witnessed a lot of debates – both offline and online – where a manipulator managed to successfully confuse and shut down their opponent using one simple misconception people have about what points contribute to a discussion.

Most often people recognize a particular manifestation of this technique, “whataboutism”, but cannot recognize a more general case. Here’s what the misconception is.

Most people believe that the only criterion that determines whether a point contributes to a discussion or not is that point being true. They believe that if the arguing sides take turns to make true statements, the bigger truth would come out, one of the arguing sides would be found wrong, and the argument will end.

This is not so. Here’s an example:

Alice: You took my milk from the fridge without my permission! When I entered the office this morning I saw you eating cereals with what I’m sure was my milk.

Bob: It’s strange, because all employees should take all their food from the fridge on Friday before leaving work, it’s the company policy. Your milk should not have even been there.

Alice: This is nonsense, there’s no such policy, this is the first time I’m hearing about it.

Bob: Let’s ask HR. Here’s Carl from the HR office. Carl, do we have this policy to empty the fridge on Friday?

Carl: Well, technically we do, and…

Bob: (interrupts) see Alice, that’s what I’ve told you, so the milk should not have been there in the first place!

Carl: Technically he’s right, there is such policy…

Alice: (opens her mouth in shock)

Alice made only true statements: Bob took the milk, and she caught him red-handed. Bob made only true statements: there is a policy that says that all employees should take their food from the fridge on Friday before leaving work. And Carl also made only true statements: he confirmed that the policy was indeed in place.

But as a result Alice had to accept that her milk was taken without her permission. How did it happen?

The answer is simple.

Here’s the same point reduced to absurd. Imagine we have a conversation:

You: I think we need to address the issue of climate change more seriously. Global temperatures are rising due to human activity.

I: The approximate value of Pi is 3.14.

You: Severe weather events are putting a lot of communities at risk.

I: The speed of light does not exceed 300,000 km per second.

We are not having much of a conversation, are we? However, if we compare the pure truthfulness of the points we bring, I can argue that my points are even more reliable than yours. It’s clear that truthfulness alone does not make it a valuable contribution.

Particular case: whataboutism #

Alice: I’ve noticed that you’ve been missing a lot of deadlines recently. We need to work on improving your time management.

Bob: It’s interesting, because Carl missed three deadlines last month and no one said anything.

Particular case: appeal to emotion #

Alice: Our current project management system is inefficient and costly, we have to replace it.

Bob: Our team has worked on this system. They’ve put in countless late nights to get it up and running, you can’t just dismiss that!

This manipulation is extremely common. Dismiss irrelevant points early instead of being dragged into the rabbit hole where you are arguing about truthfulness of something that does not add value to the conversation. ■