motte-and-bailey fallacy

[Bevo 13601]

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. While this is considered a form of debate, it seems to me that it may be more than that and is a way that people think.

People think that any person that they disagree with is nuttier than they really are. While their debater may have a reasonable position, the person arguing with the debater thinks the debater's position is extreme.

Maybe there is a separate medical psychology term but I'm not aware of it. In politics it is pretty much a given that people think the opposing party members are nuts, but it is common in most subjects. A person who raises Pit bulls is thought of as a gang banger while he may just like raising Pit bulls. A person who likes guns is thought of as a violent instigator and not just an enthusiast.

It seems to me that it a much more extreme person is easier to disagree with than a more moderate position. So, people naturally ascribe extreme positions to people simply because it makes it easier to argue with them. It may also make the person feel better about themselves when they engage in the argument.

Anyway is this a common, well-described and well-understood phenomena or an unexplored area of human psychology? I'm just curious because I had never thought about it before and it seems like a good topic for Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Socieologists to consider.

And while I described why people ascribe more extreme positions to their debater, I also feel that debaters themselves frequently have both modest and extreme positions and present both thoughts unknowingly through their subconscious. So, in this case people actually have more extreme positions than they let on. And in this case, people are actually more extreme than they let on. For example, a person might have extreme positions on overpopulation but when arguing they try to limit the discussion to water shortages but invariably the person adds in extreme comments like "we need a plague". Thoughts?

 

 

[Helobious 9467]

No. You’re wrong.

[RDCanecutter 26476]

The motte is just a log stockade while the bailey is a tower inside. All set up to keep Saxons in line. Wouldn't the motte fall first? It's the outer ring.

[Pato del Muerto 52616]

13 minutes ago, Helobious said:

No. You’re wrong.

Well shit i guess OP is correct. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

37 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

The motte is just a log stockade while the bailey is a tower inside. All set up to keep Saxons in line. Wouldn't the motte fall first? It's the outer ring.

Thanks for the description. I thought the OP was referring to a Malt and Bailey which is when you mix Guinness and Bailey's Irish Cream (in a cold glass so the Bailey's doesn't curdle) cause if you drink a bunch of those everyone's crazy but no one cares because you're all besties until you puke.

[Schulz2.0 29012]

Some of you guys never played Medieval: Total War and it shows.

[Samson's Wig 3194]

I don't think there is a shortage of discussion on this particular rhetorical technique, and yes I think it permeates much of public discourse these days.

I'm not sure that assuming someone else is more extreme than they actually are falls into the same category, though.  The motte and baily fallacy is a purposefully employed device, whereas an assumption of another person's motives or beliefs is instinctual.  I think that ultimately it just comes down to plain old tribalism.  "What you're talking about sounds vaguely like something one of them would say, so you must be a member of that other team!  Now die!"  This quirk of human nature is exploited well by political factions.

[South Austin 52629]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

It seems to me that it a much more extreme person is easier to disagree with than a more moderate position.

[BrickHorn 18290]

Those who commit the motte-and-bailey fallacy are guilty of both poor reasoning and crimes against humanity.

[Gatorubet 30321]

This comes across as an attempt to validate both sides issues, and to present unsupported nutter arguments as being victims of Bailey discrimination.  

Quote

“People think that any person that they disagree with is nuttier than they really are.”

That may be true in general or in past years, but now we often find that the person we disagree with is way more nuttier than they appear to be - and they appear to be nutty. 

[CoTex 1162]

This strikes me as some kinda philosophical trojan horse bullshit.  You're gonna sound all smart and get us all nodding our heads thinking, "yeah, this guy knows what he's talking about."  Then, you'll try to turn it. 

I mean, surely you wouldn't open a thread about how we're all more reasonable than we actually seem, without some hidden plan.

I give it 12 hours before you roll out that the earth is flat and aliens are among us.

 

Edited April 9 by CoTex

[Foosters 17889]

Ah, a fellow football board enthusiast

[jimmyjazz 46225]

3 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Some of you guys never played Medieval: Total War and it shows.

One of the few things I'm actually proud of when I look back at my pathetic life.

[F250 28826]

4 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Some of you guys never played Medieval: Total War and it shows.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

10 hours ago, Bevo said:

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. While this is considered a form of debate, it seems to me that it may be more than that and is a way that people think.

