Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
Let’s start off with a quick review of part 10 of the Manipulation mini-series we did earlier this season where we were talking about Special Knowledge. Special Knowledge is used by someone who is trying to convince you that they have ‘secrets’ or ‘special information’ that you can only learn through them, and without them you’re destined to be in the dark or you’re destined to fail in life. The reason this tactic works so well is because we have an innate curiosity. We want to know things! We want to make sense of this world. We want to know how to live well, and there are people who will play on this desire by telling you THEY are the ones who can tell you the things you don’t know.
So, the question to ask yourself if you think you might be facing the Secret Knowledge tactic is this: “Is it really true that this person or group is the ONLY place I can learn this information?”
If you want to hear more about this fallacy, check out Episode 55.
Ok, so the new Fallacy we’re going to talk about today is called the Appeal to Privacy. The Appeal to Privacy happens when someone behaves in a way that either negatively affects others or could potentially negatively affect others, but uses the idea of privacy as a way to avoid scrutiny or criticism. This can look a little different each time it’s used, but often, the person appealing to privacy claims that something is private and because it’s private, it therefore shouldn’t be open to examination or discussion.
An simple example of an Appeal to Privacy would be the person who drives excessively fast on the highway and claims it’s nobody’s business how they choose to drive. Ok, well, really? Maybe it’s not just their business when it’s putting other people at risk and breaking the law.
Another place an Appeal to Privacy happens is when companies use it to avoid being open about how they collect & use customer data. For example, a company might claim that they have to collect certain data in order to provide personalized services, and therefore that information is private and should not be subject to regulation. However, the problem with this argument is that just because something is private, it doesn't mean it should be immune to scrutiny or regulation. In fact, this argument ignores the importance of protecting consumers' rights.
The problem with the Appeal to Privacy fallacy is that it’s a form of avoiding the question. They’re basically just refusing to answer questions by saying something is “private”. Maybe the answer to the question would make them look bad & be embarrassing, maybe it would reveal that they don’t know something or it could force them to have to answer for things they don't want to be held responsible for or make changes that could cost them money. It's important to remember that just because something is private, it doesn't mean it should be immune to examination or regulation. In fact, privacy is an important issue that should be protected, but it is also important that we don’t use it as an excuse to avoid discussing or addressing important issues.
Here’s another example of how this fallacy could play out: sometimes politicians use the appeal to privacy when talking about their personal lives. They will avoid questions about their past or maybe they have a drinking or drug problem and they know it’ll make them look bad, so they say “well, that’s a private matter and has nothing to do with my job”...really?? The personal lives of elected officials do matter because it can have a direct impact on their ability to govern effectively and ethically.
Now, one area where I agree that an appeal to privacy is appropriate in politician’s personal lives is when dealing with their children. I remember when Bill Clinton was elected president, their daughter was still young and they requested the press to leave her alone, not follow her around taking & publishing pictures of everything she does. I’ve seen other politicians make the same request as well. This one is not a fallacy because they’re not avoiding taking responsibility for something, they’re protecting the life of a minor who wasn’t elected to an official position. They’re requesting to protect the child’s privacy, not avoiding answering a question about something they themselves have done. Do you see the difference?
Question to ask yourself: “Is it really true that they need privacy or are they just avoiding the question?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
