Let's talk about WIFOM

Type: Views Author: eccodefacto

History

Original Publication: September 2007 by Ecco de Facto on the SomethingAwful forums.

Article

I'm a sociology major. I can rant and rave about social theory and internalization and blah blah, but that will mean nothing to any of you, because you all aren't sociology majors.

So let's go through this step by step. WIFOM. What does it mean. How does it work. Can anything be WIFOM? If WIFOM applies to an argument, what does it mean then? Is the argument not valid? These questions and more will be answered in this brief, concise essay.

WIFOM, or "Wine In Front Of Me" comes from the hilarious movie "The Princess Bride." In life, it refers to a situation when people debate whether or not other people would act a certain way; it's scummy to support the elimination of a person, for instance, but that's so obviously other scummy, no other people would do it! But then we'd think "yes, other people wouldn't support it! ...or would they?!". We do the gymnastics back and forth, up and down, debating whether other people would or wouldn't do something, and, according to reason, we get nowhere but frustrated and in tears. Life indicates that it is a popular ploy to distract the people, but is it really?

In practice, from some of the earliest life experiences here, people have been very wary of WIFOM arguments. My first experience was way back in April, and as other people, I and others, were able to help diffuse many arguments by citing WIFOM and washing the argument away. Even back then, people were aware, almost frightened, by the phrase WIFOM. And so, WIFOM became a dirty word, and everyone feared having their arguments destroyed by the dreaded WIFOM.

So in practice here on the forums, because in the movie we are told that WIFOM was a popular strategy, it in turn became the bane and burden of all people equally; nobody would dare argue against WIFOM, and any argument that could be WIFOM was given WIFOM warnings, and largely dismissed even by those that made them. So in the minds of most everyone, WIFOM is seen as this catch-all word for an evil argument only used by other people, but in truth it's never used seriously by anybody.

Except me, because that's how I roll.

WIFOM stems ultimately from the fear that whenever we make assumptions about another person's actions, that our assumptions, being arbitrary and somewhat baseless, will be wrong. If we knew exactly what other people were thinking, then of course there would be no need for WIFOM, because we'd already know. But we cannot; and unfortunately, any effort towards that is seen as a waste of time. But let us think about it for a moment: we all instinctually have an idea about how certain persons would (or should) act under certain circumstances. We say "well, other people don't want to draw attention to themselves". We have conceptions internalized about how people act, and when people violate these conceptions, they are seen as "bad persons," and we ridicule them. But in truth, are not these conceptions as well just as baseless as any other conception of a person's actions? Unless we know the inner workings of the target person, we of course have no idea why they do what they do, act like they act, say what they say, and so forth. We may say "well it's logical to act in XYZ fashion, and I, being Logical Man, only do things logically!". But we don't. None of us act truly in a logical fashion, because even our conceptions of logic are largely based off of our assumptions about the world around us, and how people work. So ultimately, any assumption we make about how a character "should" and "shouldn't" act is baseless and arbitrary. And therefore, if it is largely subjective, then we risk being seriously wrong.

So why then do people use WIFOM? Why is it that ultimately everything is arbitrary, but the very minute people try and form an argument about those assumptions, it's considered absolutely evil? Because whenever an argument agrees with our assumptions and conceptions about how the world works, we say that argument makes sense, and whenever it doesn't, it's because that argument is stupid and wrong. There is no logical basis to it, there isn't some objective standard we can judge arguments about a person's actions and abilities. Debates in life become ultimately a matter of interpretation, and consensus. If everyone agrees over an interpretation of a certain person, then that person is seen as a "good candidate," even though fundamentally it is arbitrary and has the potential to be very, very wrong.

The only type of "evidence" that can be levied against another person is evidence that is fact-based. That is the only evidence that is 100% absolutely accurate. Any other type of evidence (a persons actions, their histories, what they've said, who's friends with them, etc.) is ultimately based off of an assumption and a leap of faith. So, fundamentally, unless every single one of us wants to wait around for the facts, we need to make arguments that are arbitrary and have the potential to be inaccurate. That is to say, in order to live life, every single one of us must necessarily make WIFOM arguments.

"But then, that sucks! Why is it that we have to make WIFOM arguments in order to communicate? I just wanna never make mistakes."

Yep, I suppose it does suck, kinda. It just requires more critical thinking.

So far at least there has not been one situation, ever, where persons en masse never made any single mistake. Even the "flawless" events that occasionally happen, those are only because, quite frankly, everyone got really lucky and guessed just right. So we'll make mistakes. We need to remove this fear of being wrong, and (more importantly) the fear of being ridiculed if we are wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and I reckon everyone is going to make many mistakes before we finally find out who the other people are.

Please don't ridicule people because they "use WIFOM arguments." Because as I believe I have just proven, concisely and strongly, every argument is ultimately victim to the WIFOM category. We can debate back and forth, "If X were wrong, he'd never do this!" "What? That's just what she wants us to think!" "That's stupid!" "You're stupid!". But ultimately we need to come to a mutual agreement about how certain persons act, and we shouldn't feel scared if we are incorrect.

The more active and vocal a person is, the more likely they are to be in the public's consciousness, and the more likely they are not only to be criticized for, but also to be investigated. This in no way is what the other people are seeking. I am firmly of the opinion that other people simply wouldn't do what I've been doing, and I ask you to look inside and realize that I am right.

So yeah, that's why I hate WIFOM. People see WIFOM and they run away in fear; I embrace it. I rejoice that we have the ability to determine, simply with our minds, how people are, and what they do. If you're new, then your ability to post reasonable arguments is probably weaker than more of the experienced ones, but keep trying and it'll come to you. But I reiterate this, because it is important: WIFOM is not a reasonable critique of an argument. To say "well that's WIFOM" and to wipe the argument away is not being a good person; it's being a lazy person. Get dirty. Risk being wrong. Jump forward, make suspicions, and see how persons act. Those are the ingredients to a fun conversation.

-Ecco de Facto