Exaggeration

For most people, exaggeration is a variety of emphasis that distorts the truth.  Our perspectival approach, while recognizing the possibility of intentional or unintentional distortion, calls for a little more reflection.  Specifically, taking the fact of differing perspectives seriously entails recognizing the possibility of different perceptions of the truth value of a statement that arise from ostensibly faithful representations of different viewpoints.  This is not to say that all viewpoints are equally good or deserving of respect, because we know that people can be jaw-dropping ignorant of events within their own frames of reference, but that there are times when informed and honest people will truly see things differently; what seems to be really real can be expected to vary if perceptions occur under significantly different physical or cultural conditions.  For this reason, we'll leave out the moralism and define exaggeration as a mismatch between a statement and the conditions it is supposed to represent.  Thus, the label of exaggeraton will not apply appropriately to every statement that looks like a distortion from some particular perspective.  That there may be practical or moral issues connected with real and apparent exaggerations is undeniable, but important as these considerations are, they show up downstream from the basic categorization of the problem.

The problems that arise from exaggeration are among the easiest to recognize in the abstract and among the most difficult to agree on in practice.  The problems themselves are basically of three types: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) unintentional misrepresentation, and (3) differences of perspective.  Clearly, these are very different situations.  The reason to include the last, as our perspectivist theory suggests, is because the label could be applied by some observer who perceives an instance of exaggeration that truly does not seem so to the speaker or writer responsible for the statement.  In a case of perceived exaggeration, as with any statement, our perspectival method includes inquiring into whether there is any set of conditions under which the statement would be accepted as true.  Then the question of exaggeration is moved away from presumption of a single correct standpoint and becomes an issue of whether or not those conditions under which a statement would be true actually obtain for any party concerned with the statement.

A variety of issues fall into the general category of exaggerations, some more subtle than others.  These are some of the more common varieties:

Euphemism

A euphemism is a word or phrase that is substituted for other words or phrases to put some person, thing, or concept in a more positive light than a neutral party generally would. The result may be to make something negative look neutral or good or to present something neutral as though it were something positive. Euphemisms may soften a hard blow, as in the case of death (passed away) or being fired (let go). They may make discussion of body parts or bodily functions possible in situations in which social taboos or conventions would otherwise stand in the way of adequate communication. Euphemisms direct judgment in a positive direction without supplying any logical justification for shifting valuations correspondingly.

Dysphemism

A dysphemism is a word or phrase that is substituted for other words or phrases to put some person, thing, or concept in a more negative light than a neutral party generally would. The result may be to make something positive look neutral or bad or to present something neutral as though it were something negative. Dysphemisms may express pessimism, disgust, or disapproval, among other negative affects. Like the euphemism, the dysphemism can be subtle or striking. In either case, it makes its point through the emotional force of negative associations and without providing any evidence to support the standpoint it represents.

Biased Comparison

A biased comparison associated one thing with another that moves or is intended to move someone's understanding in a positive or negative direction without clearly justifying that move. It is a critical thinking issue because there ought to be reasons for a positive or negative change in anyone's thinking.

Slanted Definition

A slanted definition appears to be conveying the meaning of a word, but it does so in a way that adds a positive or negative spin. The slanted definition is usually structured as an analytical definition, with a first element that names the kind of thing or action being defined and a second element that distinguishes the thing being defined from other things or actions of that kind.

Stereotype

Stereotypes are reductionistic generalizations. As such, they purport to reveal something about a target group, but the benefit is illusory because the more complex reality of the target group is concealed by the essence of stereotyping: presumptions that substitute for knowledge.

Beyond the moral issues arising out of the harm they cause, stereotypes are a critical thinking issue on logical grounds. The problems start with how stereotypes come into being, which can be by misperception, faulty inference from experience, malicious or romantic simplification, or the uncritical acceptance of opinions that are passed along. In none of these cases is there a methodologically adequate effort to understand the target group. For that, inferences would need to be drawn according to the methods statisticians have developed to increase confidence in polls and surveys.

Beyond deficiencies in accuracy that are baked into stereotypes by their sketchy beginnings, there is also the problem of distorted perceptions. Because stereotypes structure expectations in an oversimple or even downright false way, people may miss details of events they observe or even substitute the contents of stereotypes for actual recollectons. Because of this, belief in stereotypes becomes at the very least a challenge to credibility.

