The Enlightened Caveman


Relationships 101 – Part 4 – Quantitative Concurrence
May 13, 2008, 12:53 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Relationships

This is a series about
relationships – why we need them, how we get them, and how we keep
them. There will be several parts. This is the fourth – it focuses on
quantifying the quality and/or depth of your relationships. Previous parts
include:

  • identifying the target; (click here)
  • how we take control of our environment to make it friendly to our efforts; (click here)
  • the difference between getting relationships and keeping them;(click here)

It’s fitting that I can simply pick up where I left off more than two years ago when I was writing almost daily. That means these ideas have some durability – at least with me. In any case, it’s time to finally make good on the conclusion of this series.

Here’s a question. Is it possible to quantify the value of a given relationship? I think it is – at least in a relative sense. It comes down to concurrence. It’s about those moments when we’re on the same wavelength with another person. Though I have no evidence whatsoever to support it, I have long had a sense that we are designed to pursue these events with one another. It doesn’t matter if I’m right. You can think of this as a thought experiment, if you like.

I believe it is moments of concurrence that forge human connections. (That notion alone would catch natural selection’s eye, no?) And the more heightened the emotional state, the deeper the connection. A lightweight version of concurrence, one with only so much emotional gravitas, occurs when we agree with someone about something we like or don’t like – such as a band or a book. A deeply emotional moment of concurrence, however, occurs when we share something like the birth of a child or a crisis situation. If we think of every relationship as having something like a concurrence account, we can say that the former example adds a little to the account while the latter adds a lot.

With that conceptual model in place, we can quantify the value of any given relationship by simply doing the math. And when we do, we can envision a progression of sorts to situate specific relationships in the context of other specific relationships in terms of value.

We should say that a basic acquaintance relationship – such as that between co-workers who don’t know each other very well – is on the low end of the value hierarchy. (Yes, I said hierarchy. Those of you with an allergy to hierarchies should abandon now. Save yourself. Go on without me.) Above that, we could place new and/or infrequent friendships – the key being that the parties involved have not shared any truly emotional moments of concurrence. These are people who perhaps enjoy spending time with one another, but there’s really no depth there. Going farther, we might find relationships where mildly emotional moments of concurrence have been shared – such as being on the same winning team or being in the same peacetime military unit. Still higher, we get into real relationships, the ones that hurt when we lose them.

Here’s where emotionally-based moments of concurrence earn their stripes. Events of this kind boost the concurrence account to levels that are difficult to achieve with non-emotional concurrences. A year’s worth of non-emotional moments of concurrence can be eclipsed instantly by a single, deeply-emotional shared experience. This is where good friend relationships and new romances are situated. (Anyone who has been in a requited love relationship can attest to the strong emotional experience associated with those early realizations that both parties are in love.) We might call this the second-tier of human relationships – ones that are defined by their basis in emotional concurrence events.

Beyond just the entry-level second-tier relationship, we get into the kinds of relationships that usually accompany long-term circumstantial or commitment-based proximity – family and partner relationships, to be precise. The concurrence account is loaded with non-emotional moments of concurrence – enjoying the same dinner, laughing at the same TV shows, grooving to the same music, getting frustrated on the same vacations, etc. Peppered throughout those everyday experiences are the emotional moments of concurrence that push the account into the stratosphere. Births, deaths, graduations, first loves, breakups, and so on. (Incidentally, here we find yet another way to justify the old saw – blood is thicker than water. ) The bottom line is that this upper level of human relationships is, in my view, the pinnacle of value.

Now, after all that, there’s the topic at hand – Relationships 101 – which implies that there’s a lesson here. The notion of quantifying value is highly instructive for one very important reason. At each level, there are appropriate and inappropriate approaches to human interaction. If we can objectively assess our relationships in terms of concurrence, we can place them on the hierarchy, thus gaining insight into how we should conduct ourselves. For example, don’t marry someone with whom you have no emotionally-based concurrence.

And here, we end up right back where we started in part 1 – what do we want? We want healthy second-tier relationships, as many as we can manage (not have, manage). Assessing the ones we have allows us to see if we’re there, or if we have work to do (and we almost always do have work to do). It prevents us from rushing things, and it prevents us from misjudging what we have, which happens when we mistake emotionally-charged moments for concurrent emotionally charged moments. The former adds nothing to the account, while the latter is a big deposit.

So there you have it.

I should note that there’s at least one logical fallacy in this post. Can you spot it?



Carbon Credits? Is that Your Final Answer?
March 4, 2007, 4:05 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Science

Standing in the mall somewhat in a daze with a TV in front of me.

The TV:   “Blah, blah, blah…carbon credits…blah blah blah.”

Me (to no one in particular): “What the hell are they are talking about?”

A Foolish By-Stander: “Oh yeah, Al Gore and a lot of other high-profile environmentalists are buying them to offset their carbon emissions.  It’s really cool of them.”

Me: “Offset? How?”

Foolish By-Stander: “Well they buy credits that equal how much CO2 they emit so they aren’t contributing to global warming.”

Me (rolling my eyes): “Oh really?  So you can buy a “credit” (full on air quotes for this) that just eliminates the physical presence of the CO2 you’ve pumped into the atmosphere?  Isn’t that just convenient?  (Now looking this guy straight in the eye.)  So you’re buying this dribble, huh?”

Foolish By-Stander Beginning to Realize He’s Made An Error In Speaking to Me: “Well at least they’re doing their part.”

Me: “Doing their part for what?  Oh that’s right – they’re doing their part to drag us all back into the Dark Ages where facts and reason are nowhere to be found; Yes, they’re awesome.”

(Buh-bye foolish bystander.)

Honestly, I’m a pretty nice person, but this carbon credits thing has me almost foaming at the mouth.  Not because of any partisan thing – I hate both sides equally – but because I fear that the general acceptance of this idea is much more of a crisis than any of the worst global warming projections.  It means we’ve officially reached the tipping point of irrevocable mass stupidity.

We’re once again faced with the perennial question – which is worse, the boldness of the hypocritical environmentalists in explaining away their hypocrisy or the thickness of the dolts who buy those explanations?  But carbon credits strains even the most basic reasoning, so I’m apt to blame the receivers more than the senders on this one.

Let’s break it down a bit, shall we?  I did a smidge of research and came up with this explanation of this heretofore unknown (at least to me) method for overcoming seemingly insurmountable environmental barriers.  It comes from a site called Save The Planet.  They’re Kiwis – I wanted to cite an international authority. (I’m nothing if not in fashion.)

What emerged from the Kyoto meeting is that as each country produces CO2, it must be able to contain that CO2 by tree-planting or other processes that can absorb it, such as sequestration and changing farming methods. Or it can reduce the CO2 it produces in the first place. If that country produces more CO2 than it can absorb, it must purchase an ‘absorption ability’ from another nation. The Carbon Credit is this new currency and one Carbon Credit is equal to one Tonne of CO2 and is called a CO2e (CO2 equivalent). A nation might have a shortfall in absorbing 500,000T of CO2 and according to the Kyoto agreement it must seek to purchase those from another nation that has been planting trees for such a consideration. Costs are between US (ironically) $10 – 40 per credit.

It’s pretty simple really in theory. All growing things absorb carbon which ultimately ends up in the soil. Planting trees reduces the carbon in the atmosphere but not if they are then cut down and burnt and crops that are planted and harvested will not actually store carbon within them. Long term plans are needed. Crops can be farmed in such a way that the soils are not ploughed to let the stored carbon escape. Weeds and borders to fields can be encouraged. Forests can be left to stand. Fuel usage can be cut and power generation can be more efficient and all this reduced consumption of carbon will mean that less carbon credits will have to be purchased.

The money that purchases carbon credits will ultimately be used to give grants to further carbon saving schemes.

Wow.  Really.  Just wow.  The audacity of such vacuous explanations is dazzling to the point of nearly taking my sight.  Now let’s translate this into real world language.

1.  The key to this is the idea that we need some sort of zero-sum CO2 policy – you gotta absorb what you produce.  As always, the wackos have built their cause on a house of cards.  No one, I repeat no one, has ever proved a predictable correlation between CO2 concentration and climate change.  (Remember, this is science – to matter, the things we learn have to provide some predictive value – Click HERE for evidence that corroborates my statement.) But let’s accept this premise – just for fun.

