This is a pretty common type of statement that's seen frequently on internet posts and discussions, but I was curious if there was a term for it. The statement starts off with a disclaimer which is used to strengthen their argument and can even be used as a cheap way to deceive people into accepting their point of view. Here are a few examples:

"As a Clinton supporter, I completely agree that Trump is correct here."

"I don't care much for rock music, but The Beatles have some of the best albums I've ever heard."

Notice that without the first part of these statements the statements aren't as convincing.

  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is about psychological manipulation and not philosophy.
    – user9166
    Commented Jun 30, 2016 at 22:42
  • 2
    I don't see how it is. It fits into the category of rhetoric, which is a branch of philosophy after all. It doesn't necessarily have to be manipulation. Commented Jun 30, 2016 at 22:44
  • Possible duplicate of Name of fallacy when one says he used to have the same views
    – Dave
    Commented Jun 30, 2016 at 23:28
  • Slight difference in tense, but I think that the underling issues are the same as for linked question. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon#Granfalloon_technique
    – Dave
    Commented Jun 30, 2016 at 23:30
  • @Dave But this is the exact opposite, no? By claiming immunity from the corrupting influence of identity politics (granfalloon allegiance) you are asserting impartiality, which is meant to make your opinion matter more.
    – user9166
    Commented Jul 1, 2016 at 0:12

3 Answers 3


It seems to me a variation on a fortiori ("even more so") argumentation.

A Fortiori [Latin, With stronger reason.] This phrase is used in logic to denote an argument to the effect that because one ascertained fact exists, therefore another which is included in it or analogous to it and is less improbable, unusual, or surprising must also exist. (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved)

As in:
Even as a Clinton supporter, I completely agree that Trump is correct here. A fortiori (even more so), if I were (impartial) like you.

Even for someone who doesn't care much for music, I adore the Beatles. A fortiori (even more so) if I cared for music (like you).


I think this is entirely psychological manipulation. There is an appeal to the illusion of impartiality due to outsider status, which makes the judgement seem detached, and therefore more adult, and ultimately better considered. The attributes that affect even someone generally not influenced by the majority consensus are considered more likely to be genuine.

One name for at least part of this effect from sociology is "outgroup conversion advantage". This means that newly injected members bringing foreign opinions, like women marrying out of one tribe and into another, may not be at a disadvantage in a new environment, but may actually be in the best position to cause adaptation to occur.

It arises in the context of a theory that the tradition of women marrying out of a tribe and joining the husband's family may have predominated not because of male domination, but because it caused adaptation in the receiving tribe, favoring survivability, and afforded the woman a slight increase in power. For example: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2854/


This kind of statement falls into the category of an argument from authority. Essentially, the speaker is asking that their opinion or belief should carry more weight by virtue of their membership of a class of people who are not generally inclined towards that opinion or belief. The implicit reasoning that the speaker is relying on in this case would be something like this:

  1. People can believe X either because the evidence favours it, or because of their bias;
  2. I am a member of class A and I believe X;
  3. People in class A are generally biased against believing in X;
  4. Therefore, my belief in X is contrary to my expected bias;
  5. Therefore, my belief in X is probably grounded in strong evidence for X;
  6. Therefore, there probably exists strong evidence for X.

The statement itself is only statement 2., but the speaker is hoping that the listener will follow some kind of logical pattern like this one, and therefore conclude that the speaker must have come to their belief by some strong evidence. The obvious problem with this argument is the same problem in all arguments from authority --- they involve replacement of the actual evidence on the matter with the conclusion of another person. This may be a useful shorthand form of reasoning if the evidence is unavailable, or costly to acquire, but it is not reasonable when the speaker could merely tell you the evidence that convinced them of their belief.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .