Wikipedia:Rhetorical dismissal

Talk to the hand

Certain responses in policy discussions function less as rebuttals than as conversational brushoffs: rhetorical shortcuts that discourage further examination without fully engaging the underlying point. These often function as anti-deliberative rhetoric. They attack the appropriateness of engaging rather than the argument or idea itself by shifting the locus of engagement to whether the point deserves examination at all.

Sometimes these phrases are used with new or inexperienced editors who truly don't understand the history of the issue or why the problem they see, which seems so clear to them, hasn't been solved yet. It may feel like an appropriate shorthand for these cases, but it can be received as feeling BITEy.

And sometimes these phrases are directed at experienced, well-intentioned editors who have identified what they see as a real problem and possible solution. In these cases dismissive rhetoric is often used to protect the status quo. It moves discussion away from the idea and toward the legitimacy of engaging on the idea. Dismissive rhetoric is less about discussing an idea on its merits than about simply shutting down discussion. There is often a social status aspect to its use. These are the cases this essay is exploring.

Solution in search of a problem

This is a perennial favorite on policy talk pages used as a rhetorical veto in response to an editor who comes in wanting to discuss an idea. It compresses several claims into one pithy phrase that sounds definitive but lacks any specificity:

• That the problem is trivial or overstated
• That the proposer is advocating change for the sake of change
• That the costs outweigh the benefits

"Solution in search of a problem" subtly frames the proposer as overeager or self-important. It directly implies backward reasoning: I have this hammer here, anyone got a nail? It is a stinging put-down, though the person on the receiving end may not be able to articulate exactly why it stings. But even the essay here on wikipedia that explains how we use it has a telling shortcut: WP:SLOP.

It also carries a risk to the responder: that others will perceive them as simply resistant to change. And if so, that they're being intellectually dishonest and/or lazy.

Unless there literally is not a problem, this phrase is inappropriate as well as feeling dismissive. You may not feel it's a big enough problem to spend the time or energy it would take to solve. If so, say that instead: "I'm not sure this is a problem that needs solving."

But if it's simply not a problem you personally prioritize, don't dismiss a solution as being "in search of a problem". Instead spend the intellectual energy to analyze it and your objection to it. Maybe you aren't convinced the problem is significant enough to justify the fix. Maybe you think it will solve a few edge cases without helping most people. Maybe you think the existing workaround is sufficient. But respond in a way that preserves the possibility the problem your colleaque sees is at least real while you dispute the value of the solution.

The phrase flattens meaningful discussion. It often shuts inquiry down right at the stage where careful scoping of the actual problem would be useful.

You're overthinking this

This phrase can be useful shorthand when people spiral into analysis that obscures rather than clarifies. But even when used appropriately, it is a flat statement that diminishing returns have set in, which is an effective conversation-stopper. It becomes dismissive when it's used to short-circuit examination before determining whether the issue warrants careful thought, and in practice it often means:

• I'm uncomfortable with this level of scrutiny of a project in which I feel ownership
• I don't want to spend my time engaging with this
• This threatens current consensus
• The social cost of analysis exceeds the value of it
• I arrived at my conclusions intuitively and don't want to unpack it

In reality, "overthinking" can only be identified in relation to stakes and consequences. In Wikipedia policy decisions, overthinking risks wasting volunteer time. Underthinking risks ambiguous language, edge cases, creating incentives to game, accessibility issues.

As with other dismissive responses, there's a social status aspect. "You're overthinking" tends to privilege intuition, convention, fast decision making, confident decision making. It even becomes circular when someone accused of overthinking tries to defend why they think this level of thinking is reasonable: they risk appearing to be overthinking thinking itself. Their further explanations can appear as proof they tend to overthink. This recursive trap is one of the reasons the statement is so rhetorically effective, and why it's frustrating to those it's directed at.

A more collegial response would be "That seems pretty complicated. Maybe we can simplify it with (whatever you believe will still solve the problem but it less complicated). Or a more general question to the group: "Do we think additional analysis is likely to material improve the outcome here?"

This isn't that deep

This phrase overlaps with "You're overthinking this". Instead of dismissing the level of analysis, it dismisses the value of analysis. It tells the proposer, "stop treating this as significant". It is indifferent to whether the analysis is correct.

But people DO overthink stuff sometimes!

Yes, and we do need mechanisms for limiting endless analysis and constant attempts to reassess/readdress ongoing issues. The problem isn't that we sometimes need to limit discussion. It's that these types of responses tend to be deployed prematurely and tend to be used instead of initial engagement.

See also

• Wikipedia:I just don't like it