That would lead to a debate over the merits. Which is fine, but if the goal is to demonstrate that the person is in denial, it’s often better to ask what evidence would change their mind. If they admit that no evidence could change their mind, the goal has been essentially accomplished.
That’s a good point, assuming you can get that admission out of them. I wasn’t thinking of it from the view of just showing them they’re in denial - like, a “blinding flash of sense” kind of thing, yes? I see what you mean.
It is always a questionable tactic; it intrinsically rejects communication with the person so disparaged and instead seeks to communicate (presumably to others) about that person that said person is beyond the reach of reason. (Doing it jokingly is one thing, but to do it in all seriousness is a massively offensive gesture).
One of the tightest little self-referential loops you’ll find in political argumentation is whether or not some class of people who are already alleged to lack capacity are wrongly categorized as such:
Person Allegedly Lacking Capacity: I am (or we are) fully intelligent, rational, and aware, and should be making my/our own decisions!
Opponent in the Argument: The fact that you think so is proof (as if we needed it) that you are in no condition to make your own decisions, you’re obviously in denial about the reality of the state of your mind!
Cute.
Anyway, I think there is value in questioning our basic assumptions and beliefs from time to time. If somebody wants to make a serious argument that the Israelis were behind the 9/11 attacks, or that we never went to the moon, I would probably consider it. Situations can and do arise where the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Oh the irony.
From wikipedia, via answers.com: "Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. "
Ok. That theory was postulated by that master of quack-science, Sigmund Freud, and later used by his disciples to defend their brand of psychoanalysis. If anybody asked for or even presented evidence to the contrary, their views were dismissed because they were “In denial”, perhaps with regards to their Oedipal or subconscious/latent/unobservable drives.
It’s an ad hominum argument. Sure, many are fact-resistant and some become invested in a point of view for various reasons. But as a debating tactic, saying that somebody is in denial is not especially helpful, accuracy notwithstanding. I see from the link though that it may have some uses within for example 12-step programs.
…
Another way to look at being in denial is to look at how one collects information, uses it to form an explanation or what logical thinking leads to the most accurate explanation. I’ve been through this with my brother and the causes of ADHD/autism, and it is clear that one of us is in denial in regards to the reality surrounding the issue, causes and treatment. But which one of us is in denial? Obviously I could claim him, and obviously my comment is suspect, but only if I make it from an emotional point of view.
“In denial” made in the context of multiple facts collected from multiple, independent sources is a more supportable claim. Information collected based on emotional needs or conditions leads to explanations that may be at odds with objective, non- emotionally constructed explanations. Emotional relief or reinforcement found with an explanation reinforces that mode of thinking, and is more likely to create a perception that is at odds with explanations held by people with no emotional investment.
There aren’t too many people who aren’t exposed to other explanations for a given topic, and it is their emotional investment in their own explanations that can lead them to reject, or deny the explanations arrived at by objective inquiry. At some point in life denial due to wilfull ignorance, regardless of the root cause or current reason, is being “in denial.” Likewise, maintaining ignorance because of suspicion, distrust or defiance is also a condition of being in denial.
Objective knowledge itself is not bad or good, and what makes it bad or good to appeal to an emotional need is its use or presentation. Take away the emotional halo around information, take away the ability to be “in denial.”
Vlad/Igor
When you are dealing with someone who genuinely is in denial, NO argument is helpful. So you might as well stick with being accurate and truthful, instead of dancing around using euphemisms. Bluntness might work where reason fails, and even if it doesn’t they can’t honestly come up to you later when ( if ) reality beats down their delusion and claim you never warned them.
Der: Nice extension. A lot of this depends on the context of the argument: in casual settings, a little diagnosis or bluntness might work. (Then again, if the person really is in denial, there are no terrific strategies.) OTOH:
Agreed, but I don’t think it applies so well in this case.
I weigh expert opinion heavier than that of bloviators, which is reasonable though certainly ad hominem. But since degree of denial can’t be directly measured, this sort of psychoanalysis is inherently problematic.
Are flat earthers really in denial? Is the thought of there being a round earth all that scary? I suspect a different process is at work, one related to pride and aversion to complexity and its cousin uncertainty.
What about the person who refuses to entertain diagnoses based upon expert opinion of his subconscious? Is he in denial? Thirty years ago, the conventional wisdom was yes, though actually it would be our hypothetical patient who would speak of observables and evidence.
Bluntness is all fine and well, but I suspect that the “In denial” diagnosis is typically only roughly accurate and that sharper characterizations can be made.
Eh? How is that really any different?
The phrase, “In denial” is vague and has been used to defend bogus and unscientific frameworks. See the wiki links. Greater precision permits one to discuss the actual diagnostic accusation.
I have an analogous take on “Passive aggression”, by the way. It’s a phrase applied to a wide range of behaviors -some acceptable or at least justifiable, some not- that would be usefully distinguished from one another.
While admittedly it can be exhausting to have to re-argue the same damn rigorously established “kick it, it’s freakin’ real” chunks of reality every time someone else (Yet Again Someone Else, that is) comes along and says “but I don’t consider that to be so, back that up!”, there are real problems with going around with an attitude of “WE THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER have already had that discussion and IT WAS DETERMINED that you are wrong, it’s established, get over it, end of story. Believe otherwise and something wrong with your head, dude”.
One of the most spectacular examples is the progressive left in the 70s and 80s. An increasingly long list of Stuff We’ve Already Decided could get an independent thinker into trouble, branded as, you know, One Of Them, your inclination to consider the issue afresh quickly categorized as counter-revolutionary rabble rousing. (Not by any remote leap unique to that crowd, just somehow more outrageous there than among people who don’t go around saying “question authority” etc…)
I don’t care how many times some learned, educated, wise, thoughtful people have reached a conclusion, you ultimately gain nothing by refusing to communicate with a new individual whose only offense, so far, is failing to carry that conclusion around in their shirt pocket as an established fact.
Now if, upon engaging with such a person, you find a mulish lack of willingness to consider that you might be right, well that’s a different story.