Quick Course Facts

101

Self-paced, Online, Lessons

101

Videos and/or Narrated Presentations

6.2

Approximate Hours of Course Media

 logical fallacies online course

About the Mastering Logical Fallacies Course

This is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this course is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.

Significantly Improve the Way You Reason and Make Decisions

  • Learn how to recognize bad arguments
  • Be able to articulate why an argument is bad
  • Learn important details on over 100 of the most common logical fallacies

Learn the Fine Points of Common Fallacies

Fallacies have been around since the ancient Greek philosophers, and perhaps since the dawn of communication. Since the advent of social media, they seem to be around a lot more. Through mastering logical fallacies, you can not only correct others when they display a lapse in reasoning, but you can prevent yourself from making similar reasoning faux pas. You will be doing your part in making the world a more reasonable place.

Unlike other mentions of logical fallacies, the instructor goes into depth discussing many of the cognitive aspects of why we commit these fallacies and why we fall for them, offering academic insight in the world of logical fallacies.

While this course is written for the layperson, some concepts which may be new to you but play an important role in reasoning are introduced, in section1 we will cover the basics of reasoning, arguments, beliefs, fallacies, rationality, and being a smart-ass. In sections 2–18 we will go over in detail the most common logical fallacies, the variations of those fallacies, psychological reasons behind them, examples, and exceptions.

By the end of this course, you should be more confident in your ability to engage in rational arguments as well as present your own arguments.


Enrollment Fee: $99 $9.95 SALE PRICE

* Thanks in part to the sponsorship of The Book, "Logically Fallacious," by Bo Bennett, PhD, this course is made available to you for free. Sponsors have a subtle mention under the course title and links in the course resources - there are no intrusive image-based ads or audio ads in the course.

Course Lessons

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Lesson 1: Introduction to Logical Fallacies

While this course is written for the layperson, I do need to introduce some concepts which may be new to you but play an important role in reasoning, as well as issue a few warnings and explain how this course is organized. In this section, we will cover the basics of reasoning, arguments, beliefs, fallacies, rationality, and being a smart-ass. By the end of this section, you should:

  • know the difference between reason and rationality
  • know what an argument is and the many forms it can take
  • understand how beliefs are formed
  • know what is meant by the term "fallacy"
  • know the pros and cons of being a smart-ass
  • understand that fallacious reasoning is both active and passive

Note that this is designed as an interactive course with discussion questions and exercises. You can choose to participate or not. It is your course!

Lesson 2: Reason and Rationality

Reason and rationality are not the same, and it is important to know the differences.

Lesson 3: What is an Argument?

An "argument" is often seen as a negative experience, but this is not the type of argument we are talking about in this course.

Lesson 4: How Beliefs are Formed

Not all beliefs are formed the same, and not all people are biologically influenced by information in the same way.

Lesson 5: What is a Fallacy?

There are formal and informal fallacies. The informal fallacies are arguments in themselves where there is a degree of subjectivity.

Lesson 6: On Being a Smart-Ass

Sometimes calling out fallacies is the best course of action. Sometimes it's not. Know the difference.

Lesson 7: Fallacies: Who Commits Them?

Sometimes an argument is fallacious. Sometimes it is the person who is making the argument who is fallacious. And sometimes it is the person interpreting the argument who is fallacious.


Ad Hominem

Lesson 8: Ad Hominem

In this section we will cover the Ad Hominem fallacy in detail, including five common forms: Ad Hominem (Abusive), Ad Hominem (Circumstantial), Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association), Ad Hominem (Tu quoque), and Poisoning the Well.

By the end of this section you should be familiar with these fallacies and be able to recognize when they are committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying the fallacies in real world contexts. And you will create your own examples choosing from these fallacies.

Lesson 9: Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)

Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.

Lesson 10: Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)

When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Lesson 11: Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Lesson 13: Poisoning the Well

To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.


Appeal to Common Belief

Lesson 14: Introduction

In this section we will cover the Appeal to Common Belief fallacy in detail, also known as: appeal to accepted belief, groupthink, appeal to widespread belief, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad numerum, appeal to the number, argumentum consensus gentium, appeal to the mob, appeal to the gallery, mob appeal, social conformance, value of community.

By the end of this section you should be familiar with this fallacy and be able to recognize when it's committed, even if not by name. You will practice identifying this fallacy in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of this fallacy.

Lesson 15: Appeal to Common Belief

When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.

