“Marketing Tricks the BIG Companies Use to Fool You” Series
Use the Same Tricks to Build Your NLPCoaching Business
Goa head and check the king kong agency reviews and start building your business all the way up.
 | By Adriana James |  |  |  |  |  |  |
These articles are written to be equally useful for the beginner of NLP and the NLP Trainer although some of the articles may be more advanced than others. If you find yourself reading an article that’s too advanced, give us a call or send us an email. We will be happy to clarify the issue for you.
Article No. 16
As all previous patterns so far, the pattern discussed today is also a “directionalized” language pattern meant to lead the IR (internal representations) of the listener in a desired direction.
This is a very important concept – and if you are not familiar with how internal representations are created inside of our heads and what do they mean please see my article here.
As we mentioned in our previous examples, one of the most important characteristics of these language patterns is that they don’t have to be reasonable they just have to be plausible. In fact, at a closer scrutiny, they all fall the test to sound logic and reason.
In other words these patterns are based many times in errors of reasoning. We are not talking here about errors in factual data, which if they are wrong, they lead to wrong conclusions.
An error in factual data is different. For example in the statement Sydney is the capital city of Australia there is an error in data. Or in the statement If I experienced dramatic events in my life, there is nothing I can ever do to overcome my negative emotions about them we find again errors in data. They may not be obvious to some people due to lack of correct information, nevertheless they are still errors in data.
But the pattern discussed today differs from a factual error. It appeals mostly to prejudices rather than logic however it is different from sarcasm or personal abuse. It attacks the person rather than their contention. Be mindful when you listen for it – many times you will encounter counter arguments which will sound like personal attacks, however they are not necessarily representatives of the pattern discussed here. In other words you will find quite often people accusing others of “ad hominem” when in fact that is not the case.
Pattern No.16 – VERBAL ATTACK OR AD HOMINEM — it means exactly that: to attack a person (not the argument, but the person) with words.
Known also as the “Ad Hominem Fallacy”, this pattern is one of the most familiar patterns as well as one of the commonly used. In any debate – actually in any contradictory and highly animated conversation – you may hear verbal attacks at the person. It is mostly used when a party to a debate wants to discredit the argument of the other party.
Do not mistake ad hominem for a personal criticism or insult, which could be logical and justifiable. However, this pattern becomes valid when is used in a fashion following a non-reasonable or non-logical approach.
Before you assume that this pattern simply means being rude, you need to recognize that here the reason and the socially accepted
verbal behavior alone although “temporarily forgotten”, does not mean the use of ad hominem. We’ll see momentarily specific examples of how it works.
But in general, the pattern attacks the personal qualities of the opposition as evidence against their position. If this technique is pushed to its very extreme without caution, it can massively backfire.
This technique is also known as smear tactic or simply smear. It can harm an individual or group’s reputation. Sometimes this technique is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such vulgar talk or straight slander and defamation.
Just remember that negative advertising or cheap shots can backfire so much so that the person who uses them ends up in an irretrievable position. Do not use it in your advertising.
And now let’s take an example from our Time Line Therapy® trainings and analyze it so you can understand how it works. And for the purpose of exemplifying we’ll assume a conversation between person X and person Z.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: This does not follow any logic. By your own words, fear as an
example of a negative emotion, is inside the class called negative emotions and therefore bad, but at the same time outside of this class, since it protects you and therefore is not bad.
According to “ad hominem” meaning, it should be clear that neither X’s or Z’s statements are fitting this pattern.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: This does not logically follow.
Here the answer is shorter and simpler; however it is still not an ad hominem.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: This does not logically follow. You obviously confuse personal beliefs and reality of facts.
While one can argue this as being confrontational, it is still not an ad hominem. It is a confrontation of X’s argument, not of X personally.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: You obviously confuse personal beliefs and reality of facts. This does not logically follow.
We still don’t have an ad hominem pattern. Z’s answer does not presuppose that X’s sentence does not logically follow because Z confuses personal beliefs and reality of facts. There is no CEq (complex equivalence) between the two.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: You obviously confuse personal beliefs and reality of facts.
We could argue here that Z’s answer is still not an ad hominem. The word “obviously” implies (or presupposes to use our NLP language patterns term) that Z is basing his response on his opinion of the evidence of X’s utterance. Therefore, Z’s sentence could be simply a cynical way of expressing that X’s statement is logically faulty: Z is responding to X’s statement. He is not attacking X personally.
X: All negative emotions are bad, but fear protects me, therefore it can’t be bad.
Z: You confuse personal beliefs with reality of facts.
Nope. Not an ad hominem either. Notice that Z is not saying that X’s utterance is faulty because A confuses personal beliefs and reality of facts; instead, he is using Z’s erroneous argument as evidence to present a new argument: that Z confuses personal beliefs and reality of facts.