What’s a Gish Gallop?
Plus a new video from me about writing your first book while working a day job, and a movie recommendation
Issue No. 20
I’d never heard of a Gish gallop until recently, when it started popping up in interviews, as a critique of a type of disingenuous argument. After reading up on it, I realized that, ah, I’d seen it plenty of times. I just didn’t know it had a name.
It’s a technique named after a Mr. Gish who was prone to it, and it’s where one inundates somebody else with a barrage of mostly weak, inaccurate, vague, anecdotal, or unsubstantiated claims in support of an argument, all within a short span of time. To the extent that if you’re on the receiving end of it, you feel completely overwhelmed with the sheer amount of claims that have been lobbed at you, and that you now have to respond to.
In all likelihood, you won’t be able to within a reasonable amount of time. And so to a spectator, it might seem like the Gish galloper left you tongue-tied.
For instance, say you’re watching a TV show where the host has two guests on—Jack and Jill—each taking an opposing position on some contentious topic. The host poses a question.
Should manufacturers of self-driving cars be held responsible in the event of an accident?
Jack goes first. He believes manufacturers shouldn’t be held responsible.
Absolutely not! We’re supposed to be hurtling towards a utopian traffic landscape, and you want to bring the whole thing screeching to a halt with lawsuits? Think of the lives saved in the long run! Plus, in my neighborhood, I’ve yet to see a self-driving car crash into anyone, so what’s the fuss about.
These are just growing pains, folks. Planes crash, trains derail, even toasters go haywire sometimes. Are we going to ground every flight and lock up all the appliance makers? Of course not! Innovation demands calculated risks, and self-driving cars are the future of transportation!
Besides, who’s REALLY to blame? Distracted pedestrians glued to their phones? Incompetent road maintenance leaving potholes the size of craters? Hackers lurking in the shadows trying to cause mayhem? The whole situation is a tangled mess, and pointing fingers achieves nothing!
Let’s focus on solutions, not fear-mongering. Airtight regulations? Robust insurance frameworks? Now we’re talking! Spread the responsibility, make sure everyone affected is taken care of, and keep this technological marvel on the fast track.
The road to a safer tomorrow is paved with progress, not paralysis by lawsuits. Don’t let trial lawyers gum up the works with their ambulance chasing. Let’s get these self-driving cars on the road and reap the rewards of a collision-free future!1
The host turns to Jill.
Your reaction?
What is Jill meant to do with that rapid-fire delivery. Which of the points brought up by Jack does she respond to first? Some are legitimate, no doubt, like ensuring innovation isn’t stifled by regulation or litigation. Some are dubious, like saying the question implies locking up manufacturers, or that pedestrians are all walking around glued to their phones and are therefore to blame, or the anecdotal data presented.
Does Jill respond to all of them? Can she do so while maintaining her sanity in the tiny sliver of time she’ll have before someone cuts her off?
That’s how a Gish gallop can make it seem that saying a lot of words is the same thing as making a convincing argument. It can turn the discussion into a sensational spectacle. It can rile us up. And it can boost a show’s ratings, which is why guests who are prone to that are sometimes invited onto certain shows.
Where else might you see Gish gallops?
Ads. Ads aim to persuade us to buy something by showing us the value and appeal of some product. In attempting to do that, what they might do is rapidly list a product’s features, testimonials, comparisons, and limited-time discounts, all designed to create a sense of urgency and unique value. We’re bombarded with so much positive information that it becomes challenging to question or analyze each point individually.
Social media. The sheer amount of information that’s posted to these forums, the speed at which that information is shared, and a setup that encourages like-minded users to prop up ideas they agree with—likes, reshares, up-votes—all means that it’s really difficult to have any sort of expectation of a reasoned discussion. It’s hard enough to respond to one person who is unloading a ten-point argument in quick succession. How do you do it when there’s a plethora of people doing the same thing.
Children. One of the things we grow out of, hopefully, but that children sometimes do is pile things on in an argument they’re making, in attempt to disarm or persuade you. For instance, if they want to let you know they’re having a stressful day, they’ll mention the homework they have, the assignment from yesterday, the volleyball game tomorrow, the kid who called them a name last year, that other kid who did that thing to them in preschool. All that is meant to persuade you, the adult, to feel for them. But not all those claims are pertinent to them being stressed right now nor are they verifiable.