Lesson 16: Wisdom of the Crowd

A large group's aggregated answers to questions involving quantity estimation, general world knowledge, and spatial reasoning has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group.


Fallacies and Religion

Lesson 17: Introduction

In this section, we cover four fallacies that are directly related to religion: Appeal to Faith, Appeal to Heaven, Magical Thinking, and Spiritual Fallacy. It will be made clear that it is not faith, the belief in magic, Heaven, or a spiritual world that is fallacious—it is the reliance on these beliefs in place of reason in rational discourse that is fallacious.

By the end of this section, students will

  • learn when faith becomes a problem in rational discourse
  • learn why any person of any religion claiming to know the will of the gods is acting fallaciously
  • learn that magical thinking is very common, when it helps and when it doesn't
  • learn when spirituality can be a roadblock to reason

Lesson 18: Appeal to Faith

This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have (the right kind of) faith in order to understand the argument.

Lesson 19: Appeal to Heaven

Asserting the conclusion must be accepted because it is the “will of God” or “the will of the gods”. In the mind of those committing the fallacy, and those allowing to pass as a valid reason, the will of God is not only knowable, but the person making the argument knows it, and no other reason is necessary.

Lesson 20: Magical Thinking

Making causal connections or correlations between two events not based on logic or evidence, but primarily based on superstition. Magical thinking often causes one to experience irrational fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because they assume a correlation with their acts and threatening calamities.

Lesson 21: Spiritual Fallacy

Insisting that something meant to be literal is actually “spiritual” in as an explanation or justification for something that otherwise would not fit in an explanation.


Deception Through Confusion

Lesson 22: Deception Through Confusion

In this section we will cover the Ambiguity Fallacy, Equivocation, and the Use-Mention Error in detail. These fallacies involve playing with language and not being clear.

By the end of this section you should be familiar with these fallacies and be able to recognize when they are committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying these fallacies in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of one of these fallacies.

Lesson 23: Introduction to the Deception Fallacies

English is complicated and people can take advantage of that fact to confuse others.

Lesson 24: Ambiguity Fallacy vs. Equivocation

A few examples of equivocation are presented that can be seen used today.


Fallacies of Authority

Lesson 26: Appeal to Authority

Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

Lesson 27: Appeal to Celebrity

Accepting a claim of a celebrity based on his or her celebrity status, not on the strength of the argument.

Lesson 29: Blind Authority

Asserting that a proposition is true solely on the authority making the claim while extreme cases also ignore any counter evidence no matter how strong. The authority could be parents, a coach, a boss, a military leader, or a divine authority.

Lesson 30: Just Because Fallacy

Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority in the matter. This is usually indicated by the phrases, “just trust me”, “because I said so”, “you’ll see”, or “just because”. The just because fallacy is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other person understand why you are firm on your position. “Just because” is not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a deflection to authority (legitimate or not).


Fallacies of Emotion

Lesson 31: Fallacies of Emotion


In this section, we cover five fallacies that are directly related to emotion: Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Desperation, and Appeal to Anger. We are both creatures of emotion and logic, and despite what some may want to believe, emotion is a very important part of our humanity. Reason alone cannot guide our actions, but emotions often get in the way. In this lesson we will discuss this important distinction.

By the end of this section, students will learn

  • how pity should not guide reason
  • emotion can be both a powerful ally and foe to reason
  • desperate times may call for desperate measures, but not irrational ones
  • how talking louder and with more anger does not make one more right
  • how powerful fear can be in clouding our ability to reason

Lesson 32: Appeal to Emotion

This is the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument. It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.

Lesson 33: Appeal to Desperation

Arguing that your conclusion, solution, or proposition is right based on the fact that something must be done, and your solution is "something."

Lesson 34: Appeal to Fear

When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion.

Lesson 35: Appeal to Anger

When the emotions of anger, hatred, or rage are substituted for evidence in an argument.

Lesson 36: Appeal to Pity

The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity.


Argument From Ignorance

Lesson 37: Introduction

In this section we will cover the Argument From Ignorance fallacy in detail, also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity.

By the end of this section you should be familiar with this fallacy and be able to recognize when it is committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying this fallacy in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of this fallacy.

We will also answer the big question, is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

Lesson 38: Argument from Ignorance / Absence of Evidence

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Lesson 39: Proof vs. Evidence

There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Lesson 40: Plausibility vs. Probability

Plausibility is essentially believably, and people believe things for all sorts of reasons, many of which are not rational.

