Mindreading as a fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I've seen this bad argument a number of times, but can't find a fallacy listed anywhere that really fits it. That is, claiming to know (with weak or no evidence) the thoughts/feelings/motivations of another person, and using them to support or show the truth of an argument. Some examples I've seen:
"You know a fetus is a baby, you're just pro-choice because you want to avoid responsibility." / "You know a fetus isn't a baby, you're just pro-life because you want to control women."
The assertion being that one's own side about the abortion debate is correct because the other side secretly agrees with them.
A: "Religion is a mental illness"
B: "Here is the definition of mental illness as written in the DSM5, it specifically excludes religion."
A: "The people who wrote the DSM5 wanted to include religion but couldn't."
Comments on Question
Answers
2Have a look at amazing familiarity .
As for the DSM argument. That is an interesting one. Several serious mental disorders specifically exclude religious beliefs, where as other similar beliefs not typically found under a religion do count. Studying the DSM and mental disorders through my post graduate program, there was discussion about these decisions. Why religion is excluded is because one of the criteria for disorders is if the behavior is maladaptive to self/others (i.e., bad for others, hurts others). Religion is (or was) so ubiquitous that the behavior (e.g., having visions of Jesus or two-way conversations with "spirits") was said to be either benign or beneficial. For the opposite reason, homosexuality was see as a disorder 50+ years ago. It wasn't until this behavior starting to become more acceptable that it was removed as a disorder.
"The people who wrote the DSM5 wanted to include religion but couldn't." - I doubt this was the case. Even to this day, the majority (or close to it) of the mental health professionals are religious so I would assume that 50+ years ago there were even more religion among mental health professionals.
This is unfortunately quite common and very annoying. People make assumptions about the thought process of another, which they then use to dismiss the argument that other person made. You see this a lot with social justice discourse, where one person will accuse another of "dog-whistling", typically by inferring some subtext from a general comment.
Amazing familiarity sounds accurate to me. It may also be an ad hominem (circumstantial) or bulverism.
Also, this article would make for a good read.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I think this is more of a cognitive bias/distortion than a fallacy.
Mind reading is one of the reasons why communication often goes very wrong, even and sometimes especially between people who know each other.
People think they can read other people without concretely asking them what is the matter. And a lot of research in communication has shown that people are very bad at mind reading. But most people think they can, one of the examples of this is the fundamental attribution error, other people are motivated by internal errors, but you yourself are forced by the environment and or the odds being against them.
There are two great books about this.
- No One Understands You and What to Do About It - by Heidi Grant Halvorson Ph.D
- Mindwise Why We Misunderstand what Other Think, Believe, Feel, and Want - By Nicholas Epley