Hyperbole

Hyperboles are basically exaggerations that dramatically inflate or minimize some aspect of a thing or action, such as its importance or significance. Hyperboles are a critical thinking issue because they make a strong impression without justifying it. The influence of a striking impression can be very difficult to overcome even when it is clearly recognized as illogical or unjustified; favorable or unfavorable feelings can affect not only predispositions but also perceptions.

Minimizing

Minimizing can take several forms, all of which serve to suggest that something is less significant than a reasonable person would ordinarily think it to be. The appearance of minimizing occurs easily when discourse crosses the lines of cultures or sub-cultures, because what is important to one may not be so important to another. But minimizing can also be an intentional act of downplaying or submerging someone's ideas or concerns.

Straw Man

The straw man device is most readily understood by envisioning a physical straw man. The device is so named because it creates a metaphorical straw man that is easy to knock over in a dispute. It is closely related to the hyperbole, but it is more complicated and rarely innocent. So, while we may often readily ascribe the occurrence of some fallacies and rhetorical moves to differences of perspective, the straw man fallacy does not generally get the benefit of the doubt.

The first step in the creation of a straw man situation is the distorted representation of an opponent's position. These distortions can be wild or subtle and can either add or take away from what the opponent has said, oversimplify it or unrealistically complexify it, etc. The key to the first step is that the misrepresentation makes the original position less viable.

The second step is to argue against the distorted position instead of the actual position. Of course, the distorted position will offer much less resistance than the real position, making it as easy to defeat as a straw man.

Sweeping Generalization

Sweeping generalizations have much the same form as legitimate generalizations but present several critical thinking problems.

• They make exaggerated impressions in the manner of hyperboles.
• They categorically lack a sufficient basis in evidence. (Otherwise, they would be legitimate generalizations.) Because of this absence of evidence, sweeping generalizations have the character of baseless assertions.
• They oversimplify.

The irony of sweeping generalizations is that they make a strong statement about the topic, but a weak impression of the speaker.

Slippery Slope

The slippery slope can be confusing, because it often looks like a valid chain argument. That form, as we recall, is as follows:

If P then Q
If Q then R
If R then S
So, if P then S

The problem with this type of slippery slope is that one of the premises exaggerates the situation it describes.

Another type of slippery slope is the assertion that once something is begun, it must be completed to some point. Of course, there are some situations in which it is obviously true that beginning entails an expectation of completion, such as an operation in a hospital. There may be reasons not to proceed as planned, but one expects to be sewn up at the end of it. But there are other situations in which the expectation of some completion may be arbitrary or unreasonable. The debate about when and how the Iraq war

Ridicule

It should be obvious upon first reflection that being able to mock an idea says nothing about its truth, relevance, or importance. As a critical thinking problem, ridicule presents few conceptual difficulties, but at the emotional level, it can pack quite a punch, especially when group moods are affected. It can be a real challenge to bring discussion back to serious consideration of a position after some aspect of it has been exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented to set it up for ridicule. Additionally, because the element of ridicule can be memorable, the merits of an idea may be submerged when one attempts to recollect content or context.

Exception Error

Exception errors are of two types. The first is when there is a normal rule or practice and a situation comes up that is not well handled by the normal rule or practice, thus suggesting that some exception should be made. The exception error occurs when instead of making an exception, the rule is enforced and leads to unreasonable consequences.

The second type of exception error in a sense the opposite of the first. i In that case, there is a normal rule or practice that will adequately apply to a situation that comes up, but the assertion is made that the situation is not well handled by the normal rule or practice, thus suggesting that some exception should be made. This second type of exception error occurs when instead of applying the normal rule, an ad hoc or arebitrary response is substituted and leads to chaotic consequences or inconsistent practices that are hard to reconcile with reasonable policies or standards.

Selective Perception

Our perceptions, whether sensory or intellectual, are the results of complex processes. Complex processes, by their very nature, can be affected at any of their critical points. Influences as diverse as hunger, the last book we read, room temperature, and ambient noise can affect how we look for and receive what comes to us from our environment.

Selective perception is simply a fact of life, but it becomes a critical thinking issue when someone is only interested in seeing information that accords with pre-existing beliefs or some agenda for future action. In the case of evaluating inductive arguments, selective perception could short-circuit the important steps of (1) considering the strength of any arguments for a conflicting conclusion and (2) imagining what additional information or kinds of information would make the argument in question stronger. It can also reach so far as to make false statements seem true and true statements seem false.