Chapter 17- The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Misconception: You should ignore someone’s claims if you feel that you
cannot trust them.
Truth: What someone says and their intentions for saying it should be
judged separately.
Summary: The Ad Hominem Fallacy is accusing someone of being wrong
based on who that person is or what group he or she belongs to. An accuser would
not disagree with someone that the sky is blue, but he or she would use the Ad
Hominem Fallacy during an argument on something the accuser was unfamiliar
with. This fallacy also works in reverse; a person can come off as trustworthy and
always correct if they have a good reputation.
Example: Two moms are running for President of the PTSA at a local high
school. Both moms would make a great president; the only difference between them
is that the younger woman had her child when she was 16 and the other woman
was already married and older when she got pregnant. The older woman is scared
that she might lose the election so she makes all her arguments and claims against
the other mom, saying, “Mary cannot be a good president of the PTSA-how can she
have our kid’s best interests in mind when she was pregnant at their age?” This
example shows the older mom accusing the younger mom of being an improper fit
for president based on her past reputation of a “teen mom” instead of looking at
what she could offer the PTSA now.
Chapter 18- The Just-World Fallacy
Misconception: People deserve whatever bad comes their way.
Truth: Good fortune is oftentimes not given to people who deserve it, just as
bad people’s mistakes are not always followed by consequences.
Summary: This is the tendency to react to terrible incidents or misfortunes
by believing the people who end up in those situations must have done something to
deserve it. People do this because it is easier for them to believe they are smarter
than the misfortunate and they will not have the same fate; it provides a sense of
security. The just-world fallacy is believing that the good guys always win and the
bad guys always lose.
Example: In a study, two stories involving a man and woman were explained
to participants. The single difference between the stories was the final outcome. In
one version of the story the woman is raped, and in the other the man proposes to
her. Participants credited the woman with everything that happened, saying her
actions caused both outcomes. It was easier to believe that the woman deserved to
be raped than to question the “just” and “fair” ways of the world.
Chapter 19- The Public Goods Game
Misconception: If we lived in a world with no rules or restrictions, societies
would solely operate for the good of the people and everyone would be happy.
Truth: Without any form of regulation, lazy and deceitful citizens will wreck
the economy because they don’t want to feel like chumps.
Summary: The mistake of taking from a common good is that eventually the
common good will be weakened by a growing sense of greed. Research shows that
we are not so smart when it comes to contributing to the public good. We will cheat
if we feel that the system is cheating us. If in this type of situation, we could punish
the evil and the lazy, the cheating would stop and everyone will prosper. But if the
only purpose of this society is to continuously reward the good, the economy will
crash every time. In an effort not to fall behind, everyone loses.
Example: There is always so much food at thanksgiving dinner but
sometimes there never ends up being enough for everyone. If people only took what
they needed from each dish, everyone would be able to enjoy a little bit of
everything. But instead, greedy people take how many helpings they want. As
humans, if we tend to see a loophole in a system we will follow and use it if it proves
beneficial to us.
Chapter 20- The Ultimatum Game
Misconception: Logic is the only factor used in deciding if an object should
be refused or accepted.
Truth: Decisions are based on status when making a deal.
Summary: The ultimatum game has two sides; one side is required to make a
take-it-or-leave-it offer and the other must choose to accept or reject it. If the one
side accepts it, the agreed upon decision is carried out. If the one side rejects it, both
sides get nothing. People do not approach this situation with logic; instead our
emotions control us. If the one side offers a cheap/bad deal, the other side will feel
inferior and as if their status and/or reputation was disrespected, thus causing them
to reject the deal. We know this instinctively, which is why we are more likely to
offer close to half of what we have.
Example: You are walking with your friend when a man approaches you
with 20 $1 bills and says you can keep the money as long as you share it with your
friend. He then tells you the rules of the ultimatum game and with that it mind you
make your decision. Will you be generous to your friend, or will you rip him off
because your friends? In a strict, efficient view economy you would give your friend
the lowest amount of money. But our world is not set up with that view and we
know that if we offered someone the lowest amount possible they are more likely to
reject it, so subjects usually offer more than the lowest amount.
McRaney, David. You Are Not So Smart. New York: Penguin Group, 2011. Print.
Cherry, Kendra. "What Is the Just-World Phenomenon?" About.com Psychology. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Clark, Josh. "What’s the ultimatum game?" 26 February 2008. HowStuffWorks.com.
17 February 2014.