TBM 315: The Self-Sealing Argument Trap
Update! I’m running a cool sense-making experiment with , , and the Cynefin Company. We’re sourcing stories about the current state of tech using SenseMaker. It is a truly unique “survey” experience that you have to try to understand. Once you complete the survey, you’ll be able to read everyone else’s unfiltered responses. The responses so far are so fascinating. Give it a try!
Here is a post I wish I had read (and internalized) ten years ago. I never had a word for this—or a mental model. Over the years, I've repeatedly fallen into this trap without really pinpointing the trap I was falling into.
The punchline: We frequently get pulled into Catch-22 arguments and discussions. No matter what we do—at least the normal gut options—we lose. But awareness is a gift. In this post, I aim to provide that awareness and some strategies to find better outcomes.
Self-Sealing Arguments
A manager gives the following feedback to a person on their team:
You're always so defensive when given feedback because you can't handle criticism.
Put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving the feedback.
If I try to defend myself or point out how unfair it is, I'll automatically prove my manager's point. It'll prove that I'm being defensive. But if I stay silent, it feels like I agree with them. I'm basically admitting that I can't handle criticism, which isn't true. I'm stuck.
It's a Catch-22 situation and a perfect example of one of the most common forms of gaslighting. These statements are known as "self-sealing arguments."
Self-Sealing Arguments: An argument of this type is one that cannot be refuted by any possible evidence---there is no evidence that can be brought against it because any evidence that you might raise will be accommodated into the position that develops. (source)
One key aspect of the situation is ideological entrapment (or epistemic closure). For someone to even participate in the debate, they need to first accept the belief system that justifies the argument itself.
A good example here is discussions of high agency. The concept appeals to the idea that successful people take initiative, seize opportunities, and shape outcomes. Their circumstances do not passively shape them. Sounds great, right? However:
You validate the argument if you agree with the need for more high agency.
Suppose you push back by pointing out situations where agency is limited (systemic issues, lack of resources, etc.). In that case, you're portrayed as having a low-agency mindset, proving the need for more agency.
This kind of discussion locks out valid critique because even acknowledging constraints can be seen as evidence that you lack agency or the "right" mindset to overcome those barriers. High agency taps into a universal desire for self-determination and being in control of our fate. It is a universal positive and, therefore, immune to critique. High agency is inherently empowering, but it shuts down the conversation when used rhetorically as a self-sealing argument.
Another quick example: "You make things too complex!"
If you defend your approach, you're proving you're overcomplicating things. "See, you even over-complicate this discussion!"
If you passively accept the argument, you're admitting that you made it too complex in the first place.
Sometimes, this happens on a grand scale.
I recently heard a great episode of the If Books Could Kill podcast dedicated to critiquing the perpetually recommended book Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson and Kenneth Blanchard. On Amazon, the book has a 4.6 rating, with 27,493 ratings. The book's main idea is that we should accept change and adapt as fast as possible. In their critique of the book, podcasters Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri point out how managers frequently recommend the book during restructuring and layoffs. The underlying message of the book is:
Resist the urge to complain and overanalyze.
Complaints or critiques are signs of personal failure
Change is inevitable, and resistance is futile.
If you don't adapt quickly, you'll be left behind.
The focus should be on individual adaptation, not systemic issues.
While apparently valuable to so many people, the book is a self-sealing argument (does this explain its popularity?). Any critique is a sign that you're resistant to change. So, your only choice is to cast yourself as a complainer or someone stuck in the past OR get with the program and embrace the change without question.
What To Do
It's a Trap!
At the risk of stating the obvious, one of the first steps in plotting a path forward through these situations is realizing when it is happening. Simple, right? I wish!
Personally, I often fall right into the trap—hook, line, and sinker—the pressure and tension increase in my chest. I have a nasty habit of scrunching my cheek and blinking more often. My flight or fight response kicks in. My response is more acute when the person either 1) is in a position of power or 2) is in a position to influence a lot of people in a way that I find wrong or personally threatening. My "fight for justice and fairness" gloves come off quickly. The signals and traps are so clear in retrospect but can be hard to "intercept" in the moment.
What personal signals have you noticed? What crosses your mind? How does your body feel?
The first step is telling yourself, "Ah, OK, I'm facing a self-sealing argument trap. I have some time to intervene here." It seems trivial, but "name it to tame it" is a solid tactic.
(Probably) Not Intentional
Next, it is vital to acknowledge that in most cases, the person setting up a self-sealing argument is not aware that they are doing so. I have italicized most because there are sociopaths, psychopaths, and trolls out there who intentionally and consciously set up this trap. They know full well what they are doing.
Trolling is self-sealing argument trap- setting personified:
Set up an argument to draw people in.
Make sure that any response serves your agenda.
Use any defense to escalate or twist the conversation.
Cast any effort to ignore or disengage as a loss.
It is a no-win situation.
Putting aside the trolls, sociopaths, and other bad actors, we are left with people who have good intentions and are operating on autopilot within their belief system(s). A great example is the number of people posting well-meaning advice on LinkedIn that is blatantly self-sealing and grounded in a certain belief system (but stated as a universal truth).
What are you dealing with? An intentional bad/selfish actor? Or someone trying to help?
It is easy to perceive this as an all-out intentional attack. It probably isn't (which doesn't make it easier to navigate; it might even be scarier if it represents a pervasive belief system you face at work, but it is different).
Consider Your Response
Next, consider your response options and defaults.
Some Classic Responses
When faced with self-sealing arguments, we typically respond with one of the following:
Attack the Frame
Question the framing or the belief system underlying the statement/feedback. Try to point out that this is a self-sealing argument.
Pros: It feels satisfying to expose the argument for what it is. There's a chance you might succeed.
