IT’S NOT LOGICAL!

DON’T MAKE THESE MISTAKES IN THINKING!

As many of you know, if you’ve been listening to this show for any period of time, I am a big fan of thinking. Well, I mean, who isnt a fan of thinking? We all do it, we all have to do it whether we’d like to or not, but we also know that not everybody does it well, and not everybody does it consciously. It sounds strange to frame it that way because, obviously, when we’re awake we are conscious and, therefore, consciously thinking. However, there is a spectrum of thinking that becomes obvious when you really delve into the topic. If you’re familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, which we’ve talked about on this show many times, you could easily look at the hierarchy and apply thinking to it. The bottom level is food, clothing and shelter, or physiological and survival needs. The second level are our safety needs, then our emotional needs for love and belonging, all the way to the top of the needs pyramid where achieving our highest potential and self actualization lives. I tend to believe that thinking follows a similar path where many exist at the lowest levels of the thinking pyramid, as we’ll call it, with just survival thinking and taking care of one’s physiological thinking needs. What am I going to eat for breakfast? What do I need to do today for work? Where am I going today? And so on. That’s the bottom of the pyramid. Not that it doesn’t need to be done, and not saying we don’t all use that level of thinking, its just low level thinking that doesn’t require much in the way of deep conscious thinking. As we move up the pyramid we might say that we go from the low levels of thinking like just remembering something, to then trying to understand something deeper, to then applying things in our lives, to higher levels of analytical thinking where we have to evaluate various options and choices, to problem solving thinking, to creative thinking and so on. 

Regardless of the different levels of thinking we all oscillate through throughout our days, there are several things that are present in all of them. One of those things are the words we use. Whether we’re actually verbalizing our words by talking, or just hearing our own words in our head when we’re alone, the words we know and the words we use shape what we think about and how we think about things. This is one the reasons to constantly expand your vocabulary. The more words you have to describe and explain things, the more rich and colorful your world becomes because words are like the paint we have to paint a picture, or the colored pencils we’re given to draw something. If I only gave you red and blue pencils, you might be able to draw a beautiful drawing, but everything would be red, blue, and purple. More importantly, if all you ever had was red and blue colored pencils, all your thoughts and creativity would get filtered through that limitation. As soon as you’re given orange, yellow, pink, and green, your world expands and you have more colors with which to express. You’ll also tend to see more things in the world because of your newly expanded color pallet. It’s a similar phenomenon with the words we acquire over time. Its as if the words we learn each have little keys that unlock new understandings of the world around us. Each word is a little suitcase filled with new things. The more keys and suitcases we acquire throughout our journey, the more doors are opened for us and the greater our world expands in front of us. 

One of the important things about words is how they’re utilized to form ideas. We all use them to form our own ideas about things, and we also use our words and the totality of our vocabulary and understanding of the world to make sense of the world around us. Politicians use language to sell us on an idea or taking action on something. Companies use words to create emotion in order to compel us to buy something. Attorneys use words to compel a judge and a jury to vote for innocence or guilt. Appraisers use words to describe, summarize, explain, rationalize, and narrate our rationale. The more words you have, the better able you are to do all of those things. Words can also be used to trap us and catch us off guard in various ways and that’s what this episode is about. 

When thinking and words meet up we produce statements, reasoning, logic, and premises about the things we are thinking about. We make claims, we state our beliefs, we lie, we emote, we share and reason. Sometimes we reason with ourselves like, should I really have that last piece of pizza? Should I take the interstate or the back roads? This wont hurt that much? We also reason with others based on our positions and beliefs about certain things. We try to use logic, often poorly, to make arguments for or against certain things. In fact, just saying the word logic might lead one to believe there is some kind of objective standard for logic but, like many things, logic can be subjective to the person using it. Again, we all bargain with ourselves and other people all the time using the logic that works for us in that moment or in that particular argument. Well, you might be surprised to find out that logic can be both objective and subjective. There are objective forms of thinking and logic that have to pass the test, so to speak, and then there are subjective forms of logic that don’t need to pass any test but our own personal preferences. 

