12 Logical Fallacies That Undermine Your Intelligence, Influence, and Leadership (And How to Spot Them)

If someone is using these tactics, they’re not trying to learn or share—they’re trying to manipulate you.

I was never the quickest, smartest, or most creative person in school, at work, or on the mat.

In fact, for many years, I was anything but and quite gullible.

I wanted to be a sponge, to take in as much information as possible.

Taking a cue from Socrates:

But in that desire for open-mindedness, I also found that I could take it too far, getting into useless discussions with people who had less than honorable intentions.

I soon learned that some things are just not worth your time exploring.

Some conversations are just not worth having.

I’ve seen how people using logical fallacies are wasting my time, the people who use these tools—are not learning and sharing, but instead, trying to influence, lie, and manipulate me.

I've wasted too much time and energy and don't want you to make the same mistake.

So I offer this list of the 12 most common logical fallacies that I've encountered so that you can recognize them and not make the same mistake I did.

If you hear these don’t waste your time with a discussion.

Why Logical Fallacies Matter

Here’s the thing:

Logical fallacies are tools of manipulation.

They’re not honest arguments. They’re not genuine attempts to find truth or solve problems.

They’re rhetorical tricks designed to win arguments without actually being right.

And when someone uses them—whether in business, politics, relationships, or everyday conversation—they’re signaling something important:

They’re not interested in truth.

They’re interested in winning.

And if you don’t recognize these fallacies, you’ll get pulled into arguments that go nowhere. You’ll waste time, energy, and credibility engaging with people who aren’t arguing in good faith.

So learn to spot them. And learn to walk away when you see them.

12 Logical Fallacies You Need to Know

1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the Person Instead of the Argument

What it is:

Instead of addressing the argument, the person attacks the character, credentials, or identity of the person making the argument.

Example:

“You’re just a dropout, so your opinion is invalid.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with who’s making it. A dropout can make a valid argument. A PhD can make an invalid one.

How to spot it:

If someone is attacking you personally instead of addressing your point, they’re using ad hominem.

How to respond:

“Let’s focus on the argument, not the person making it.”

2. Strawman: Misrepresenting Someone’s Argument to Make It Easier to Attack

What it is:

Instead of addressing your actual argument, the person creates a distorted, exaggerated, or simplified version of it—then attacks that instead.

Example:

“You want more environmental regulations? So you must hate business.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

They’re not arguing against what you actually said. They’re arguing against a caricature of what you said.

How to spot it:

If someone is arguing against a position you didn’t take, they’re using a strawman.

How to respond:

“That’s not what I said. Here’s what I actually said.”

3. Appeal to Authority: Saying Something Is True Because an Authority Says So

What it is:

Instead of providing evidence or logic, the person cites an authority figure as proof.

Example:

“A famous actor endorses this health product, so it must work.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

Authority doesn’t equal truth. Experts can be wrong. Celebrities are often paid to endorse products they don’t use.

How to spot it:

If someone is citing an authority instead of providing evidence, they’re using appeal to authority.

How to respond:

“What’s the evidence? Not just who said it, but why is it true?”

4. False Dilemma: Presenting Only Two Options When More Exist

What it is:

The person presents a situation as if there are only two options—usually extremes—when in reality, there are many options.

Example:

“You’re either with us or against us.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

Most situations aren’t binary. There are usually multiple options, nuances, and middle grounds.

How to spot it:

If someone is forcing you to choose between two extremes, they’re using a false dilemma.

How to respond:

“Those aren’t the only two options. Here are some others.”

5. Slippery Slope: Arguing That One Small Step Will Lead to a Chain of Disasters

What it is:

The person argues that if we allow X, it will inevitably lead to Y, then Z, then catastrophe—without evidence that this chain of events will actually happen.

Example:

“If we allow remote work, soon no one will work at all.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

It assumes a chain of events without evidence. One step doesn’t necessarily lead to the next.

How to spot it:

If someone is predicting a catastrophic chain of events without evidence, they’re using a slippery slope.

How to respond:

“What evidence do you have that this will actually happen?”

6. Circular Reasoning: The Argument Repeats Itself as Proof

What it is:

The conclusion is used as evidence for the premise. The argument goes in a circle.

Example:

“He’s trustworthy because he always tells the truth.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

It doesn’t actually prove anything. It just restates the claim in different words.

How to spot it:

If the argument feels like it’s going in circles, it probably is.

How to respond:

“That’s circular. What’s the actual evidence?”

7. Hasty Generalization: Jumping to Conclusions Based on Limited Evidence

What it is:

The person makes a broad generalization based on a small sample size or limited experience.

Example:

“I met two rude French people; all French people must be rude.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

A small sample doesn’t represent the whole. You can’t generalize from limited data.

How to spot it:

If someone is making sweeping claims based on one or two examples, they’re using hasty generalization.

How to respond:

“That’s a small sample. What’s the broader evidence?”