Lesson 41: Dispositions to this Fallacy

Not all people are equal in terms of dispositions to fallacies, and this one is no exception.


Circular Reasoning and the Fallacious Question

Lesson 42: Introduction

In this section, we cover three fallacies that are related: Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, and Complex Question Fallacy. Circularity is common, sometimes humorous, and some would argue it is also necessary. But it doesn't have to be fallacious.

By the end of this section, students will learn

  • when circularity is fallacious and when it is not
  • how to counter the "all reasoning is circular" argument
  • how to identify the complex question
  • why the loaded question tricks us
  • the difference between begging the question and raising the question

Lesson 43: Circular Reasoning

A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

Lesson 44: Begging the Question

Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Lesson 45: Complex Question Fallacy

A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.


Fallacies of Poor Statistical Thinking

Lesson 47: Multiple Comparisons Fallacy

In inductive arguments, there is always a chance that the conclusion might be false, despite the truth of the premises. This is often referred to as “confidence level”. In any given study or poll, there is a confidence level of less than 100%. If a confidence level is 95%, then one out of 20 similar studies will have a false conclusion. If you make multiple comparisons, say 20 or more where there is a 95% confidence level, you are likely to get a false comparison. This becomes a fallacy when that false comparison is seen as significant rather than a statistical probability.

Lesson 48: Lying with Statistics

Numbers don't lie, but them people who use them do.

Lesson 49: Ludic Fallacy

Assuming flawless statistical models apply to situations where they actually don’t. This can result in the over-confidence in probability theory or simply not knowing exactly where it applies as opposed to chaotic situations or situations with external influences too subtle or numerous to predict.

Lesson 50: Hasty Generalization

Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.

Lesson 51: Fake Precision

Using implausibly precise statistics to give the appearance of truth and certainty, or using negligible difference in data to draw incorrect inferences.

Lesson 52: Biased Sample Fallacy

Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is.

Lesson 53: Base Rate Fallacy

Ignoring statistical information in favor of using irrelevant information, that one incorrectly believes to be relevant, to make a judgment. This usually stems from the irrational belief that statistics don’t apply in a situation, for one reason or another when, in fact, they do.


Black and White Thinking

Lesson 54: Introduction

In this section, we cover the fallacy known as Black and White Thinking, or by its other common name, the False Dilemma. We discuss when and when this is not a fallacy, and cover many of the reasons why people make this fallacy. We also look at the anti false dilemma: Denying the Correlative. 

Lesson 55: False Dilemma Example

When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

Lesson 56: When it is Not a Fallacy

Sometimes limiting to just two choices in not a fallacy.

Lesson 58: Dichotomous Thinking

​This style of thinking is often associated with personality disorders, but most of us can do something about it.


The Impossible and the Possible

Lesson 59: Introduction

In this section, we cover fallacies associated with creating impossible standards. These include Moving the Goalposts, Nirvana Fallacy, Unfalsifiability, Proving Non-Existence, Definist Fallacy, Appeal to Possibility, and Appeal to the Moon.

Lesson 60: Moving the Goalposts

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Lesson 61: Nirvana Fallacy

Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

Lesson 62: Unfalsifiability

Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Lesson 63: Proving Non-Existence

Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Lesson 64: Appeal to Possibility / Appeal to the Moon

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.


The Red Herring

Lesson 66: Red Herring

Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Lesson 67: Discouraging Red Herrings

There are things we can do to discourage others from using red herrings on us.


The Legitimacy and Fallaciousness of the Slippery Slope

Lesson 69: Introduction

In this section, we focus on the Slippery Slope argument or fallacy, also known as: absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, and domino fallacy.

When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required—usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

We will look when this is a legitimate argument, and when it is fallacious. More important, we will explore why.

Lesson 70: Slippery Slope

When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Lesson 71: Basically Science

Science that attempts to establish causality is basically a legitimate slippery slope.​

Lesson 72: Evidence

Evidence is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.

Lesson 73: Number of Events

​The number of events in the causal chain is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.​

Lesson 74: Confidence vs. Probability

​The confidence level and probability of each event in the causal chain is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.​


Special Pleading

Lesson 75: Introduction

In this section we will look at Special Pleading. Special Pleading is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special Pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

Lesson 76: Special Pleading and Emotion

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

Lesson 77: Strong Personal Beliefs

Strong personal beliefs are more problematic than just emotions since they are more persistent and less malleable.

