Shared publicly  - 
(Mon11) How people try to manipulate you. See the whole list at:
James O'Sullivan's profile photoJohn Lilly's profile photoMichelle Gallagher's profile photoAngga Kramadibrata's profile photo
People are too caught up in survival to do sufficient research on all the things reported but we know things must be out of balance, since greed is in human nature and luck puts certain people in higher places than others, therefore to not react on anything is out of the question, unfortunately, acting can sometimes be working against those who act out because their reaction was planned via. manipulation.
+Guy Kawasaki errrrrr..... uhm..... Everyone... LOLs... To be honest - Everyone has an agenda at some point...

But - it's the manipulations that make things in this world work - and those that manipulate now - are manipulated later... It's kind of a full cycle thing...

Hopefully most choose to practice manipulation carefully - without "evil" intent... Yanno?
Great collection. I predict my secondary school students are not going to hear the end of this. Tee hee.
These are various types of argument (and they can be done validly). I think of manipulation in terms of psychological / emotional techniques to control people and groups.

If I play the martyr to attempt to get you to buy a car for me ("You hate me!"), that's manipulation. If I instead tell you that all of my friends have a new car from you so you should buy one for me too, that's an argument.
Ah, logical fallacies. That brings me back to Philosophy 110...
chẳng hỉu chi
should we really believe this though. U are trying to say that this source is trustworthy, and how can we trust this
Just like medical practice! a true physician first:s examines it"s patient,and determines ,prognosis- the guess,and diagnosis,the finding!
There's been lots of research on such tactics, most succinctly captured in Robert Cialdini's seminal work, Influence. The six influence tactics he outlines are Reciprocity, Commitment & Consistency, Liking, Social Proof, Scarcity and Authority. #4 and #6 are clearly at work here!
Red Roo
Politics 101....suggest using this for 'bingo night' at the next election speech.
This is how we evolve. sometimes though it goes societies and Individuals clinging to past rituals and practices.
"A recent study has shown that brown posters are less likely to contain value-added information that benefits the consumer."
Key caveat.....logical fallacies are just heuristics.

Business, science, and government based decisions on reasoning from examples to the whole all the time. Its just something to be very aware of.....not to reject out of hand. You couldn't make historical arguments if this were not the case. Case studies would be almost wholly meaningless.
Truth is, people can't accept the truth. Truth hurts, it burns. People have made themselves numb to the feeling and and will ignore it until it's slapping them in the face, teeth bore and ready to eat. But of course by then, no amount of screaming will help. Your already lunch and your friends, they still refuse to admit the beast exists.

Happy hunting you stupid sheep.
It was slightly interesting but it is obvious that the author holds many liberal ideas! I also don't agree with them mocking certain people or attacking religious groups or common debate methods. So how many fallacies can you spot inside the examples ???
+Chuck Adams Instead of attacking the person with an ad hominem, why dont you provide reasoning and thinking skills and show how this is incorrect. You make yourself out to be an ignorant fool when you attack a person and not the argument.
The "Appeals to Nature" example is problematic as humans and dogs, which are animals, both engage in same-sex copulation. I would that my comment is an example of an appeal to nature.
+Tyler Carroll I know most of the fallacies, since I studied them for when I get into a debate with someone, and they go a long way to helping me not use them.
I like how those three examples are perfect examples of the main post.

I luvs ironies...
Plz check out clips for the new reality TV show...coming soon...
+Michael Vanderpool I was talking about the author of the diagram and +John Smith That was one where I saw fallacy in if anything the example should have been reverse saying "because dolphins and many sea mammals copulate in nature homosexuality should exist among humans" But as I've been trying to say there are fallacies with in the examples because the author has decided to put there own little liberal opinion in there.
+Guy Kawasaki , for most people, and I bet that includes you, the reason we accept GW is real is that most clmate scientists have vouched for it.