8. Post Hoc (False Cause): Assuming A Caused B Because It Happened Before B

What it is:

The person assumes that because A happened before B, A must have caused B.

Example:

“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because two things happened in sequence doesn’t mean one caused the other.

How to spot it:

If someone is assuming causation based solely on sequence, they’re using post hoc reasoning.

How to respond:

“What evidence do you have that A actually caused B?”

9. Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating Emotion Instead of Using Logic

What it is:

Instead of providing logical arguments, the person manipulates your emotions—fear, pity, anger—to get you to agree.

Example:

“Think of the children!” instead of debating the actual policy impact.

Why it’s a fallacy:

Emotion isn’t evidence. A policy can make you feel good and still be ineffective or harmful.

How to spot it:

If someone is trying to make you feel something instead of think something, they’re using appeal to emotion.

How to respond:

“I understand the emotional appeal, but what’s the logical argument?”

10. Red Herring: Distracting From the Real Issue With Irrelevant Information

What it is:

The person introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the actual issue being discussed.

Example:

“We can’t worry about climate change when people are unemployed!”

Why it’s a fallacy:

The two issues aren’t mutually exclusive. Bringing up a different issue doesn’t address the original one.

How to spot it:

If someone is changing the subject instead of addressing your point, they’re using a red herring.

How to respond:

“That’s a separate issue. Let’s stay focused on the topic at hand.”

11. Tu Quoque (You Too): Dismissing Criticism Because the Other Person Is Guilty Too

What it is:

Instead of addressing the criticism, the person points out that the critic is guilty of the same thing.

Example:

“You smoke, so you can’t tell me not to.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

The validity of the criticism doesn’t depend on whether the critic is guilty of the same thing. Hypocrisy doesn’t make the argument wrong.

How to spot it:

If someone is deflecting criticism by pointing out your flaws, they’re using tu quoque.

How to respond:

“Whether or not I’m guilty doesn’t change the validity of the point.”

12. Equivocation: Using Ambiguous Language to Mislead

What it is:

The person uses a word or phrase with multiple meanings and shifts between those meanings to mislead.

Example:

“Fine for parking here”—meaning either “okay” or “pay a fine.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

It exploits ambiguity to confuse or mislead instead of clarifying.

How to spot it:

If someone is using words in inconsistent or ambiguous ways, they’re using equivocation.

How to respond:

“Let’s define our terms clearly so we’re talking about the same thing.”

Why People Use Logical Fallacies

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

People use logical fallacies because they work.

Not on everyone. Not forever. But they work often enough to be effective tools of manipulation.

They work because:

1. Most people don’t recognize them. If you don’t know what a strawman is, you won’t notice when someone uses one against you.
2. They appeal to emotion, not logic. And most people make decisions based on emotion, not logic.
3. They shift the burden of proof. Instead of defending their position, they put you on the defensive.
4. They distract from the real issue. Instead of addressing your point, they change the subject.

And if you don’t recognize these tactics, you’ll waste time, energy, and credibility engaging with people who aren’t arguing in good faith.

How to Protect Yourself

Here’s what I’ve learned:

1. Learn to recognize logical fallacies.

Study them. Memorize them. Practice spotting them in real conversations.

The more you know them, the faster you’ll recognize them.

2. Call them out (when appropriate).

Sometimes it’s worth naming the fallacy: “That’s a strawman. Here’s what I actually said.”

Sometimes it’s not worth the fight. Use your judgment.

3. Don’t engage with people who argue in bad faith.

If someone is consistently using logical fallacies, they’re not interested in truth. They’re interested in winning.

And you can’t have a productive conversation with someone who’s not arguing in good faith.

4. Focus on evidence and logic.

When you make an argument, base it on evidence and logic. Not emotion. Not authority. Not manipulation.

Model the behavior you want to see.

5. Know when to walk away.

Not every argument is worth having. Not every person is worth engaging with.

If someone is using logical fallacies to manipulate you, walk away.

Putting It On the Mat

Here’s what I want you to do this week:

Pick one of these 12 fallacies and watch for it in conversations, news, social media.

Notice how often it’s used. Notice who uses it. Notice how it’s used to manipulate.

Then practice spotting it and calling it out (when appropriate).

The more you practice, the better you’ll get at recognizing when someone is trying to manipulate you.

And the better you’ll get at protecting your time, energy, and credibility.

The Truth About Intelligence and Leadership

Intelligence isn’t just about knowing things. It’s about thinking clearly.

And thinking clearly requires recognizing when someone is trying to manipulate your thinking.

Leadership isn’t just about influencing people. It’s about influencing them honestly.

And honest influence doesn’t rely on logical fallacies.

So if you want to be more intelligent, more influential, and a better leader—learn to recognize these fallacies.

In yourself and in others.

Because the people who use these tactics aren’t trying to learn or share.

They’re trying to manipulate you.

And you don’t have time for that.

Which fallacy do you see most often in your life?