This technique is a rhetorical sleight of hand that not only allows a politician to frame their opponent as extreme, illogical, or out of touch but also makes their own position seem more reasonable by comparison. Unlike what one might expect, the fallacy is rarely disarmed by simply correcting the record.
The durability of straw men stems from our reliance on cognitive shortcuts, or heuristics
- any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of decision making, often relying on intuition or gut feeling. Not guaranteed to be optimal or rational, this method is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate decision.
, which encourage us to accept simplified arguments that resonate with our existing belief system, allowing us to bypass the need to critically evaluate the details of someone’s actual position. For instance, when a straw man portrays an opponent’s stance as extreme or unreasonable, listeners are likely to rely on their own confirmation bias - the cognitive bias that leads individuals to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs while disregarding or discounting evidence that contradicts them.
to accept the distorted portrayal without question.
Compounding this is the continued influence effect - a cognitive phenomenon where misinformation persists in people’s minds and continues to influence their beliefs or behaviors, even after they recognize it has been debunked.
, a psychological phenomenon where false information can persist in people’s minds even after they have been presented with a correction or factual rebuttal. Once an audience internalizes a distorted version of an argument, subsequent clarifications often fail to fully replace the initial misconception. Because the audience’s return on cognitive rewards is keyed toward new information, particularly when it is engaging or sensational, the opponent gains less credibility in clarifying their own position than the author of the straw man does in distorting it.
Even when exposed, the audience often doesn't interpret the straw man as a form of deception on the part of the author. Instead, the author is perceived as having a particularly profound understanding of the opponent’s position. Successful straw men are therefore constructed not from what the opponent has said, but what they have supposedly left unsaid. A successful straw man makes the opponent seem both malicious—as if they are hiding their "true" intentions—and incompetent, as if they failed in their supposed attempt to fool the audience.
By placing the burden of rectifying the straw man on the opponent, audiences are cognitively predisposed to favor the author of the straw man over the individual attempting to correct the misrepresentation. This is because correcting the record can be a slow, painstaking process that requires careful explanation. Worse still, efforts to clarify or refute the straw man can unintentionally reinforce it by repeating the distorted argument in order to debunk it.
An effective straw man also capitalizes on the human tendency to prioritize conquest over reason, framing debates as battles to be won rather than opportunities for understanding. By presenting a distorted version of their opponent’s argument, the speaker creates an easily defeatable foe, allowing them to performatively "win" the exchange. This taps into the audience’s instinctive association of dominance with credibility—where the ability to overpower an opponent, rhetorically or otherwise, is seen as a marker of strength and authority.
Recognizing straw man arguments requires not only identifying their hallmarks but also understanding why they work—and why they so often succeed. When a politician claims their opponent supports an extreme or illogical position, it is crucial to question whether this reflects the opponent’s actual views or is simply a straw man.
Interviews related to straw man
Producer: Jahnavi Akella
Published: January 21, 2021
