Personal/ad hominem attacks: Why do people do them?

Good policy. However, this is a normal social psychological phenomenon. Attacking the speaker seems to occur when a stakeholder in the discussion, experiences intolerable levels of psychological discomfort about the topic. The content-oriented contributions of said stakeholder often cease until they have finished manipulating what the speaker means in their own minds (i.e., their perception), which is manifest in ad hominem attacks. In sum, ad hominem attacks could indicate that the stakeholder is frustrated with their inability to discuss the topic at hand and, therefore, tries to alter the meaning of the speaker (for themselves and others); the appearance of the ad hominem attack means that the attacker can't think of anything else constructive to say and chooses to speak instead of remaining silent...

 

Dave Wagner posted a message to another thread, but after talking with Dave, I felt it might be better to split that message off into its own thread.

I think it might be interesting to take Dave's post and perhaps discuss and think about it some. It's posted below.

 

Thanks, Chip, for moving this over here...

It would also be interesting to discuss anonymity as factor in the pathology of the online ad hominem attacks. My view is that the behavior is most often seen with individuals who have masked their identity.

 

In my observation of (and experience receiving) ad hominem attacks, I have found that it occurs frequently when someone is losing an argument. So often, when a personal attack is launched (such as accusing another of being of low intelligence, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, etc. or simply hurling profanity), I have noticed that it is a matter of the attacker not being able to come up with a clear or rational argument.

Ad hominem attacks are generally attempts to shut down--rather than promote--dialogue. Calling someone a name that they now must defend (e.g. "I am NOT a racist, and this is why...") is an effective way for someone losing an argument to put the winner on the defensive and avoid having to come up with logical support for the original argument.

Certainly, anonymity emboldens people and it is clear from this forum (and from online blogs, YouTube, etc. that people will likely act more rude and less civilized if they think that they are anonymous). I and others on Degreeinfo have chosen not to hide behind pseudonyms, because I am not afraid of engaging in discussion and do not see to need to attack people. It was fun to be able to meet Steve Foerster face-to-face at a conference a few years back--this never would have happened if either he or I had used a pseudonym.

 

I agree that anonymity adds much fuel to the fire. I realize some people get irritated with the things I post, but I can't count the number of times I've censored myself knowing that it was being posted under my real name.

The losing argument thing I agree with, but not as much. I think some people are just mean, and they bring it out whenever it suits them. Sometimes during a lost argument, sometimes just because that's who and what they are.

Finally, sometimes it happens in response to someone else's ad hominem. I hate it when a moderator or an observer asks all parties to knock it off when you've got one who is the clear instigator. Shut that person down and you stop the activity. Look through the thread and see who instigates these things. They're always the same people.

 

We do our best to do that, but sometimes even if someone isn't *instigating* the ad hominem attacks, they may simply being obstinate or abrasive. I don't think it's intentional, but I have definitely seen it happen. So sometimes I will email multiple parties who are involved and say "Look, just stop it, all of you" and that way no one person feels they are being singled out even if/when, sometimes, they deserve it.

 

Well, over the years, I have seen you, John Bear, George Gollin and Alan Contreras weather a huge storm of ad hominem attacks. You are all still standing and going strong, while they are...well...

 

With all sincere humility, I've neither accomplished what those three have, nor withstood anywhere near the attacks and invasions of privacy those three have sustained. Thanks for the compliment, but i'm strictly bush-league compared to them. Oh, and put Levicoff with them as well. Seriously.

 

Dave,

Not wanting to start a new discussion storm, but I wasn’t aware anonymity (e.g., masking identity (?)) and pathology are essentially synonymous with ad hominem attack. As far as the most recent discussion thread you’re likely referring, I’m pleased, as I’m sure are others, in that the discussion’s [drift] needed altering by administration (Chip) – and notably was. In my view, individual character questions rarely need to be discussed directly; over time (i.e. this discussion board) flaw and/or motivation will, in general, eventually be exposed via the individual’s own postings. Nevertheless in that the majority of participants (including website-administrators) on DegreeInfo are essentially anonymous doesn’t necessarily equate to anymore than those individuals’ desire that their authorship remain nameless via the world-wide web. I do however recognize your observation regarding the ad hominem /anonymity “factors” and potential correlation in what could be construed as deliberate effort, or at minimum, putting forward a baseless character issue/s inference.

