To say we're divided over many issues these days is an understatement. One of the thousand-foot views of that divisiveness is over the idea of freedom. One side claims that it's wrestling freedom from the hands of those who want to oppress society. Sounds good until you realize the other side claims precisely the same thing. But how can it be that both factions are the heroes fighting for liberty against a tyrannical mob hellbent on destroying life as we know it?

At its heart, the issue isn't that some of us are good and some aren't. To be sure, there are plenty of bad people in the world. Most of us want the same basic things, although we may differ in focusing on them. Those are safety and the opportunity for a quality life; however, we define that. We don't want to suffer, nor do we want our neighbor to suffer either. So, for the most part, we're all decent individuals, although with one subtle difference.

Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty: Different Interpretations of Freedom

That difference is our different interpretations of freedom. And it's what's causing the divide.
Generally, we can say there are two competing interpretations of freedom. One is the positive liberty interpretation. This view holds that the community should protect us from risk through the active interventions of others.

Negative liberty believes that we can do what we please without outside interference. To be clear, I'm not making a value judgment when I talk about positive and negative. The distinction comes from active intervention (positive) or the lack of intervention (negative).

Who Has a Duty?

To help understand the difference, let's look at Alex. Alex is an alright guy, but he doesn't always make the best decisions. As such, he finds himself in a position where he's struggling to make ends meet. The positive liberty interpretation says that Alex should be free from poverty. So, the community must help Alex maintain a particular standard of living. And the circumstances that led him to his current situation don't matter. Positive liberty, in this case, is the community's active intervention to support Alex.

The negative liberty viewpoint is that Alex was free to choose with the associated benefits and risks. No politician or public policy expert was telling Alex what choices to make. The community, thus, doesn't have a duty to help Alex. Negative freedom for Alex is the lack of interference.
The central question then is the degree to which society must guarantee any sort of outcome for each individual. A positive liberty outlook says the community has a duty, while the negative liberty outlook answers no, there is no duty.

It's Not About Good vs. Evil

So, all the divisiveness over freedom isn’t born out of some epic struggle between good and evil. It’s a point of view about what freedom means.

To answer which interpretation is better requires thought and many significant value judgments. Positive liberty has the advantage of helping people maintain some basic level of existence. But it also opens the door to the domination of others under the rubric of "the public good."
Likewise, negative liberty allows us to live free from coercion, but it risks letting some people struggle in poverty.

Of course, there are arguments about safeguards and fairness that we could spend years debating. My intent isn’t to dive into those arguments. Instead, I want to show that much of our divisiveness comes from differing interpretations of freedom.

I know the adamant, take-a-side world of social media doesn't reward these types of thoughts. Likes, clicks, and other sorts of attention will be sparse. Still, we need to remember that most people have an intrinsic desire to see everyone do well. The difference only comes from whether we place the duty to safeguard an outcome on the community or the individual.

The Two Types of Evidence

We must depend on evidence to guide our thinking when we try to lead a life of reason and intellect. Proof is, after all, the foundation on which the truth rests. Yet, we often only look at one kind of evidence while ignoring other pertinent information. When we do, we increase our chances of making an error.

Confirming evidence is the first type of evidence and what we most often search for.
We're wired to want to be correct, and confirming evidence is the quickest, easiest way for us to get there. That may sound good, but bias is also more likely to lurk in confirming evidence.

The problem is that confirming evidence often supports more than one hypothesis. But in our haste to prove our belief, our focus becomes too narrowly focused on one point causing us to miss other possible theories.

Disconfirming evidence is the second type. Unlike confirming evidence, disconfirming evidence attempts to prove our hypothesis wrong. It's a valuable tool for eliminating hypotheses from the pool of beliefs created by confirming evidence.

Despite disconfirming evidence’s value, our brain gravitates towards finding confirming evidence, as P.C. Wason demonstrated in a famous study.

An Example of Disconfirming Evidence

P.C. Wason conducted an experiment in 1960 that illustrates the danger of relying on confirming evidence. The study went like this.

I have a secret rule in my head that the sequence 2-4-6 follows. Your job is to figure it out.

You analyze the 2-4-6 sequence and give me your own three-number sequence, and I'll tell you if your series complies with my rule. You're allowed to provide me with as many sequences as you want. Then, when you think you've figured out the rule, you give me your guess.

It may sound pretty straightforward, but only six out of 29 participants succeeded.

Based on the 2-4-6 series, you may think the rule is “a series of numbers that increase by two.” So, you give me the sequences 10-12-14, 1-3-5, and 9-11-13.

Or you may think the rule is “the difference between the first two numbers equals the difference between the last two.” In that case, you give me the sequences 1-2-3, 10-16-22, and 50-60-70.

I would tell you that your sequence is valid according to my actual rule in each instance. But, if you guessed your hypothesized rule, you would have been wrong.

That’s because the actual rule is “any three ascending numbers.”

You went wrong in that you only tested sequences that confirmed your hypothesized rule while ignoring disconfirming sequences. The same mistake most of the study participants made as well.

For instance, if you thought the rule was "a series of numbers that increase by two," you should have given me a sequence like 1-2-3 that disproved your guess. Doing so would have told you that you had the wrong rule.

Then you could have updated your hypothesis based on this new information.

The study’s results led Wason to conclude that getting the correct rule requires “a willingness to attempt to falsify the hypotheses, and thus to test those intuitive ideas that so often carry the feeling of certitude.”

Why do we ignore disconfirming evidence?

We accept information consistent with our beliefs while rejecting conflicting information without thinking about it.

Max Bazerman calls this tendency the confirmation trap.

The issue is that our default information processing method makes us accept confirmatory evidence without question unless there is an unavoidable reason not to. On the other hand, we accept disconfirming evidence only after finding we can't dismiss it.

So, it’s easier for us to accept confirming evidence than it is disconfirming evidence.

The reason is twofold.

First, we want to be correct. We feel better when we read a study or hear a news report that supports our beliefs. But, when the opposite happens, we’re put in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Second, we only have limited attention and cognitive resources. So, we only seek out confirming information.

Similarly, we’ll interpret incomplete information so that it’s consistent with our beliefs.

Memory works the same way to conserve resources. When we consider a hypothesis, any information in our memory consistent with that hypothesis becomes available while other information stays buried.

So, confirmation bias serves to keep us feeling good while reducing our cognitive load.

But, as Wason demonstrated in his research, favoring confirming evidence can lead to poor decisions.

Karl Popper and Falsifiability – Disconfirming Evidence and the Scientific Method

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” [1]

Karl Popper was a scientific philosopher famous for coming up with the notion of falsifiability in science.

We use inductive reasoning when we attempt to confirm a hypothesis. In these cases, we’re drawing an inference about the unobserved based on what we observed.[2]

For example, if I see a woman walk her dog past my house every morning for the past week at 9 AM, I may expect her to do the same tomorrow. But I can't know that for sure because the future is uncertain. The best I can say is that the woman will probably walk her dog by my house at 9 AM tomorrow.

According to Popper, the proper role of observations is not to confirm hypotheses but to criticize and refute them. So, we can avoid the above problem of induction if we instead seek to falsify the theory.

Let’s go back to the above example to see falsification in action.

Based on observation, I hypothesize that at 9 AM the woman walks her dog past my house every morning.

I can approach testing this hypothesis in two ways. I can either seek to prove my hypothesis or disprove and reject it.

So, every morning I sit outside with my cup of coffee. And when I see the woman walk by with her dog, I check off the day. In this case, I’m focusing on confirming evidence.

However, the problem with this approach is that I’ll never be able to prove that my hypothesis is correct. I can’t predict with certainty that the woman will walk her dog by my house tomorrow, next week, or next year.

But, if the woman doesn’t walk by even once, I know my hypothesis is incorrect, and I can stop testing it.

Then, I can use the new information to update my hypothesis to something like the woman walks her dog past my house every morning at 9 AM when it's sunny.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a theory or practice that doesn't have a scientific foundation. If a hypothesis can't be falsified, according to Popper, we should disregard it as pseudoscience.

An example will help explain. The psychologist Alfred Adler developed the theory that compensating for feelings of inferiority motivates human behavior.

Now, let’s take two cases. In the first, a man murders a child by drowning it. In the second, a man risks his own life to rescue a child from drowning.

We could argue that in both cases, the man acted out of feelings of inferiority. In the first, he tried to prove himself by committing a crime. In the second, he did so by performing a heroic act.

Adler's theory could, therefore, explain any act of human nature. It's impossible to reject. And as such, we can't subject it to scientific analysis.[3]

Conclusion

We all have beliefs about the world that we cling to. When it comes to testing those beliefs, we’re prone to only test the cases that confirm our beliefs. But, as Wason showed, this positive test strategy can lead to misjudgment because it doesn’t account for the possibility that a test case can fit many hypotheses.

Seeking out disconfirming evidence, on the other hand, gives us a way to reject conclusions. And in doing so, we know when to stop putting resources into testing a hypothesis. The use of falsifiability also gives us a way to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

[1] While we attribute this quote to Einstein, he likely didn’t say it. But, it’s still good to keep in mind.

[2] I find it easier to think in terms of specific and general. In inductive reasoning, we look at a smaller, distinctive selection from the population to draw a conclusion about the larger, more general population.

[3] This doesn’t mean the theory is wrong. Only that we can’t test it.

