I’m beginning to think that a lack of ability to label and understand argumentation techniques like those mentioned in the articles is a major failing of US English education.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was thinking the same thing to myself a few days ago.

And the same principles used in a different context is called "advertising".

A similar and larger set I've found compelling:

"20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You"

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversio...

The list from TFA borrows strongly from logical fallacies: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

The Greeks compiled an early list of bullshit arguments that must die: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html

Thanks, I liked the description of projection: that it only works if the victim projects their own sympathies onto the aggressor.

That is to say: when the victim starts to think “maybe that person is being honest and just wants the best outcome for both of us as that’s what I want” then the instigator has won.

This list is much more compelling, seeing that the article has devolved the comment section into shouting "fallacy!" to each other, while not recognising the irony is that they're also committing a fallacy (fallacy fallacy, or fallacy dropping as the lw list names) themselves.

Which list does "this" refer to?

On further examination, Thought Catalog (which I'm linking) doesn't seem to be the most robust of sources, having a dedicated astrology section:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/category/astrology/

Sorting signal from noise is frustratingly hard. Something of a trend across psychology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/replication-crisis

Ya. To me, these guides are just describing the human condition.

Struggling for an analogy here.

We're basically stuck at the bottom of a sand dune. Irrational at the bottom, more rational as you get higher. Gravity always. Ever more sand being added at the top.

Being "smarter" takes a lot of effort. Few of us have the training, experience, or excess energy to do so consistently or well.

Maybe sociopathy is just weaponized irrationality, somehow exploiting these universal weaknesses, knowingly or not.

I wonder what % of people are reading this to avoid the techniques, as opposed to assimilating them

nice slipping that trump quote in there.. considering the points made here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16624971 makes you wonder the credibility of the entire article.

6) Incredulity: Acting as though what someone said is unbelievable.

Narcissists often use this tactic when they don’t understand what another person is saying. Rather than admit they are confused, they pretend that what the other person is saying is beyond belief. This is an attempt to dismiss valid concerns.

And there's #3: black and white argument. Well done.

Sounds like #7 and #11 to me, which is a feat as it's only one sentence and posted from a brand new sockpuppet account.

Most of those "indicators" could also be genuine reasoning without ulterior motives, which is also no doubt why they can be effective. But it does mean it's not that simple to recognize, it requires the use of some discernment.

Nah. They are emotional levers to pull. They are not 'reasoning' at all. The sole motive in them is, to score points and sway listeners, and not by reason.

Let me approach from a different direction, then. I suppose you could try to come up with a critique of someone that could not possibly be construed as one of the elements on that list. But I think doing so would be very difficult.

For example, "I wish you wouldn't be so loud at night when everyone's trying to sleep."

Possibly 1 and 2. Playing on the emotion of guilt, and making it seem like everyone is against the noise making. But, it's a legitimate request, and, in reality, not poorly delivered.

And that's about as mundane and simple an example critique I could come up with off the top of my head. Most critiques are going to be much more nuanced than that. You may think that my interpretation is ridiculous, and no one would believe the requester was actually narcissistic, but in my experience many people will find any justification not to correct their own misbehavior, and if there's an easy way to rationalize someone else as a narcissist they'll do so.

Which is why I think this sort of thing simply requires discernment.

Well, at least that example has content. The 'tactics' list can largely be executed without any content at all. Just hollering and exaggeration and boasting. Like our current administration.

whats wrong with referencing the most well known narcissist when discussing narcissists?

14 ways to confirm your bias of being the victim in any situation.

That would meet number 11 on the list.

Indeed, it's a very comprehensive list, helping you identify narcissists wherever you need them.

who ?

I bet narcissists love that people write articles about how they can control your thoughts. It’s unavoidable though: we have to protect each other

/s

Great list!

These are exactly the tactics used by people online to silence anyone who questions lockdowns or masks. Nobody every responds directly but they use the tactics listed in this article.

A manual for the online left - I love it!!

From the article:

> They hate to be wrong, so putting the burden on others the prove them wrong is a stonewalling strategy that makes it time-consuming and tedious to disprove them

From you:

> used by people online to silence anyone who questions lockdowns or masks. Nobody ever(y) responds directly but they use the tactics listed in this article.

This is an irrational object (people online / nobody) you've created to make arguing with you time-consuming, at the least. If you were forced to debate using rational objects in your sentences, you'd get your ass handed to you.

They should have called it Thought-Control Tactics Assholes Use to Confuse!

You literally just made a word salad that condenses down to accusations of irrationality without pointing out why.

Are you sure you want to so blatantly expose yourself in a thread that focuses on bad faith arguments and fallacies?

Exhibit A