Geoffrey MillerVerified account

5/A Gish Galloper is cycling between unrelated arguments because he isn't really considering your points. He's kicking out against your entire worldview.

6/The only slightly hypothetical Gish Galloper in the above example is throwing out any anti-immigration argument he can think of. He has a diffuse, vague, but very strong feeling that immigration is bad, so he's just going to throw the kitchen sink at people who say it's good.

7/If you could somehow pin down the Gish Galloper and force him to focus on a specific point, he would probably be confused and flummoxed. Because he doesn't think in terms of following specific arguments through to their individual conclusions.

8/Hence, it's POINTLESS to argue logically with a Gish Galloper, as you would if you were dealing with a focused thinker. It's a losing battle. So do you just ignore Gish Gallopers? You can, but there actually is a way to argue with them...

9/To argue fruitfully with a Gish Galloper, you must focus on gestalt arguments. You must play his game, because he just doesn't know how to play yours.

10/Ignore the Galloper's points (which aren't really points at all). Focus on a central, memorable message that will allow him to think about the whole issue in a different frame. For example: "The United States is a team, and immigrants are recruits who strengthen that team."

Better, figure out what virtues the Galloper is trying to signal, and show them they can signal them even better by reframing the issue. Anything less won't change their mind.

Do you mean "signal" in the sense of a costly signal, or "signal" as in "communicate"? Because if it's the latter, that approach won't work...