2.  The Carbon Credit buys you the ability to help out with CO2 concentrations somewhere other than where you live.  That’s what it’s saying, right?  If, as an American – no, as Al Gore – I heat my 20-room mansion and put out more CO2 than I absorb (with my acres of beautifully landscaped land), I can pay money to some place (like say, Thailand) that absorbs more than it takes emits.  A thing of beauty is this thing called globalization, no?  But wait a second – how exactly is this changing the carbon concentrations here in the US?  I mean this is a CRISIS, right?  Won’t a few extra trees being planted in Thailand have absolutely no effect on the problem here at home?  Won’t global warming have played itself out and done us all in by the time the trees I paid for are mature enough to suck up the CO2 I emitted by heating my 14-person hot-tub for Saturday night’s “I’m everyone’s new environmental hero party”?

3.  I love this part – “It’s pretty simple really in theory.”  So is nuclear fusion.  It’s almost like the environmentalist movement is really just a “stupidest person in the universe” contest.  The good news is that even if you don’t win, you still might snag a “Most Self-Important” or “Most Illogical” award.  Go get em, greenies.

But seriously, this so-called solution is nothing more than a scheme to allow environmentalist activists the ability to preach one thing but do another.  If we believe that greenhouse gasses are a CRISIS (which I don’t), then there’s only one option – reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  There are two ways to do that, which the Kyoto folks rightly recognize – either absorb more or emit less.  Simple.  Carbon credits do neither.

Though global warming fans love to talk about the problem (nay, CRISIS) being a global problem, that doesn’t mean that you can change something in one place and keep the status quo everywhere else and expect the “globe” to respond as you would like.  This is especially true given the pesky aspect of the word crisis that implies the need for immediate, decisive action.  Now, putting aside the obviously conceited idea that we somehow are going to make a big difference on our big, blue marble rolling through space, I keep wondering what happened to the age-old lefty phrase – “think globally, act locally”.  I guess we can now change that to – “think globally, do whatever you want locally, but send some money somewhere.”  Nice.

In the end, I always find that the best way to dismantle a stupid idea is to take it to its logical (and usually absurd) conclusion.  I have therefore decided to remove all mufflers from my vehicles, to go back to coal stoves, to run my heat and AC continuously, and to generally introduce CO2 into the atmosphere as fast and in as much volume as I can possibly manage.  On the surface, this may seem a little silly.  But not to worry, I’ll be purchasing Carbon Credits a plenty.  In fact, I have an offer down on an island in the Caribbean where I’ll be planting trees so that I can buy Carbon Credits from myself.  A double-dip, anyone?  It gets better.  Ever the innovator, I’ll be offering my environmentally responsible customers volume discounts from the get-go.  That’s right – it’s BOGO if you buy 1000 or more.  So what’s with all the long-faces?  You’ve got cash, right?  (No?  No problem.  I take credit.)  Anyway, don’t bother cramping your lifestyle – just buy some of my carbon credits.  I’ll even send you pics of your trees as they grow up.  It’ll be like the “buy a hungry kid in africa” thing – except you’ll never have to worry about your trees showing up at your doorstep – unless of course you buy one of my new wooden hybrid cars.  Talk about renewable.  I’m on the case.



Advice For New College Grads
June 25, 2006, 4:16 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Parenting

I have a keen interest in what young people in this country are up to – mainly because you are a window into the future – and right now, as I peer through that window, I can’t help but be alarmed.  It goes without saying that most teens and young adults are not interested in heavy topics like politics and philosophy.  That doesn’t concern me since it has pretty much always been so, at least in prosperous western countries.  What does concern me is the generally unrealistic worldview that held by so many American youth – the idea that good things just happen and that when they don’t, it’s someone else’s fault.

It is an endless source of humor for my friends that I watch more MTV than anyone I know over 30. Lately, I’ve been watching, “The Hills” and some of those “Super Sweet 16” shows.  I’m blown away at the fantasy world that these people live in.  Yes, I know that MTV doesn’t offer a very diverse study of how young people think, but I also know that TV is a prime shaper of attitudes about life and how to live it.  From those shows and my own occasional interactions with young people, I think have a pretty good idea of where many (if not most) of you are coming from.  That said, I’d like to offer a few pieces of advice to counter what goes for cool these days.

1.  The amount of happiness you experience in life is inversely proportional to how much frustration you experience, and frustration is all about unmet expectations.  In other words, if you expect things to turn out a certain way and they don’t, you’ll end up frustrated.  And if this happens enough, you’ll end up unhappy.  Therefore, it is essential that you learn to set your expectations about life realistically.  Whenever you find yourself dissatisfied with a particular circumstance, ask yourself what you expected.  Then ask yourself why you expected what you did.  You’ll usually find that were not aware of the following reality of our world.

2.  The good things in life take work – that goes for everything from careers to relationships.  Though you will always see examples of people who have it all and did seemingly nothing to get it, be mindful that these are the exceptions not the rule.  So, adhering to point number one, be careful not to expect that getting to the good life will be easy.

3.  Rethink what you really want.  Most young people want to be rich.  That’s fine.  I do, too.  But the real question is why.  Do you want to be rich because it impresses people?  If so, getting rich will never make you happy – there will always be someone else to impress.  Do you want to be rich so you won’t have to work?  Again, this is a bad idea.  Work, in itself, is a glorious thing…provided you’re working on things that you’re passionate about.  To wish for a life without work is to wish for boredom, which is the root of many ills in life.  The best reason to want to be rich is to obtain what I call the option – the have a life consumed with “want-to-dos” versus “have-to-dos.”  Like I said, this doesn’t mean you won’t work.  It just means you’ll decide what you work on, as well as when and how you’ll do it.  But beyond riches, the ultimate goal in this life is meaningful relationships.  As Bertrand Russell, the early 20th century British philosopher put it – the good life is a life inspired by love and guided by knowledge.  Corny as it may sound, pursue love doggedly in this life, and if you do it right (more on that in a moment), yours will be a happy life.

4.  When it comes to careers, be aware that the world today is vastly different than it was when your parents started working.  Gone are the days of working for the same company for your entire career.  As the current bestseller tells us, the world is indeed flat.  That means you have limitless opportunities to get to the option.  However, coming out of school, it is highly unlikely that you have the skills to make it happen right away.  So you need a game plan.

The first thing to realize is that the 9-5 grind and the option are almost totally incompatible.  What I mean is that you may have to work the grind for a while as you’re getting yourself set up, but the goal should always be to abandon the grind as soon as you can get what you need financially without it.  Don’t fall into the trap of taking the first corporate job that falls out of the sky simply because you’ll be making real money for the first time.  Many a listless and unsatisfied middle-ager was created by starting in corporate America with grand dreams only to be trapped by financial responsibilities that precluded the ability to take a risk when the time was right.  It’s so easy to get sucked in, start spending more than you make, and then be shackled to the corporate ladder forever more.  Be responsible with your money right now (more on that later).

Am I saying that you shouldn’t take a job in corporate America?  Not at all.  I’m saying that you should be wise about it.  For one thing, never work for a company unless you understand very clearly how the company makes money, and make sure the company makes money (as in, makes a profit).  This may seem strange to say, but there are so many companies out there that are built around the idea that, with the right amount of investment, one day they’ll turn a corner and start making boatloads of cash.  Some do, but most don’t.  Wait until later in your career to spend time in organizations that are not yet profitable.  You first need to learn how profitable businesses operate.  Then, your skills are not based on a dream, but are based upon a reality.  Very important.

You then need to be mindful of the opportunities for advancement in your chosen company.  If they can’t tell you where you can go if you kick ass, walk away.  And when there is opportunity for advancement, do your homework on whether or not you’d benefit from advancing.  The way to tell if a prospective job is worth doing is to do Monster.com (and other career site) searches on your boss’ job title.  Are there lots of those jobs available?  If so, do they pay well?  If not, why not?  It may be a good thing.  It may be that you could learn a job that is in high demand.  If so, that’s great – dig in.  Also look at the skills required to do the jobs that are listed.  Will you be learning those skills in your new job?  If not, think twice.

The bottom line is that your objective in taking a job out of college is to prepare yourself to get a better one as soon as you can – either within the same company or elsewhere.  If you’re not constantly thinking about this, then you’ll find yourself working in the same place years from now, with little to show for it.  Of course, I know that the perfect job isn’t just out there waiting for you to choose it.  You may have to suck up a shitty job until you can find what you want.  The stark and unpleasant reality of being young and inexperienced is that work, for you, is likely to be less than pleasant.  The good news is that most of your contemporaries will bitch and moan about it, rather than planning their next move.  This gives the forward thinker the leg up.  Be willing to pay your dues, but only in pursuit of your dreams and not the dreams of your boss or some faceless corporation.