However, what I want to talk about in this episode is something that I have personally found very helpful in better understanding the world around me, as well as better understanding the people and ideas that we might have the chance to encounter on our journey. The topic of this episode is Logical Fallacies. Logical fallacies are misconceptions that result from flaws in reasoning. There are formal fallacies and informal fallacies that occur in our daily discourse and, prior to learning the art and science of identifying logical fallacies, people often fall victim to these reasoning errors. In fact, we may also be the perpetrators from time to time of delivering a logical fallacy to the world without recognizing it. In this episode, I’d like to introduce you to some of the most common fallacies we see and hear all around us in our discussions with other humans so that you might be able to also identify the fallacies when you see and hear them, so as not to be caught by them, and also to maybe correct them when you do identify them. 

Without going too deep into the differences between formal fallacies and informal fallacies, just know that logical fallacies almost always come down to faults in one’s reasoning. But they often go much deeper than that in that logical fallacies often cloaks themselves in fancy language and techniques that are often lost on the vast majority of people, and not because those people are dumb, but because logical fallacies can be quite deceptive and disguised as very logical arguments. Again, politicians use them in almost every speech they give. This goes for the ones you like, as well the ones you don’t. Marketers use them masterfully to persuade. Your friends use them without knowing it. Parents use them to get their kids to do things they should be doing but don’t want to. The government uses logical fallacies like a sledge hammer to force compliance, and it also uses logical fallacies to gently convince a population to want to do something. They can be insidious in the way they often bypass logic and go right to the emotional centers in each and every one of us to compel us to one side or other of an argument. My goal in talking about logical fallacies on the show is to make you aware of them so that, over time, you might catch one of these little snipes and overcome the temptation to fall for bad rationale and improper logic. 

Alright, lets get into the most common fallacies so you have a better idea of what I’m taking about. One of the first, and most common forms of logical fallacies is called the Ad Hominem attack. This is an informal fallacy that means ‘to the man’ in Latin. This is where somebody tries to undermine or divert an opponent’s argument using personal attacks of character on the person making an argument. The Ad Hominem attack completely bypasses what might be a very well stated and logically sound premise or argument and goes right at the person making the argument. Good examples can often be seen with very emotional topics. Take gun control as an example. Ted Nugent, the famous rock and roll star is an popular advocate for hunting, hunters rights, gun rights, and anything connected with those topics. He loud, boisterous, verbose, and over the top in his defense of those things. But he has well reasoned arguments for gun rights, even if you’re on the other side of the debate. What often happens when the topic comes up and Ted Nugent is on the other side of the argument or story is that the person on the other side of the argument will try to attack the character of Ted Nugent as a way to discredit his arguments for gun rights. They completely bypass what might be a strong and logical argument for something and go right to attacking him as a person. “I’m not going to take seriously the arguments from a hard partying womanizing rock and roll animal killer!” This is a logical fallacy and I would encourage you never to use it, or fall for it when you hear it. 

It gets a little more deceptive when our emotions lie on one side or the other of a scenario because we might be tempted to fall for the ad hominem because we don’t like the person being attacked. You might not like Ted Nugent, irrespective of his views on gun rights or hunting. You might hate his music, or you might just find him annoying as a person so you side with the person delivering the ad hominem. With that logical fallacy comes a shaping of your own views on a topic without you even knowing its going on. You may find your inner voice saying, “yeah, that’s true, he is an annoying womanizer, and his music sucks so there’s no way his thoughts on this topic can be valid.” We see this all the time in discussions in our own industries where somebody makes a point or states a premise and somebody comes back with, “yeah, I looked at your facebook feed and its filled with Trump crap or Biden crap!”. That, my friends, is an ad hominem attack that is meant to divert attention from the argument or premise, or an attempt to discredit the person making the argument by appealing to the political leanings of some members of that crowd or forum. Its deceptive and devious because it diverts people’s attention away from what might be a very well reasoned argument and places the focus on the person instead of the topic. Don’t fall for it! Call it out when you see it, even if you aren’t on the side of the argument being presented. Even if you’re staunchly for gun control, in this example, you should be willing, in my opinion, to call out an ad hominem attack because ad hominem only weaken the side of the person using it. You call it out and say, “hey, attacking one’s character or past is not a valid argument against this person’s premise. We have better and more logical arguments against these points, let’s use them!” 