Bibliography

• Zimring, James C. What Science Is and How It Really Works. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.

• Bazerman, Max, and Don Moore. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 8th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

• Klayman, Joshua, and Young-won Ha. “Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing.” Psychological Review 94, no. 2 (1987): 211–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211.

• Wason, P. C. “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, no. 3 (1960): 129–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717.

Image by Lisette Brodey from Pixabay

It's not an understatement to say that our conversations lack intellectual depth. We're more divided than ever. So, it's crucial to understand how our biases color our conclusions.

Introduction

Think back to a time when someone didn't agree with you. You had facts, evidence, and data backing you up. Yet, oblivious to the obvious superiority of your position, they continued to disagree with you. Why?

First, and keep this in mind, you're not the only competent, rational person in the world. Likely not even in the argument. Nor are you surrounded by boneheaded morons.

“In effect, most people see and hear what they want and tune out everything else.”

- Michael J. Mauboussin, Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition

Second, you’re fighting against human nature. It’s comforting to know that our beliefs are an accurate reflection of the world. So, we don’t like to see anything that even hints at the idea that we’re wrong.

It’s this desire to be right that makes us focus on the evidence that supports our beliefs. And dismiss the evidence that goes against us. That’s known as confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is our tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms our preexisting beliefs.

So, by emphasizing a different subset of the facts, two people can arrive at different conclusions. Even when both groups of evidence are valid.

Most of us think we're critical thinkers. But, confirmation bias creeps into every decision we make. It's impossible to keep out.

Yet, before you throw your hands up in frustration, understand that you can overcome confirmation bias. In the process, you'll see that you may be ignoring robust evidence that you're wrong. Or at least not as correct as you thought.

The Science of Confirmation Bias

In a 1979, Stanford University researchers conducted one of the definitive confirmation bias studies.
In that research, they split participants into two groups. One group supported capital punishment, and the other opposed it. The researchers then showed each group two studies. One study confirmed their beliefs about the deterrent effect of capital punishment. And the other disconfirmed their ideas.

The researchers then asked each group to rate the studies. In an unsurprising result, each group rated the study that confirmed their beliefs as more convincing. The researchers also found increased polarization between the groups.

How Confirmation Bias Works

We find confirmation bias in how we seek, interpret, and remember information.

1) How we seek information

We have a strong desire to be correct. So, by default only seek out information that confirms our belief. But that means we end up testing our hypothesis with only confirming evidence, which leaves us with a half-tested idea. To reach a solid conclusion, we also have to seek out and test disconfirming evidence.

2) How we interpret information

Information is often open to many interpretations. We tend to interpret new information in a way that confirms our beliefs. That's why two people can see the exact same details yet reach different conclusions.

3) How we remember information

We're more likely to remember information that confirms our beliefs. Known as selective recall, it explains why people have difficulty remembering times they were wrong.

How the Strength of Our Belief Impacts Confirmation Bias

The most significant factor at play when it comes to confirmation bias is the strength of our belief. Our confirmation bias is harder to overcome when our belief is strong and more emotional. Likewise, it's easier to accept opposing views when we don't care about the subject.

When Is Confirmation Bias Good?

As humans, we want to be correct. So, we end up seeing the world in a way that fulfills that desire. Willard V. Quine and J.S. Ullian said it best in The Web of Belief:

"The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them, the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge.”

It's the differences in how we see the world that cause conflict.

So, if confirmation bias is such a problem, wouldn’t natural selection have expelled it from our gene pool by now?

The simple answer is no. Confirmation bias sometimes benefits us.

First, it helps us avoid cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is when we try to hold opposing beliefs at the same time.

A state of cognitive dissonance makes us uncomfortable, triggering our fight or flight response. So, we end up either digging in on our beliefs or running away.

Confirmation bias erects a nice shell around us where we’re always right and never have to deal with the discomfort that comes from cognitive dissonance.

Second, our brain uses a lot of energy. And cognitive dissonance increases that load. So, our brain finds the fastest path to a comfortable solution to use less energy.

Remember the law of inertia. As long as we’re cruising along, happy in our beliefs, our brain isn’t distressed. But, when we’re confronted with evidence enough to change our mind, it takes extra energy to make that shift.

What Other Biases Magnify Confirmation Bias?

Several biases can magnify confirmation bias. Two of the most prevalent are optimism bias and false pattern recognition.

1) Optimism Bias

Optimism bias is our tendency to overestimate ourselves. For instance, if we’re overconfident in our knowledge of biology, we’re likely to only seek out confirming evidence when self-diagnosing an ailment.

2) False Pattern Recognition

False pattern recognition is our tendency to see patterns in random data. Confirmation bias can cause us to interpret those patterns in a way that supports a belief. So, to make a conspiracy theory appear authentic, we'll emphasize evidence linking two unrelated events together.

Avoiding Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is little more than an annoyance most of the time. But it can also have terrible results.

For example, a detective who’s convinced a suspect is guilty may ignore exonerating evidence.

Or, a friend may interpret random events as a sign that she should join a cult.

And one can see how confirmation bias can reinforce prejudice and racism.

So, how can we avoid confirmation bias? The truth is, we can't. But we can take steps to lessen its impact.

1) Stay curious.

Don’t think you know it all. And be open to learning.

We'll avoid taking a risk if it may prove us wrong. Yet, we grow when we take risks. And it's a sign of maturity and character when we can change our minds.

2) Question your automatic assumptions.

Our intuition kicks in right away when we’re presented with a challenging situation. By the time our reason wakes up, we’ve often already made up our minds about something.

Try to avoid letting your intuition run the show. Listen to your reason and question why impulse arrived at the conclusion it did.

3) Ask yourself if you’re missing something.

One great way to avoid a misunderstanding is to ask yourself if you don't know something. When someone has a different opinion than you, it's possible they know something you don't.

4) Seek out disconfirming evidence.

We’ll avoid looking for disconfirming evidence when we’re convinced we're right. But sometimes, disconfirming evidence is a faster way to reach a conclusion.

5) Keep an open mind.

Remember, it’s easier to see others’ confirmation bias than it is to see our own.

Confirmation Bias is Everywhere

We all think we’re critical thinkers. But confirmation bias is present in all our decisions.
Confirmation bias often doesn't create a problem. But it can cause us to make bad decisions and amplify polarization in our society. So, it's essential to understand where it comes from and how it sneaks into our judgments.

Bibliography

• N., Pam M.S. “What Is CONFIRMATION BIAS? Definition of CONFIRMATION BIAS (Psychology Dictionary).” Psychology Dictionary, June 29, 2015. https://psychologydictionary.org/confirmation-bias/.

• Crupi, Vincenzo. “Confirmation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, January 28, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/.

• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.

• Bazerman, Max, and Don Moore. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 8th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

• Mauboussin, Michael J. Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.

• Kunda, Ziva. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108, no. 3 (1990): 480–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.

• Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 11 (1979): 2098–2109.

Image by Sam my-Williams from Pixabay

confused by Mark S Waterhouse from the Noun Project

Pattern recognition is crucial to humans. We learn by looking for repeating processes and events then figure out why they’re happening. Patterns are a source of curiosity, experimentation, and creativity. It leads to many fascinating discoveries and creations.

Indeed, we owe our existence to pattern recognition. It allowed our early ancestors to identify poisonous plants and separate predator from prey.

Besides survival, pattern recognition enhances our ability to communicate. For example, visual pattern recognition allows us to read and recognize faces. And our power to understand language rests on auditory pattern recognition.

Today, we use it for everything from diagnosing ailments to discovering new planets.

But sometimes, we see patterns that don't exist, which leads us to take irrational actions. Apophenia is the term used to describe false pattern recognition. Examples include gambler's fallacy and the belief in quack medicine. In the extreme, it can lead someone to believe in radical religious movements or conspiracy theories.

Pattern Recognition

The term pattern recognition was first used in machine learning to describe the identification of patterns in data. These patterns are then used as the basis for taking action.

Cognitive psychologists later adopted the term. They use it to describe how our brains use incoming sensory information to select an action. In essence, it is the process we use to recognize, identify, and categorize information. That information then becomes the basis for what we do.

Pattern Recognition Process

How does pattern recognition work? There are several theories, but they all follow a general four-stage process.

1. Data detection using a sensor, such as a retina.

2. Feature detection in the incoming data, such as orientation and color.

3. Classification of data based on features, such as "snake" or "rock."

4. Action selection based on the classification in stage 3, such as "run" or "pick up."

Pattern Recognition Theories

There are several pattern recognition theories. Following are three of the most common. Keep in mind that the everyday application of these theories in our lives is not mutually exclusive

Template Matching

Template matching theory is the most basic pattern recognition theory. In it, we store images in our memory that serve as templates. We then compare incoming information to our templates to find an exact match.

Prototype Matching

Prototype matching is like template matching, but it's more flexible in that it doesn't need an exact match. Instead, we compare incoming information to a prototype we create from several templates.

Feature Analysis

In feature analysis, feature detectors identify specific features in the incoming information. Features can be things like the horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and curved lines in the alphabet. We then sort and filter the incoming data to make sense of it.

Apophenia or False Pattern Recognition

We’ve covered the benefits of our pattern recognition superpower and how it works. But, like most good things in life, too much can be a detriment.