5.  Time is to be spent and invested wisely.  This is the most precious of resources, and the good news is that you get lots of it for nothing when you start out.  A standard problem with young people is the desire to live in the moment.  This is nothing new.  However, the key to getting to the good life is balancing how much time you spend on the moment and how much time you spend on the future, and it is truly a balance.  He who spends all his time thinking about today is doomed when tomorrow comes around.  Conversely, he who spends all his time worrying about tomorrow misses life entirely.  Here’s a good rule of thumb.  Assuming you sleep 8 hours a night, you have 16 hours left.  Spend 12 on the future and 4 on today – roughly a 3 to 1 ratio.  Presumably, your job counts as time spent on the future (at least it should).  If you work 8-10 hours a day, you still need to spend a few hours on the future.  That leaves a solid chunk of time to just play, and you need that.

Time invested in the future could be anything from working out (your health is your future), reading (gaining knowledge for the future), engaging in artistic endeavors (your emotional outlets are tied to your mental health and sometimes to your financial future), and working on projects of all types.  Your “in the moment” time is your release.  Party.  Have fun.  Socialize.  It’s okay to spend time doing things that seemingly have no long-term value, for many of them often end up having long-term value after all.  For example, I have always been a social kind of person.  I like to go out get my swerve on as much as anyone, and through that I’ve met all of the people with whom I have close relationships today (family excluded, of course).  Furthermore, I’ve learned a lot about my fellow man by interacting on a regular basis, which leads me to the next point.

6.  Focus on your people skills.  I once held a job as a consultant in a company that only hired Ivy Leaguers.  I was the exception, mainly because I talked my way into the job.  Anyhow, while my colleagues were all very intelligent and very committed to their work, most of them were socially inept.  They had spent so much time nose down in the school books that they hadn’t developed their social skills.  What became obvious in very short order was that I was far and away better at my job than they were – not because I knew more (I didn’t) or was smarter (I wasn’t), but because business is conducted between human beings, and I am better at dealing with humans than eggheads from Harvard.  The point is that social education is every bit as important as scholarly education.  Try to understand what motivates people and why.  That means ask questions and learn to listen.  Be interested in people because you can learn something from anyone, and I mean anyone.  Be mindful of how people perceive you – you’ll often learn that your impression of yourself is distinctly different from how others see you.  This doesn’t mean you become a jellyfish conformist.  It just means that you become aware of what’s going on in the minds of other people.  This skill, above all others, I would say has led to whatever success I have achieved in life.  And, get this, it’s the most fun one to develop.  Also – a little axiom to carry around with you is this – expect more from yourself and less from other people.  Trust me on that.

7.  As for money, the most important thing I can tell you is to learn to say no to your desires.  Avoid debt at all costs, and if you’re like most young people and you already have some, set a course to get rid of it as fast as possible.  The good life is simply impossible when you’re carrying financial debt.  Of course, there are things like mortgages that most everyone carries.  However, if your philosophy is to avoid debt as much as possible, you’ll go far.  For example, it is common to get a new job and immediately run out and buy a nice new car.  Resist that.  Buy a car that is a few years old and doesn’t cost a fortune.  Your instincts toward impressing your contemporaries coupled with the lures of easy credit will tempt you in the other direction.  Always remember that nothing is more impressive than being able to do what you want, when you want, for as long as you want.  You’re not there yet, and buying an expensive car is a good way to ensure that you’ll never get there.  Why?  Because it’s all about money out versus money in.

You want to maximize your income and minimize your expenses.  This is the part about saying no to yourself.  Your expenses will go up and up if you can’t say no to that new outfit or that cool vacation.  The idea is that you are a little company unto yourself.  You want to make a profit right away, and then you want to increase your profits until such time that your profits allow you to eliminate your job all together.  For more on this, I highly recommend reading, Rich Dad, Poor Dad.  It’s a virtual road map to financial independence.

The bottom line with money is that your lifestyle as a young person should not reflect how much money you make now.  It should reflect your desire to have vast riches later.  You can take comfort in knowing that your buddies driving BMWs with $500/month lease notes will be green with envy in a few years when you can buy a car and pay cash for it.  Living poor now to get rich before you’re forty is the new cool.  Trust me on that.

8.  Lastly, let’s talk about love.  As they say, here be dragons.  Love is wonderful – nothing feels better – but it is also extremely dangerous.  Your ancient animal mind is very tuned to love, and will urge you to pursue it all costs.  Fortunately, however, you have a rational mind that is capable of reigning in your animal mind.  Use it.  Think about what you want out of love – you want it to last, and you want it to make you better, not worse.  That means you are discerning about who you fall in love with.  They say that you don’t get to pick who you fall in love with.  I think that’s BS.  While it may be true that the feeling of love is largely outside of our control, it is also true that we are in control of whether we are in situations where love may emerge.

Think about it like this.  Every person you encounter could be a potential love relationship – some more likely than others.  When the possibility is more likely (as in, you meet someone around your age to whom you’re romantically attracted), your first order of business is determine if this is the kind of person to be in love with.  You’re putting people through a selection process.  Those who indicate that they may not be long-termers (as in, he or she has a history of cheating on boyfriends/girlfriends), then your best bet is to limit time spent with that person.  Similarly, if the person engages in dangerous, criminal, or unhealthy behaviors, best keep your distance.  The key is that you get to know people from a distance before you get intimate with them.  I know this is not en vogue these days, but trust me, it’s some of the best advice you’ll ever get.  And girls, that means you withhold sex (of any kind) until you have some feel for who you’re dealing with.  The good partners will stick around; the bad ones won’t.  This is old school stuff, but it’s the difference between getting into positive love relationships and negative love relationships that bring you down emotionally and hinder your quest for the good life.

(Just to preempt my critics – I say this to girls and not boys because girls, more often than not, have a tendency to equate sex with love, whereas boys generally have no problem detaching the two.  Like it or not, this is the reality of our species.)

So there you have it.  A short course on how to get what you want out of life.  The best thing is that you live in a country where anything is possible.  You just have to be smart enough to filter out the crap that is handed to you on MTV and then disciplined enough to work hard and say no to yourself when prudence requires it.



Children Learn What They Live
April 24, 2006, 4:12 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Parenting

This poem was written in a gothic typeface on a piece of laminated crap board hanging by a big-looped brass chain in the hallway of my childhood home.  I must have read it a bazillion times growing up, but I recently stumbled on it and am amazed at how poignant it still is.

Of course, I’m older now and have a child of my own, so I can’t buy everything, especially in light of Judith Rich Harris’ latest book.  However, I thought someone might find it interesting.

Children Learn What They Live
By Dorothy Law Nolte, Ph.D.

If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.
If children live with pity, they learn to feel sorry for themselves.
If children live with ridicule, they learn to feel shy.
If children live with jealousy, they learn to feel envy.
If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
If children live with tolerance, they learn patience.
If children live with praise, they learn appreciation.
If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
If children live with recognition, they learn it is good to have a goal.
If children live with sharing, they learn generosity.
If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
If children live with fairness, they learn justice.
If children live with kindness and consideration, they learn respect.
If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and in those about them.
If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.

The Harris modification would be thus –
And then, despite everything they’ve learned, if they get ostracized or are otherwise socially unsuccessful once they leave the home, it won’t matter much what was taught before then.



Logical Fallacies Cheat Sheet
April 4, 2006, 4:10 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Philosophy

Print this out and carry it around with you.  Any time someone expresses a belief that seems a bit off, run through the list.  I’ll bet that in most every case, they’re falling prey to one or more of the fallacies listed here.  And, if you dare, reflect on your own beliefs.  I bet a fallacy or two will reveal itself.  Then what?

Are you going to throw the list away and forget about the whole thing?  No judgements here.  Just keep in mind that denying reality doesn’t make it go away.  It never lets up, so you will see it again.  Hopefully, it won’t hurt too bad.

(BTW – I got these from the website of a small college in Tennessee called Carson-Newman. )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are basically four kinds of logical fallacies – fallacies of
relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies
of omission.  The list is organized accordingly.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on. Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.” While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. “That car can’t possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!” Or, “Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes.” Or, “Ha! I’m not reading that book. It was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks!” This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below.

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward the man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well”): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement “2+2=4” is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

(1) Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

(2) Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one’s adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent’s special circumstances have no control over the truth of a specific contention. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally “Argument to the People): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

(1) Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority’s belief didn’t mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy.

(2) Patriotic Approach: “Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.

(3) Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument.

Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago?