The next really common logical fallacy is the Appeal to Authority. We see this one a lot in the news today because of the pandemic. Lots of so called authorities presenting information on the topic on all sides. The thing to watch for with the appeal to authority fallacy is that authority, for many, is closely connected with influence. Many of us were raised to respect authority figures like police officers, political figures, bosses, pastors, coaches, teachers, and anybody else who might be able to exert some control over us in some area. In fact, studies have been done and show that the less educated, the less studied, the less capable, and the less confident an individual is, the greater the chance they’ll value an ‘experts’ opinion over objective facts. This one is also closely linked with an appeal to celebrity. People often give greater weight to what a celebrity is saying, not because that person is more educated on the topic, but merely because they’re a celebrity. This is why you’ll often see celebrities shilling a particular cause du jour. They get paid to speak about a hot topic in the news because the PR firms who hire them to do so know that celebrity carries social weight for many people. If they see an authority figure or a celebrity pushing a particular belief or view, they will jump on the bandwagon (another logical fallacy) and fall in line with that belief or view with no further research on the topic. If Brad Pitt says it, I’m in! The more devious use of the appeal to authority is when ones credentials are used as the primary defense for a premise or an argument, and not the argument itself. 

A really common use of this one today is when news organizations interview Bill Gates on the topic of the pandemic. Bill Gates is obviously well known and well respected as the founder of Microsoft. He’s a hyper intelligent individual and a hyper successful one at that. Bill Gates is not, however, a medical doctor, a scientist, or a virologist. This is an obvious use of the appeal to authority to make a case for something by using a known authority in one area and implying that the authority automatically carries over to a completely unrelated area. That’s not to say somebody like Bill Gates isnt or can’t be well researched and studied on a topic, its simply that his arguments and premises on a topic need to stand on their own merit, not on his opinions in one area simply because he’s an authority in another area. If the argument stands on its own then it doesn’t matter who is saying it. This one has a bunch of variants, by the way. There’s the appeal to celebrity, as we’ve already mentioned, the appeal to respect, the appeal to veneration, appeals to false authority, the appeal to questionable authority, and one of the most popular, the appeal to anonymous authority. You’ll recognize this one as the, ‘four out of five dentists agree, Crest is the best!’, or ‘climate scientists agree, global warming is real!’, or ‘research shows that…’, or ‘an unnamed source at the Pentagon says…’ Don’t fall for it superstars! An argument or premise must stand on the merits and facts of the argument, not on who is saying it or shilling for it! There’s a saying, I think it may be from Carl Sagan, but don’t quote me on that, and the saying is, ‘an intelligent person is distinguished not by what he believes, but how and why he believes it’. 

This leads us to the next logical fallacy, which is called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy is the improper belief that because something is the opinion of the majority, it must be valid. This is the ‘everyone believes it, so should you’ idea. In Latin, this is called argument ad populum which proves only that an argument is popular, not that its true or valid. Again, an argument or premise needs to stand on its own merits and the amount of people who believe something says nothing about the truthfulness or validity of a claim or argument, only that it might be popular. There was a time in history when the majority of people believed that the earth was the center of the Universe and everything else revolved around it. That was until Copernicus (mid 1500’s) theorized that it was us, in fact, who were moving around the Sun. Then, in the early 1600’s, Galileo was adamant that Copernicus was right and began writing and teaching this theory, much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church. In fact, he stood trial and was found guilty of heresy for teaching what we now know to be true, that we revolve around the Sun, not the other way around. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it valid. There was a time when the popular opinion was that the earth was flat. There was a popular belief at some point that Cocaine was a cure all drug. There was a time when the popular belief was that asbestos was the perfect insulatory material and that sugar was harmless. Just because its popular does not mean its true. Be careful following the crowd or the most popular claims simply because they’re popular. 