 

Ad hominem attacks are not solely in the domain of anonymous posters as can be readily perceived and corroborated by a review of a number of threads on this and another frequented distance learning forum. A review of such heated interactions will reveal a fairly equal proportion of such behavior on the part of identified forum members as well as those who are anonymous. In fact some posters who are well known and/or hold advanced credentials are under the impression that they are entitled to roil and act-out against other posters (ie, using vulgarity, disparaging comments, etc) making ad hominem attacks appear mild in comparison, without any concern regarding consequences.

In addition it is relevant to note that there are occasions when a poster, identified or anonymous, is losing an argument due to facts that are presented to them, which they perceive as undermining the basis of their arguments and their esteem, resulting in their resorting to "crying wolf" and alleging that the other poster is engaging in ad hominem attacks when such is not the case. Unfortunately due to the "power" of certain posters on these forums other members are either apprehensive of confronting such antics or are sycophantic and will say nothing in order to gain favor with such individuals.

So the issue of ad hominem attacks cannot be simplified and generalized as a pathology associated with anonymous posters but a more complex phenomenon that encompasses those posters who are identified as well as those who are not. In addition it is sometimes employed as a defense, a ploy, to silence those who are hitting home with relevant issues that makes the recipient of these fact feel very anxious that their positions are not valid as they hold them out to be.

 

A rather astute piece of self reflection. A question, however. You refer to "power" that some posters have. What is that, exactly? What influence could someone gain in this forum through their sycophantic behavior? How does that benefit someone? And what is this power?

Personally, I have absolutely no interaction with anyone posting on this board outside of this board. I've met two regular posters to such boards: John B. and Steve F. That's it. And I hardly think I exercise even one iota over either person (or anyone else, for that matter). But since you wrote that in response to my post, I am curious. What power do you speak of and how, exactly, is it wielded?

 

Noted Simon … I intended to include there are also some identified posters who engage in personal attacks from time-to-time; but everyone is fallible. Awhile back, I personally had one non-anonymous poster who cried foul to administrators; however, this particular poster had, IMO, dug his own hole based on his posted words /reasoning, including profanity (still not sure why swearing is permitted), which had adversely affected his own integrity level (e.g., the self-inflicted wound).

We should remember that behaviors /disposition are pretty-much entrenched by a certain age and are exceedingly difficult to change. As I previously mentioned, given time and the freedom of the keyboard … one’s character, motive, and/or veracity are in due course exposed – I trust that other readers can/will make their own assessment/s. Moreover, I have periodically witnessed what seemingly emerge as back-and-forth superfluous flattery by some posters. In those occurrences … what’s the underlying motive frequently comes to mind.

 

In reflecting on this, I'm sure that I've been occasionally guilty of an ad hominem attack on somebody, but usually it's people like mill operators who use circular logic, blatant lies, or other deceit and misdirection to make their case, and then go into a shuck-and-jive routine when called on it.

What about situations where the integrity of the poster (or lack thereof) is central to the argument the poster is making, and, therefore, a focus on the poster's integrity becomes at least somewhat relevant to the discussion? Would that fall under ad hominem, and in terms of argumentation, is raising such issues appropriate?

 

Often these things are the result of assessments rather than assertions. Assessments are judgments drawn (hopefully) from the facts (assertions) presented. Sometimes we see some without anything (or anything else) to assert, so he/she begins to rely on assessments. When these assessments are negative, they often sound personal. (Like, "that's a dumb idea....") Sometimes, the assessments are directly person. (Like, "you're dumb....") Either way, going from assertions to assessments can be very harmful to a discussion, and they normally doesn't advance it any.

 

I agree with the earlier posts.

Personal flames typically occur when somebody is losing an argument. People are inherently proud and they aren't willing to humiliate themselves and they don't want to run away. So there aren't many options left and they lash out inappropriately. When opponents in an argument start insulting me, I usually interpret it as a white flag and back off, letting them have the last word.