People think that any person that they disagree with is nuttier than they really are. While their debater may have a reasonable position, the person arguing with the debater thinks the debater's position is extreme.

Maybe there is a separate medical psychology term but I'm not aware of it. In politics it is pretty much a given that people think the opposing party members are nuts, but it is common in most subjects. A person who raises Pit bulls is thought of as a gang banger while he may just like raising Pit bulls. A person who likes guns is thought of as a violent instigator and not just an enthusiast.

It seems to me that it a much more extreme person is easier to disagree with than a more moderate position. So, people naturally ascribe extreme positions to people simply because it makes it easier to argue with them. It may also make the person feel better about themselves when they engage in the argument.

Anyway is this a common, well-described and well-understood phenomena or an unexplored area of human psychology? I'm just curious because I had never thought about it before and it seems like a good topic for Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Socieologists to consider.

And while I described why people ascribe more extreme positions to their debater, I also feel that debaters themselves frequently have both modest and extreme positions and present both thoughts unknowingly through their subconscious. So, in this case people actually have more extreme positions than they let on. And in this case, people are actually more extreme than they let on. For example, a person might have extreme positions on overpopulation but when arguing they try to limit the discussion to water shortages but invariably the person adds in extreme comments like "we need a plague". Thoughts?

 

 

 

Is this post some sort of meta motte and bailey thing where you are actually extreme, but your post seems reasonable?

 

[Bevo 13601]

8 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

I don't think there is a shortage of discussion on this particular rhetorical technique, and yes I think it permeates much of public discourse these days.

I'm not sure that assuming someone else is more extreme than they actually are falls into the same category, though.  The motte and baily fallacy is a purposefully employed device, whereas an assumption of another person's motives or beliefs is instinctual.  I think that ultimately it just comes down to plain old tribalism.  "What you're talking about sounds vaguely like something one of them would say, so you must be a member of that other team!  Now die!"  This quirk of human nature is exploited well by political factions.

Yeah, motte-and-bailey is a purposefully employed device and what I am talking about is a subconscious process that creates boogeymen who are easier to disagree with. Maybe in a bygone era people would say reasonable people disagree, but the general method of argument these days is to assume the other person is a nutter. Few people engage the process. Few would ever say, "I see your point". And at least online, people don't even attempt to persuade others to their side.

[miguelito 11313]

 

[ClubWhatever 12158]

Why do you deny the power of my toroidal vortices?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13588]

Y'all gonna be worshipping Flying Spaghetti Monster by page 6. 

[Jerry Callo 8734]

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. While this is considered a form of debate, it seems to me that it may be more than that and is a way that people think.
People think that any person that they disagree with is nuttier than they really are. While their debater may have a reasonable position, the person arguing with the debater thinks the debater's position is extreme.
Maybe there is a separate medical psychology term but I'm not aware of it. In politics it is pretty much a given that people think the opposing party members are nuts, but it is common in most subjects. A person who raises Pit bulls is thought of as a gang banger while he may just like raising Pit bulls. A person who likes guns is thought of as a violent instigator and not just an enthusiast.
It seems to me that it a much more extreme person is easier to disagree with than a more moderate position. So, people naturally ascribe extreme positions to people simply because it makes it easier to argue with them. It may also make the person feel better about themselves when they engage in the argument.
Anyway is this a common, well-described and well-understood phenomena or an unexplored area of human psychology? I'm just curious because I had never thought about it before and it seems like a good topic for Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Socieologists to consider.
And while I described why people ascribe more extreme positions to their debater, I also feel that debaters themselves frequently have both modest and extreme positions and present both thoughts unknowingly through their subconscious. So, in this case people actually have more extreme positions than they let on. And in this case, people are actually more extreme than they let on. For example, a person might have extreme positions on overpopulation but when arguing they try to limit the discussion to water shortages but invariably the person adds in extreme comments like "we need a plague". Thoughts?
 
 

There is a similar and potentially related subconscious process that was discussed in one of my psychology classes.  It has to do with how a person attributes another persons actions as compared to their own.  For example:  the person in front of you doesn't hold the door for you - you attribute it to a personality flaw (inconsiderate, etc.); whereas, if you don't hold the door for the next person - it is something situational (hands are full, etc.).  It's called Fundamental Attribution Error.

[RDCanecutter 26476]

As a simple Medieval Knight, I'm gonna need some concrete examples to understand any of this.