This leads us to another very common logical fallacy called the personal incredulity fallacy. This is commonly referred to as the, ‘just because you don’t know’ fallacy. Its also called the Argument from Incredulity. Incredulity means being unwilling or unable to believe something. The argument from incredulity in arguments usually sounds like this, “that’s crazy! I cant believe that anybody would do that?! That can’t be true!” For example, the scientific claim that life evolved from single celled bacteria, called the universal common ancestor’ theory, which was proposed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago, is a common one where we see the argument from incredulity rear its head. People will say, ‘that just doesn’t make sense to me’, and then make the leap to, ‘so it can’t possibly be true’. Just because you don’t understand something or can’t believe something is not a valid argument. Another popular one is the Manhattan Project where over 130,000 people were involved with the production of the first atomic weapon in the US. Its been said that only an extremely small faction of extremely high level scientists and leaders knew what was going on. When people hear something like this they automatically ask, ‘how could 130,000 people keep a secret? Its impossible!’ The reality is that the government utilized something called compartmentalization, which is to say that the 130,000 people who worked on the project only worked on small bits and pieces of the project without knowing what their part would contribute to the whole. It would be like working on some kind of tiny metal hinge or maybe a small switch of some kind, but never knowing how or where the hinge or switch was to be used. Years later you find out the hinge you were working on is in the door latch of a General Motors vehicle. 

Believing that for something to be true, it mist be fully understood by you is a logical fallacy that plays itself out on a daily basis around the world in discussions. We often close our minds to ideas and concepts simply because we don’t have the internal wiring, knowledge, or experience in a particular area to understand how something could possibly be. Just because you cant imagine it to be true is not a valid argument against a premise. We see this all the time in the appraiser community when it comes to how somebody runs their business. An appraiser makes a claim that they can complete 3 or 4 appraisals per day to which somebody else retorts, ‘you can’t possibly do that and produce a good appraisal, a compliant appraisal, a quality appraisal, or a valid appraisal.’ The comments start to fly, the opinions are raining down, and the logical fallacies are in full effect. I’m not arguing for or against a particular opinion, only that just because you are incredulous to a particular method or outcome, meaning that you cant believe it because you cant conceive of it, doesn’t mean that its not true or valid. Instead, in those instances, you should simply ask more questions and remain open. Of course, in these types of debates we often see the personal character attacks (ad hominem) come out, the bandwagon fallacies, the false dilemma fallacies, the hasty generalizations, the black and white fallacies, and a favorite of mine, the ‘no true Scotsman ‘ fallacy. 

This one sounds funny, doesn’t it? This one is also sometimes referred to as the appeal to purity argument. The no true Scotsman fallacy is basically that claim that no true (name your nationality) would ever do X. It comes from a universal generalization about something that isnt backed by facts or evidence, but by pure emotion and the desire to exclude a particularly unflattering quality or characteristic of a trait or group to which you may belong. It comes from a saying by the British philosopher, Antony Flew. I wont go into what he wrote in his book, Thinking on Thinking, but he makes the point about how we tend to use words like ‘true’ and ‘real’ to describe the qualities we want to be true about the group with which we identify. The term, No True Scotsman comes from a small dialogue whereby one person says, ‘a Scotsman would never put sugar on his porridge’, to which person B replies, ‘well I’m Scottish and I put sugar on my porridge, to which person A retorts, “well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!” It’s a claim not backed by facts or evidence, it’s a fallacious line of reasoning that merely excludes an action, a quality, or a trait you find undesirable. So, what we get with the appraiser who says they can complete 3 or 4 appraisals per day is the appraiser version of the no true Scotsman where somebody says, ‘no real appraiser could do that many in one day!’ You have an argument from incredulity wrapped in an argument from purity fallacy. I cant believe it or imagine how it could be done and I have no interest in researching further so I’m going to assert that no real appraiser could accomplish this, as if the person saying it is the arbiter of what might be considered a ‘real’ appraiser. 

