3

I'm really lost for words...

For example, I like people with short hair. But then someone could say, so you hate people with long hair? But, of course, I did not give any information on people with long hair. I could've liked/hate it. What is this called? I'm sure there was a name to this, maybe an expression?

7
  • 1
    In philosophical circles, it's called a "false dichotomy": mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html
    – Dan Bron
    Aug 13, 2014 at 15:26
  • 3
    And in Freudian psychoanalysis, if it’s not one thing, it’s your mother.
    – tchrist
    Aug 13, 2014 at 15:37
  • 1
    This is the fallacy (assuming the duality long or short hair): If A, then B. // Not B . Therefore C (a subset of not A). Aug 13, 2014 at 15:52
  • 1
    This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Very similar to DumpsterDoofus' answer, but essentially the inverse of what he said. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P." It assumes that, to have Q, you must have P, but it doesn't. It's the same as if you said all rectangles are squares (To be a square requires it to also be a rectangle, but to be a rectangle does not require it to also be a square).
    – TylerH
    Aug 13, 2014 at 17:08
  • 1

4 Answers 4

7

This is commonly known as the fallacy of "denying the antecedent".

To see why this is the case, you can rephrase your statement as follows.

Let P be "A person has short hair", and let Q be "I like them."

Then by simple substitution, your friend's false assertion is logically equivalent to

P implies Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

This is the exact formal definition of denying the antecedent.

Here's the statement substitution:

"A person has short hair" implies "I like them".

"This person does not have short hair."

Therefore, "I do not like them".

7
  • 1
    "Do not like" isn't necessarily "hate"; this is not a two-possibility scenario OP has described. Aug 13, 2014 at 15:41
  • I've always learned it as affirming the consequent (which I think is distinct and better for this scenario) rather than the inverse that you describe here.
    – TylerH
    Aug 13, 2014 at 17:04
  • 1
    @TylerH: There is no Q therefore P claimed in this scenario. (It is logically equivalent to Not P, therefore not Q, the false claim made here, by virtue of being its contrapositive)
    – Ben Voigt
    Aug 13, 2014 at 17:22
  • @EdwinAshworth "Do not like" wasn't what the OP described; he/she could have even liked long-hair people.
    – seismatica
    Aug 13, 2014 at 20:00
  • @seismatica You're missing my point. I'm saying that if, using DD's algebra, Q = 'I like them', Q' doesn't = 'I hate them' but rather 'I don't [like them]' (I may have no feelings one way or the other). The hypothetical 'someone' OP posits 'hates them', which is not 'the alternative to liking them'. It's one alternative. Aug 13, 2014 at 20:34
1

If someone made that assertion they would be constructing a false dichotomy.

4
  • 1
    This is wrong. A false dichotomy is a failure to account for the existence of additional possibilities when asking someone to make a decision between several choices. In contrast, the OP is specifically asking for the word to describe the situation which is the logical negation of "affirming the consequent", aka "denying the antecedent". Aug 13, 2014 at 15:31
  • It's implicit that there are only two options (love short hair/hate long hair) and this is a false dichotomy. But you're right, it's not entirely what OP is after.
    – silves89
    Aug 13, 2014 at 15:39
  • @silves89 Why can't 'he' be unmoved by people with long hair? Aug 13, 2014 at 15:44
  • 1
    This is somewhere between a false dichotomy and the classic cross-examination gotcha "So, is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?" (a loaded question).
    – webXL
    Aug 13, 2014 at 15:46
0

This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but if I was being accused of hating long hair when I haven't said anything about long hair, I'd reply with something like "Quit putting words in my mouth." Therefore I'd say the colloquialism putting words in your mouth describes this scenario pretty well. It literally describes the act of claiming you said something which you never actually said.

-2

You might be looking for non sequitur.

1
  • 6
    It would be great of you to describe non sequitur and explain how it answers the question.
    – TylerH
    Aug 13, 2014 at 17:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.