A pattern of rhetorical reversal

DARVO: how the conversation gets reversed

Learn the pattern
See the underlying evidence

What DARVO means

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd introduced DARVO as a way of describing how an alleged perpetrator may respond when confronted about wrongdoing.

Deny

The underlying conduct, harm, evidence, or risk is rejected.

Attack

Attention shifts toward discrediting, shaming, or questioning the person raising the concern.

Reverse VICTIM & OFFENDER

The person or institution facing the allegation presents itself as the primary victim, and recasts the critic or harmed party as the offender.

What it can look like in dog training conversations

When someone raises a concern about training that uses pain, fear, startle, or intimidation, the exchange can follow a familiar sequence:

Deny the welfare question

“There is no evidence this carries risk.” “Used correctly, it cannot hurt.” “The concern is exaggerated.”

Attack the critic

“You’re just trying to shame other trainers.” “You’re being divisive.” “People like you are the real problem.”

Reverse the roles

“We’re the ones being bullied.” “This kind of criticism is toxic.” “You’re harming the industry by being so divisive.”

Watch where the question goes

The original question might be: Does this method cause harm, carry unnecessary risk, or offer an advantage that a lower-risk approach cannot provide?

The replacement questions often concern whether the criticism was polite enough, whether it was fair to raise it publicly, whether it creates division, or whether the critic has perfect motives.

If nobody has answered the original welfare claim, the argument has moved. Do not let the movement itself count as an answer.

That redirection can make a documented concern look like a personality dispute. It can also generate sympathy for the person being criticized without resolving the evidence. The Dog Training Crisis page explains why that matters in a field with uneven standards.

Why it matters here

Training choices affect animals who cannot review the evidence, choose the equipment, or leave the professional relationship. When discussion moves away from possible harm, outdated methods can remain normal through confusion rather than through a successful defense of the method.

Scientific concerns and evidence can get sidelined, ethical lines can get blurry, and holding people or institutions with power accountable can be reframed as hostility. That makes it harder for the public to distinguish a disagreement about tone from a real concern about harm being done.

That is why I keep the Evidence section and International Professional Guidance on Humane Dog Training close to this discussion.

The answer to rhetoric is not more rhetoric. It is a clear claim, transparent sources, an honest account of uncertainty, and a comparison with available alternatives.

Not every disagreement is DARVO

People can feel criticized, become defensive, misunderstand one another, or object to tone for legitimate reasons. Someone can also make a valid counterargument. Do not use DARVO as a way to dismiss disagreement before hearing it.

Keep the conversation on track

  1. State the claim in one sentence. What exactly is alleged to cause harm or unnecessary risk?
  2. Ask what evidence would support or weaken that claim.
  3. Separate the content of the claim from the tone used to express it.
  4. Compare the method with realistic lower-risk alternatives, not with doing nothing.
  5. If the discussion moves, return to the unanswered question.

The dog training crisis

See how evidence standards and identity shape the wider argument.

Read The Dog Training Crisis

Training is political

Follow the deeper questiona about power and welfare.

Read Training Is Political

Balanced training

Turn a vague training label into concrete questions about tools, consequences, stress, and safety.

Use the trainer checklist

Sources and further reading