Lesson 79: Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


The Analogy - Both Friend and Foe

Lesson 80: Introduction

In this section we will look at fallacies related to the analogy, including Weak Analogy, Non Sequitur, Extended Analogy, and Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Analogies can be an incredibly useful tool in rhetoric, or seriously fallacious. And often both. In this section, we explore when and why.

Lesson 81: Weak Analogy

When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.

Lesson 82: Non Sequitur

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.

Lesson 83: Extended Analogy

Suggesting that because two things are alike in some way and one of those things is like something else, then both things must be like that "something else".

Lesson 84: Reductio ad Hitlerum

The attempt to make an argument analogous with Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler is probably the most universally despised figure in history, so any connection to Hitler, or his beliefs, can (erroneously) cause others to view the argument in a similar light. However, this fallacy is becoming more well known as is the fact that it is most often a desperate attempt to render the truth claim of the argument invalid out of lack of a good counter argument.


A Look at Nature

Lesson 85: Introduction

In this section we explore fallacies related to the concepts of nature and the natural, including Naturalistic Fallacy, Moralistic Fallacy, and Appeal to Nature.

The Naturalistic Fallacy and Appeal to Nature are perhaps the two most confused fallacies. The names are not what is really important, but the meanings are. By the end of this lesson, you will know the difference—and remember it.

Lesson 86: Appeal to Nature

When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural”. Many people adopt this as a default belief.

Lesson 87: What Is "Natural," Exactly?

​The world "natural" is puzzling and quite arbitrary. Once we understand the problems with the natural/unnatural dichotomy, we will better understand the appeal to nature fallacy.

Lesson 88: Simplistic Evaluation Problem

We have a tendency just focus on our own health concerns and ignore all the other important factors when evaluating the unnatural.

Lesson 89: A Basic Misunderstanding of Science

We cannot know for certain that something will be 100% safe in the future.​ This does not make it a serious risk.

Lesson 90: Naturalistic Fallacy

When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on actually what is more natural. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.

Lesson 91: Moralistic Fallacy

The assumption that what ought to be is what is -- that the undesirable opposes nature.


Fallacies Worthy of Mention

Lesson 92: Introduction

In this final section, we briefly cover many different fallacies that are worthy of mention based on the frequency of their usage, and clear up some common confusion with these fallacies. We will cover Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Normality, Reductio ad Absurdum, Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of Division, Cherry Picking, Sunk-Cost Fallacy, Self-Sealing Argument, and Shoehorning.

Lesson 93: Appeal to Tradition

Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.

Lesson 94: Appeal to Normality

Using social norms to determine what is good or bad. It is the idea that normality is the standard of goodness. This is fallacious because social norms are not the same as norms found in nature or norms that are synonymous with the ideal function of a created system. The conclusion, "therefore, it is good" is often unspoken, but clearly implied.

Lesson 95: Reductio ad Absurdum

A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

Lesson 96: Fallacy of Composition / Fallacy of Division

​Fallacy of Division: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.

Fallacy of Composition: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. ​

Lesson 97: Cherry Picking

When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

Lesson 98: Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking into consideration the overall losses involved in the further investment.

Lesson 99: Self-Sealing Argument

An argument or position is self-sealing if and only if no evidence can be brought against it no matter what.

Lesson 100: Shoehorning

The process of force-fitting some current affair into one's personal, political, or religious agenda. Many people aren't aware of how easy it is to make something look like confirmation of a claim after the fact, especially if the source of the confirmation is something in which they already believe, like Biblical prophecies, psychic predictions, astrological horoscopes, fortune cookies, and more.

Lesson 101: Congratulations!

Just a congratulatory message from me to you.


Enroll in Mastering Logical Fallacies

Enroll by clicking the button below:

ENROLL

About Your Instructor, Bo Bennett, PhD

 logical fallacies training

Bo Bennett, PhD

instructor

Bo Bennett's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime." Much of his work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think. His projects include his books, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies, and Year To Success, a full year course in success. Bo has a podcast/blog called "The Dr. Bo Show" at http://www.TheDrBoShow.com where he takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining.

Bo holds a PhD in social psychology, with a master's degree in general psychology and bachelor's degree in marketing. His complete bio along with current projects can be found at http://www.BoBennett.com.

Other Courses Like This

Contact the instructor