A reasoning fallacy particularly potent in arguments of personal beliefs, ideologies, or worldviews is the self-sealing argument. Self-sealing arguments take positions that no evidence can possibly refute. While this may seem attractive, and a good way to win any argument, self-sealing arguments are both useless and potentially damaging to relationships.

One of the most common forms of self-sealing arguments is claiming the other person is not sophisticated enough or learned enough to understand the concept being argued. It is evident in the following conversation: John: All families are dysfunctional. Mike: My family wasn't dysfunctional. I had a good childhood. John: That just shows how dysfunctional it was. You're in denial. Mike: I'm not in denial. It was okay. John: You are too in denial. You're just too dysfunctional to see how dysfunctional your family was.

No matter what argument Mike offers, John will use it as "proof” of his point. Self-sealing arguments often center on personal beliefs, attributes, or attitudes. The arguer—John, in this example—for some personal reason sets himself up as the expert, the one who knows, and Mike is relegated to the subordinate position. Nothing Mike can say will disprove John's position. Just try. John will tell you you're wrong!

Carolyn, her mother, and two sisters appeared on a television talk show as an example of an estranged family. All four of them agreed they had been upset and angry at one another for many years.

Carolyn told of many instances when her sisters didn't treat her lovingly or fairly. She was angry with her mother for taking her sisters' side in disputes and not supporting her. Meanwhile Carolyn's mother and sisters agreed things hadn't always gone well for Carolyn. She was difficult to be around, and they hadn't spent much time with her. Her mother kept trying to say she did love Carolyn, did want a relationship with her, but Carolyn rebuffed her advances. Then the show host suggested that Carolyn come sit closer to her mother, rather than on the edge of the set. Carolyn jumped up and cried, "They're only doing this because we're on TV. They don't really love me. She says she does, but she doesn't.”

Watching Carolyn was very painful. She not only said no one loved her, but looked like she felt unloved. She didn't want to stop being angry. She wanted to get even with her family for what they had done, not get over the past hurts they'd all experienced.

Carolyn's self-sealing logic kept her stuck. No matter what her family members said, or anyone else said, she interpreted it as, "They don't love me. They don't care about me.” Nothing they did or said could change her mind. Whatever they said wasn't the right thing to say, they didn't mean it, or most repeatedly, things should have been different or better many years ago, so nothing can be done today to make it better.

Carolyn was stuck on getting even rather than putting the problems behind them. She wanted her family members to hurt as much as she was hurting. She used her interpretations of their behavior to support her pain. Logicians call personalizing an argument an ad hominem fallacy, or attacking the person, not the argument. As a child psychologist, Leon often testifies as an expert witness in child custody cases. He is accustomed to tough examinations by attorneys who fight for their clients' rights and objectives. Sometimes those attorneys seem to attack him personally, his credentials, or his objectives for the case. After one particularly grueling court appearance, Leon's young associate asked him why he smiled when he was being so viciously attacked by one of the attorneys. "Simple,” Leon replied. "When they start attacking me, I know I've won. There's nothing I've said they can disagree with.”

Leon had learned that when the attacks became personal, there was nothing else that could be attacked. His work was unassailable. So they had to go after him personally. Attacking the person is the fallback position of a combatant who has to win at any cost and knows he is losing.

Confronting this kind of argument is really frustrating. Nothing you can say will be accepted as evidence that you are right. Everything you say can and will be twisted to provide further proof your opponent is correct. Even carrying on a conversation with someone who is self-sealing is a real trial. No matter what you say, your words prove they're right.

One of your best responses might be to say, "If your argument holds, it should be able to predict what will or won't happen. If it can't be used for predictions, then it really doesn't say anything. Think of a

specific example so we can talk about that.” They will usually stomp away or claim you aren't smart enough to see it. Just smile at this point. You got 'em.

Or if you want to move out of the argument mode, just say, "I don't buy it. I don't believe all families are dysfunctional. We don't see eye to eye on this one.”

Self-sealing arguments sometimes occur when one person takes an idiosyncratic view of an issue and then arbitrarily dismisses or avoids another's position because it's different. Again, no matter what you say, they won't agree and will say you are wrong.

What passes for conventional wisdom, or the worst of stereotypical thinking, can be self-sealing arguments. "Everyone knows Latins are great lovers,” or "Women can't be counted on as leaders because they are unreliable several days a month,” or "All men are just interested in one thing.” When people really believe these statements to be "truth and reality, the way the world really is,” there is no amount of evidence that will change their minds.

Howard missed an important meeting and lost face with his boss. He was furious with Elaine, his admin support person. He said she had not given him the message. She said she had. He said she was a liar. Howard didn't have the message and Elaine couldn't produce the piece of paper with the message on it. Therefore, Elaine was lying. When Elaine tried to explain she had sent him an e-mail message with the information, Howard replied that e-mail didn't count. Everyone knew e-mail was not real communication. Howard and Elaine were part of a work group that was dispersed in several buildings over eighteen acres. The group had agreed to use e-mail for important scheduling messages rather than physically tracking one another down. Howard was not the only one who didn't like the change, but he was the only one who wouldn't use the new system. He'd only use "real communication”— written on paper or spoken in person.

No matter what Elaine said, Howard claimed he was right and she was to blame for his missing the appointment. His definition of notification didn't include what she had done to notify him. By dismissing e-mail as not real communication, he could say she was wrong for using it, and not have to admit he was wrong for not using it.

With self-sealing arguments, anything that happens will prove a point, so the position loses its ability to predict what can and/or will happen. Logicians call these kind of arguments vacuous, or empty. They are a form of logical fallacy, or logical error.

Self-sealing positions are difficult to refute and to argue around. They often take on the fervor of a religious or political argument and serve as sounding boards for a point of view, rather than representing any attempt to engage in discussion or dialogue. It's often more effective to declare what is happening, to confront the process of the interaction, rather than trying to change someone's position or to influence their thinking.

This becomes an example of knowing when to count your losses and stop playing the game. The only way to "win” is to stop playing. Conflict is inevitable. We will always have differences with our loved ones, friends, and colleagues. It isn't having arguments that's the problem, but how we argue that's difficult. Arguing can bring people closer together and increase the respect they have for one another and themselves. Or it can put a wedge between people, pushing them farther apart and even destroying their relationships.

When we're focused on winning at any cost, overpowering another person, it's easy to slip into logical errors, problems with defining our positions clearly, or even not using accurate data to back our positions.

By understanding the types of logical errors we can make in the heat of an argument, we can refocus on the issues, clarify our positions, and come to a better resolution of the issues that divide us.

 Previous      Next