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally “argument from that which is improper”): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, “To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents.” Or again, “To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander’s breeding grounds, we interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem.” Indeed, it is important to get “both viewpoints” on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments.

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, “argument from pity”): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a “not-guilty” plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.

COMPONENT FALLACIES: Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, “Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college’s curriculum.” The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course–they merely “begged the question” and moved on to the next “safe” part of the argument, skipping over the part that’s the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question if often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy takes one idea and phrases it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to “prove” his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to “prove” the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: “God exists.” “How do you know that God exists?” “The Bible says so.” “Why should I believe the Bible?” “Because it’s the inspired word of God.” If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:

The so-called “final proof” relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” “Converse Accident”): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Example: “Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it.” In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample–at least one larger than three–or (b) if that isn’t possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to give the weapons back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. So remember, generalizations are bad. All of them. Every single last one. Except, of course, for those that are not.

Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. Suppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the women who took the driving test failed. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. However, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less clear-cut. Incidentally, the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. He does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. He becomes furious to learn that 40% of office “sick-days” occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)–just in time to create a three-day weekend. Suspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers. The irony, of course, is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week, so the numbers are completely average. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that “50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude.” Of course they do! The very nature of an average implies that!

False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist. There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. The two most common include these types:

(1) Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, “Not the cause for a cause”): A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

(2) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: “After this, therefore because of this”): This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later one. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn’t. It is the honest writer’s job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. Example: “A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart-attack. Because the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later.” This is how superstitions begin.

The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act–to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. These may be potential suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes. Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life, suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later. For more information, see correlation and causation.

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. The question really isn’t, “Is it good to have decent housing?” The question really is, “Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?” This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption–such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have–and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. It’s similar to begging the question, above.

One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the “Red Herring.” A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for “And you too!”), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn’t follow it herself. For instance, “Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?”

Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to “prove” an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His “victory” is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each “fake” point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, “Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children.” The second speaker retorts, “My opponent believes that some parasites who don’t work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I’ll show you why he’s wrong . . .” In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition’s statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to “win.” However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

Non Sequitur (literally, “It does not follow”): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: “Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980’s weakened the United States’ military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today.” There’s obviously a step or two missing here.

The “Slippery Slope” Fallacy (also called “The Camel’s Nose Fallacy”) is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called “the Camel’s Nose Fallacy” because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow–that the sheik can’t stop the progression once it has begun–and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, “If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the United States.” Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies.

Either/Or Fallacy (also called “the Black-and-White Fallacy” and “False Dilemma”): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple. This fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the American way of life will collapse.” “We go to war with Canada, or else Canada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States.” “Either you drink Burpsy Cola, or you will have no friends and no social life.” Either you must avoid either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.

Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. For example, “education is like cake; a small amount tastes sweet, but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. Likewise, more than two years of education is bad for a student.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.

Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded. All snakes are reptiles. All snakes are cold-blooded.” In the first example, the middle term “snakes” fits in the categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded.” It is what logicians call a “distributed middle term.” (2) “All snails are cold-blooded. All snakes are cold-blooded. All snails are snakes.” In the second example, the middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-blooded” and “snails.” It is an undistributed middle term. Sometimes, equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed middle term.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means “goal” in Plato’s usage, but it means “last event” or “termination” in the author’s second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato’s meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly, below.

Amphiboly (from the Greek word “indeterminate”): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but the conclusion uses the secondary “false” interpretation, we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. In the command, “Save soap and waste paper,” the amphibolous use of “waste” results in the problem of determining whether “waste” functions as a verb or as an adjective.

Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself–it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see above), but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to create a categorical generalization. Also compare it with Division (see below).

Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. Such an argument notes that, “Microtech is a company with great influence in the California legislature. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. He must have great influence in the California legislature.” This is not necessarily true. Egbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech–positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: “Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. Susan Jones is a worker at Sunsurf. She must be an environmentally minded individual.” (Perhaps she is motivated by money alone?)

FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information.

Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker “stacks the deck” in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point, and listing only those examples that support her case. This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. Contrast it with the straw man argument.

Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above). For instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the Newtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, Einstein’s theory of relativity must be true. Perhaps not. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and Einstein’s theory is flawed. Perhaps they are all wrong. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than disproving your opponent’s assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one.

Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally “Argument from Ignorance”): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common example is the idea that one “owes” her success to another individual who taught her. For instance, “You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn’t taught you how to recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer.” Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.

Complex Question (Also called the “Loaded Question”): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above), since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. For instance, if I were to ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is, “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by, “If you have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now?” In cross-examination, a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, “Where did you hide the evidence?” or “when did you stop beating your wife?” The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analyze its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question first, the explicit question may dissolve.

Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. A student might write, “Why is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. However, an observant reader may disagree, recognizing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. That question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion.

Contradictory Premises: Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, “If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it.” The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

So there you have them – every major fallacy known to logic.  Now go and think clearly.



The Endangered Ability To Think Logically
April 4, 2006, 4:09 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Philosophy

My fellow Americans, we’re in deep trouble.  Some of it is our fault; some of it isn’t.  It’s our fault because those of us who know better are content in our own little worlds to let things proceed on their current course.  But mostly, the problem that afflicts us today is a manifestation of how our species does business.  Our world has changed dramatically in the last few decades, and our genes are unprepared, to say the least.  The problem I am referring to is the endangered ability to think logically.

As Thomas Sowell tells us in today’s column, which is entitled, “Are Facts Obsolete?“,

Those who are in the business of teaching the young, whether in the  public schools or on college campuses, too often see this not as a responsibility to pass on what is known but as an opportunity to indoctrinate students with their own beliefs. Many “educators” and the gurus who indoctrinated them actively disparage “mere facts,” which they say you can get from an almanac or encyclopedia.

The net result is a student population that does not even know enough to know what needs to be looked up, much less how to analyze facts, so as to test opposing beliefs — as distinguished from how to gather information to support a preconceived notion that happens to be fashionable in the schools and colleges.

Yet people are considered to be “educated” after they have spent so many years in ivy-covered buildings, absorbing the preconceptions that prevail there.

This is a symptom of the larger problem.  Logic does not come pre-installed in the human mind.  If it ever gets installed, it has to be done deliberately.  The default human mind, the one with no foundation in logic, has no preference for facts.  Indeed, the human mind is about expediency, which often sits at odds with reality.  Of course, as we are a social species, so long as “the group” is in on the con, all is well.  That is, until the group runs off a cliff, which we are apt to do if something isn’t done…and soon.

But how to teach logic to people in a soundbite world?  How do you retrain a modern human mind (adult or child) to be skeptical, to begin with premises, and to objectively and properly analyze arguments?  This requires an investment in time, which seems to be the last thing people are willing to give up, especially if doing so might jeopardize the fabricated reality that feels oh-so-good.  There’s TV to be watched.  There are video game bad guys to be blown up.  It was not always so.

Back before the media was ubiquitous, people (at least some people) longed for new things to read.  The rate at which they consumed information was considerably faster than the rate at which they received new material.  So they took the time to read long discussions of various issues, and they read them multiple times.  As they discussed what they read with one another, logic was their best friend.  They could dissect the points made and argue them on their merits (or lack thereof).  Of course, this was around the turn of the 20th century.  A lot has changed.

The sport of argument is almost dead.  It was slain by the that irritating little meme that people have a right not to be offended.  Yes, political correctness has all but killed logical, constructive discourse in this country.  Now you can’t make an argument that affirmative action hurts the people it is supposed to help without being labeled a racist.  This is because some people stand to lose a great deal if you’re right.  I guess it has always been so – the powerful have always been able to muzzle the powerless when their words rang a little too true.

But now, muzzles are easy to come by and are fitted routinely by people whose influence has no discernible justification.  Shouldn’t I be able to mount a logical argument in the marketplace of ideas and not be vilified for the implications of the conclusions I reach?  I should, but that would require the masses to have a foundation in logic.  It would require them to know that there is a right way and a wrong way to come by belief.  It would require them to know that, so long as the argument is not ad hominem (against the man), it should be allowed, even if it isn’t pretty.

I wish I could snap my fingers and live in a world dominated by truly rational thinkers.  I often wonder what that world would be like.  I wonder if I’d be in the majority.  Yes, I think rationally, but I’m not naive enough to believe that I’m rational all the time.  Would I be one of those fringe people who went irrational when things didn’t go his way?  I hope not.  I’d count on my knowledge of logical fallacies to keep myself honest.  Hey, maybe that’s how I can help out with this problem.

