A virus that is targeting the collective intelligence of humanity.

The antivirus is in our heads.

Scott Wagers (Modern day straw man in a field. Maasmechelen, Belgium)

The deliberative component of democracy declined in 27 countries in 2024. This erosion of our ability to reason together isn't just a political crisis, it's a fundamental threat to human problem-solving capability.

At the heart of this crisis lies a set of cognitive viruses: logical fallacies. These flaws in reasoning limit our potential as humans, and we often succumb to them because of their deceptive simplicity. It is also easy to ignore or simply accept them.

Many logical fallacies tend to hide in plain sight. By knowing how to identify logical fallacies and how to call them out, we can do a lot to limit their damage.

The straw man logical fallacy

17 years ago, in the drab confines of an academic meeting room, I heard the term 'straw man' used to describe what was really a prototype. It was a diagram sketched out with simple boxes on a slide.

The prototype was the start of what ended up being a productive way of working in that particular consortium project. I became enamoured of the straw man approach. Fortunately, I did move on from the term 'straw man' to other terms such as 'fast mover', 'low resource', and now I am more fond of just calling them all prototypes.

Recently, I came across an article that mentioned 'straw man' in the key takeaways. One groggy Sunday morning, after waking early to make forgotten bread, I read the article. While it clearly dispelled my wrongly conceived conception of the term 'straw man', I learned that the straw man fallacy has a particularly corrosive effect, but there is something we can do about it. But first, let's clarify what a straw man is and what it is not.

A weak form of rhetoric

Wikipedia quotes Stephen Downes for the definition of a straw man.

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognising or acknowledging the distinction."

An example of a straw man argument would be if someone says a restaurant is too expensive for a casual dinner and the response is, “So you are cheap and never want to spend money on anything nice.”

Another straw man argument is saying that a scientific paper received money from industry; therefore, it must be disregarded. While undue industry influence is a real concern when you are analysing a scientific paper, that is not what you are debating. A scientific paper should be evaluated based on whether its findings hold up under scientific scrutiny.

That it was funded by industry is irrelevant to that argument. It may mean that you should be particularly vigilant, but you should be able to judge the scientific merit of the study based on its methods, results and analyses.

I am certain you can think of a lot of straw man arguments that are flying around in this currently hyper-charged political climate.

Once you have a name for the fallacy, it is easy to call it out. "That's a straw man argument." Of course, you may need to clarify what that means. It does, however, seem like you could find yourself doing that a lot on social media and a lot of conversations.

What's great about being aware of straw man fallacies is that you can do a lot more than just calling them out.

Man of Steel

One writer who I think of as a Superman of philosophy is Jonny Thomson. The article he wrote that I read on that Sunday morning was 'Daniel Dennett's 4 Rules for a Good Debate.' He makes the point that using a straw man is not a good way to debate.

"The opposite of a straw man is a steel man. This is where you not only represent someone's arguments faithfully and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light."

This is similar to Keith Sawyer's concept of improvisational innovation, where you always build on each other's ideas. It is also a form of empathy and emotional intelligence, which are really what you need if you want to be a high-agency achiever.

By respecting and truly trying to understand the person you are having a discussion with, you create an environment where there is trust and safety to open up and put bold ideas forward. It is in that combinatorial space that the greatest form of creativity takes place. We know that collective creativity outperforms individual creativity and the biggest determinant of that gain in performance is the social dynamic within a group, not the IQs of the members of a group. So, what we want and what we need is a way to create steel men, not straw men.

Rules that turn any discussion into a productive use of your time.

A dialogue is when you build on each other's ideas. Thomson reminds us of the four rules of debate as defined by Daniel Dennett:

“First, and most important, is that you should attempt to express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says things ‘I wish I thought of putting it that way.’

Second, you should list all of the ways in which you and your partner agree on things.

Third, you should recognize the ways in which your partner has taught you something new.

Fourth, only after all of this can you go on to try and rebut or criticize their position.”

Following the first three rules often eliminates the need for rebuttal or criticism. In fact, I think if we go even further and faithfully ask those we are debating why they believe what they are saying enough times in succession (5 whys), we will always come to point where there is common ground between us.

When you find common ground with someone, you can then build something on that common ground that you both agree upon.

Usually, before you can get to Dennett's first point, you need to build up a level of understanding. It is important to note that Dennett's rules are for philosophical debates, which tend to have lots of detailed background texts you can read and re-read and therefore represent an opponent's position.

In real-time discussions, you likely will not have the prior knowledge to go into so much detail. This is where a questioning strategy like the 5 Whys is particularly helpful.

I have a confession to make.

When you look at Dennett's four rules, it is basically a way to compliment first and then criticise.

My confession is that despite spending a lot of time facilitating the process of combined thinking, I always cringe when someone starts out a response with an overbearing compliment. In fact, in some people I know that when they do that, they actually have a low opinion of what was just said. I have had people tell me as much.

But that is exactly the point; yes, you can gain something by the formalisms of being nice, but if you really want to be kind, you will take a genuine approach and first own your opponent's point of view before expressing your own.

"Seek first to understand, and then to be understood." Stephen Covey

Why this matters, Elon.

Elon Musk is famous for eschewing meetings. He finds emails much more efficient means of communication. Emails are also a flat and easily disrespectful way of thinking together. They work well when all you want to do is tell someone what they should do. When you do that, you limit the thinking to just your own.

Reflecting back what you have just heard is like a communication protocol for human interaction, for collective intelligence. When we limit our chances to interact and we limit the way we interact, the depth of our creativity becomes limited.

If the only form of argument everyone uses is a straw man argument, we will lose our ability to access our collective capacity to create. The strawman fallacy is like a computer virus that targets the collective intelligence of humanity.

Mindful meetings.

One of the things that makes meetings dreadful is that most people are thinking about what they are going to say next, not what is being said now.

So, if you really want to benefit from the brilliance of thinking together when you are in a meeting, ask yourself what you are thinking about. If you’re thinking exclusively about what you are going to say, use that as a prompt to refocus your attention on what is being said.

One way to do this is to think about a question you would like to ask.

• What would you need to know to clearly, vividly, and fairly represent what someone is saying?

• What would you need to really learn something from the person you are listening to?

The strawman antivirus we are born with.

The antivirus that will help combat the straw man fallacy mental virus that risks fractionating humanity is a well-timed question. This assumes that your well-timed question is aimed at increasing your understanding of what is being said.

This not only keeps on track to follow Dennett's four rules, it is also a great way to increase connection, which is one of the main components of what Joe Hudson will replace knowledge work - wisdom work. In essence, the way to prevent falling into straw man logical fallacies is curiosity.

The antidote to this collective intelligence virus isn't just individual awareness, it's collective action.

At the Big Project Collective, we're building a community of leaders who understand that the skills needed to combat logical fallacies and enhance collective thinking are crucial for tackling humanity's biggest challenges.

This newsletter draws from my experience working with biomedical research leaders, revealing how the principles of effective collective intelligence apply universally across fields. Whether you're leading a research team or building a company, these insights will help you create environments where genuine dialogue and collective wisdom can flourish.

Subscribe to join a community of more than 1.000 people dedicated to strengthening humanity's collective intelligence, one conversation at a time.