TABLE 4.1 Some Common Errors in Thinking Faulty Reasoning: A form of argument that is inaccurate or misleading in some way. Example: "Psychologists have provided effective services for decades without having research available on what makes treatment effective. Therefore there is no reason for me to bother reading this research in order to be effective." One of the ways in which this is inaccurate is that the argument does not provide any proof that the services of these unspecified psychologists were effective. False Dilemma: This fallacy takes the form of reducing the range of options available to just two (usually extreme) options. Example: "Either I accept the treatment that the psychologist is suggesting or I just give up trying to change." Clearly other options are available, including asking the psychologist what treatment options might be available or consulting another psychologist (or other health care provider) to obtain a second opinion. Golden Mean Fallacy: This logical error involves assuming that the most valid conclusion to reach is a compromise of two competing positions. Example:"I have heard that both cognitive and psychodynamic treatments can be helpful for the type of problems I have, so I really should look for a treatment that combines both cognitive and psychodynamic elements." Assuming that the original statement about effective treatments is correct, there is no reason to assume that a synthesis of the two treatments would be more effective than either treatment on its own. The Straw Person Argument: This involves mischaracterizing a position in order to make it look absurd or unpalatable. Example: "Anyone who would prescribe a drug to treat my son's symptoms just wants to turn active kids into zombies." It is highly unlikely that the health care professional recommending medication has this goal in mind, but it provides a simplistic rationale for rejecting the possibility of taking the medication.