We’re pattern-matching machines. We do it without thinking about it. Indeed, it’s a process we don’t even have to learn. In fact, we’re so good at recognizing patterns that we’re apt to see patterns that don’t exist.

Apophenia happens when we find connections or meaning in random or meaningless data. These false patterns are noise that interferes with our reasoning. And they can lead us to unjustified conclusions.

Biases and Fallacies Brought on by Apophenia

Apophenia can work with many biases and fallacies to mess up our decision-making process.

Pareidolia

While not a bias or fallacy, pareidolia can nonetheless lead to errors in judgment. Pareidolia is the tendency for our brain to interpret random data in a meaningful way. For example, seeing images in clouds or of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is our tendency to seek out information that confirms a prior belief. At the same time, we disregard information that counters that belief. As a result, confirmation bias can increase the likelihood that we see a false pattern when the pattern confirms our beliefs.

Gambler’s Fallacy

Have you ever played a game of chance and thought you found a pattern in some random events such as dice rolling. The gambler's fallacy is our belief that prior outcomes affect future outcomes in situations of pure random chance. For example, it's not more likely that your next roll of a die will be a two because you haven't rolled in two in the last several throws. ("I'm due for a two!")

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is our tendency to ignore differences and focus on similarities. For example, thinking someone is your soulmate because you both like pizza and horror movies. While this sounds good, you're ignoring all the things you disagree on, such as having kids or wanting a pet.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

Because we observe a correlation between two variables doesn't mean that one variable caused the other. There could be a third variable impacting the other variables.

For example, we can’t conclude that eating ice cream leads to violent crime because both increased during the summer. In this case, the rising summer temperature is the third variable. It can cause an increase in both ice cream consumption and violence.

Magical Thinking

Magical thinking is when we believe that our thoughts, ideas, words, actions, or use of symbols can influence the real world. It's the belief that we can influence an event by doing something unrelated to the event. For example, superstitions such as carrying a stone in your pocket for good luck are magical thinking.

Problems Resulting From Apophenia

So, how does apophenia show up in real life? Let's look at some examples.

Conspiracy Theories and Superstitions

Assuming that correlation is causation plus apophenia can lead us to believe in conspiracy theories.

For example, in 2017, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned that Donald Trump would face a pandemic during his tenure. Then COVID outbreak happened in 2020. For some, that's evidence that there was a conspiracy to unleash an infectious disease on the world.¹

But the truth is that pandemics are more common than many realize. So there is a high probability that any president will have to deal with some sort of pandemic over a four-year term.

The same situation can lead to magical thinking and superstitions.

Imagine driving to work without getting stopped by any red lights. And a week later, the same thing happens. Then, you realize you were wearing the same pair of socks both days. That leads you to believe that your socks make your commute easier.

Quack Medicine and the Paranormal

Medical hucksters rely on people drawing connections between particular acts and desired outcomes. For example, that drinking cactus juice will cure disease.

Psychics, astrologers, and others who deal in the paranormal operate in the same way. They rely on gullible people drawing connections between vague predictions and events in their lives. For example, when a fortune-teller says that she sees significant changes in your life, your mind will draw a connection to some event in your life, such as a job change.

Other new-age concepts like the law of attraction depend on false pattern recognition.

These examples don't cause any significant problems in most cases. But people can take apophenia too far and adopt radical beliefs that destroy their lives.

How to Avoid Judgment Errors From Apophenia

So, how do you protect against apophenia?

First, understand your biases. You're more likely to see a pattern that reinforces one of your biases. So, when you see such a pattern, ask yourself if what you're seeing is driven by one of your prior beliefs.

Second, if the pattern is a series of events, list out all the possible reasons the events could have occurred. Often you’ll find that the probability that one event caused another is lower than it appears.

Third, use probabilistic thinking. Take a moment to judge the probability that the pattern you're seeing is, in fact, authentic. Also, take into account the cost of being wrong.

Of course, there are other tactics you can use to avoid apophenia. But, most of all, stop and think. And understand that seeing false patterns can sometimes be fun. Who doesn't remember looking for pictures in the clouds when they were a kid?

Pattern Recognition Has Many Benefits But Can Cause Us to Make Bad Decisions

It’s easy to see the benefits we get from recognizing patterns. It's a foundational aspect of our world. Without it, our survival would come into question.

But we're so good at recognizing patterns that we often see patterns that don't exist. In most cases, apophenia doesn't cause any significant problems. Seeing animals in the clouds or reading your horoscope can be fun.

But logic errors based on apophenia can lead to frustration and poor judgment. And it can cause severe consequences like losing your life savings in the stock market or joining a cult. So don't let the lure of a big payday or the promise of eternal salvation blind you to reality.

1 USA Today fact-checked whether Fauci, in fact, said this and confirmed that he did. See Fact check: Fauci warned the Trump administration in 2017 of surprise infectious disease outbreak.

Photo by Johnny Cohen on Unsplash

And it’s this: Don’t mess with me and I won’t mess with you.

And yet, how many of you feel like you can’t get through your day without some nosey do-gooder noodling around in your life?

Everywhere you turn, it seems like someone is there telling you what to do.

A growing cadre of nannies are telling you what you can consume, who you can hang out with, and what's approved for you think and say. Now they're telling you you can't buy a box of Cheerios if you don't cover your face.

We’re not good at leaving each other alone.

Some folks have an out of control nanny gene that makes them think the rest of us are incompetent. That none of us can get along without their constant baby sitting.

It doesn't matter if they've never met us. Or that we're getting along fine on our own. Us boobs would all end up dead by the end of the week without them. We're their pets.

It’s self-righteous helicopter parenting . . . on steroids.

Here’s the thing. We’re all better off when we leave each other alone.

For the most part, we’re all big boys and girls. We can take care of ourselves.

Yes. There will be some booboos along the way. We learn when we stub our toes, burn our fingers, and bump our heads.

There will even be some more catastrophic accidents. A few broken bones and a concussion or two.

You see, we can’t stop the bad things in life from happening. No matter what these ninnies think. We can’t wrap the world in bubble-wrap before we send it outside to play.

So, stop trying. And learn to mind your own business.

Don’t mess with me, and I won’t mess with you.

Image by succo from Pixabay

We can forgive if you think you need massive funding and a large organization to become a success. Most of the startup success stories we hear involve VC funding. But these small companies are hardly upstarts. In funding them, the VC brain trust picked them to win. And that brain trust gives them every opportunity to do so. But does that mean you'll never do great things without similar backing?

The Wright Brothers

We’ve all heard the story of Orville and Wilbur Wright. But in case you don't know it here it is. In 1903, the Wright Brothers took the airplane they invented to an open space bout 4 miles south of Kitty Hawk, NC. On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers flew that plane about 120 feet at 6.8 mph.

This achievement isn't impressive by today's standards. But it was a historic event because it was the first flight of a manned, powered, heavier-than-air plane. As you know, that was a great achievement.

More incredible than the flight itself were the circumstances under which it happened.

Samuel P. Langley’s Advantages

At the time, the Wright Brothers had several competitors in the race for manned flight. The most significant was Samuel Pierpont Langley.

What made Langley such a formidable competitor? Yes, he was smart. Langley was no slouch when it came to aviation. He had two successful unmanned flights under his belt.

But what made Langley the odds on favorite to win the race was that he had $50,000 in U.S. Government funding behind him. That kind of money (remember this was the early years of the 1900s) opens up many opportunities.

And what did the Wright Brothers have? They were self-taught engineers who gained their mechanical skills working on printing presses and building bicycles. They also didn't have much money. Their first successful airplane, the Wright Flyer, cost them less than $1,000 to build.

Why the Wright Brothers Were the First to Fly

The Wright Brothers were at a massive disadvantage compared to Langley.

Yet, despite Langley’s advantages, the Wright Brothers succeeded where Langley failed.

Why?

One reason is motivation. Fame and the desire to invent something to put him on par with Edison and other inventors drove Langley. The desire to conquer flight drove the Wright Brothers. The Wrights were less driven by fame and more by the desire to achieve.

The Wright Brothers understood the value of personal responsibility. They didn’t look at Langley’s advantages and complain. Doing so would have ensured their failure before they started. Instead, they took what was available to them and made it to work.

Fixate on the opportunities you have, not the ones you don't have

The lesson here is that there will almost always be someone with more opportunities than you. But that shouldn’t be a reason not to try.

It's easy to get distracted by all the reasons why you won't succeed. You don't have enough money. You don't have the right backers. You don't have the proper education.

The reality is, all the reasons you use to justify not trying are all noise. Your disadvantages may mean that you have to work a little smarter and a little harder. But they don’t guarantee you’ll fail. The only thing that guarantees your failure is not trying.

Despite the craziness of 2020, this is the most fabulous time in history to be alive. Don't let the corporate media and politicians tell you otherwise.

Technology has made it so you can learn almost anything and start your own business. Often times for little to no investment.

Don't focus on the opportunities you don't have. Instead, jump on the opportunities in front of you.

And remember your opportunities compound. When you take advantage of one, you create three new ones. Don’t let them slip past you.

Image by Oberholster Venita from Pixabay

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column] [/et_pb_row] [/et_pb_section]

The secret is this: Life isn’t fair.

Some people enjoy shaming others because they were born with some advantage. While others love to play the victim card at every opportunity. All because they weren’t born with those same advantages.

