In the social media era, separating truth from fiction is hard. Here’s one way you can tell the difference between a real argument and a dishonest one.
The difference between a simple argument and a simplistic one is authority.
Simplistic arguments try to make complex issues bite-sized. They’re like trading a balanced diet for a multi-vitamin. It’s the land of 7-minute abs, which was just one minute less than the 8-minute abs: so you already know they’re trying to sell something hard as if it were easy.
Of course, these arguments never really work. Not for long. Because they leave out all the really hard stuff. Of course we can sweep it under the rug today, but eventually we will have to deal with what’s under there. The junk we avoid always has a way of making us deal with it.
Simplistic arguments avoid hard truths and refuse to wrestle with the details because the purpose of the argument and conviction of the arguer are most important. They don’t rely on the authority of truth to prove themselves self-evident but borrow authority from the person making the argument or appeal to a narrowed authority.
The simplistic argument is built on ideology and charisma.
This is why simplistic arguments are so effective to demagogues and charismatic leaders—they sound good and you ultimately buy into it because of the person making the argument.
The Difference is Simple
One builds a simple argument. It’s starts at the grassroots with an investigation of a problem. We build from the ground up. Which means we don’t start with the end in mind, to prove a point. We read all of the data and test all of our assumptions.
Simple arguments are birthed after a long process of work and discovery. They are rarely a fully formed conviction or platitude we pass off for true. There’s almost always a process we can’t see.
An old adage about preaching you may have heard before:
If you want me to preach for ten minutes, give me a week. If you want me to preach for 25, give me a day. But if you want me to preach for an hour, I can start right now.
Simple arguments don’t come simply.
They come from hard work and come with the authority of that work—the research and reasoning and time that comes with whittling down a complex mass to a small nugget.
Telling the Difference
You can often tell the difference between an argument that is simple from simplistic based on two tells.
- Whether or not it avoids hard truths.
- Where it gets its authority.
For example, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions used Romans 13 out of context to justify immigration policies, he appealed to scripture and his office to defend a policy he already supported. A contextual reading of that very scripture entirely compromises his argument. And it shows how a person of faith can use scripture rather than begin from scripture.
Many faith leaders who have been protesting immigration policies have come to this with a foundation of long work with scripture and its appeals throughout for welcoming the stranger and use that focus to address the many complex issues involved in immigration.
The simplistic/simple difference isn’t a partisan thing, it’s an authority thing. It won’t be balanced left v. right or free of a bothsidesist critique. Of course in 30 years, our roles could be reversed, but that isn’t true for our moment. Truth can’t be ghettoed by American politics.
And this reveals a third tell.
I don’t trust an argument which avoids hard stuff or appeals outside for authority. I don’t think “because I’m the parent” ever works. It isn’t a good argument. Primarily because it stops seeking a solution to the problem. Good arguments seek to deal with the presenting problem rather than avoid them.
So it’s better to find the simple argument through hard work and embracing the stuff we’d rather overlook. It has a far better chance of being true. And most of us, whether we know it or not, can spot the difference.