Addiction to Opinion Is Creating Idiots

Nowadays, one cannot make a single proclamation on social media without being attacked by opposing viewpoints. This is not a bad thing in itself, but amongst 100 conflicting responses — only a small handful will be accompanied by rational explanations. People today love to disagree for the sake of it, as if there are only two sides to an argument and nothing else in between. Is opinion addiction making us more stupid?

There was once a time where “I don’t know” was an acceptable answer in response to unfamiliar topics. It was a response which gave a person time to understand the issue at hand, and then give a reasoned opinion. Go on Twitter or Facebook today, and underneath every politician’s posts, you will see a horde of uninformed idiots on either side — taking the opportunity to engage in tribalism, rather than take the opportunity to form a logical assessment. Social media has triggered everybody’s worst instincts: speak now, think later.

That is not to say that the disease that affects the media masses is universal. There still exists a person who seeks to inform themself before opening their mouth. An individual who believes it is more important to exercise reason than to speak first and loudest. Unfortunately, you will never see this individual in the comments section on any form of media; the rewards go only to those who make the most noise. Today’s substitute for balanced debate is simply shouting over each other — with little regard for the facts. Choose a hill to die on, and defend it to the very end. All of this is made possible by the pocket-sized megaphone designed to broadcast our pompous ignorance.

There are three common logical fallacies committed on the internet:

1. Strawman Arguments

Since it is much easier to break down something made of straw: the best course of action for many social media users is to distort the original opinion and attack that instead.

Example:

Person A: While I do not support Donald Trump, I agree with some things he says.

Person B: Oh my god, you condone Trump’s racist actions?

Person A has not even mentioned anything about condoning racism, but to weaken their opinion, Person B has brought this matter into this argument. This logical fallacy is nothing more than a cheap shot at making your own position seem stronger by twisting someone else’s words.

2. False Dichotomy

An extremely common occurrence on almost every debated post; this line of reasoning limits the options to just two — when there are many more available. This fallacy is commonly displayed in this format:

It is either A or B, It is not A, so it must be B.

In reality, there may be many other options available: C, D,E, and so on. Just because it is not A does not mean it must be B. Socrates, one of the greatest ever philosophers, also fell into this trap by saying:

“Either something is hot, or cold.”

Obviously, this is not true — something can be room temperature or any shade of warmth in between.

However, with the rise of false dichotomy online, this course of action only creates separation. If you do not support Trump, you must support Biden — you have chosen your hill to die on and must fight for your standpoint regardless of logic. A false dilemma is most often used for polarisation purposes, presenting one side of an argument as 100% positive and the other side as totally absurd.

3. Ad Hominem Arguments

Ad Hominem, in Latin, means “against the man,” and it does exactly what it says on the tin. This style of argument is to simply discredit one’s opinion by attacking the individual personally.

“You did X bad thing in the past, therefore you cannot be right about Y.”

Users of this defence do not even attempt to look at the matter at hand. Instead, they will find it easier to attack the person behind the opinion — as they can find nothing wrong with the actual statement. Insults, jibes, jeers, and more: nothing is off the table when acting ad hominem. “Cancel culture” only fuels the fire behind this flawed and provocative response.

Just because one has been wrong about a similar matter in the past does not automatically mean they are wrong again. Coming to this conclusion brings us no closer to the truth — ad hominem arguments should be completely avoided.

The point is, today’s culture funnels arguments into right vs wrong, and nothing in between. When you enter an argument, people are less concerned with finding the truth than saving face and protecting their ego. Admitting you might be wrong about something is a punishment worse than any other — better to blindly defend your opinion than open your mind to the facts. Social media is now built on the back of an axis of idiots.

In amongst all this hysteria, there are a precious few who would rather look for the truth than engage in superfluous debate. People that prefer to enlighten themselves on a topic for the sake of knowledge, not for the sake of argument. Every person has been guilty of committing a logical fallacy in the past — but the gratification of “winning” an argument feels empty when it is built on false equivalence. The world needs everyone to start thinking before speaking, or risk remaining eternally stupid.