Relationships. In personal and work relationships, where one side wants to wear down the other side, Gish gallops can rear their heads. Say you get home late one night. Instead of me telling you how that makes me feel, I unload a list of grievances at you, one after the other—some unsubstantiated, some vague, some factual inaccurate—about everything you have ever done that has annoyed me. All at once. I use rapid fire as a strategy to wear you down, and drown you in a sea of claims that I know you won’t have the energy to refute.
How do you deal with it?
Unfortunately, the Gish gallop can be quite effective if it persists over a length of time. Do you respond to each claim? Even if you did, the person would likely lob another ten your way. In settings that are more time-bound, like a good-faith discussion between two people, there is an approach that I’ve used and that I’d suggest. And it’s the following:
Make a mental note of the tactic once you detect it. Let the other person run with their thoughts. And when it’s your turn to speak, bring the discussion back to the original point. And if they do it once more, again make a mental note, let them run with their thoughts, and then bring the discussion back to the original point. By essentially disengaging, you never run the risk of being pulled in different directions.
In the case of the self-driving car example, I’d respond with something like this,
You’ve brought up a whole lot of things that need to be scrutinized separately. We simply can’t cover them all right now. The topic is whether manufacturers should be held responsible in the event of an accident. That’s all. I think they should be, for these three reasons.
That approach ensures both sides get closer to some truth they’re seeking. Otherwise, why have the discussion in the first place? If you read up on Gish galloping online, one of the suggestions you might come across for how to win against someone who deploys it involves calling them out and then destroying their weakest argument. My thought here is that the true purpose of a discussion shouldn’t be to simply win or to overpower the other person. That risks turning the dialogue into a performance rather than a constructive conversation.
Instead, the aim should be to comprehensively explore a specific topic from multiple perspectives. If someone strays off-topic or starts to dodge the issue, the objective should be to steer them back to the main topic, rather than resorting to aggressive tactics. This approach leads to a more meaningful discussion, rather than turning it into a confrontational battle.
New video: You don’t need to quit your job to write your first book
I thought I’d try something new. A video series answering some of the recurring questions I’ve been getting over the years about writing. How does that sound? Starting with the most frequent question.
How does someone with a day job find the time to write?
You can watch it on YouTube. I’m only just learning about the YouTube algorithm, by the way, and, boy, does it feel like an uphill battle. If you enjoy the video and want to see more of my big head, it would be tremendously helpful if you leave a comment or a like, or subscribe to the channel.
Other goings on
I was rewatching 12 Angry Men the other day. It’s a brilliant movie, about a jury that’s deliberating the case of a young boy. Most of the jurors start with their minds pretty much made up—the boy is guilty. It’s obvious. And then, as the story unfolds, minds are made and remade.
It’s eye-opening to see how the group makes that transition, and how they step into a catalog of logical errors and cognitive biases along the way—appeals to the bandwagon (everyone does it, so why can’t I?), guilt by association (people like that can’t be trusted), false causes (that and that alone is why this thing happened), emotional appeals, ad hominem attacks (personal attacks), and many others. My favorite exchange in the whole movie is probably this one:
Juror #10: Six to six! I'm telling you, some of you people in here are out of your minds. A kid like that.
Juror #9: I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it. The facts are supposed to determine the case.
Juror #10: Ah, don't give me any of that! I’m sick and tired of facts. You can twist ‘em any way you like. Know what I mean?
I suppose you can … it’s true, prove anything with facts! Now that I think about it, it’s probably worth doing a deep-dive on the movie in an upcoming issue. Let me know if that sounds interesting. You can watch the whole movie here. The movie script is available here.
For next time, I’m planning to cover how language is used in corporate presentations to get us to buy something.
Remember what you used to tell me when I was a little girl. 'Lightly, child, lightly. You've got to learn to do everything lightly. Think lightly, act lightly, feel lightly . . . So throw away all your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That's why you must walk so lightly. Lightly, my darling. On tiptoes; and no luggage, not even a sponge bag. Completely unencumbered.
—Aldous Huxley (Island)
Until next time,
Ali
P.S. If you enjoy the newsletter, consider sharing it with a friend. I’d love to get
to one day mention us.
This is a response Gemini generated for me, for a Gish gallop-style answer to that question in the voice of a well-known TV host.
I like the idea of a 12 Angry Men analysis. Yes, please!
Ali, I really enjoyed this read. The bit about children using the Gish gallop made me laugh as I remembered my years in the classroom. I also really enjoyed the video with the insights on your approach to success. it was great encouragement to stay the course.