"An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message."

By Sam Yang - Get similar updates here

The most common and primitive form of irrational arguing is when you attack the person rather than engage the person's point. This is called the "ad hominem" and we learn about its effectiveness early in life. (On the playground, it's called bullying.) Ad hominem doesn't necessarily need to be taught, we can pick this up on our own because it's easy to do. It's seductive because it does three things: it gets a reaction from people, it hurts the person you are arguing against, and it requires no amount of critical thought or study. You can walk into any debate, a topic you know nothing about, and employ this tactic. That is why the ad hominem is a logic fallacy, because it proves nothing. It's similar to judging the taste of water without actually tasting the water or knowing anything about water, but instead, forming your opinion based on the pitcher that it came in.

It's Only a Comic Book...

For years, comic books weren't taken seriously. It wasn't being judged on the content, but on the medium that it was delivered in. The quality of the message was being judged solely on the messenger. How often do we do this in our own lives? Ignore the content and just look at the cover? This is strange to think about because now comic book content are some of the most valuable intellectual properties. Imagine judging someone on how they look rather than the strength of their character? It's not only unreliable, it's unethical.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Sometimes evidence will show that the ad hominem is correct, sometimes it won't—the argument can be taken independent of the person giving it. Will a very lean person know more about health than an overweight doctor? Depends on what they're claiming. What does the evidence show? What's been proven in the past about their claims? What are similar instances of this idea working? How similar are those instances? Put aside for a moment who's arguing what and just look at the claims independently. Also, what are their credentials? Is it related to the topic? And what have they accomplished? Not on themselves (personal testimonials can tug at our emotions but can often be misleading), but do they have a large amount of data to support their claims? Sometimes you look at a person and you want to just take their word for it. (The sister of ad hominem is the halo effect, rather than your dislike of the person influencing you, it's your bias for the person that influences you.) They may be right or they may be a "red herring" that leads you astray. Base it on the evidence, not on the person.