All that blame and victimization is an excuse to avoid hard work. And to avoid the prospect of failure. See, when you don’t try. When you do nothing but complain about how bad you have it, you don’t have to put yourself out there. You don’t have to take a risk. And you don’t have to deal with the inevitable failures that come part and parcel with trying to build a better life.

But, crying, "it's not fair" is a license to stay dependent. And to keep yourself mired in a state of perpetual feel-sorry-for-me victimhood.

You don’t control the world

One of the core ideas of stoicism is that you don’t control what the world throws at you. But you control how you respond. That there’s a moment between incident and response where you decide what type of person you are.

It's true. You don't control where you start out in life. None of us do. Some people have it easier, and some have it harder. We're not only talking about affluence and connections here. There are many different advantages people can have. Some are smarter, while others are stronger. And some can jump higher and run faster. Who doesn't want to be Michael Jordan or Usain Bolt? It's not fair because not everyone can be a top-level athlete. But that's the way things are.

Crying about fairness isn’t going to change any of that. Not one bit.

So, if where you start is outside of your control, what's in your power?

The answer is: how you respond. You control the steps you take after you cross the start line.

You don’t control the hand fate deals you. But you control how you play it.

It’s your choice

It's cliche to say that you're the product of your choices. But you are. Your decisions make you the person you are.

Are you a victim? Or are the person who takes advantage of the opportunities available to you?

Are you a person who deserves success? Or are you a person who wants to only point out how unfair life is?

People have achieved what you want with far less than you. No matter how bad you think you have it, I guarantee that someone out there has had it worse and achieved more.

Put on your blinders

How did they do it? They didn't compare their starting line to anyone else's. When you do, you defeat yourself before you start.

Opportunities aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have fewer because someone else has more.

We all have opportunities we can pounce on.

Almost everyone has access to unlimited books, articles, and videos on the Internet. Many people also have access to a public library. The knowledge is out there to get started.

Some other guy or girl may have been born into a wealthy family with a lot of connections. But that's not an excuse for you to do nothing. Go get online, start researching, and get moving.

It means you may have to work a little harder. You may need a bit more grit and creative thinking. But it doesn't mean you can't do it. Put on your blinders and concern yourself only with what you're doing. Those other people don't matter to you.

Remember, comparison is the thief of joy. All that matters in your quest for success is you.

It’s on you to create opportunities.

No one is going to hand you an opportunity. You have to create them.

Opportunities compound on each other. When you jump on one, you create more.

What happens when you use some free resources on the Internet to teach yourself how to build web pages? You open up the opportunity to go to work as a web designer. Yes, it'll be more challenging for you than the guy with a fancy college degree and a parent with connections in IT.

So what? That’s not your concern. You’re only concern is learning and doing what you must to get that first job.

Comparing your starting line to someone else’s is a waste of time. And complaining about the unfairness is a story you’re telling yourself. It's your story to justify your laziness and low self-esteem. And it’s also the story that you’ll use to cover up your regret at not taking advantage of your opportunities.

Slay your inner-bitch

You have a choice. You can surrender control to your inner-bitch and complain about how unfair life is. Or you can slay your inner-bitch. And start taking advantage of the opportunities you have.

When you slay your inner-bitch, you're admitting to yourself that success takes hard work and you accept the looming specter of failure into your life. And that is the first, crucial step toward taking control of your life.

Image by DarkCordial from Pixabay

Politicians and special interest groups often justify economic policies based on moral grounds. But, when our moralistic ideals blind us to these policies' actual results, we make our situation worse. So, the best course of action is to not focus on achieving a moral outcome. But to let the free market operate to maximize our standard of living.

In this article, I'll show that using morals to make economic decisions won't improve our living standards. I'll also explain how we can use the lessons from that discussion to improve our decision-making.

Economics is Rife with Fallacy

The economy is a complex system. Millions of products and services flow through it daily. Also, many people have a limited understanding of how the economy works. Take those together, and we get a subject littered with fallacies.

And one of the biggest misunderstandings? It's that we can ignore economic principles when they don’t fit our moral framework.

As Henry Hazlitt said in Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics:

“Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly anmoral decisions aren't the best, minimum wage, economic principles, supply and demand, free marketd persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

“In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”

So, fallacies result from people misrepresenting the impact of their policies and our failure to look past the immediate impact of the decision.

Economics is More Like Physics Than You Think

I like to compare economics to physics. Both are amoral. Gravity works the same for sinners and saints. And no amount of moral superiority will change that. We can’t rid the world of immoral people by selectively turning gravity off and letting the evil people float away into space.

Economics is no different. Supply and demand work the same for all. No matter if you're a government crony or an entrepreneur with a social conscience.

The Purpose of the Economy is to Allocate Scarce Resources

Before we discuss why we can’t use economic policies to achieve moral outcomes, we first need to understand the purpose of an economy.

Our challenge in life is to maximize the standard of living in our society. To do so, we must divide our scarce resources among their competing uses to maximize our wealth.

Thomas Sowell discusses the purpose of an economy in his book, Basic Economics, Fifth Edition: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. In that book, he explains that the economy is the mechanism we use to allocate scarce resources.

So, the economy's purpose is to allocate scarce resources to maximize our standard of living.

You Can’t Bend Economic Principles to Fit a Moral Framework

One viewpoint is that the government should divide resources using moral principles. This is necessary, it's argued, to ensure everyone has enough to meet some minimum standard of living.

The problem is that in doing so, we're trying to force an amoral system to fit a moral framework.

Why is this a problem? What happens when we try to make an amoral reality conform to a subjective morality?

Think of forcing a square peg into a round hole. When we do so, we change the shape of both the hole and the peg. We distort them to force them together.

The economy is the same. When we ignore economic principles to achieve a moral outcome, we create distortions in the form of unintended consequences and externalities. These distortions end up creating more problems than they fix.

An Example: The Minimum Wage

Let’s look at the minimum wage as an example.

Background

Without government intervention, the market sets the appropriate wage for a given job. It does so through the supply and demand mechanism.

The argument behind the minimum wage is that everyone has the right to a living wage. But, we run into a problem because the market wage for low-skill jobs isn't enough to live on. And businesses don’t want to pay more for a job than the value it receives.

So, many politicians and pundits say the government should force companies to pay a higher wage for these low-skill jobs.

The argument boils down to the idea that business owners are hoarding profits. And in doing so, they're refusing to pay wages that people can live on. This reasoning rests on moral grounds while ignoring the principle of supply and demand.

What is a Minimum Wage Law?

A minimum wage law is a price-fixing policy. It's when the government forces a company to pay a specified minimum price for labor.¹ In most instances, the government fixes the wage above the market price for the work. So, the government is forcing businesses to pay more for a worker than the value it receives from the worker.

It's important to understand that a wage is a price for labor. Since wages are a price, they're governed by the same principles as prices.²

Based on the law of supply and demand, fixing a price above equilibrium creates a surplus of the item.

First, suppliers enter the market to take advantage of the higher price. At the same time, the higher price causes consumers to lower their consumption of the item. So, we end up in a situation where supply increases while demand decreases, creating a surplus.

For example, let's look at baseballs. Say the equilibrium price for a baseball is $10. A well-meaning politician comes along and sets the price of baseballs at $15. The price increase causes suppliers to make more baseballs. And new suppliers also enter the market.

But demand also decreases. Consumers who value baseballs below $15 will stop buying them. And, we end up with more baseballs than we can sell.³

So, What Happens When the Minimum Wage Increases?

On to our discussion. What happens when the government forces an employer to pay a wage (say $15/hr) higher than the market rate ($10/hr)?

Economics in One Lesson has an excellent discussion of minimum wage laws. Here’s what Hazlitt has to say:

“Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combating the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest. The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more certain are its harmful effects to exceed any possible good effects.”

So, what are the harmful effects Hazlitt referred to above? In what instances is a minimum wage beneficial? And what do we see when we compare the harm to the benefit?

Demand for Labor will Decrease

A minimum wage will decrease the demand for labor resulting in a drop in employment.

Employees who don't provide $15/hr of value either aren't hired or will lose their jobs. For example, a shop owner values sweeping floors at $10/hr. When the government forces the owner to pay a floor sweeper $15/hr, the owner will opt to sweep the floor himself.

In this case, the government is depriving the worker of a wage and the opportunity to gain experience. The government is also denying the community of the worker's productivity.

The core concept to remember here is that we can’t make someone’s labor more valuable by passing a law. No one can use the force of morals to move an equilibrium price to a higher level.

If sweeping floors is only worth $10/hr in the market, then that is what the market will pay. Forcing a higher wage, only distorts the market. And it deprives the floor sweeper of the opportunity to earn a living, even if it is meager.

But, let's say the business must keep the employee for some reason, so it has to pay the higher wage. In that case, the company can pass the increased labor cost on to the consumer, or it can absorb the increased cost.

The Impact of Rising Prices

In the case where the business raises prices, several things can happen.

Consumers can pay the higher price. But, this will cause them to cut back purchases of that product or other products. Either way, sales decline.

Consumers can also shift purchases to goods not affected by the minimum wage.

For example, City A passes a minimum wage law raising wages to $15/hr. This causes Sock Manufacturer A, located in City A, to raise prices from $5 to $8. A competitor in City B is not subject to the increased minimum wage, so it's able to continue selling socks for $5. People in City A will start buying from Sock Manufacturer B to get a lower price. This price disadvantage could cause Sock Manufacturer A to lay off workers and, in time, go out of business.

