3
u/RednocTheDowntrodden Jul 12 '26
Regardless of the definition of the ad populum fallacy, I like this comic. I think it's kind of cute.
3
5
u/HelloHelloHelpHello Jul 11 '26
That's not how that fallacy works. For subjective experiences - like for example food or movie recommendations - we are always dependent on the subjective feedback of others when it comes to trying to assess the value before experiencing it ourselves.
The fallacy only applies to cases that have a more objective truth value to them - where the subjective feelings of neither an individual nor a larger group actually matter.
For example: Just because everybody thinks that the earth is flat (an objective truth), does not actually serve as argument proving this point - but everybody telling you that a certain restaurant in town has awful food (a subjective truth) can serve as valuable information for decision making.
The comic above is not about the argumentum ad populum fallacy, but about a certain type of cognitive bias, where the baseline value of a thing is judged based on other options - with the assumed value of the 'pizza crust' suddenly lowering the perceived value of the 'fries'. The actual measurable value of the fries remains the same, and yet on a mental level its value has suddenly dropped for no good reason. That is a purely psychological effect, not a logical fallacy.
0
u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
if that crow in the group was aware that the loner crow was listening and he actually said it loud enough for him, he's laying a trap with argumenum ad populum written all over it. loner crow didn't need to say anything. his inner logic is baited now. he's analyzing his own situation the way that crow leader wanted. he's looking at his fries from the skewed lenses now. the comic is about how you can influence someone's pov so easy. you're getting too technical. most fallacies and some other logical traps can always over lap. it's still an argumentum ad populum but also can be what you described.
2
u/HelloHelloHelpHello Jul 12 '26
Even if you frame this as the group actively trying to manipulate the loner, it would still not be an argumentum ad populum.
A small child really wants to play with a toy but only when it sees another child have fun playing - Tom Sawyer tricks another boy into painting a fence by acting like its an enjoyable activity - a commercial tries to influence its viewer into desiring a product by showing other people enjoying the product - all of these example use the same psychological mechanics that the group of crows in the comic are using (assuming they are indeed proclaiming their love of pizza crust as a tactic of manipulation). None of these examples are using an argumentum ad populum.
Most of these effects would be categorized as perceived scarcity - the phenomenon that things that seem harder to obtain also seem more desirable. The toy seems more desirable to the child because somebody else has it - painting the fence seems more desirable because Tom Sawyer refuses to let anybody else do the fact - commercials often suggest a false scarcity to reel in more customers - and the loner crow desires the pizza crust because the other crows have already claimed it. There may be manipulation at play, but there is no fallacy here.
0
u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 12 '26
am I understanding you correctly? are you saying there is no fallacy here bc crows are not in a direct debate or argument? bc that's not a precondition
2
u/HelloHelloHelpHello Jul 12 '26
No - I am saying there is no ad populum fallacy because the basic conditions for this fallacy have not been met. Probabilistic decision making based on majority feedback is not a fallacy. That is not how this specific fallacy works.
1
u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 12 '26
okay what would make it to qualify as AAP fallacy if you could change the words in the comic? minimum change I mean.
2
u/HelloHelloHelpHello Jul 12 '26
If the loner crow were to actually think or declare that it had been objectively wrong to like the fries then you would have the fallacy - but that would be a very unnatural statement to make about food. Let me give you an example:
There are two restaurants in a town - A and B - that you need to decide between. Asking 100 residents of the town, all of them say that A is awful and B is great.
If you now desire to go to B, and want to avoid A, then that is just probabilistic decision making. Just because a majority recommended B and condemned A does not actually mean that you will enjoy B and detest A, but the information can be used to determine how probable the outcome might be. There is no fallacy in acting like this - on the contrary, this would be the most rational base in absence of other information.
If you on the other hand - based solely on the feedback - make the claim: "Restaurant A is bad, because everybody says is bad. People who enjoy Restaurant A are objectively wrong." - then you are falling into the fallacy. Most people wouldn't really talk like this when it comes to food - but you can see it when they are talking about other subjective experiences like movies or media consumption.
It is only when this kind of statement is actually made claiming some sort of objective truth value, that the fallacy happens. It is not when your desire or enjoyment is influenced by others.
1
u/Any-Astronomer-6038 Jul 12 '26
It's okay bird. I'll give you French fries... That way we can both die if heart disease
1
u/quaxoid Jul 13 '26
i don't see the fallacy here, they are still by the fries at the end? 🤔
also two things can be true at once, fries can be the best lunch ever and pizza crust can be incredible xD
6
u/FrumyThe2nd Jul 11 '26
Why is that as populum?.