MLM and Identity Politics (Argumentum Ad Hominem)

Today's blog post is about the use of group identity to determine the efficacy of a claim. All too often people are being discredited because they have not experienced being in a particular group, and therefore can not speak about the group's trials and tribulations. In America, identity politics is at a fevered pitch and is being used as a weapon to defend ludicrous assertions. An example would be the current movement to abolish the Second Amendment because of a school shooting that happened in Florida. The group's premise is to solely blame guns for the shooting and ignore the other facts, such as the failure of the cops to stop this person at the scene, the failure of the cops to stop this person after more than forty visits to the person's house, and the failure of the FBI after they were informed about this person over a month in advance. Then the group will use their identity, as school shooting survivors, to defend their position against the Second Amendment and assert that their identity is what gives their position credibility. This logic is not only wrong, but dangerous as the group can attempt to discredit experts and statistics by simply stating they aren't part of the group.

Now, this isn't meant to suggest groups cannot have a correct assertion based on their identity, but rather they need to substantiate that assertion with something other than identity. If a small group of people from a particular ethnic background suggest that someone is racist, then they must provide evidence to support this claim. If the group's only argument for the claim is, they are all of a particular ethnic background, then that is not sufficient for determining whether or not the person is racist. However, if the group is able to provide evidence, such as all of them were denied service because of their background, then they can make the claim that the person is racist.

MLMs use a form of this tactic regularly to undermine the critical arguments of others about their "business". This type of red herring is referred to as an ad hominem attack, because they are choosing to attack the source rather than the claim. An example of an MLMer using their identity as a way to defend their position would be, "That person has never been in an MLM". This suggests that no amount of research or logic can validate a particular position against MLM because the critic hasn't been a part of the group. This type of reasoning is flawed because the person may hold that position based on research and information they have gathered from former MLMers, and experience with MLM does not solely determine the ability to understand MLM.

MLMers use these types of tactics because the research reflects very poorly on their "business opportunity". Any opportunity to distract from the statistics and analyses of MLM will be taken, because there is no honest way to defend the outrageous losses of MLM victims. Simply stating a person's position or claim is invalid because they aren't part of a group is not sufficient. Yet, MLMers successfully use this tactic because there is a lack of skepticism.

Here are some of the other ways in which MLMs use their identity to defend their position:

"That person has never owned their own business before." Funny, because an MLMer also doesn't own their business.

"That person has never invested in anything before." Also funny, because "investing" in MLM means buying products at retail.

"That person doesn't have the same mindset as a business owner". Interesting, an MLMer still has to listen to a boss, they just call them "upline".

MLM and Style Over Substance Fallacy

Today's blog post is about confidence people utilizing their superficial appearance to portray themselves as a credible source. The way in which people dress is the most effective method for creating a version of themselves they want others to see. This technique is specifically designed to disarm potential skepticism by appearing to be a point of authority. MLMers regularly transform themselves by wearing a specific garb people associate with success, which helps them pitch their "business opportunity" more successfully. They will also insist that other MLMers dress in formal attire at meetings and seminars, because the illusion of success must be flawless in order to attract new members.

MLMers regularly use gimmicks, such as videos of mansions and super cars, to substantiate their appearance of success. These videos are not valuable for investing in the "business opportunity", since they do not have anything to do with the actual idea or how a person will make money. The focus on hype and results is designed to obfuscate the reality of the MLM, which is a near 100% failure rate, and to give people the illusion that this is something they can attain.

Another trick MLMers use is "love-bombing", which is designed to deceive potential investors into thinking the MLMers care about their well-being. Instead of explaining the "business opportunity", the MLMer will focus on specific emotional needs or wants of the potential recruit. They may listen to personal stories, use physical contact (such as hugs), or do a host of other activities that make the potential recruit feel special."Love-bombing", is a particularly effective red herring on younger individuals, especially since they will be the least skeptical of ulterior motives.

The most important part of investing is the idea, not the way in which the idea is presented. Sure, it helps to look a certain way, have a certain amount of energy and passion, and be well-spoken, but if your idea is bad, then no savvy investor will care. Television shows, such as "Shark Tank" and "Dragons' Den", are fantastic references for showing how to handle opportunities that are presented from convincing actors.

Here is a video from "Dragons' Den" in which a person tries to pitch "Lyoness":

MLM and the Argumentum Ad Populum Fallacy

Today's blog post pertains to a common fallacy which uses popularity to determine efficacy. This tactic is commonly used as an emotional appeal instead of a logical deduction, and the idea is to obfuscate reality by suggesting a large group of people can't all be wrong. However, throughout history we have seen large groups of people are routinely wrong, and some examples involve, slave owners in the United States, Nazi's in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Islamic State in Syria and Libya, and many many others. I had previously written about the mob mentality, and how it can make people inherit certain behaviors they would deem unsavory, therefore it doesn't make sense that a large group would determine something to be authentic. If anything, a large group of people can spiral and become less good as it grows, take the government as an example. The idea that a large group of people can prove something to be legitimate is flawed, and yet this fallacy continues to be used by MLM apologists. 