Knowing all the major logical fallacies is an excellent way to check your mind against irrationality.  If you pull them out and peruse them in the context of your beliefs, you’ll often find that you’ve bought into something illogically.  Then, knowing that it is almost always best to be on the side of logic, you can begin the process of changing what you believe.  I’ve done this more than a few times over the years.  It’s not always pleasant, but few things worthwhile are.

So, click here for your lesson on logical fallacies.  Don’t say I never gave you anything.



Book Review – No Two Alike
March 30, 2006, 4:17 am
Filed under: Books, Parenting

I finished Judith Rich Harris’ latest book, No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality, about a week ago, but it’s taken all this time to come to grips with how I feel about it.  That’s a good thing.  It means the book has had a significant impact on how I view human nature. But it’s also a bad thing because I’m still toiling with what to do about it.  First a little background.

It has been taken for granted pretty much forever that human personality is shaped primarily by the home environment – specifically by the actions or inactions of parents with regard to raising their children. Judith Rich Harris launched an all-out attack on that idea several years ago with her book, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. In it, she argues quite convincingly that the research simply does not lead to the generally accepted conclusion.  But, despite the subtitle of the book, she left it at that; she didn’t offer a substitute theory.  She has now remedied that problem, which is extremely impressive given her lack of formal credentials.

Judith Rich Harris is not a PhD psychologist.  Prior to The Nurture Assumption, she was a psychology textbook writer.  Over the years of assimilating all of the research on human personality, she began to suspect that the accepted wisdom in the psych community with respect to what shapes personality was wrong.  Home bound due to chronic illness, she began the tedious process of researching and putting together what would become The Nurture Assumption.  Along the way, she got friendly with Steven Pinker, which helped quite a bit, and she got crossways with a pile of other academics who had an interest in discrediting her, which probably helped even more.  So, to say she’s an outsider is an understatement.  To those who dislike her, she’s a hack wanna-be.  To me, she’s a hero.  The details of her out-thinking the ivory tower thinkers is nothing short of delicious.  Now to her latest offering.

No Two Alike is written as a mystery.  It starts by laying out the details of the case, by asking a big question.  How can identical twins reared in the same home turn out with completely different personalities?  They have the same genes, and they grow up in the same environment.  Same nature, same nurture, but still they’re different.  What could explain this?  She picks up where she left off in The Nurture Assumption – it can’t be the home environment, so what is it?

Her next task is to eliminate what she calls the red herrings in the case – the explanations that many believe are correct but aren’t.  I won’t go into all of them because, frankly, I had to work to get through them.  It’s not that they weren’t interesting; it’s just that I was dying to get to her theory. Had I written the book, I would have started with that.  But I understand why she did what she did.

Writing books that get read by academics is tough.  You’re dealing with a skeptical lot, to say the least.  That means you have to preemptively, if possible, eliminate all of their objections before you can make any headway.  Otherwise, they’ll abandon you right away.  They’ll say, “Oh, this philistine has missed the papers by such and such and the findings of so and so.  She’s clearly a hack.”  Like I said, I understand why she organized the content as she did – like it or not.  She left her critics with no choice but to at least consider her thesis, which is as follows.

Evolutionary psychology tells us that the mind is made up of modules that were designed by natural selection to enable humans to survive in their ancestral environment – you know, in caves and such. (Check out Steven Pinker’s, How The Mind Works, for a good foundation in this line of thinking.)  Far from a blank slate, the mind begins life with a set of genetically determined programs (or modules) that interact with the external environment to form what eventually becomes the mature human mind.  This mind will have full use of the senses – for interpreting and negotiating the physical world.  It will have language skills for communicating with other humans.  Harris contends that we also have three modules, in particular, that shape our personalities – the relationship system, the socialization system, and the status system, as she calls them.  The last, the status system, according to Harris, is the culprit in her mystery.  I’ll get to that in time.  I should first outline the three systems a bit.

The relationship system was natural selection’s way of making ours into a social species, which is widely believed to be the predominant reason why Homo sapiens survived while all other hominids became extinct.  Its goal, to use the term loosely, is to establish and maintain favorable relationships.  It works by providing us with the tools and motivation to acquire knowledge about other people and to share that knowledge with others.  In terms of tools, we have something akin to a mental Rolodex, where we store everything we know about everyone we either know or know of. We also have face-recognition module, a mind-reading mechanism (for inferring what others are thinking), and a relationship sociometer (for determining if we’re getting along well or not).  In terms of motivation, we have our old friends, our emotions – particularly, love, hatred, dependency, trust, aggressiveness, lust, and jealousy.  The manifestations of this system are infant attachment behaviors, making friends, dominance contests, courtship, trading favors, and gossiping.  The relationship system is online from minute one of our lives, and it stays online till we die or go nuts.  Also, its actions are largely available to our consciousness (that is, we know that we’re gathering and communicating information about people).

Next we have the socialization system.  This system is designed to get us to become members of one or many groups.   In terms of tools, this system works with a categorization module, which helps us sort people into categories based upon whatever attributes we discover using our relationship system.  Basketball players versus football players, for example.  Then we have a calculator of central tendencies.  This tool allows us to define our categories with what we can think of as stereotypes.  Basketball players are tall, for example.  Lastly, we have a social-acceptance sociometer, which is helps us to know if we’re fitting in or not.  In terms of emotions, we have hostility toward groups of which we are not a part, group pride or patriotism, and unhappiness at being rejected.  This system manifests itself in our tendencies to adopt the behaviors, language, accent, dress, and attitudes of our group mates, and in our tendencies to defend our group(s).  The socialization system comes online around age three, and it has done most of its work by the end of adolescence (although it stays with us to some degree probably forever).  Interestingly, this system operates largely below the level of consciousness, which means that we really aren’t aware of the influence that our interactions with and within groups have on our minds.

The last system, the big kahuna, is the status system.  This system is all about our being better than our rivals.  For tools, it also uses the mind reading mechanism that is used by the relationship system, but it also draws on an eye-gaze detector (to determine who is getting the most attention) and a sociometer that gives detailed, multi-dimensional information about status.  For motivation, this system gives us emotions such as ambition, envy, triumph, and conceit, as well as embarrassment, anger, or unhappiness at losing status.  We see the status system in action in our tendencies to match or measure ourselves against our peers, to compete in contests we might win, and to avoid contests we might lose.  According to Harris, this system is evident in three-year-olds, but other components of it develop slowly.  Changes in strategy, says she, are common during adolescence and are still possible in adulthood.  And though the eye-gaze system operates below the radar, the rest of the status system is pretty much available to our conscious minds.

So there you have it, the three systems.  Now before anyone concludes that I am expert at distilling hundreds of pages of material into three paragraphs, I should admit that I pulled all of this from a table Harris graciously provided toward the end of the book.  That said, this information alone was worth the price of admission.  I have long discussed the artifacts of the caveman mind, so it was a joy to have them placed into a more useful context.  But the point of the book is to say that the status system is responsible, more than anything else, for why two people who have the same genes and grow up in the same environment end up with completely different personalities.  It takes a while to unpack that thesis, so I’ll only hit the high points.  Read the book for the gory details.

It begins with such a thing as developmental noise.  This refers to the little changes that happen as the fertilized egg develops into a full human being.  Though two may have the same DNA, there are still little differences in how that DNA expresses itself in each individual.  That’s why parents and friends can almost always tell identical twins apart – and not just by sight.  Harris’ argument is that those little differences cause people to treat each individual a little differently.  Maybe not so much in the home, but definitely out in the world, where the socialization and status systems are on overdrive.

The key to all this is the notion that natural selection would not have bothered to build these complex systems for mediating our thoughts and actions in the home.  The home of our parents is not where we’ll form our mature bonds of friendship and love (the kind that leads to offspring), unless we’re weird.   That’s where Harris is coming from in The Nurture Assumption. Our home life while we’re growing up is simply a stepping stone to the real world where humans do what matters evolutionarily speaking.  So the modules that form our personalities do their thing away from home, when we’re with our peers.  That’s where it gets dicey.

You see, the socialization system drives us to be like the other members of whatever group we’re in or want to be in.  The status system does the reverse – it drives us to set ourselves apart.  The systems are essentially competing.  Now take hypothetical identical twins Jimmy and Johnny.  They’re already alike, which means fitting in is less an issue than standing out, so they end up adopting different strategies in their social environment.  Maybe little Jimmy comes off to kids in the playgroup as the rowdy, outgoing one.  So Johnny’s status system tells him to do something different.  He becomes the quiet, shy one.  Voila, over the years, you have two completely different personalities.  Mystery solved.  (I can oversimplify anything.)