Business Investment Will Decrease

An alternative is that some companies may absorb the cost increase. But this has a negative impact as well. A company with a thin profit margin would get forced out of business, causing a loss of jobs.

Other companies with a healthier profit margin can absorb the cost increase. But the narrower profit margin will cause it to slow down reinvestment in its business. That would make the company shelve plans to increase hiring. So, in this case, there wouldn't be a loss of jobs, but the rate of job growth would slow.

The Rare Case When Minimum Wage Laws are Beneficial

To be fair, there is one narrow circumstance when a minimum wage law is a benefit. That’s in cases where the wages paid are below the market wage for some reason. This is rare and usually only seen in cases where competitive forces can’t operate. Otherwise, competition keeps wages at market rates.

Minimum Wage Laws Hurt the People They Are Trying to Help

In the end, our attempt to run an economy based on morals does more harm than good. In the case of the minimum wage, the policy hurts the people we intended to help.

The alternative is to leave the market to function unhindered. When we do, we get an efficient allocation of scarce resources. Such a division maximizes the standard of living for all based on the value they provide.

So, what we should strive for is not a moral system. We should instead let the free market operate to provide the greatest good. But we must accept that some immoral actors will thrive.

What does this teach us?

So, what can we learn from the minimum wage?

Incentives Matter

First, incentives matter.

People often use morals to hide when they're acting in their own self-interest. Politicians want to win votes, and workers want higher wages. Instead of being honest about their motives, they'll hide behind moral platitudes. Then they'll call their opponents immoral when the opponent points out the flaws in their policy.

Always ask what incentives the parties have for pushing a policy. Often, you'll find the real motivation is financial instead of moral.

We Create Distortions: Unintended Consequences and Externalities

Second, when we ignore economic principles, we create unintended consequences and externalities.⁴

Unintended Consequences

Unintended consequences occur when a purposeful action creates an unforeseen outcome. When we alter a complex system, such as the economy, we cause unintended consequences. Remember the decreased demand under a minimum wage? Or the slowed business investment?

Unintended consequences can sometimes be a benefit. But, the unintended consequence is often worse than the original problem.

Externalities

An externality is a cost or benefit that affects a third-party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. The increased demand for Sock Company B’s product is an external benefit.

As with unintended consequences, externalities can be good or bad. It’s often a matter of perspective. Increased demand for A’s product is good for A but bad for B.

Application Outside of Economics

We can take these lessons and use them to improve our decision-making.

First, when making decisions, don’t assume that the moral choice will lead to the best outcome.

Always consider the unintended consequences and externalities created by your decision.

When working in a complex system, unintended consequences and externalities are the rule. Don’t ignore them. Instead, think through the total impact of your decision.

Second, after you've determined the impact of your decision, do a cost-benefit analysis. Doing so will help you determine if the benefit outweighs the cost. And ensure you're making an informed decision.

The Minimum Wage Can Improve Your Decision-Making

The economy is an amoral system. So, it works the same for everyone.

When we try to ignore economic principles, we create unintended consequences and externalities. Moral justifications won't change that. Sometimes these distortions create a larger problem than what we started with.

The same is true for many of the decisions we make in life. Improved decision-making frees us from dealing with bad choices and helps us gain independence. So, when you face a big decision, don't jump at what seems like the best solution at first glance. Instead, consider all the possible outcomes. Then, decide if the benefit outweighs the cost.

1 Setting the minimum wage below the equilibrium price would not have any effect because employers are already paying the equilibrium rate.

2 Because we call the price for labor a wage instead of a price hides the fact that the same principles govern both.

3 This is a straightforward example of how a price floor, such as the minimum wage, distorts the market. To see how a price ceiling distorts the market, research the impact of anti-price gauging laws.

4 Unintended consequences and externalities deserve more in-depth discussions. But the short explanations I provide here give you the general idea.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

When you ask what’s the one driving force behind everything we do, the answer is that we want success.

We want to win. We want to provide for ourselves and our loved ones. And to leave a legacy. And we want to defend our homes.

Success is always the goal.

But, where there’s a winner, there’s always a loser. That’s hard for some people to hear. They have the misguided notion that everyone should win.

But it’s the truth. Someone must lose.

Nature doesn’t care that your morals say everyone should be equal. That everyone should have the same as everyone else. You don’t get to tell the winners that they’re evil because they won.

You don’t get to take from the winners and give to the losers. That’s not how the universe works.

The winners are the ones who heft the world up onto their shoulders and carry it forward. When you demonize them and take from them for committing the sin of winning, they stop trying. And the world stops moving forward.

That’s the beauty of the Universal Operating System. When one person works struggles for their own benefit and wins, they pull the rest of the world along with them.

Think of the iPhone. It's generated massive wealth for Apple. In doing so, it made smartphones ubiquitous. Now almost everyone has enormous processing power in their pocket. Even the losers win.

Yes, there’s a disparity in the degree to which everyone won. Apple, its shareholders, and its employees won a lot. Everyone else won a little. But, it’s in that disparity that we find the motivation for the next Apple to come along and move the world forward.

We’re all in this life together. One where we’re competing with each other in some way.

You don't get to choose whether you take part. But, you get to decide how much effort you put into the fight.

You can choose to watch television or read a book.

You can choose to take a nap or take a training course.

You can choose to sit and stare at the sky or to write the great American novel.

But you don’t get to choose how others participate.

The desire for success is hard-coded into our DNA. Humans want to strive, struggle, and succeed. To build and think bigger, better, and faster. And to the winner goes the reward.

But the loser wins too.

That’s the way of things. And no amount of hand-wringing virtue signaling will ever change that.

And that’s a good thing. Because if it did, the world would stop moving forward.

Image by Iván Tamás from Pixabay

So and so dropped out of high school and started a business while working a paper route. Everyone told our intrepid maverick that X business is dead, and he's wasting his time. But he didn't listen. And today, he's a billionaire.

Stories of the maverick overcoming all odds to achieve massive success inspire us. They’re evidence that we overcome any disadvantage.

The stories of these mavericks are a great message. But, they distort our view of reality.

For every wild success, there are thousands of failures we don't hear about.

Because we don't hear about the failures, we tend to mistake the exception for the rule. But when we look at the underlying statistics, we see how much of an anomaly these success stories are.

For example, a higher percentage of high-school graduates achieve financial success than drop-outs.

But, the coverage that successful high-school drop-outs receive is higher. This leads us to believe that successful high-school drop-outs are more common than they really are.

We call this error survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias is an error in which we only consider success and ignore failures. This bias can lead us to overestimate our chance of success in certain circumstances.

You may expect to become a successful lawyer despite dropping out of law school. A story of a successful lawyer who did the same may bolster your belief. But the success rate for law-school drop-outs who try to practice law shows us how rare this is. Survivorship bias skewed your view of reality.

So, the next time you hear a story of success, ask yourself how many people tried to do the same thing and failed. That will give you a better view of the world.

First, I’m going to discuss why understanding logical fallacies are important. Then, I’m going to present a quick refresher on formal arguments. Finally, I explain the denying the antecedent fallacy.

So, What’s the Point?

We make hundreds, if not more, decisions every day. Most of them are low-stakes so it’s not a high-priority to reach the optimal conclusion. But sometimes we need an optimal solution. In such cases, it’s worth the extra time and energy to make sure our reasoning is sound.

Remember from my previous article that a logical fallacy is an error in reason. Often, that error can lead to a weak or invalid conclusion. So, when we want an optimal solution, the ability to identify logical fallacies is a benefit.

A problem comes up because fallacies aren’t always easy to spot. So, we can end up making decisions based on unsound reasoning.

Despite our capacity for reason, we all make errors. It could be our friends and family, politicians, or the media. Sometimes those errors are innocent mistakes.

But sometimes fallacies are intentional. For example, advertisers design commercials to elicit an emotional response. They do so in the hopes that your emotions will override reason and get you to take the desired action. This is an appeal to emotion. A powerful fallacy used by politicians and the media every day.

Today, we’re bombarded by more information than ever. Sales pitches and pundit opinions are all around us.

Knowing how to spot fallacies gives us the tools we need to make sense of this noise. And it improves our decision-making. And better decisions give you more control over your life.

Let’s Take a Quick Stroll Down Memory Lane

First, a little review. In a formal argument, if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

For example:

1. All P are Q.

2. X is P.

3. Therefore, X is Q.

To make the argument easier to understand, let’s use words instead of letters:

1. All humans are mortal.

2. Socrates is human.

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Since premises 1 and 2 are both true, then the conclusion must be true. We call this deductive reasoning.

Remember, the conclusion could be true even though we used flawed logic to reach the conclusion.

That’s the end of our quick review. Go back and re-read my first article on logical fallacies for more information.

Denying the Antecedent

Denying the antecedent (inverse error or inverse fallacy) is a common formal fallacy. In this fallacy, we infer the inverse from a statement. We confuse the directionality of a statement.

Doing so leads us to believe that if a statement is true, then the negation of that statement must also be true.