Cons: Triggers defensiveness. Escalates the discussion. Challenges the hardest thing to challenge: core beliefs and intentions. For many arguments, it plays directly into the trap.
Defend
Defend ourselves—treat the argument as a personal attack. "No, I'm not!" "Give me the evidence!" "I wasn't overcomplicating things. You were oversimplifying them!"
Pros: It may feel cathartic to assert your position and defend yourself
Cons: Plays directly into the trap.
Outlast and Game.
Realizing the relative futility of #1 and #2 (the blatant traps), we often intentionally enter "the game" to outlast the opponent and basically do whatever we want to do while pretending that we are listening. You might say, "Sure, I'll focus on keeping things simpler," but internally, you're thinking, "I'll follow this advice just enough to avoid conflict, but I'll still ensure the necessary complexity remains." It's playing the game without fully buying into it.
Pros: Avoid direct confrontation while finding ways to do what you believe is right.
Cons: It feels inauthentic over time. You pretend to agree with something you oppose. This can also lead to resentment and require emotional labor to keep up the facade. You could lose track of the line between subversion and actual compliance.
Acquiesce / Surrender
Sometimes, we get worn down and start to believe the argument. They've gotten under our skin, and our self-confidence is shot.
Cons: Erodes your self-confidence. You may lose your sense of autonomy and begin to feel powerless. The self-sealing logic seems unbreakable, and you start incorporating that tension into your self-identity.
The cons here are not great. Attacking the frame and defending yourself plays right into the self-sealing argument trap. Trying to outlast the game lays the groundwork for unsustainable tension. Acquiescence is an unfair and sad outcome. We don't want that. Certainly, there will be situations where we have to adopt each of these tactics, but before the decisions become ingrained and automatic, it is worth being more conscious and intentional about what is happening.
What is your go-to tactic? How has it worked for you?
Things To Try Before Getting Caught In The Trap
Ideally, we want to tilt the situation in our favor. Before falling into the patterns, we might want to give the following a shot:
Shoot for a reframe. "Maybe we could step back and focus on the goals we're trying to achieve." Try to de-escalate the situation while retaining some control of the dialogue.
Ask questions (that aren't immediately seen as defensive). Buys time and gets the other person talking. If you can muster some curiosity, remind yourself, there might be a helpful ounce of truth in the exchange. At least you can learn something.
You can literally slow the conversation down with a simple "You know, I'm going to let that sink in, and maybe we can chat about it more tomorrow."
Trying these things with the right (healthy) mindset is critical.
It is easy for people to continuously beat themselves up for not being better listeners and not trying everything to "lead with the positive." As with self-sealing arguments themselves, we continuously self-gaslight ourselves for not self-regulating appropriately and not trying all of the listening/communication tricks. Cut yourself a break! It is absolutely fine to think to yourself, "OK. I know what I want in this situation. I can try a couple of things, but I won't beat myself up here."
(Side-note: Environments often burden certain individuals with assuming all the emotional burdens of adapting and changing their approach to accommodate people. They take advantage of them. This is especially true for people in marginalized positions or those who lack the privilege to disengage from these dynamics. I am not trying to diminish that possibility.)
Conclusion
It would be ironic for me to close this post in a way that makes it a self-sealing argument. If it comes across that way, I sincerely apologize. How we respond, the sacrifices we make, and why we make them are deeply personal (as well as potentially impacting lots of people). In our work environments, we are constantly navigating power structures that require us to come to grips with our sphere of control, needs, wishes for others, sense of service, loyalty, mission, etc.
I wasn't a philosophy major, so here are ten AI-impersonated philosophers sharing their guidance on how to deal with self-sealing arguments
Epictetus – Focus on what you can control.
Jean-Paul Sartre – Stay true to yourself, don't pretend.
William James – Be practical, adapt to get the best outcome.
Karl Marx – Recognize the power structure at play.
John Stuart Mill – Think about the greater good in your response.
Immanuel Kant – Do what's right, follow your moral duty.
Friedrich Nietzsche – Assert your power, create your own path.
Michel Foucault – Understand the power dynamics in the conversation.
Pierre Bourdieu – Notice the hidden social rules driving this.
Judith Butler – Question how norms shape your response.
Maybe something resonates with you. It might be worth checking out some books from the library if you're not already familiar with their work. I think we'd all be a lot better off if people were at least aware of the fact that their beliefs aren't a law of physics or nature. There are other valid belief systems out there.
Summary:
Self-sealing arguments are a thing.
We've all used them at some point.
We've probably all encountered them at some point.
Remember: they trap you
Hopefully, we have some leeway to choose a response with a better chance of a good outcome. If at all point possible, avoid the traps
If you use them, maybe this post made you more aware of the potential for confusion and negative impact. Could you frame your point in a way that was less of a self-sealing argument?
If exploring different perspectives is your thing, you might like the project I mentioned at the top of the post:
Nice piece! Have definitely seen these traps and felt the rising frustration of the ensnared.
But... Don't underestimate the power of laughter as a way to introduce a reframe. "<laughs> Interesting! So if you were looking out for signs this had changed for the better, what would they be?"
Stepping back to consider the evidence for the argument could be a way to start a reframe without just bumping into the trap (not: But I'm not defensive!! Rather: Cool, so what would "not defensive" look like?)
Hey John, I really appreciate your willingness to be vulnerable to illustrate this great point about self sealing arguments! And, as long as the purveyor of the self sealed argument is not a psychopath or sociopath, this sort of vulnerable approach, perhaps using non violent communication to share the impact of the argument on you, is a skillful way to respond. Non psychopaths/sociopaths are likely to reflect on their approach if it upsets other people.