Of course, there’s cross over into almost everything else with this one. Once you know what this one sounds like you’ll hear people say quite often, ‘no real X would do such a thing!’. ”No real soccer player would deliberately trip a competitor. No real man would ever do X, Y, or Z. No true martial artist would do something like that.” And so on it goes. Listen for it and know that you’ve likely just witnessed the No True Scotsman fallacy. I should say that the No True Scotsman isnt always fallacious. There can be instances where a claim like that may actually be factually correct. For example, ‘no real Rolex watch has that particular feature’. That very well could be true. When you hear it about a particular group, nationality, or profession, however, be suspicious. 

Which leads us to the last logical fallacy for this episode, which is something often referred to as the Gamblers Fallacy. The gamblers fallacy is the belief that just because something has happened a certain amount of times in the past that the odds have changed and the opposite is about to happen. This is the belief that previous failures in a particular area will increase the probability of success on subsequent attempts. This one is often also called the Monte Carlo fallacy because if an actual event that happened at the Grande Casino back in 1913. On August 18th the color black came up 29 times on the Roulette wheel. If you’ve ever played Roulette, you’ll know that its almost a statistical impossibility. The odds are 1 in 137 million. The reason its such a popular flaw in logic is because of the sheer amount of money that was lost that night at the Roulette wheel. After the 10th time coming up black on the wheel, the gamblers around the wheel starting placing massive bets believing that the ball dropping onto red was due any spin now. It was all based on the false logic that black couldn’t possibly come up again and that the wheel somehow has a memory, as if the prior spins were all connected and somehow the odds and probabilities have changed. They don’t! There is no connection from one spin to the next. Every spin is independent from the prior spin and the odds always remain the same, regardless of how many times the ball lands on black. 

Odds and probabilities are different, by the way, and in the instance of a roulette wheel, or even the toss of a coin, the odds are always the same. The odds are always defined by the ratio of chances of one outcome over another. In a coin toss the odds will always be 50% for one outcome over the other. With roulette, the odds are always 18 out of 37. The probabilities can change with the number of spins, but the odds always remain the same. We see this in investing when a novice investor starts believing that because something happened in the past, it has a probability of it happening in the future the same way and so they make decisions based on that belief instead of the technical or fundamental information in front of them. You watch a particular stock drop day  after day and, by the 4th or 5th day start to believe that its due for a turn around. Why? Because it just has to! The fallacy is in thinking that a certain event is more or less likely, given a previous series of events. Watch out for this one in your own thinking and save yourself the headache of trying to guess based on emotion instead of on the odds and probabilities of something transpiring. 

Thanks for tuning in again with me this week my friends! These logical fallacies are near and dear to me because, to me, its like having a set of truth filters placed over my ears or my eyes. They allow us to see through, and hear through a lot of the BS we might come across in our daily lives. The more educated you become in the vast world of logical fallacies and biases, you become better at seeing scenarios unfold in your personal and professional life that may no have been obvious to you in the past. You can avoid unnecessary arguments with people you care about. You can educate those around you, those who might work with and for you, and you tend to be a better analyst of sorts when you aren’t easily caught by non-compelling arguments. Conversely, you tend to become better at making your arguments cogently and succinctly because you understand the pitfalls of fallacious thinking and reasoning. You become a better writer, a better appraiser, a better teacher, coach, and partner, a better communicator, a better salesperson, and better at making your case in your work product. I highly recommend making logical fallacies and area of interest and study for you going forward, if only to see how you may have been making your own arguments weaker, or maybe you’ve been caught by somebody else’s logical fallacies in discussion. 

Until next week my friends, I’m out…