Denying the antecedent takes the form:

1. If P, then Q.

2. Not P.

3. Therefore not Q.

Example:

1. If it’s raining outside, then [Shirley the Dog] is wet.

2. It’s not raining outside.

3. Therefore [Shirley the Dog] is not wet.

Explanation:

This is an obvious fallacy. Because it’s not raining outside doesn’t mean Shirley the Dog isn’t wet. She could be swimming in a lake, getting a bath, or she’s still wet from a recent rain.

Denying the antecedent isn’t always easy to spot. The words we use in an argument can sometimes hide the structure of the argument. So, replacing words with letters and rearranging the statement can help simplify it.

Why it’s important?

Here’s a common argument. Please note that I’m presenting the argument this way to make it easier to analyze. People making this argument don't always state it in this explicit manner. That’s one reason logical fallacies are hard to spot.

1. If you’re against Politician X, you’re a good person.

2. You support Politician X.

3. Therefore, you’re a bad person.

There could be hundreds of reasons to support or not support a politician.

Let's say Politician X is weak on civil rights but strong on prison reform.

The person making this argument ranks civil rights as the most important consideration. So, he’s basing his argument on Politician X’s poor track record on civil rights. What he's saying is, if you support Politician X, you don't support civil rights. And since you don't support civil rights, you're a bad person.

But civil rights are only one of many policy questions. Someone else may rank prison reform higher than civil rights. So that person supports Politician X despite his poor stance on civil rights.

Neither person is good or bad based on their feelings about Politician X.

It's nothing more than a difference of opinion about the importance of two policy issues.

Conclusion

If our reason is sometimes flawed, then we must expect flaws in others' reason as well. Understanding logical fallacies help us identify reasoning errors. When we spot reasoning errors, we improve our conclusions.

Denying the antecedent is a common error. By understanding it, we improve the quality of our conclusions. The stronger our conclusions, the better our decisions based on those conclusions. If we want a life free from the impact of poor decisions, it’s important to be able to identify faulty reasoning. Not only from others but from ourselves.

Do you have an example of denying the antecedent? Let me know in the comments below.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

Books

• Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: the Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury, MA: Archieboy Holdings, LLC, 2017.

Online

• “Formal Fallacy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, March 14, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy.

• “Denying the Antecedent.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, September 6, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent.

• Curtis, Gary. “Denying the Antecedent.” Logical Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. Accessed March 17, 2020. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyante.html.

• “Denying the Antecedent.” RationalWiki. Accessed March 17, 2020. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent.

Mr. Wheeler’s Incredible Lemon Juice

“Clearly, the decision-making that we rely on in society is fallible. It's highly fallible, and we should know that.”

- Daniel Kahneman

In the Little Book of Stupidity, Sia Mohajer tells the story of McArthur Wheeler. In 1995, Mr. Wheeler decided to rob two banks. His fool-proof plan depended on his rubbing lemon juice on his face.

If you remember back to elementary school, we can use lemon juice as invisible ink. So, Mr. Wheeler reasoned that rubbing lemon juice on his face would render him invisible. He even tested his theory by snapping a picture of his lemon juice covered face with a Polaroid camera. And his selfie proved out his theory. When he looked at the pic, he couldn’t see his face.

Needless to say, Mr. Wheeler’s scheme failed.

By now, I imagine you’re shaking your head and thinking, “How could this guy be so stupid? How could he have taken a picture of his face and still thought he was invisible? There must be something wrong with this guy.”

Mr. Wheeler is an extreme example. But the truth is, we’re all prone to such errors. In this article, I’ll explain why. Next, I’ll go over three common cognitive biases. Finally, I’ll close with some tips to help you avoid Mr. Wheeler’s fate.

Let’s start with an explanation of cognitive biases.

Enter Cognitive Biases

“We have a very narrow view of what is going on.”

- Daniel Kahneman

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone and thought, “How can they not see that they’re wrong? How can they be so blind? So stupid?” It’s easy to see biases in others, but it’s much harder to see them in ourselves. As a result, we may overestimate our own intelligence. What’s worse, we may be resistant to changing our minds even when our bias becomes evident to us. The longer we have lived with a bias, the harder it is for us to move away from it.

Most of us think we're objective and logical when making judgments and decisions. If asked, we would say that we considered all the available, relevant information. And, as a result, came to the best possible conclusion. But the truth is, our brain, unbeknownst to us, filtered information. So, we weren't as objective as we thought.

We apply our own unique combination of knowledge and assumptions as we move through life. Every judgment and decision is subject to this unique personal construction of reality. And this personal reality is always changing based on our growing life experience.

Our brain can’t process the massive amount of information it takes in from our environment. So, there is a disconnect between reality and our perception of it. Because of this disconnect, our decisions and judgments are sometimes flawed. And the faster we make a decision, the larger the rift becomes and the greater the chance for error.

The History

In the early 1970s, Daniel Kahneman, a noted psychologist, and economist, along with Amos Tversky and others, established the cognitive basis for errors that come from bias and heuristics. What they found is that our brain takes mental shortcuts to estimate the possibility of uncertain occurrences. Our mind does so to simplify the task of processing information.

The problem is that sometimes, these shortcuts lead to errors.

What is a Cognitive Bias?

A cognitive bias is a systematic deviation from ordinary judgment. In each situation, we create our own reality from selective input. This causes us to not see the whole picture, but rather only limited portions of reality. So, we fail to see the entire situation. This limited personal reality, or "subjective-social reality," is what dictates our behavior. And causes us to make illogical inferences

In short, a cognitive bias is an error in our thinking. This error occurs because our brain simplifies its information processing.

Cognitive Bias vs. Logical Fallacy

A cognitive bias is different from a logical fallacy. Remember that a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning or a mistaken belief. But a cognitive bias is an error in judgment due to simplified processing or a shortcut.

Let’s say you test drive a new car. You like the car but decide to sleep on the decision. On the drive home, you notice that a lot of other people own the car. So much so that it seems like it's the only make and model anyone is driving. Since so many people own them, you reason, it must be a quality vehicle. That's an example of cognitive bias (confirmation and recency biases).

Same facts, but later at home, you see a commercial where your favorite athlete is advertising the car. You conclude that the vehicle is a quality car based on the athlete's endorsement. That's a logical fallacy (appeal to authority).

What is a Heuristic?

A heuristic is a method we use to come to a quick, but not always optimal, resolution. In other words, a heuristic is a rule of thumb, or a shortcut, for quick decision-making. We use heuristics when saving time is more important than making an optimal decision.

Imagine this. You're walking back to your car after having dinner and drinks with some friends. It's late, and you're tired, so you decide to cut through a dark alley. You see striding toward you, a large man with a hoodie pulled over his head, hiding his face.

You've heard several news stories in the days prior about a rash of muggings in another city. A sense of dread punches you in your gut, so you turn and get out of the alley. Taking a shortcut to your car is no longer appealing, so you stick to the well-lit streets for the rest of your walk.

This is an example of a heuristic we’re all familiar with, the availability heuristic. As the name implies, this heuristic operates on the idea of availability. In this heuristic, we draw immediate examples to mind when evaluating a situation. Sometimes we recall one bit of information easier than others. When we do, we tend to weigh that bit of information the heaviest in our decision-making.

In the above example, you heard about muggings in another city. Your brain then used that recalled information to make a snap judgment that the man is a danger.

Meanwhile, you ignore other relevant information. For one, you don't consider that the muggings are in a city hundreds, or thousands, of miles away. You also don't consider that it's a cold evening, so that could be why the man has his hood up. Finally, you don't notice that the man is on his phone. And that he's winded telling someone that he's running late. Thus, providing an explanation for his rapid walk.

Two Limited Resources: Time and Energy

You’re wondering: If cognitive biases cause us to make bad decisions, why do they exist? Is the Universe making us look like fools? The butts of some cosmic joke?

While I can’t speak for the Universe, I’m confident that it’s not out for a laugh at our expense.

So, why are cognitive biases a part of our daily lives? To answer, let's look at them from the aspect of two scarce resources: time and energy.

Time

How often do you hear the phrase, "Time is your most valuable resource?" Given the popularity of the hustle mentality and productivity hacks, it seems right. One of the reasons your brain takes the shortcuts we've been discussing is to save time.

Our brain will make a snap decision when saving time is more important than accuracy. One case is when we're in danger, such as the alley example from above. Another case is where we have a low-stakes outcome not worth spending extra time on.

Energy

The constant firing of neurons and our brain's housekeeping function take a lot of energy. Our brain accounts for about 20% of our total energy usage.

Saving energy may not seem like a high priority in a place like the modern United States. Since calories are available in ample quantities, we don't usually run into a shortage. But calories were scarce at points in our evolution. Under those conditions, energy conservation took on more importance. By taking shortcuts, our brain could reduce its cognitive load and save calories.

Understand Our Biases to Improve Our Decision-Making

“If individuals are rational, there is no need to protect them against their own choices.”

- Daniel Kahneman

Incorporating an understanding of biases into our mental models improves our decision-making.

Remember that cognitive biases allow us to make quick decisions. Doing so enhances our decision-making efficiency and reduces our energy usage.

Imagine how much time and energy you could waste in a mundane task like picking out a pair of socks.

You could consider the weather forecast, your favorite color, and many other criteria. So much that a simple task like picking a pair of socks could take hours and use up a tremendous amount of energy. Or you could save time and energy by taking a shortcut. For example, if you’re like me, going with whatever random pair you pull out of the drawer.

