Question

...
mchasewalker

Tu Quoque

I know that calling someone out for their hypocrisy is a poor argument for someone's claim. What does someone do when they are dealing with narcissistic abuse, especially since Narcissists are described by psychologists as the biggest hypocrites? Are what the psychologist doing in calling out hypocrisy different that the Tu Quoque fallacy? 

asked on Wednesday, Dec 02, 2020 09:23:49 PM by mchasewalker

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Do you have a specific example? Granted, I am a social psychologist not a clinical one, but I have never heard of a universal claim that narcissists being described as "the biggest hypocrites." I haven't seen any data that narcissism is scientifically correlated with hypocrisy, so I would check that assumption. The goal of the psychologist is not to win an argument - or even present the most logical one; it is to help the client/patient. Calling out hypocrisy is not problematic in itself; it is problematic, as you noted, when it is used as an argument against someone's claim. Again, an example might help here.

posted on Thursday, Dec 03, 2020 07:54:47 AM
...
0
mchasewalker writes:

I have to admit that Tu Quoque arguments are among my favorite pet peeves of all the other ad hominem fallacies. Mainly because I strongly suspect they are rooted in deeper psychological reactions (projection and deflection) and cognitive biases (agency detection). When confronted with an impulsive tu quoque response I immediately suspect the opponent is immature and naive rather than narcissistic or deceitful. They are stuck in a "us v them" binary memoriter rather than a disciplined method of logical ratiocination. 

I call it the Pee Wee Herman argument, " I know you are, but what am I?"

 

posted on Thursday, Dec 03, 2020 12:50:30 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers