Description:
Kevin Drum coined the term “nut picking” to refer to a variant of the Straw Man. On this variant, a Straw Man is created from fringe and non-representative statements from or of members of a bunch. This Straw Man is then introduced as representing the irrationality or incompetence of the group, which will be seen as like a Hasty Generalization. This model is commonly seen as combing an Advert Hominem with the Fallacy of Composition (what’s true of the acute or fringe components is true of the entire). It may also be taken as making use of Guilt by Affiliation, because it associates the perimeter and excessive members of a bunch with the opposite members.
It may be introduced within the following type:
Premise 1: Individual A selects statements by or members of Group G which can be fringe and non-representative of G.
Premise 2: Individual A presents these statements or members as being mainstream and consultant of G.
Conclusion: Subsequently, group G is irrational, incompetent, or in any other case faulty.
Alternatively, it may be introduced extra bluntly within the spirit of the nut choosing title. Put this manner, the fallacy includes choosing the “nuts” (fringe or excessive members) of a bunch and asserting that these members characterize or converse for the mainstream of the group. This presentation would normally seem like this:
Premise 1: N, the “nuts” (excessive or fringe members) of group G, are chosen.
Premise 2: N, the “nuts” are introduced as representing group G.
Conclusion: Subsequently, group G holds the views of N or does what N does.
For instance, a Democrat would possibly nut choose avowed white supremacists within the Republican occasion to conclude that the Republican Celebration is a white supremacist occasion. As one other instance, a Republican would possibly nut choose avowed Marxists within the Democratic occasion to conclude that the Democratic occasion is Marxist.
It’s clearly not a fallacy to deduce {that a} group is fringe or excessive if its views are fringe or excessive. It is usually not a fallacy to deduce {that a} group is fringe or excessive if that’s the mainstream of the group.
Checking out what the actual views of a bunch are or who counts as a mainstream or true member of the group will be difficult. The issue of constructing such distinctions is commonly compounded by different fallacies, such because the Purity Fallacy, which will be seen because the reverse of nut choosing. In nut choosing, a bunch is taken as being outlined by its fringe or excessive members. Within the Attraction to Purity Fallacy, what is perhaps seen as fringe or excessive members are excluded, in an unprincipled approach, from defining the group.
Teams that maintain excessive or fringe views typically try and defend themselves by accusing their critics of committing this fallacy. For instance, a white supremacist group would possibly declare that their critics are focusing solely on their members who’ve swastika tattoos and thus are nut choosing. But when the pattern used is consultant of the group (giant sufficient and never biased), then this might not be nut choosing however an correct characterization of the group.
As the instance exhibits, a false accusation of nut choosing can, paradoxically, contain a type of inner nut choosing: the defenders of the group choose their most excessive members and declare that except all the group is as excessive as essentially the most excessive members, then the group will not be excessive. However, persevering with the instance, claiming {that a} group that publicly holds to white supremacist ideology will not be a white supremacist group as a result of solely their most fringe members have swastika tattoos wouldn’t be good reasoning.
Protection: To keep away from committing or falling sufferer to this fallacy, make sure you contemplate whether or not the proof supplied {that a} group is excessive, or fringe doesn’t encompass fringe or excessive examples that differ from the mainstream of the group. As all the time, you have to be particularly cautious when contemplating teams that you’ve sturdy emotions about.
Instance #1
“I noticed some folks on the rally for that Republican who had swastika tattoos. That confirms what I’ve lengthy believed, the Republicans are all white supremacists.
Instance #2
“I noticed some folks on the rally for that Democrat who had been waving round a hammer and sickle flag. That confirms what I’ve lengthy believed, the Democrats are Marxists!”
Instance #3
Ted: “Have a look at these anti-choice lunatics. I wager most of them are high-quality with killing docs and even ladies who get abortions.”
Sally: “Why do you assume that?”
Ted: “Effectively docs have been killed by these so-called pro-life nuts. So, it’s affordable to assume that they assume killing docs is simply high-quality. Hypocrits.”
Instance #4
Ted: “Have a look at these pro-choice lunatics. I wager most of them are high-quality with killing infants at 8 and even 9 months.”
Sally: “Why do you assume that?”
Ted: “Effectively, I did see this individual at a rally who had an indication saying, “abortion on demand at any time!” They had been endorsing abortions at any time. Nobody advised her to place away that signal, so I’m certain all these so known as pro-choice anti-life feminazis agree together with her. They’re all high-quality with abortions at any time.”
