Today's blog post is about a particularly effective fallacy which runs rampant in MLM called the, "No true Scotsman" fallacy. This fallacy is extremely effective in MLM, because it, much like the other fallacies, does not require any actual evidence to support a claim. Instead, there is a form of closed-logic used to try and shut down any critical faculties in the denier. This type of closed-logic, or sometimes circular logic, is utilized by MLM leaders to neutralize their adherents and keep deniers out. These fallacies are also very easy to parrot, which enables the rhetoric to spread wider and faster, while also creating more cognitive dissonance as the new truth becomes reality.
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is: "No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)."
In other words, you can explain away any unique example or criticism by simply saying it isn't a true representation of the group as a whole. MLMs love to explain away any issues they may have by suggesting the MLMer was not a representation of their organization because they, didn't try hard enough, they didn't follow the "system", they didn't explain the "business" correctly, or some other nonsense. This allows them to circumvent any negative statistics, disprove any bad experiences, or justify any losses. Instead of directly addressing the problems, they can simply say, that isn't a true or authentic version of the "business".
It is important to hold the person accountable when they try to use this line of logic. The person needs to provide evidence to assert the example or criticism is unique and is not representative of the group as a whole. Especially when it comes to statistics, it is important for them to provide statistics to refute the point. It is not acceptable for a MLMer to suggest 99% of MLMers failing in their "business" is somehow not important because they didn't follow a "system", or they didn't "try hard enough". That is not a reasonable excuse for the overwhelming failure rates.
__________________________________________________________________________
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is: "No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)."
In other words, you can explain away any unique example or criticism by simply saying it isn't a true representation of the group as a whole. MLMs love to explain away any issues they may have by suggesting the MLMer was not a representation of their organization because they, didn't try hard enough, they didn't follow the "system", they didn't explain the "business" correctly, or some other nonsense. This allows them to circumvent any negative statistics, disprove any bad experiences, or justify any losses. Instead of directly addressing the problems, they can simply say, that isn't a true or authentic version of the "business".
It is important to hold the person accountable when they try to use this line of logic. The person needs to provide evidence to assert the example or criticism is unique and is not representative of the group as a whole. Especially when it comes to statistics, it is important for them to provide statistics to refute the point. It is not acceptable for a MLMer to suggest 99% of MLMers failing in their "business" is somehow not important because they didn't follow a "system", or they didn't "try hard enough". That is not a reasonable excuse for the overwhelming failure rates.
__________________________________________________________________________
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The fallacy is very common in political rhetoric. How many left-wing assholes say "True Communism hasn't really been tried yet!" They say this even though scores of socialist or Communist states have been set up around the world, and close to 100 million persons have been murdered in them. But according to these left-wingers, "True Communism hasn't been really tried yet!"
ReplyDeleteMLMs are the same way. Even though Amway admits in its published literature that nearly 99% of those in the business fail at it, they call Amway a great success.
According to the universal, cultic, closed-logic controlling scenario, the self-appointed sovereign leaders, and their exclusive path to Utopia, are always right. Therefore, only the individual can be wrong.
DeleteIt is highly revealing that some of the most celebrated critiques of reality-inverting totalitarian regimes presented as 'Communist/Socialist Utopias,' can be so easily adapted to describe the 'MLM' phenomenon.
e.g.
'The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.'
Georges Orwell (Appendix to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four')
____________________________________________________________
The purpose of 'MLM Income Opportunity' jargon is not only to provide a medium of expression for the unquestioning world-view and mental habits proper to the core-adherents of 'MLM' groups, but to make all other critical and evaluative modes of thought impossible. It is intended that when 'MLM Income Opportunity' jargon has been adopted once and for all and traditional language forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the 'positive' principles of 'MLM' - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary is so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every 'positive' meaning that an 'MLM Distributor' can properly wish to express, while excluding all other 'negative' meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This is done partly by the invention of new 'positive' words and phrases ('Herbalife', 'Amway', 'NuSkin', 'Xango', 'Multi-Level Marketing', 'Distributor' , Independent Business Owner,'), but chiefly by eliminating undesirable 'negative' words and phrases ('cult', 'totalitarian', 'fraud', 'deception', 'brainwashing', 'victims', 'exploitation', 'de facto slaves') and by stripping such words and phrases as remain of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
Anonymous --
DeleteGreat reference with politics! I regularly find comments on news stories suggesting people that believe a certain way aren't "True Americans", in particular with wedge issues. You can't be a "True American" if you support abortion, but you also can't be a "True American" if you believe in taking away the rights to abortion. The truth is, whether you support abortion or not has nothing to do with your ability to be a "True American".
