Ad Hominem is Latin meaning ‘to the person’. It is a fallacy that switches attention from an argument (proposition) to make it about the person. Sometimes it can be concerning the person’s motives, for example, saying that someone only believes an idea because they will profit from it.
Examples of Ad Hominem:
Attacking someone’s character: “You can’t trust her opinion on climate change; she’s a known liar.”
Questioning someone’s motives: “He only supports that policy because he’ll profit from it.”
Appealing to prejudice: “Don’t listen to him, he’s just a liberal.”
Why is it a fallacy?
Ad hominem arguments are fallacious because they distract from the actual issue at hand. Attacking someone personally doesn’t prove or disprove their argument. A strong argument should stand on its own merits, regardless of the person making it.
There are a lot of ways that this fallacy can weave itself into the Forever Alone mindset. It has, I realised, an internal and an external form. So in the above examples, someone is discounting an argument because of a personal attack, making it about THEM. ‘He’s just a liberal’.
Yet we do it on an inner-level also, in our thinking, and then it becomes the cognitive distortion called ‘personalization’, i.e. making it about you. For example, ‘No partner would ever want me because I’m just a loser, I’m just a skinny runt’ — or whatever.
Of course, if you’re trying to think logically, then you can’t personalize (make it about you) or Ad Hominem (make it about others), you need to think critically, make your argument and look for evidence. What exactly are you saying (thinking)? For example:
“Women only want rich men for their partners”.
Good, now it’s not about you, and is phrased as a proposition.
So there would be a lot of evidence for this, such as the fact that traditionally many males earn more than their partners, is there any contrary evidence? If you identify that this thought, that you can never find a partner or happiness because of this, as taking up a lot of your time and consciousness, then you should really examine it.
If you found a huge lump in your body, you wouldn’t guess what it is and hope it’s not something bad. You would go to a doctor. In turn, they also wouldn’t guess what it is and hope it doesn’t turn bad. They would look at it, examine it, get evidence, do scans and biopsies until they are sure, and then deal with the facts.
There are two ways to deal with these fallacies. The first is calling it. If someone ever replied to something you say with, “Well of course you think this, you are a _____ ” (or “you only want _____ “), then call it. “It doesn’t matter I am a _______ ” (or “I might want _____ “), “it makes no difference to the argument I am making, which is ________ “.
Now you might have to call the fallacy a few times to get the conversation back on track to the actual point of arguments, which is to find the truth.
But really, who cares about being a smart ass? The real benefit is to be had within, by calling the fallacies in your own internal arguments, “It doesn’t matter I make less that the national wage, women don’t always pick partners with more than them, like this example, ____________ and this example __________ “, and them make hard conclusions:
It’s never about me.
It’s never about you.
Just the facts, buddy.
You are not what you feel.
The other thing you have to do is set boundaries. That means staying away from the irrational ones and not engaging with them in the world. In your mind, it means discipline. It means developing concentration and “meditative strength” to control thought and imagination (mental pictures and the inner voice) to no longer tolerate anything that you have determined to be untrue.
Insanity is a choice. Stop making it.
One other thing to notice about this distortion (personalization) is that it can be confused with “emotional reasoning “, i.e. that because you feel a certain way, then it must actually be that way. For example, “Women only want rich partners “, then there is also an emotional feeling of being poor, having missed the mark… in the context of your feeling.
If you actually go out looking for evidence, then there are many people, men, third gender and women, that make a choice of intentional living and minimalism, and in these communities, less is more and greed is frowned on, like in some devout Buddhist communities, or hippie circles or just dotted around life, there are people who don’t care about material wealth. I’m not making up a hypothetical situation, you can go out looking and find these people. And of course, they are not all spayed celibates, they are sexual human beings who couple and date and if you keep looking you’ll find a few who are disabled or fat or ugly — and then it’s a question of focus. When you switch the constant direction of your attention to all the subjective bullshit inner-trash-talk your mind is doing and recall the hard, contradictory evidence that you uncovered each time this bs ever comes up, then you can begin to chip away at the power of this negative-self-talk-argument that has been trapping you in your own insanity.
Some example dialogues of Ad Hominem
Man’s Argument (Focusing on custody rights)
“I believe that fathers should have equal rights in custody battles. Often, mothers are automatically granted primary custody, regardless of the father’s capabilities. This is unfair and harmful to children who need both parents in their lives.”
“Statistics show that fathers are more likely to be denied visitation rights than mothers. This is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed.”
“I’m not saying all mothers are bad parents. But the current system is biased and needs reform to ensure the best interests of the child.”
Ad Hominem Response
“You just want more time with your kids to avoid child support.”
“All you care about is yourself. You’re just bitter because you didn’t get your way in the divorce.”
“Men who complain about custody battles are just trying to avoid their responsibilities as fathers.”
Instead of addressing the actual points raised about custody rights, the woman attacks the man’s character and motives. She assumes his intentions without providing evidence, shifting the focus away from the issue at hand.
Ad Hominem in a Workplace Setting
(regarding workplace equality):
“I believe that there is an issue with the gender pay gap in our company. The data shows a consistent disparity between male and female employees in similar roles.”
“I’ve noticed that women are often overlooked for promotions in favor of male colleagues, even when their qualifications are equal or superior.”
“I think we need to implement a more transparent system for performance evaluations to address potential biases.”
Ad Hominem Response:
“You’re just jealous because you don’t get promoted as often as you’d like.”
“You’re trying to stir up trouble and create division among employees.”
“Men know their place; this is just a ploy to get attention.”
Instead of addressing the points raised about the gender pay gap and promotion disparities, the woman resorts to personal attacks. She questions the man’s motives and dismisses his concerns without providing evidence or counterarguments. These are clear examples of ad hominem attacks.
Dealing with Repeated Ad Hominem Attacks
1. Ignore the attack:
This might be the most effective strategy, especially if the other person is determined to derail the conversation.
By ignoring the personal attacks, you demonstrate that you are focused on the substance of the argument.
2. Call Out the Fallacy:
If you feel it’s necessary, calmly point out that the person is using an ad hominem attack.
Explain that attacking you personally doesn’t address the argument.
For example, “It seems we’re getting off track. I’m not interested in personal attacks; let’s focus on the issue at hand.”
3. Set boundaries:
Clearly communicate that you won’t tolerate personal attacks.
This can be done directly or indirectly.
For instance, “I’m open to discussing this topic, but I won’t engage in personal attacks. Please stick to the facts.”
4. Change the subject:
If the ad hominem attacks persist, it might be best to change the subject or end the conversation altogether.
This prevents the conversation from becoming unproductive and emotionally draining.