But, sometimes, those quick decisions distort our reasoning leading to bad decisions. These distortions are where we can improve.

So, by understanding cognitive biases, we can identify areas where we need to slow down to ask if we've considered all the relevant information. And if we need to seek out new information either through observation or by asking questions.

Examples of Common Cognitive Biases

Researchers have identified many cognitive biases. Understanding them all is a daunting task. Identifying and correcting them in our day-to-day life is near impossible. Since biases improve our decision-making efficiency, we don't always want to eliminate them. Sometimes we need to decide and move on.

But some decisions need more scrutiny. So, it’s good practice to be able to identify common biases. The following are three of the most common.

Confirmation Bias

If you’ve ever heard of a cognitive bias, chances are its confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is our tendency to pick out information that confirms our preconceptions. It can manifest in two ways. First, we can gather or remember information selectively. Second, we can interpret information in a biased way.

Here's an example. Researchers at Emory University conducted a study. In it, they showed that Republicans were more likely to identify errors made by Democrats. The reverse was also the case.

Each group had preconceived notions about the other. These notions caused each group to pick out the inconsistencies of the other group. At the same time, each group paid less attention to the inconsistencies of their own group.

Fundamental Attribution Error

This is another common bias that causes us to make errors in judgment about others.

Fundamental attribution error is our tendency to judge ourselves and others differently. We judge others' behavior based on the person's disposition rather than the situation. We tend to do the opposite when judging our own behavior. We tend to put the situation before disposition.

Here's an example. You're late for work because your power went out the night before, messing up your alarm clock. As you're rushing to work, you spill coffee in your lap and run a stop sign. Doing so almost causes an accident. In this situation, you don’t criticize yourself based on your disposition. You're not stupid or irresponsible. Your poor driving is instead a result of the situation: the power outage and your hectic morning.

A few blocks later, another driver runs a stop sign and almost collides with you. In this case, you judge the other driver based on disposition. You fume under your breath that such a moron shouldn't have a license. Meanwhile, you ignore the situation that the other driver found herself in. She could be late for work also, or be rushing to a sick loved one’s bedside.

The fundamental attribution error causes us to judge others in a negative light. At the same time, we give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.

In the above example, you attribute the other driver’s poor behavior to a character flaw. And you attribute our own poor behavior to the situation.

Hindsight Bias

It’s some universal law that everyone’s circle of friends has that one guy whose favorite phrase is, “I knew it.” “I knew we should have stayed off the Interstate” or “I knew the Broncos would win.”

That's hindsight bias, or knew-it-all-along phenomenon, in a nut-shell. It's the tendency to believe that we knew more about an outcome after the event has passed than we did. It stems from our unreliability in recalling information. In this case, we can't remember how an uncertain situation appeared to us before it was resolved.

Hindsight bias can cause arguments. It can also cause us to second guess ourselves. Doing so hurts our confidence in our decision-making.

How Can We Improve Our Decision Making?

“The effort invested in 'getting it right' should be commensurate with the importance of the decision.”

- Daniel Kahneman

To begin, we must understand that we can’t end biases. We make too many decisions during the day to stop and second guess or analyze them all. As we discussed above, some decisions are too low-stake to warrant any further effort.

The key is to identify decisions where its critical to make an optimal decision. These are the situations where we should apply strategies to avoid biases.

For example, deciding what color socks to wear has low-stakes. The worse outcome is likely nothing more than some embarrassment. Deciding how to invest for retirement has high-stakes. It's a decision that impacts how you live in your later years.

There are several strategies we can use to overcome biases. Here are three that I find useful.

Understand the Situation

Remember that we can’t know a person until we walk a mile in their shoes. Putting ourselves in the other person's position can help us understand their thinking. It'll help us know why they did what they did. Doing so will help us avoid the fundamental attribution error.

Teach Yourself to be More Aware of Mistakes

Errors resulting from biases are all around us. From the barista to our boss to ourselves, everyone makes them. Like I mentioned above, not all mistakes are significant enough to matter. That doesn't mean you can't practice identifying biases.

Sometimes we need an optimal decision. In such cases, being able to identify your biases will help you make that optimal decision. Use a Checklist

Our brains aren’t up to the task of processing all the information it takes in. So, our human inadequacies are causing us to make errors.

In his book, The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, Atul Gawande points out how common avoidable failures are. As humans, the volume and complexity of what we know can overwhelm us. This human inadequacy leads to preventable failures. So, what can we do to prevent such failures? The answer is the checklist.

A common cause for our mistakes is rushing through a task. A checklist can protect against missed steps. It can also ensure that we consider all the necessary information when coming to a decision.

Conclusion – How Can Everyone be so Stupid?!

Our brain can't process all the information that bombards it daily. This cognitive inadequacy leads to a disconnect between reality and our subjective reality. That disconnect increases the likelihood that we’ll make an error in judgment.

We're not stupid when we make such mistakes. Everyone is subject to biases. Even the smartest of us fall victim to them.

And, even though cognitive biases sometimes lead to errors, they aren't always bad. There may be situations that need quick thinking. To speed up processing, our brain takes a mental shortcut to make a judgment. Thus, saving us time.

These shortcuts also decrease our cognitive load, saving us energy.

There are several tactics we can use to ensure we make an optimal decision. Three of those are:

1. Understand the situation,

2. Teach yourself to be more aware of mistakes, and

3. Use a checklist.

We can’t avoid biases altogether. But understanding them will improve our decision-making when needed.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

Books

• Mohajer, Sia. The Little Book of Stupidity: How We Lie to Ourselves and Don't Believe Others. Author, 2015.

• Mauboussin, Michael J. Think Twice Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.

• Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: the Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury, MA: Archieboy Holdings, LLC, 2017.

Online

• For more information on Mr. Wheeler, see https://medium.com/@littlebrown/i-wore-the-juice-the-dunning-kruger-effect-f8ac3299eb1.

• “Daniel Kahneman.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, January 28, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman.

• “Cognitive Bias.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 6, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias.

• “Availability Heuristic.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 8, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic.

• Cherry, Kendra. “How Cognitive Biases Influence How You Think and Act.” Verywell Mind. Verywell Mind, May 7, 2019. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963.

• Vinney, Cynthia. “How Cognitive Biases Increase Efficiency (And Lead to Errors).” ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo, October 31, 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/cognitive-bias-definition-examples-4177684

• Swaminathan, Nikhil. “Why Does the Brain Need So Much Power?” Scientific American. Scientific American, April 29, 2008. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-the-brain-need-s/.

• “Confirmation Bias.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, January 31, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.

• “Confirmation Bias And the Power of Disconfirming Evidence.” Farnam Street, August 2, 2019. https://fs.blog/2017/05/confirmation-bias/.

• “Fundamental Attribution Error.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 2, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error.

• “Hindsight Bias.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 5, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias.

One of Strength and Reason's core ideas is that action creates opportunity. Yet many of us are content to sit idle and hope for luck. In this article, I'll explain that opportunity is superior to luck. That's because we can influence opportunity while luck is beyond our control. Then I'll tell why an arbitrary action isn't enough. Instead, you must take a meaningful action intended to accomplish your goals to create opportunities. It's through creating and taking advantage of the opportunity that we become successful.

Luck? Opportunity? What’s the Difference?

There’s a function in the Universal OS that manages chance. Within that function, there’s an IF statement that guides us into one of two subroutines: luck or opportunity.

It looks something like this:

IF Person is a lazy, do nothing, beer-swilling couch lump, then do Luck.

ELSE, do Opportunity¹

This function is telling us that action is what separates luck and opportunity. See, folks who want success and do something to get it are inviting opportunity to them. The people who want success but aren't doing anything about it are waiting for luck.

Because our actions don’t have a bearing on whether we’re lucky, we don't control luck. It either comes, or it doesn't. Even hoping, praying, or believing won't convince luck to visit us. Opportunity, in contrast, is the bit of chance that comes about because of an action we took.²

In other words, luck is something that happens to us, and opportunity is something we create.

Remember, at Strength and Reason, we focus on what’s in our control.

Luck: The Siren Song That Will Lure Us to Our Doom

Luck³ is the Siren song that comes wrapped in the melody of hope, cascading across the land to drag us to our doom. The song lures us in with the promise of easy success. It promises us that if we sit and wait long enough, luck appears before us and allows us to gaze into its beautiful eyes. Then with a flick of its wrist, it grants us the success we deserve without any effort on our part.

Here's the kicker. Luck doesn't thrive by giving us what we want. Instead, it feeds off our unfulfilled desire as a vampire feeds off blood. So, it will never grant our wishes. Why should it? If we never satisfy our craving, it gets to feed off us for our lifetime.⁴ If luck has it's way, success will forever remain beyond our grasp.

Enter Opportunity: The Real Hero of Our Tale

Opportunity has two distinguishing characteristics from luck. First, I'm sure it exists.⁵ Second, you must act to create it.⁶

You see, opportunity doesn’t come looking for you while you’re sitting on the couch. And it doesn’t waste time with people who stumble through life without a purpose.

Opportunity is like you, the readers of Strength and Reason. It avoids people without a mission.

You attract it by showing it that you have a willingness to make things happen. And that you’re ready to pursue your mission.

In short, you must act.

