Logical fallacies are invalid arguments attempting to undermine or discredit the opinions of others and tend to emerge from defensive and protective states.
Dr. Darin Davidson partners with Learner+, a CME/CE reflective learning platform for healthcare providers. For the opportunity to reflect on this article and earn CME/CE credits, Launch here. Check out all past articles which are also eligible for reflections and CME/CE credits.
For downloadable, actionable strategies and tactics to leverage biology in the pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance, visit the resource store, Launch here. Chapters are arranged by topic so those of interest can be selected and each are also eligible for reflections and CME/CE credits through Learner+.
The past articles in this series have discussed the important topics of the cognitive impact of protective and defensive states as well as the issue of conformity and taking on the opinions and beliefs of others. As these articles described, these issues are detrimental to improving or understanding of complex topics. This negatively impacts our pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance. These attributes typically emerge from defensive and protective states. This can be a subconscious attempt through our nervous system to maintain, defend, and protect the opinions, narratives, ideas, actions, and behaviors of ourselves and others. This is often associated with an attempt to develop a sense of belonging, albeit a false one, within a larger group.
This article will consider an important and related issue to those of the prior articles summarized above. Specifically, two common logical fallacies which are frequently utilized to attempt to discredit or critique the opinions and narratives which do not coincide with our own beliefs will be discussed. Similar to the issues of the cognitive impact of protective and defensive states and conformity, it is often the case that these logical fallacy arguments emerge from protective and defensive states.
The two common logical fallacies which will be further considered are ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. It is important to first define these invalid arguments. Ad hominem attacks refer to those situations in which we may disagree with the opinions and beliefs of another. Rather than addressing the specific points underlying the argument and overall conclusions, we resort to attacking their personal character or other personal traits, which are ultimately unrelated to the argument which they are proposing. Strawman arguments provide a veiled appearance of addressing the evidence and data underlying the arguments which others make. However, within this invalid argument structure it is the case that we either misrepresent the evidence or arguments of others or selectively choose the weakest rationale for those opinions and address only that aspect of the argument.
The common denominator between these two logical fallacies is that it prevents true and considered debate and discussion of opposing viewpoints and opinions of other individuals. Rather, these invalid arguments are an attempt, albeit often a subconscious one, to protect and defend our own opinions, rather than truly discuss the evidence and data underlying the opinions which other people may have.
As discussed in past articles, if we are to truly understand the topics and issues we are discussing and, more importantly, advance our level of knowledge and understanding, a full discussion and debate is essential. Through such consideration, we may ultimately update and change our opinions. Alternatively, we may not change our opinions, but rather through the process of a full and complete discussion develop a more detailed and stronger understanding of our own viewpoint. Either way it is to our benefit that we engage in full and complete debate rather than stifling such discussion through the utilization of logical fallacies.
As discussed above, the emergence of these logical fallacies typically occurs in an attempt to protect and defend our own opinions. Further, this is a direct manifestation, in most cases, of underlying protective and defensive biological states. As such, the utilization of these logical fallacies is often an indicator of the underlying biological state. The preferred method to manage such situations, as discussed throughout this article series, is to shift our biological state towards anchored and grounded states.
When we are discussing and debating ideas, opinions, and viewpoints from a place of anchored and grounded biological states, we are able to have a more constructive conversation. This is on account of the attribute of mental agility, which allows us to consider the ideas, opinions, viewpoints, and underlying data in a more complete and open fashion. As discussed in past articles, mental agility is an important attribute which emerges from anchored and grounded states.
It is often in the case across many domains and aspects of present day life that we can observe the utilization of these logical fallacies in response to opinions and viewpoints which are contradictory or discordant from those which one may have. For the reasons discussed above, this is detrimental to developing a more complete and thorough understanding of various viewpoints and advancing our overall state of knowledge.
While this occurs across all areas of life, when we specifically consider the Practices of the Healthcare Athlete, it is important to recognize that this scenario also emerges. In order to optimally develop the skills, strategies, and tactics to leverage biology in the pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance it is essential that we implement new and emerging data and viewpoints. As this ultimately rests on scientific advances, the ideas and concepts will continuously evolve. For this reason, it is important that we are open to new ideas so that we can implement them within our overall routines and practices such that we are able to continuously improve our pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance. If we are to become stuck in protective and defensive states, this will impact to a negative extent our ability to accomplish this thereby limiting our pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance.
For the reasons discussed above, it is highly beneficial to us and those around us to ensure that we minimize the degree to which protective and defensive states impact our cognitive function, limit the degree of conformity, and avoid the use of logical fallacies. Each of these issues can curtail our pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance. They each emerge from activated, attacking, anxious, overwhelmed, and shutdown states. As such the ultimate means through which to limit their emergence is through training the necessary skills such that we can strengthen our anchored and grounded states and improve our nervous system flexibility. This will allow for greater time spent in anchored and grounded states and an enhanced ability to shift back to such states when we experience the inevitable shifts towards protective and defensive states which will occur in life.
To learn more, including about polyvagal informed coaching for healthcare professionals and others in high demand domains, please visit www.darindavidson.com.
Dr. Darin Davidson partners with Learner+, a CME/CE reflective learning platform for healthcare providers. For the opportunity to reflect on this article and earn CME/CE credits, Launch here. Check out all past articles which are also eligible for reflections and CME/CE credits.
For downloadable, actionable strategies and tactics to leverage biology in the pursuit of health, wellbeing, and sustainable high performance, visit the resource store, Launch here. Chapters are arranged by topic so those of interest can be selected and each are also eligible for reflections and CME/CE credits through Learner+.