You’ve heard of the logical fallacy appeal to authority.
There’s another bad way to approach arguments (if what you want is the truth) I call appeal to identity. A great way to spot this approach is to look for two simple words: “As a…”
If a question begins with, “As a…”, it’s an appeal to identity rather than a direct inquiry into an argument. You see this in Q&A sessions and internet comments all the time, and it does nothing but reduce the odds of a good answer. Compare,
“Do you think your strategy would work for someone with ADD, or would that require a different approach?”
To,
“As a person with ADD, I’m wondering if you think your strategy would work for people like me?”
The question is the same, but the second is embedded in an identity framing that puts the responder on guard. There’s an implied skepticism, or eagerness to be offended or have a “gotcha!” moment. It smells of a subtle threat, that if you bullshit me, I’ll know it because of my identity.
There’s nothing unfair or out of bounds about that way of asking. But it reduces the odds that you’ll hear and be able to glean from a clear answer. It turns an argument about propositions into a game about status.
Most, “As a…” questions are much worse than the example above. Most aren’t even questions. How many Q&A’s have you been to where someone says something like,
“As a student of Greek history, I’m familiar with many epochs of conflict between cultures, and it seems perhaps your argument could be applied to the early wars between city states just as easily as modern nation states.”
It’d be merciful if they were all this short. These non-question identity flexes are abhorrent. They make the asker look like a fool and everyone else uncomfortable. If they really want the speaker’s opinion on whether city states and nation states require different arguments, they could have asked. Maybe a real curiosity is buried in there, but it’s clouded over by appeal to identity.
If you want to understand arguments and find logical validity and truth, leave your identity at the door. Unique knowledge you have because of it is valuable, but where and how you got that knowledge are irrelevant distractions.
If you want truth or practical value, don’t approach arguments and ideas as anything but a seeker of answers. Truth, like justice, is blind.