How exactly is that not an "appeal to authority"?
Thanks +Chris Holt , much needed reference that puts so much in the proper perspective.
Gotta love how each and every one of us out there uses at least one of these "tactics" on a daily basis! O.o
+Tyler Carroll no mater how you spin it, the examples are of he said she said, whether by some unknown source, or a friend of a friend, or some major corporation, even the government, it's all here say. However some people also stand on this fact, knowing this system some will use the counter argument of hearsay to explain that the Holocaust never happened, because none of you were there so it must have been faked, and the same with the lunar landing. The argument of hearsay is a powerful and damaging thing that installs doubt into even the most factual and scientifically proven arguments.

CERN creates antimatter. We automatically believe them. It's what they do. But since we didn't do it ourselves, since we were personally there, then it must not have actually happened.

The beast is eying you hungrily. Can you see it yet?
I smell a rat. Many people using Google+ will be IT professionals, so you can expect a large %age to +1 the clever infographic. If you look closely underneath there is a politically motivated bit about same-sex marriage, which you are indirectly supporting. Of course there's nothing wrong with mocking the cardinal, but sheeple should pay attention to complex underlying politics. +1 removed!
You forgot type 4. "Appeal to Internet Info graphics - Claiming knowledge you read off a random internet info graphic is your own and trying to supersede others by preemptively identifying their angle of attack as identified by monochromatic designy info graphic.
Most of us live by. They Say! They know more than I do.I mean, look at the odds:) Group Hug!
Ok, I thought this graphic was only three lines... Nooo, it's like 8 pages! What I find quite amusing is that so many are declaring this a Liberal war on religion. That they can so easily make this declaration reveals not a fallacy in the information but that they harbor this suspicion themselves. If they have not already questioned their faith then they could not so easily see where the fallacies described compare with their faith. The problem is religion is that it requires blind faith in order to work and thus, it operates under the principles of the described fallacies. This said other than a few perhaps poorly chosen but well known, examples, I saw no direct attack on any faith, buisness, or ideal. In a way the author/s deserve an award because this document/s really goes out of its way to nail down just about every excuse, every assumption, etc. They missed a couple, but those can be easily added in. There is still plenty of space to nail a few more rats to the wall.
My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts!!!
Our 400 prominent Psychologists say, that peoples will is free of influence.

Graphic refuted ;)
The author doesn't seem to be able to properly distinguish between facts (argued to be true or false) and ethics (argued to be right or wrong). For instance, if your argument is an appeal to common practice, you are attempting to claim that an action is ethical, not true.

Also, I concur with other commenters who pointed out a liberal bias in the sample arguments outlaid. The bias is unfortunately rather obvious, and any political bias would be undesired from a supposed authority summarizing argumentative fallacy, as it indicates a desire on the author's part to push his own opinion rather than educate the public.

Finally - and I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned this yet - rhetological isn't a WORD. Sheesh.

I'll continue using - thanks anyway.
+Matt Acuff and don't forget "most quotes are mis-attributed" - Albert Einstein
Mike Murphy: If you're noticing the difference between facts and ethics, then you should know better than to bring up the word 'bias' here. By claiming that the author has a so-called "political bias", all you are saying is that the author believes in something. Believing in something is the basis of education. You can't use the self-evident fact that the author has beliefs to disparage the message that is intended to be conveyed. Stick to criticizing the content of the message rather than appealing to the imaginary notion of 'bias'.
+Rory Triscuit did you think of clicking on the link and finding out for yourself? "Design Fallacy" is obviously referring to infographics.
Wow, interesting stuff. I need to read that again...
Thanks for this very nicely presented source!
Jimmy B
All good except "Appeal to ridicule - "Believing in god is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy".
Believing in god is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy
+Guy Kawasaki Thanks for sharing. Three reasons why I like it: (1) Remembering that there are rethorical and/or logical fallacies from time to time is helpful. (2) The infografic itself is well done: giving access to useful information in an enjoyable way. (3) Term-coining: I've never heard/read 'rethhological' before!
Haha this is great. But... What do engineers have to say about global warning? That'd be funny (perhaps even funnier than so-called "scientists" who dispute it)
Ah ha... a graphic about Global Warming!
Claiming it's true because GOD said so, left that one out, didn't you?
The way people manipulate you the most is by claiming to have figured out the "science" of how others manipulate you.
Science is a fail? It doesn't work? OK, give up your computer, your wi-fi, your tv, your radio, your pills for your disease, your car, your electricity, your hot water and go and live in a cave.
+John Alldis one would think that would be a bit extreme... GRIN - but if I follow your logic, then everyone would be dead....
the three things I'm immediately suspicious of....
:(( you just now know it? common... you were not born yesterday.. hehehhehehe
The basic toolkit of any Sceptic, but nicely presented.
Some of the comments above just show how much work is still to be done. Or should I say "A detailled, peer-reviewed analysis of the comments above suggest 30% of people who follow +Guy Kawasaki on G+ still do not get it " :)
Infographics are everywhere these days...when I was doing my Masters degree I was told that my opinion did not count until I had a PhD...but if I was "Published" then my opinion would count. The POWER of the published author did not work when I showed my supervisor my "Published" blog...had to resort to the tried and true method of confirming the opinion of the supervisor. I prefer the honesty of Business...give them what they want, slip in what they need for free and everybody wins.
Everyone should learn to spot logical fallacies, though I think some of the examples given for each here aren't great.
+Dea Urquidi actually, I find your statement confused. It seems to me that you are denying that any form of reasonable argument exists. I couldn't disagree more. Organizing statements into deductive and inductive forms isn't some meaningless process. Structured argument exists for a reason; it has made scientific and philosophical concepts not only possible to understand and communicate, but it has enabled us to compare ideas with each other. Without structure, we may as well be babbling nonsense at each other, or simply rolling our faces across the keyboard.