One of the biggest issues with this logic is the subjectivity of determining when a group is big enough to be considered authentic. There aren't any parameters for this logic, therefore a large group to one person may be a small group to another person. The news is a great example of the inconsistency in labeling big groups and small groups. One example would be the Las Vegas shooting versus the Florida massacre. If someone were to judge these two by their identifying titles, then they would think the Florida massacre was considerably larger than the Las Vegas shooting. The actual numbers are quite different, and by a wide margin. The Florida massacre left seventeen dead and fourteen injured versus Vegas which left fifty-eight dead and eight-hundred fifty-one injured, according to Google. Yet, Vegas was labeled as a shooting and Florida was a massacre. Now, there was some clear bias as Florida involved children at a school, which is a much more emotional topic than a concert being attacked, but objectively the labels should have been reversed.

The context in which the group is being labeled is also extremely important for determining whether or not the group would be considered small or large. Going back to the Florida massacre example, a group of 17 people killed is a large number, considering a mass shooting is labeled as four or more people being killed. According to this fallacy, it would be fair to say every group of 17 people or more would be considered large, yet we know this to be untrue. If 17 senators voted against a bill, then we would consider that group to be very small and an overwhelming majority, 83 senators would make the bill pass. Therefore, simply focusing on a number cannot hold any weight, since context must be defined.

A final issue with this logic is, what happens when a big group runs into a bigger group? What I mean by this is, let's say there are approximately eighteen million MLMers in the world, according to qurora, in 2015. That would be considered a big group, except the population of the world was seven billion, meaning less than .3% of the world's population was involved in MLM. Does that now mean that MLM is not a big group? To take this a step farther, let's say people say MLM is legitimate because eighteen million people were participating. Can we then say MLM is not legitimate because seven billion people didn't?

The idea or qualifying a group as large, and therefore assuming they have an absolute truth, should be a red flag. There should be better qualifying characteristics than a number, and the person pitching the MLM should be giving those qualifications instead of this fallacy. The idea that a certain number of people couldn't be wrong is asinine, and it perpetuates a mentality of blind obedience.

Dr. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Here is my version of this quote as it relates to this article. I have a dream that people will judge a business opportunity based on its merits and not on fallacies and misinformation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-MLM-network-marketing-distributors-are-there-in-the-U-S

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

MLM and Webinars

Today's blog post was inspired by a recent comment about "webinars" and their peddlers. A "webinar" is a lecture held on an internet platform, and unlike seminars, which are usually held in forums or halls, "webinars" require very little to host. This means the barrier to entry for hosting a "webinar" is very low, and people do not need to prove the veracity of their claims. To clarify, the "webinars" I'm referring to aren't real webinars, but rather sales scams and "MLMs" disguised as educational videos. There are plenty of actual webinars hosted by accredited professors and other experts, and they have designed their teachings to spread authentic information. Also, there are seminars that are held by fiction peddlers, such as Kiyosaki's real-estate seminars, but the cost of these seminars is substantially higher than that of a webinar. The cost of hosting a seminar prohibits amateur charlatans from entry into the seminar scams, but the internet allows people to enter the "webinar" scam field. This means people need to be more critical than ever about the information they are receiving online.

The internet and its proliferation of information comes with great opportunities for people to learn and to be swindled. Facebook is particularly dangerous since they decide what content is good for each individual and what is not. Their algorithms are designed to show a person what they think that person wants to see, and this includes which news sources they deem relevant, as well as which advertisements are most likely to be appealing to the person and their needs. Unfortunately, Facebook doesn't care about the authenticity of these advertisements and the bad actors, which can result in charlatans being given access to an unprecedented number of people for a few dollars. This also lends credibility to the bad actor's claims since, according to Facebook, they are allegedly trying to crack down on "Fake news" and other phony advertising.

YouTube has also given people an unprecedented amount of access to information and scams. The ability to load content on YouTube, with virtually no expense, has allowed lots of bad actors to come out and create "webinars". This gets compounded by the fact that YouTube also has algorithms that tries to find similar content to other videos and works handily with other platforms, such as Facebook, to further target people with specific videos. The bad actors are keen to these algorithms and regularly manipulate their videos and titles to fool the algorithms into thinking their content is something it isn't.

An example of this may be, a mother looks for part-time work-from-home on Google. Google then tells YouTube (their subsidiary) this person specifically searched for this type of opportunity and YouTube populates their recommended videos with free MLM "webinars". The "webinar" addresses specific concerns the mother has and how they can fix those problems by paying for another "webinar". Then that "webinar" says the key to the hidden knowledge is in a different "webinar" and focuses on selling their most expensive "webinar". This ultimately leads to a lot of wasted time and money, since these "webinars" hosted by "gurus" don't actually have the answers the mother is seeking.

Some examples of these bad actors are, Tyson Zahner, Eric Worre, John C. Maxwell, Robert Kiyosaki, Tai Lopez, and Tony Robbins. Please make note the last two are not specifically connected to MLM, but they still pull the same nonsense. These "webinars" are not exclusive to MLM chicanery.

I want to really emphasize these "webinars" are scams, and the people that host these "webinars" are looking to enrich themselves by taking money from their consumers. If they had the answers they claim, then they wouldn't be wasting their time making "webinars", but rather would be spending their time doing the very things they claim makes them rich. As Mark Cuban says, "If a deal is a great deal, they aren't going to share it with you."

The most important way to avoid these schemes involves the same way in which we critically investigate large purchases. The more research people can do about a "webinar" with a "guru" before paying for their services, the better that person will be equipped to deal with the deception. These bad actors don't want people to look for information about them on the web, just like Jimmy Kimmel wants you to forget he made his career from exploiting women.