But as I said, I am still toiling with what to make of all this.  I have no issues whatsoever with any of the aforementioned information.  It all makes very good sense to me, and like a good scholar, Harris backs it up with footnotes aplenty.  However, I think information for information’s sake is a waste.  I want to be able to put it to good use, and, in this case, as a parent, I have a vested interest in doing so.

I can accept that I play less of a role than I might like in shaping my son’s personality.  (I should note that Harris never makes the statement that parents don’t matter, though her critics will undoubtedly say she does.)  Furthermore, I can accept that what happens in peer-to-peer social situations is very powerful in establishing the various hues of long-term temperament and confidence.  But where do I leave off, and where do the outside-the-home social influences pick up?  To me, that is the question.

Harris explains that children learn their initial strategies for dealing with people at home, but they either keep them or abandon them based upon how well they work outside the home.  If the parents are immigrants, the children will quickly learn that fitting in entails learning to speak like American kids, and not like their parents.  Similarly, if kids are the stand-outs in their homes because they sing best, they may abandon singing all together when they find that their “talent” gets them nothing in terms of status within their peer groups.  Fair enough.

From that, one could conclude that the parents do play a very important role, which is understanding (and, to some extent, controlling) the outside-the-home social environment of their children.  This is perhaps an aspect of the situation that is particularly unappealing to immigrants who desperately want their children to maintain the culture of the home land.  If they insist on having Sanjay wear a turban to school, they should expect that his personality may be negatively impacted (that is, he’ll be less happy) by how much he’ll stand out in the group.  He won’t fit in, and isn’t likely that his headgear will earn him any status in the vicious contest for playground superiority.  So he may end up feeling inferior or feeling left out, which may persist into an introverted and not-so-confident personality.  But then again…

How much should we cater to the goals of our ancient genes?  Have I not said forever that many of our genetic drives do more harm than good?  Maybe the desperate need to fit in is one of those.  It certainly accounts for all manner of foolishness among young people in this country – pop music, mainstream fashion, and the interminably irritating use of the word ‘like’ come to mind right away. And status?  Well, we all know what a bitch that one is. It drives people to value the shallowest of activities and accomplishments and to unnecessarily beat the crap out of themselves when they don’t measure up.  So should we forget all about Harris’ interesting theory and go about our business as usual?

No, that won’t do either.  In the end, I think it comes down to happiness.  Fitting in makes us happy.  Being acknowledged as having high status makes us happy.  So, as is the case in so much of this enlightening the caveman endeavor, the key, I think, is to co-opt the ancient design for a modern aim.  Yes, I think parents should come to grips with how their actions toward their children will prepare them to interact with their childhood playmates.  That doesn’t mean they teach them to be lemmings, but it does mean that they carefully evaluate who their kids spend time with, paying special attention to their values and dispositions.  (Maybe this makes a case for private schools.)

On the flipside, in terms of status, I think it still makes sense to teach children to try to outpace their peers.  Competition and accountability do wonders for our species.  But, again, the parent’s role is to help guide the child’s choices in what he or she attempts to excel at.  The kids can (and should) pursue status, which brings happiness, but in endeavors that will serve them as adults.  Striving to be the kid who can shotgun the most beers before class is not one of those endeavors, though it somehow worked for me.  Aaanyway, there’s a lot to chew on here.

As you can see, I have only a vague feel for how Harris’ book should be applied to life as a parent today.  I’m sure as time goes on that my sense of it all will crystallize.  I’ll keep you posted.  For now, let’s just say that things aren’t as we always thought they were, and we should be thankful that a non-academic had the courage and wherewithal to bring it to our attention.  That’s a good start.



Keep Your Eyes On Your Big Screen
March 16, 2006, 4:08 am
Filed under: Enlightened Living, My Theories, Science

I’ve talked before about my theory of consciousness.  The essence of it is that we have this big screen in our minds that is occupied by the aspects of our mental proceedings that are winning the moment-by-moment competitions that are going on continuously below the surface.  What we experience (sight, sound, etc.) on the big screen is what we are conscious of.  It’s all about attention.

What are we paying attention to?  The answer drives such a monumental part of our experience, yet few of us routinely ask ourselves what is on our big screens.  That’s probably because no one else has posited the big screen metaphor – at least I’ve never come across it.  Nevertheless, visual metaphors can be extremely useful, and this one is at the high end of the utility scale.  Perhaps an everyday example.

You’ve just come from the grocery store.  You walk in the door to your home and find that your wallet or purse is not with you.  It’s no shocker what’s on your big screen for the foreseeable future until you recover what you’re missing.  You’re completely absorbed, which is to say that your big screen is occupied by one thing almost entirely.  Yes, the big screen in our heads, unlike the one at your average movie theater, has split-viewing capability.  In fact, it more resembles those walls you’ve seen that are made up of dozens of TVs – they can each play individually, or they can work together to produce several multi-TV experiences, or even a giant, cohesive experience.  So, in that context, losing your wallet is an absorbing conscious experience, but most things are not.

In this multi-tasking world with so many have-to-dos right next to so many want-to-dos, it’s obvious that our big screens are in multi-image mode most of the time.  We’re thinking about the people in our lives, our jobs, our problems, our hopes, and whatever happens to be going on from second to second.  The big screen is a melange of ever-changing images and sounds.  Most of life is a fragmented conscious experience.  I have found that simply being aware of this concept has profound effects on how I can modulate my conscious experiences, and thus influence my levels of contentment and awareness.  (Sounds all zen and meditative, huh?  Not really.)

We all have things that pop up on our big screens that we’d rather not think about, and we all have our ways of ushering those experiences off the screen.  It is my sincere opinion that most people are really good at getting rid of things that they should keep, while they have almost no ability to get rid of things that have no place on our big screens.  This, I believe, is mostly a function of our caveman heritage.  For example, most people simply have not learned that status in a modern, largely anonymous world is irrelevant.  Dave Ramsey, the radio consumer advocate, is fond of saying that people are all the time spending money they don’t have to buy things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like.  That about nails it – we’re doing what we’re programmed to do – we don’t know any different.  And what about the things we should keep on our big screens?

Though some folks may disagree with me, I would argue that at least 80% of the population is absolutely unwilling to accept truths about themselves, even the ones they know, but try to deny.  My most recent boss was an absolutely abysmal manager, and he had indications almost weekly that confirmed it.  Nevertheless, were he asked, he would undoubtedly proclaim his skill at governing and guiding the actions of other people.  We’re talking about a massive blind-spot.  How does something like this emerge, you ask?  By kicking the truth off your big screen when you don’t like how it makes you feel.

The hallmark of human maturity is self-awareness, and it only comes by letting the rough stuff have its 15 minutes on our big screens.  I’m not about to say that I’m the most mature guy in town – I do stupid shit on a regular basis – but I will say that I have a good handle on where I’m strong and where I’m weak.  In other words, I would argue that I don’t have any blind-spots, at least no big ones.  I may overestimate or underestimate some aspect of my personality, but I know who I am, and one thing I know is that, though I may resist, I always eventually manage to accept the truth when it reveals itself to me.  This is because of how I control my big screen.

Occasionally, things absorb my screen that I’d rather not experience.  Instead of invoking a default program to wipe away the unpleasant and replace it with the pleasant, I split the screen.  Next to the negative experience, I add a vignette about why this experience is so unpleasant to me.  Nine times out of ten, it’s because the answer is some truth about myself that I’d rather not accept.  (A disclaimer – this is personal best practices stuff, which means I try to always do this.  Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail and have to try again later.  Such is life.)  Maybe I’m being selfish in a way that is unacceptable.  Maybe I’m being vain – as in when I lost my tooth recently.  Whatever.  The point is that the mind always knows when we’re going astray.  It’s up to us to listen when it throws our foibles up on the big screen.  If we don’t, we’re just asking for pain later.

The bottom line, folks, is that truth will get you in the end.  It always does.  You may live in a fantasy land, and it may hold up pretty well, but one day, truth will burst your bubble.  And when it does, the agony will far exceed what you’d have experienced if you’d just have watched your big screen a little longer when it wasn’t feeding you candy.

So the next time you’re absorbed in something, think about your big screen (which will, incidentally, immediately split the screen).  If what you’re absorbed in – say, a rock concert – is worthwhile, then you can take pleasure in knowing that your mind is tuned into something positive that is giving you pleasure.  (There’s nothing like good art to reboot a fragmented big screen.)  Conversely, if you’re obsessed with envy at your supposed best-friend’s good fortune, your newly split big screen will also let you know that you’re being a shallow douchebag.  That, too, is something positive, so pay attention.