The same can be said about MLM. On Joe's blog, one of his posts had two different MLMers suggest Amway is about sales and not about sales. That seems to be extremely convenient for Amway and MLM if they can play both sides of the fence, and they can discredit both MLMers as not having a full understanding of the "business".
David --
DeleteThe "No true Scotsman" rhetoric was extremely effective when I was being prospected for Amway. They were able to utilize the fallacy with conviction and authority, and they completely eliminated any doubt I had in the authenticity of the "business".
I believe it was even more effective on me, in particular, because I wanted to believe it. I look at the logic in hindsight, and it makes me feel incredibly stupid, because it is, incredibly stupid. Yet, it does work on those unprepared to combat against it, and it definitely worked on me.
I come across this type of argument all the time, it is infuriating. MLM companies, leaders and ex-MLMers all use the excuse that 'failures' or law breaking is entirely the individual's fault. Bot Watch.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous --
DeleteInfuriating is definitely the correct adjective! Once you bring up the statistics and they completely disregard them, the conversation becomes circular and worthless.
It reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy", and how they demonstrate the uselessness in discussing what plants need because the people have been trained to argue in favor of the energy drink "Brawndo". The protagonist argues to use water on the plants in which they respond with laughter and say, "Like from the toilet?". They then tell the protagonist they use Brawndo because, "It's what plants crave", and when the protagonist responds, "Why do plants crave Brawndo?", they say, "Because it has electrolytes.", to which he responds, "Why do they need electrolytes", and they come back to the original statement, "Because that is what plants crave" ad infinitum.
These MLMers will use the same logic when discussing the percentage of MLM failures. If someone says, "99% of MLMers fail", then an MLMer will say, "But they aren't following our 'system'", to which you could respond, "But how could 99% of people not be following the system", to which they would respond, "Because they just didn't listen", to which you could respond, "So 99% of people don't listen?", and they would say, "Yes, because the 'system' is proven and works", to which you would respond, "But 99% of people fail", and then they could go back to, "Because they don't listen" ad infinitum.
There is no reasoning at this point.
In Amway, I heard many times "our group isn't like that" many times despite mountains of evidence that their group was exactly like that. The lines of sponsorship is Amway such as WWDB, BWW or Network 21 are all for profit companies that sell material designed to help IBOs build their Amway businesses.
ReplyDeleteAnd these companies (and the diamonds that own them) profit even if all the IBOs lose their shirts.
Another one is that "we don't do that anymore". There are many redundant techniques that Amway IBOs use to defend their scam.
Joe --
DeleteThe "We don't do that anymore" line should be a HUGE red flag, especially if they don't explain how they changed, or if they create some cockamamie excuse. They are literally confessing the "business" was not previously legitimate, and then somehow they found souls and decided to fix it. What a crock!
As they say, "You can't polish a turd".
Totally off topic, but this (and the pic of Groundskeeper Willie) reminds me of a joke about a Scotsman at a baseball game:
ReplyDeleteA Scotsman is visiting a from the US on a vacation. The friends takes the Scotsman to his first American baseball game. Every time a batter gets a hit, the crowd starts cheering, "Run! Run!" So, a batter steps up to the plate, but he gets a walk. As the batter begins his walk out to first base, the Scotsman starts yelling, "Run laddy, run!!" His friend explains to him, "He gets to walk to first base." The Scotsman looks confused. His friend explains that the batter got four balls so he gets to walk to first base... the Scotsman jumps up and begins yelling, "Walk with pride, laddy! Walk with pride!"
:D