Have you ever had a conversation with someone who was convincing you about something, only to find out later they left out half the story? It’s easy to find yourself taking a stance and forming opinions based on a single side of things, especially if the information presented seems very declarative and all-encompassing.
But card-stacking – also known as cherry picking, a one-sided argument or suppressing evidence – intentionally seeks to make people believe one side is the entire story.[1] This can lead to false conclusions, misinformation or a complete misunderstanding of a situation.
It can also have a devastating impact on our lives, socially or politically. One of the most prominent issues in media news today comes from the development of two narratives in media reporting that stem from willful card-stacking on the part of mostly conservative media organizations.[2] You can even see the issue take place on a smaller, personal scale, when two individuals have an argument and people take sides after hearing just one version of events.
Card stacking tricks you by giving you the false impression that you’re fully educated on a subject
Card stacking works by not just presenting only one side of an argument but intentionally suppressing a listener’s knowledge of other arguments or evidence related to a subject. Commonly employed in political ads or public relations campaigns, card stacking gives the listener the false impression that they’re being fully educated on a subject when they may in fact be presented with misinformation or information taken out of context.
For example, someone wanting to defend a John Doe may take a quote that says “I do not support John Doe and dislike him, although many people say he is a great man,” and then present someone only with “Many people say he is a great man.” This would technically not be a wrong quote, but it is willfully taken out of context in order to bolster a particular argument. It provides a listener with what appears to be solid evidence, thereby appealing to a sense of authority, and discourages the listener from questioning the accuracy of the quote.
On a larger scale, this can involve intentionally providing testimonials or evidence that comes to a particular conclusion, while willfully ignoring, leaving out or failing to seek out information or testimonials that leads to a different conclusion.
Some biased political polls is done based on the concept of card stacking
Cherry picking often comes down to a misrepresentation of events or information based on presenting an analysis that is incomplete or incorrect. Some biased political polls, for example, are conducted in such a way to obtain opinions from primarily older people who haven’t abandoned old habits – such as having a landline – leading to a conservative slant in poll responses.[3] Or they will call only cell phones, which leads to a decidedly liberal slant. Although this isn’t an example of willful cherry picking, it is an example of a well-known weakness in polling methods that political pundits may intentionally ignore or fail to mention when presenting the poll results.
The sense of skepticism is the best tool to combat card stacking
Individuals can combat this by learning to keep skepticism about them when receiving information from creepy guy types and other unreliable sources.[4] When someone provides you with a quote, search for the full context the quote was delivered in to understand precisely what the speaker meant.
If an expert presents you with a poll analysis, search for the compiled poll results yourself, and then look at the methodology used to conduct the poll.
During an argument between two individuals, make the effort to listen to both stories (as well as other testimony) in order to understand both perspectives, rather than drawing a conclusion from one.
In general, a sense of skepticism about the information presented to you and a willingness to search for original data yourself will keep you from falling prey to card stacking misinformation. By learning to take the search for information into your own hands, you soon learn how to identify misrepresentation off the bat, which sources can be trusted and which cannot, and how to effectively form your own opinion about a subject. Make yourself an independent thinker and don’t let anyone manipulate you with misinformation or cherry picking.
FAQs
Strawson has argued that the proper way out of the Liar Paradox is to carefully re-examine how the term truth is really used by speakers. He says such an investigation will reveal that the Liar Sentence is meaningful but fails to express a proposition.
How do you solve the one liar one truth riddle? ›
If you ask about a fact, the two (liar or truth-teller) will always give opposite answers and you won't know which is which. Instead, ask about the liar or truth-teller. This will get the same answer from both a liar and a truth-teller, thereby giving you accurate information.
What is Ericsson's central claim about lying? ›
In an essay detailing the lies told to ourselves and others, Ericsson points out one bold truth; everyone lies. Through her writing, Ericsson causes the reader to look into how they've lied in the past and how to effects others and the general greater good of society.
What is the liar paradox quote? ›
The paradox was once discussed by Jerome of Stridon in a sermon: "I said in my alarm, Every man is a liar!" Is David telling the truth or is he lying? If it is true that every man is a liar, and David's statement, "Every man is a liar" is true, then David also is lying; he, too, is a man.
What is the famous liar paradox? ›
According to the then-dominant approach, developed by the Polish logician Alfred Tarski, the liar paradox requires giving up the view that a natural language such as English contains a single truth predicate. Instead, there is a hierarchy of predicates truen for each integer n.
Has the liar paradox been solved? ›
It is clear that the liar paradox cannot be resolved this easily, but a similar approach may prove to be worthwhile. The statement “This statement is not true” must refer to something (a state of affairs) in order to be able to determine that it is (not) true, but that complement is lacking.
How do you trick a liar to tell the truth? ›
How to Get the Truth Out of a Liar
- Wait to bring up the subject until you are alone.
- Speak to them in a gentle tone of voice.
- Ask them about what happened in different ways.
- Downplay the lie that they're telling.
- Empathize with them.
- Remain silent.
- Share what you think happened.
You may be able to stop lying through tactics including self-reflection, including understanding the thoughts and feelings behind your lies. Most people have told a lie or two in their lifetime. Maybe they twist the truth to keep someone from getting hurt. Or, maybe they mislead someone in order to achieve an end goal.
How to solve the one of us is lying puzzle? ›
Again, both guards will indicate the same door, which is indeed the door to freedom: the truth guard would, straightforwardly, tell you the truth, while the liar, if asked what door leads to freedom, would point to the opposite, and, if asked his answer, must give the opposite of that — the true door.
Is hiding the truth deception? ›
It's true you don't always have to include every minor detail in a story to make it accurate, but if leaving out details misconstrues the truth, it may be considered a form of deception.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that all persons are born with an "intrinsic worth" that he called human dignity.
What is the philosophy of never lying? ›
Some philosophers, most famously the German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), believed that that lying was always wrong. He based this on his general principle that we should treat each human being as an end in itself, and never as a mere means.
What is the Greek liar paradox? ›
History of the Paradox of the Liar
Since Epimenides himself was Cretan, he would be included in the statement that all Cretans were liars. Surely this fact then contradicted such a claim, in that he was lying when he said all Cretans were liars since he himself was included in the subject group.
What does Russell's paradox say? ›
In mathematical logic, Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy) is a set-theoretic paradox published by the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell in 1901. Russell's paradox shows that every set theory that contains an unrestricted comprehension principle leads to contradictions.
What is the most famous paradox Russell's paradox? ›
If it is a member of itself, then it must meet the condition of its not being a member of itself. But if it is not a member of itself, then it precisely meets the condition of being a member of itself. This impossible situation is called Russell's paradox.
Is the liar paradox valid? ›
Let us explain the self-liar as self-denying self-destructive. The same “I am a liar” proves both that, taken as valid, it is invalid, and that, taken as invalid, it is valid: “I am a liar” is “the liar paradox.” Paradox is an internal inter-opposition, a unity self-undermining.
What is the answer to this statement is false? ›
The sentence "This statement is false" is self-referential and has no clear meaning and during logical analysis sentences with no clear meaning may lead to a contradiction, which is why it cannot be definitively evaluated as either true or false.
How to solve paradox? ›
You're solving a mystery. Once you recognize that it's a Paradox question, identify two conflicting facts and ask yourself: Why is one fact happening, even though the other fact is happening? Your prediction might involve made-up information and doesn't need to match the correct answer word-for-word.
Do compulsive liars know they are lying? ›
Or they may think they are telling the truth. Do pathological liars believe their own lies? According to mental health experts, many pathological and compulsive liars do believe the stories they're telling. They may have repeated their lies so often that they start to feel true.