Pride In Our Prejudice
March 7, 2006, 3:59 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Enlightened Caveman Concept, Politics

The current furor over the Dubai Ports World deal brings to light an important aspect of our nature as human beings.  We’re the purveyors of prejudice, all of us, which is far from the evil thing it is always made out to be.  Indeed, it is the utility of our prejudice that tells us that it is indeed legitimate to argue against the close proximity of Arabs (an ethnicity with a clear record of anti-US sentiment and actions) to our ports.  Let’s consider the idea from an evolutionary perspective.

The ability to group individual entities into categories was of paramount importance in the early days of our species.  For example, suppose your caveman buddy got eaten by a lion.  Then, a few weeks later, you’re cruising through the bush and you see a tiger.  Now, you’ve never seen one before, so you have no frame of reference for this animal.  Or do you?  You know what a lion looks like, and this gigantic cat looks a lot like it, just with stripes.  Two possibilities – you either generalize (that is, invoke some level of prejudice) that this cat is likely to be dangerous (like the lion is) or you give Tigger a fair shake, assuming that he is probably harmless.  Who lives in this scenario?  You got it – the prejudiced caveman, the one who successfully generalizes.  That’s basically where we are today.

Our minds are equipped to generalize like crazy.  It’s an extricable part of the way our minds do business.  Of course, as the cheeky old saying goes – all generalizations are bad, including this one.  So what are we to make of this?  Should we see our tendency to generalize as an anachronistic holdover from our caveman days, an attribute that should be rationally stricken from our mental repertoire?  Or should we be happy that we have it?  I say the latter.

This does not mean that we should embrace all generalization to the detriment of evaluating individuals objectively.  It isn’t an intellectual milestone to suppose that we can both generalize and be objective in evaluating individuals.  Prejudice need not dictate actions.  I can assume when a kid dressed in a “thug” getup approaches that he’s a complete moron (most are), but I can easily hide that assumption and treat him fairly (while secretly waiting for him to confirm my bias).  Is this shady?  Is this being duplicitous?  Maybe, but everyone does it.

Our experiences shape our prejudices.  There’s no way around it.  The more enlightened among us manage to set prejudices aside when dealing with unknown individuals, but that doesn’t mean they go away.  It just means we don’t act on them.  But when the question is about a group, the best tool we have is our ability to generalize.  if we do not for fear of misjudging an individual or two, we virtually guarantee that we’ll misjudge the whole situation.  In other words, if we worry that the tiger we’ve come across in the bush is the one sweetie of tiger in the area, we’re not likely to live to regret it.

This brings us full circle to the political and national security hubbub over the ports.  My take is that it makes exactly zero sense to do the deal.  Sun Tzu didn’t say, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” for nothing.  Even if every worker for the Dubai Ports World organization is an NSA-approved America-lover, the fact is that those who would do us harm in the name of Allah are nothing if not patient – America-lover today; going to home to Allah and 72 virgins two years from now.  So, it’s fair to suggest that giving one of these potential terrorists daily exposure to the affairs at our ports is just about the height of stupidity.

Now, apologists for the deal are saying that the Arabs really pose no threat because they’re only going to be executing stevedore duties.  I’ll confess that I don’t know where those duties begin and leave off, but I’ll hazard a guess that they entail being at the ports all day, right next to the customs offices and the security shift-changes, and so on.  Therefore, we have people with the one completely common characteristic of every terrorist involved in 9-11 (being Arab) potentially being given access to our ports, with the ability to observe our security measures.  Is it me?  What kind of boob buys into this?

The irony of the whole situation is that many politicians who have heretofore decried discrimination (the execution of prejudice) when it comes to racial profiling and the like are now vehemently objecting to the ports deal.  Whether they are being politically opportunistic, seeing an opportunity to bash Bush, or genuine in their concern over the issue, it doesn’t matter.  (We can’t trust them anyway.  Remember?)  The fact is that the basis for any real objection to the ports deal is founded in prejudiced thinking, and that, friends and neighbors, is a good thing.

Too bad the politically-charged landscape (and often a supremely misguided worldview) prevents those who are against the ports deal from recognizing that what works for ports also works for crime.  If three weeks went by and every night on the news, we heard stories about women being raped by a guy in a red sweater, would it be wrong to be on the lookout for men in red sweaters?  Of course not.  It’d be the only sensible thing to do.  Sadly, when it comes to crime, where so many believe the extenuating circumstance (and there always is one) trumps the action, the tendency to discriminate based upon reasonable prejudice is vilified as horrific and unjust.  The result is that the guy in the red sweater never worries about getting caught…or even getting a different colored sweater.

One thing is for sure, whether you’re talking about domestic crime or national security, no law or policy will ever eliminate the human tendency to evaluate the world in generalized, prejudicial ways.  It’s a constraint, as Thomas Sowell would say, and a good one.  Best to try to work with it.  All other options are futile.



Relationships 101 – Part 3 – Between Getting and Keeping Relationships
March 4, 2006, 4:07 am
Filed under: Culture and Society, Relationships

This is a series about
relationships – why we need them, how we get them, and how we keep
them. There are four parts. This is the third – it focuses on
contextual strategies for making progress on the long-term relationship front. Additional parts include:

  • identifying the target; (click here)
  • how we take control of our environment to make it friendly to our efforts; (click here)
  • the difference between getting relationships and keeping them;(click here)
  • real interpersonal feedback – quantitative concurrence; (click here)

I’m sure there will be more to this as it evolves, but that’s what you have to look forward to. Off we go.

So let’s suppose you’ve set your sights on the kind of relationship(s) you believe will best serve your  quest for long-term happiness.  And let’s further suppose that you’ve correctly assessed the market of desirable targets, and that you’ve successfully enhanced your looks and personality such that you now have wide access to the people with whom you hope to become close. You’re there, right?  The world is your oyster.  Not exactly.

The interesting thing about the quest for ideal relationships is that what you do to get in the door is not the same as what you do to develop and maintain rewarding interpersonal connections.  You see, the love game is a bit like a funnel filtering system.  You start by making yourself as broadly attractive as possible (to your desired audience, that is) – multitudes of candidates enter the wide top of your funnel.  Then, you eliminate candidates that don’t work for you – winnowing them down until just the right one (or ones) come out the narrow bottom of the funnel.  Perhaps ironically, the winnowing down part is dramatically different than the attraction part in terms of strategy and tactics.

When you’re attracting, you’re working off a basic understanding of human nature and what gets people interested in other people.  So you get the attention of your targets by looking like you have something going for you and that care about how you’re perceived (you’re not obsessed, you’re just aware).  Face it – relatively speaking, no one worth a crap is interested in a total slob.  On the flip side, no one’s interested in someone so obsessed with how they look that they’ve strayed into the land of the orange tan, way over-sized fake books, and duck-lips look (for women) and the land of the over-built, orange tan, shaved head-to-toe, and perpetually in gym clothes look (for men).

Beyond looks, you emphasize the aspects of your personality that separate you from others – you make sure you’re interesting. Additionally, you demonstrate value, as they say in the pick-up community.  You have something to offer.  It could be that you’re always a barrel of laughs, or that you’re exciting, or that you’re rich (and therefore able to provide endless luxuries and entertainment possibilities).  Whatever.  The point is that you have a gimmick (or gimmicks) – broad appeal during the attraction phase, which necessarily, though unfortunately, means that you’re likely to attract people with whom you have little chance of any long-term connection.  Here’s where it gets dicey.

I’ve talked to guys who say that they can’t even imagine having more prospects for relationships than they might want.  They’re saying, “At this point, I’ll take what I can get.”  Aside from being a lame-ass defeatest attitude, this is a recipe for disaster.  Self-esteem is on the line here.  If you’re a worthwhile human being, then there are literally hundreds of perfect matches for you out there.  Nevermind the romantic fantasy of the one, the fact is that the numbers are extremely in your favor.  You just have to get your act together to start feeding as many of your targets as possible through your funnel. You have to become attractive and courageous, and anyone can do it. The good news is that, though it may feel contrived at first, the process of enhancing your looks and personality will help you develop the self-esteem that you desperately need if you want to find lasting relationships that are built on mutual respect and admiration (and this is the grail, folks).  So let’s say you’re making progress.  You’re trying to attract targets en masse into your funnel, and  it’s working.  Then what?