Logic is crucial for the science of mathematics to actually mean anything. Therefore I ask you - where is the fallacy?
+Colin Reynolds very well put. At first glance, +Dea Urquidi's argument sound cool but taking a second look reveals an unfounded, unstructured, and incoherent "thought" that drives his point right to the dumpster. Reminds me of the thingy that says: "if you can't dazzle them brilliance, confuse them with bullshit."

Sometimes I have to remind myself to not do the same thing cuz its just so amusing!

Well at least he's not a hypocrite. He walks the talk. Lol. 
hello my friend.
i want us to be good friends, i,m from liberia, but now i,m in ghana , i,m a man, good day.
The "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy is used throughout the list.
Hey thanks Ednalyn!

Insert [ad hominem argument] aimed at proponents of [normative argument]
As long as you beleave in Some Thing
A bit iffy...
They claim the following is untrue:
There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe. So there must be another planet with intelligent life on it.

Statistically speaking, that one is true.

Nobody has proved to me there is a God. So there is no God.
Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy

A wise man once said:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Well that's just a closed minded view...

Many people have beliefs in higher power, without the stigma of religion. 
or " the consensus is that humans cause global warming"
~sighs~ All this is easy to fix, if people stopped to think for themselves once in a while and stopped being so damn petty and self-absorbed.
Awesome post...truth is always revealed and liars are always exposed for what they are which is shitty human beings.
in every argument, heuristics r made. Anecdotal refrences r scooped which make d reader het up to know d balance. D matrix cud not be dat simple if logic were omited. For eg how do we reconcile dis, x is an aition of y?
You would be dangerous if deciphered - but ?what planet are you from...👍
Not everyone who uses those tags knows how to use them. There should be another tag: mis-use of tagging to deceive the hurried.

I've also seen cases where application of the tag is in the mind of the applier, where the moment of applying a tag is actually just a re-statement of the argument.
Aaarrgghhh!!! This is in fact my pet peeve.
This sounds like the baloney that the "G+ brains/best engagers/etc" use to gather adds. :-D
OMG I have to admit I use the Appeal to Anonymous Authority one pretty often :S
You mean like the examples used in your illustration? O_o
manipulating by using manipulative examples. 
I read somewhere that none of the above is true, and in any case, no one believes it. Not only that, this guy I know who knows an expert said that that's what the expert also said.
The 'Appeal to Ignorance' example seems incorrect to me. It doesn't seem entirely ignorant to believe there is not a god because there is no proof. I mean, there's no evidence that there's not a magical unicorn sitting by itself on some planet we haven't discovered, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there isn't.

Wouldn't a better example be "I can't think of any other explanation, therefore a god does exist"?
unfortunately I've got a grade C in critical thinking. only if i had seen this earlier
Add a comment...