One lesson from this is that it's usually more persuasive rhetorically to argue in such a way as to try to make your opponent want to agree with you, showing them how your position furthers their own values and ends, and leave them an honorable way out that preserves their self-respect. Better said than done though, since I'm not very good at it.

Of course, many instances of personal attacks come from trolls who are just trying to cause emotional consternation for their own pleasure. There's a kind of person for whom internet discussion is a video-game and who thinks that they score points if they can make others show emotion and lose their cool. It reassures them that they are on top.

And as we know on the DL boards, there's another kind of aggressor who harbors deep, lasting (and sometimes pathological) resentments for past slights, real or imagined. Some people suffer from serious self-esteem issues and unfortunately will sometimes purchase a grandiose degree-mill doctorate. Then they parade their new potemkin persona on the boards and sometimes get laughed at and humiliated. And that wounds them right in their most vulnerable spot, in their raw bleeding neurosis. They don't accept that the problem was with their beloved doctorate or (heaven forbid) with them, the problem must be with the evil tormenters on the boards. So whenever they feel inadaquate (they always do) they are reminded of those imagined tormenters whose fault it must all be and they can become obsessive and perhaps even dangerous as they dream of revenge.

An argumentum ad hominem is usually classed with the 'informal logical fallacies'. These aren't really logical fallacies so much as they are just bad rhetoric. In this case, it's both a defect of relevance and an instance of emotional baiting. The problem is that even a jerk can be correct. So while saying that your opponent is an jerk might be effective fighting words, they don't address his substantive points or show how they are wrong.

But it isn't always irrelevant or emotionally manipulative to talk about your opponent personally. There are situations when it's justified. An opponent might inject himself into the argument, claiming personal authority and then expecting readers to believe what he says just because he's the one who said it. He might base his authority on high positions that he doesn't really hold, personal experience that he doesn't really have, or advanced education that turns out to be a mirage. It's not irrelevant to question those kind of personal things after he's put them into play. It needs to be done with care though.

 

Indeed. Which is why someone who posts anonymously should not expect his/her opinion (assessment/judgment) to be taken at face value, since there is no authority to back it up. If said person draws a conclusion from other, observable facts, and others wish to agree with him/her, fine. But claiming unverifiable expertise or, just as bad, experiences no one else can verify or have cause to reasonably believe actually occurred is just a losing game. ("I talked to officials at...." leaving both the poster and to whom he spoke unidentified. That sort of thing.)

 

However, the same holds true, for example, when any identified poster holds authoritative and absolute positions regarding certain subject areas, for example, the utilization and acceptability of a DETC Psy.D, when they do not possess any professional training, licensing, certification or professional experience in any mental health discipline yet are making assertions of fact beyond their scope of expertise.

 

Ah, but when someone is known, everyone is free to draw their assessment of the person's qualifications to comment. When one of those assessments comes from an unknown person, however, it is simple to dismiss.

 

Happy Valentines Day! I'm sick with the flu, just got up from a nap and waiting for my loved one to get back from shopping, what in blazes are you guys doing online? Ok, I hear the garage door opening, much love people even though we do argue sometimes. Adios!

 

Primarily, this forum, as well as the other distance learning forum, does not require posters to identify themselves in order to participate on equal footing with members who do identify themselves. Most significantly there is absolutely no indication by the administrators of these forums that by remaining anonymous in anyway negates the level of credibility or veracity of anonymous posters' statements, perspectives or feedback. Secondly, let us be careful not to disparage the intelligence and perspicacity of posters who are reviewing these threads and who can think for themselves. Do we actually believe that they will discard an anonymous poster's statements and feedback based on their not revealing their identity if they assess their feedback as being substantive and credible? Obviously not. However, they will question the veracity, intent and credibility of an identified poster who makes absolute statements of fact when they do not possess the experiential or professional background to engage in such discussions and who uses the anonymity of the opposing poster as a primary defense and basis to prove that they are correct.