Now you start screening.  It’s a delicate process, but what you’re essentially doing is gingerly revealing what really matters to you in life, while making sure to keep the attraction strong.  For example, say you opened a woman at the cleaners with some witty banter about fashion and what-not.  She inferred from your looks and demeanor that you’re a confident person, and she inferred from the clothes you were picking up that you are probably somewhat successful.  She may have even seen your car (if it’s nice or novel) and inferred the same thing.  In any case, you ask for her number and she gives it to you. Then what?

No dates.  Read that again.  You do not take her on a date.  At least not one where you pay, not at first.  This is a chump move, and you’re not a chump.  You find something that you can both go to or do that is either low cost or no cost.  In my single days, I would invent some task that I had to perform and ask girls if they wanted to join me – usually something during the day.  For example, say you’re in the market for a new couch.  This is perfect.  You’re spending time together getting to know one another without any real pressure.  There are opportunities aplenty for horseplay and to see how each of you deals with the general public, traffic, and so on.  (All this stuff tells you tons about people.)  The money grubbers will be disappointed that you’re not showering them with expensive events to impress them, so they’ll wash right out of the program early.  That’s the plan.

(Quick sidenote – to avoid ending up in the “friend” category, it’s imperative to make your intentions known up front.  I told my a girl once – she is now my wife – that though she had a boyfriend and thought of us as just friends, I had every intention of kissing her one day and taking her away from him.  She laughed, and so did I.  But she knew I wasn’t kidding, and there kindled the beginnings of real attraction.  If a target says he or she only wants to be friends, I think Neil Strauss’ response is great – “I never put that kind of limitation on my relationships.”  I love that.  It sends the message loud and clear, and, to some extent, just having the confidence to push beyond the “let’s just be friends” category is critical to winning hard targets.)

The idea underlying the slow revelation process is that you don’t want someone who just likes you because of some enhancement that doesn’t really reflect who you are or what really matters to you.  I’m assuming that you’re smart enough to know that material success is no foundation upon which to build a relationship.  Nevertheless, part of your gimmick during the attraction phase may very well be the appearance of success – clothes, car, home, etc.  So you use it to initiate attraction – yes, even the most down-to-earth and high-quality people are attracted to successful people – but you deemphasize it once the attraction is established.

You’re theme is something like, “Yeah, I’m successful, but only so I can have more time to mountain bike or hang with my friends or whatever.”  High-quality people will appreciate this. Shallow people will be baffled – to them, material success, particularly the appearance of it, is the end game.  Shallow, gold-diggers should never make it through your screening process.  If they do, your funnel has a leak near the top.

So you’re making headway with this woman.  She has accompanied you on your couch shopping adventure, and you’ve both had a great time. You’ve started talking on the phone regularly.  You find yourself thinking about her all the time, and you get the warm fuzzies when you talk.  In short, you feel that love is blooming.  All is well, right? Maybe, and maybe not.

There are two extremes to address when love begins to bloom.  One is the resistance to commitment; the other is the rush to commitment. We’ll start with the latter.  There’s a very real risk when you haven’t had many love experiences (especially recently) that your emotions might overwhelm you and render your rational mind nothing more than a hat rack.  When those physiological processes start clicking in your brain after being long dormant, it’s a rush.  It’s meant to be.  Your caveman mind is wired to do whatever it takes to maintain these feelings because they often lead to offspring, which, as we know, is the true aim of our genes.  Fortunately, however, we’re tens of thousands of years beyond being totally at the mercy of our genes.  We can now deliberately decide which emotions make sense and which ones may not.

Think about the famous words of Percy Sledge in, “When a Man Loves a Woman” – “He’ll turn his back on his best friend if he put her down.” Does this make sense?  Not usually, but love has that effect.  It turns our thinking minds to mush.  The only defense against it is a rational, prepared mind.  So, even when love is blooming, we have to be aware that we’re still in the screening process.  There’s a lot that goes into a lasting, meaningful relationship, and it takes time to determine if it’s all there.  More importantly, it’s critical to maintain the willingness to walk away if things aren’t working – and to advertise that willingness.

Nothing will drive away a potential new love than overt neediness. This demonstrates excessive vulnerability, which is the mother of all turn-offs.  Like I said, you have to maintain some of what you did during the attraction phase in order to effectively navigate the screening process.  Some would say, “But I don’t want to play games.  I just want to be honest about my feelings.”  Great, I’m right there with you, but like it or not, this is a game, and losers show their hands too soon.  Feel free to spill your heart to your buddies.  They’ll admire you for feeling so strongly while sticking to your tactical guns and not turning into a clinger.  This is necessary not just to avoid turning your potential new love off, it’s a critical part of rational screening.

The moment you let yourself turn to needy mush with a target, your ability to rationally analyze whether the person is right for you in the long term goes haywire.  You’re in em>loooove, and everything is wonderful.  So what if he’s 40 living at home with his mom and still bouncing checks – he’s a sweet, family-oriented guy.  Yeah.  Suuuure.  So what if she turns into a bitchy princess when she’s had too much to drink – she’s so nice most of the time, and you’ve never dated such a beauty.  Uh huh.  Whatever you have to tell yourself.  No, when you keep your distance during the early days of love’s bloom, you give yourself the absolute best chance of success in the long-term.  Guys, go rent, “The Tao of Steve” to see what I mean.  Girls, just watch, “Wedding Crashers.”  It’s all there.

The bottom line is that when you’re attracting, the air of indifference is essential.  Targets need to get the impression that you could take them or leave them.  This naturally builds attraction.  Once the attraction is established and the relationship is progressing, you slowly replace the indifference with interest, untimately ending in vulnerability.  It’s a process that should, in most cases, move fairly slowly.  If you think you’re just being honest by jumping to vulnerable right away, you’ll end up in love’s gutter more often than not.  The measured indifference maintains the attraction and simultaneously gives you the distance you need to properly execute the screening process to determine if there’s a long-term fit.  I’ve dwelled on this a lot because I think most attractive people with relationship problems do this part wrong more than anything else.  Now to the never-commit crowd.

There’s a danger to being too good at the attraction phase.  This is the problem that plagues celebrities.  You have so many options that it’s simply too easy to cut someone loose if things start getting tough.  I sat next to a gorgeous young lady on a plane from New York to Atlanta a few months ago.  We started chatting, and she eventually confided that, though she dates all these mega-rich guys (with their own private planes and the like), she can never keep them.  I explained to her that this only makes sense.

Why would any good-looking playboy want to settle down when he could just find someone new anytime he wanted?  (This kind of attitude reflects a gross misunderstanding of how important long-term relationships are to our happiness. Nevertheless, thanks to our genes, it’s pervasive.)  She nodded that I was right.  She said that she and her girlfriends were always saying that they needed to stop dating those kinds of guys.  Alas, they’re addicted to the lifestyle, so it’ll probably never happen.  I told her that she should be on the lookout for a good-looking ambitious guy who hasn’t made it yet, but almost certainly will.  NYC is full of them.  Those are the guys who will appreciate a woman who chose them when they were nothing.  And that’s the key – appreciating what you have.

This, I believe, is the epiphany that hit Neil Strauss somewhere along his journey to pick-up artist fame.  He was so good at attracting and bedding ladies that he was never actually connecting with any of them.   Finally, he realized that what he was doing was shallow and meaningless, so he decided to start screening.  When he did, he met the girl that I think he is still with.  (See Part 2 in this series.)  He recognized that the benefit in terms of long-term happiness that comes with weathering storms with one person is immense, especially when compared with what you get from just hooking up with someone on a short-term basis.  It’s all about commitment.

Doing the screening process right is essential because the end game is some sort of commitment.  It doesn’t have to be overt or official, although that tends to help when things get tough.  You’re just concluding that this is someone you want in your life for a long time, maybe forever.  Those who don’t grasp how valuable it is to go through hard times with someone and come out on top will jump ship at the first sign of trouble.  How many marriages in Hollywood last longer than even five years?  Not many.  Those people are so attractive that their funnel is virtually full at all times, so when the choice is to ride out a tough spot with one person or shack up with someone ten years his or her junior, we all know what usually happens.  This is a shame.  We should never forget the following maxim: it is in our nature to get the most gratification and appreciation from the things we have labored the most for.  Relationships are no different, and we can see the results of always going the easy way by noticing how neurotic so many of these celebs are.  Most of us should be thankful we don’t have it so good.

In closing this part, let me pose a question.  If the end game is commitment, how do you know when to be vulnerable, to be needy, to show your cards, so to speak?  How do you know when to commit?  There’s no absolute right answer, but I think there’s a way to approach it that has a lot to offer.  That’ll be the subject of the next and final part in this series – quantitative concurrence.  Until then…