Meaningful Action: The Opportunity Magnet

Not any arbitrary action will do. It must be meaningful action.

In my success equation, Meaningful Action is an action essential to achieving a goal. These are the actions you must focus on while limiting the time you spend on non-meaningful tasks.

It's helpful to picture the interplay between meaningful action and opportunity. To do so, we can borrow from the fields of physics and finance.⁷

Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Remember Newton’s Third Law of Motion from physics? We recognize it as: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I visualize the action/opportunity dynamic like Newton's Third Law of Motion. The reaction to my action is the creation of an opportunity. So, my first action is the starting point for a chain reaction of activity and opportunity.

It works like this:

1. I act.

2. My act creates opportunities.

3. I perform on the opportunity created in step 2.

4. My action in step 3 creates more opportunities.

5. Rinse and repeat.

Stop a second and visualize it. It's a beautiful image, isn't it? ⁸

Compounding

Here's another concept: compounding. This concept comes to us from banking and finance. We know that compound interest, earning interest on interest, is a powerful tool. Using it, your savings growth is slow at first but increases over time.

Like when we put money in a savings account, and each year we earn interest on all the prior years' interest. When you act on an opportunity, you create many new opportunities. Act on those opportunities and create even more opportunities. (See step 4, above)

Down to the basics. each iteration of the action/opportunity cycle creates more opportunities.

An Example: Comparing Opportunity to Luck

Let’s say we want to start a blog. To do so, we must have a domain name, web hosting, and blogging software like WordPress. So, our essential tasks are to get each of those. As we complete each of these tasks, we’re one step closer to our goal.

Buying a desk and a new ergonomic chair are not meaningful actions. Sure, they’re nice to have. And they may even boost our productivity. But our blog doesn’t depend on our having them.

Going back to our meaningful actions. Purchasing a domain, setting up hosting, and installing WordPress allows us to publish articles. Publishing articles creates the opportunity to build a following. And, having a following creates the opportunity to market products to our audience. And so on.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Each step in that process requires a meaningful action to create an opportunity. We then act on that opportunity to kick off the next level.

Now, let’s contrast that with relying on luck to start a blog.

If we're lucky, something happens that we didn't initiate through our actions. Something like the phone rings. We answer, and it's an attorney. She's calling to inform us that a great aunt who we never knew existed passed away. And, wouldn't we know it, she left us a successful blog.

To make it even better, our heretofore unknown great aunt knew of her pending demise. So, she penned the next five years of blog posts. All we must do is send the attorney our bank account information and she will start sending us payments from the blog.

In which of those scenarios do you have more control? Which offers a higher chance of success?

How to be the Mad Scientist of Opportunity

I imagine successful people already have their own way of creating opportunities. Here's the method I use. It's not rocket science, but it works.

1. Define the Mission

We start by defining our mission. But our mission isn’t some vague statement. It’s specific.

In our blog example, our mission could be:

To have a blog that generates $1M in monthly income and has 1M email subscribers.

2. Set a Deadline for the Mission

A lot of people fail in their mission because they don't set a deadline. When we don't set a deadline, we give ourselves the ready-made excuse to start tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes.

Adding a deadline, our mission becomes:

To have a blog that generates $1M in monthly incomes and has 1M email subscribers by 12/31/2025.

Now, we have a specific mission and a deadline. Time to start breaking our mission down into actionable steps.

3. Break the Mission Down into a Series of Goals

Next, we take a hard look at our mission and figure out what steps we must go through to accomplish it.

For our blog, our mission is to build it to $1M in monthly revenue. So, our first goal could be $10k/mo. in revenue. From there, our goals could be $100k/mo., then $250k/mo., and so on up to $1M/mo.

4. Set a Deadline for Each Goal

See step #2. There’s nothing different here.

5. Break the First Goal Down into Meaningful Actions

For each goal, we next figure out the essential steps to complete that goal. Once we’ve done all this, we’ll have all our meaningful actions laid out in a road map.

To continue with our blog example from above, our first three required tasks could be:

1. Purchase a domain name

2. Sign up with a web host

3. Install WordPress

As we complete each goal, we’ll come back to this step and break the next goal down into its required tasks.

6. Get to Work

Now that we have our road map of meaningful actions, all that’s left is to get to work. Make phone calls, knock on doors, build a website, and whatever else you must do. Don’t wait around for the world to notice you.

If you want something to happen, you must make it happen.

A Lesson from a Stoic Emperor

Remember this if you need some motivation.

Marcus Aurelius reminded himself several times in Meditations that he would soon die. His reminder to himself wasn't a morbid fascination with death. It was a note to himself to live every moment like it was his last. That means not waiting. Instead, act to create and take advantage of the opportunity.

Conclusion: Have a Bias for Action

We can think of life as a river full of logs floating along with its current. Each log represents an opportunity. Our mission is to get to the other side. We can sit on the shore, watching the logs float past. We can hope that a giant eagle or a helpful alligator⁹ will come along to take us to the other side. While we wait, we can nap and not even realize how many logs passed as we slumbered.

Or, we can act to get to the other side and fulfill our mission. We can jump into the river and grab a log. Then, when another log floats close enough, we grasp that one. We work our way across the river one log at a time. Before we know it, we're sunning ourselves on the other bank.

Luck and opportunity are two sides of the same coin. What separates them is action. We can sit and hope we get lucky. Or we can take action to create an opportunity.

It's better to focus our effort on where we have the most control. Our actions influence the opportunities available to us. So, we should focus our attention there.

Focus on what we control => Success

Focus on what we don’t control ≠> Success

Your mindset goes a long way to determine which one you choose. But remember, success favors action.

What are you doing to create opportunities? Let me know in the comments.

1 I know this isn’t a real programming language. It’s only here to explain to you, the reader, the point I’m making.

2 While we don't control whether we create an opportunity, we control whether we act. So, we have some influence over opportunity. But luck lies beyond our control.

3 In the U.S., luck sometimes goes by the name lottery. But it’s the same evil beast.

4 Like how the U.S. Government doesn’t give welfare recipients an incentive to get off the program.

5 To be honest, I'm not sure luck exists. It may be a figment of our collective imagination. If it does exist, it's scarce.

6 A lot of Americans are allergic to doing something. So, they prefer luck to opportunity.

7 Remember that another core idea of Strength and Reason is to study a broad range of disciplines. Then take the best of each to better our lives.

8 I know I'm taking liberty with this analogy. I haven't worked out the equal and opposite parts. If the reaction is equal and opposite to the action, then wouldn't the reaction cancel out the action? I don't think so. If you throw a ball against the wall, the equal and opposite reaction is that the ball will bounce back to you. That reaction will allow you to throw the ball again. So, in that example, our action creates opportunities. This analogy isn't perfect, but it works.

9 What did the Gator say to the Seminole? Want fries with that? (just some college rivalry humor, but it’s true)

The Problem

Clicking the publish button on a blog post, tweet, etc. brings me a good deal of anxiety. What if people don't like what I wrote? What if people realize I don't know what I'm talking about? What if people see through me and discover the fraud hiding beneath? What if that rejection causes an un-executable instruction in my code that crashes my operating system? And I'm left as a steaming pile of fried circuits and melted processors.

And my anxiety isn't confined to the online world either. The tentacles of this impostor syndrome creep into my real-world life as well. Those same thoughts sometimes run through my mind when I talk to people. It could be at a professional event, a meeting, or with friends.

To make matters worse, I'm the King of Introverts. So impostor syndrome can push me deeper into the safe darkness of my shell.

It seems to me that the more effort I put into a project and the more I care about it, the worse impostor syndrome gets.

So far, I haven't been able to end impostor syndrome. And based on other blog posts I've read, it may not be something one can ever overcome. But it's something a lot of people experience, and I've learned that it's something you can manage.

What is Impostor Syndrome?

Impostor syndrome is a pattern of behavior where people doubt their accomplishments. A persistent fear that others will expose them as a fraud accompanies their doubt. This state persists even in the face of external evidence of their competence. In short, despite their accomplishments, people believe they're a fraud. And they think they don't deserve their achievements.

How to Cope with Impostor Syndrome

Impostor syndrome can make you avoid putting your work into the world. It becomes a persistent speed bump that’s always slowing you down. And the anxiety it causes prevents you from living up to the level of your talent. So, it’s in your best interest to deal with it before it becomes a problem.

Here are the strategies I've found to provide some relief.

Slay the Perfectionist Gremlins

It takes me a long time to produce a blog post because I want to make it perfect. I've gotten a little better with experience. But I still go through the write, proof-read, rewrite cycle more than necessary. I never feel like I'm publishing my best work. There's always one more word to change or sentence to restructure.

The thing is, when your audience is a diverse group, you're never going to produce the perfect product. It doesn't matter if it's a book, a blog post, a song, or whatever. Someone can always find something to nitpick no matter how much effort you put into it. So, you're better off letting go of that desire for perfection.

Abandoning that perfectionist instinct will be hard at first. For me, I kept coming up with justifications for putting a little more work into my blog posts. You can make that section flow a bit better, so why not take one more pass through the whole thing? Why not take some time to replace that word with a better word? It's never-ending.

But, one day, as I struggled to finish a post, something hit me. I realized that I wasn't writing Strength and Reason to prove that I'm a great writer. I was writing to inform the reader. And I also realized that I can do that with good writing. Perfect writing isn't necessary.

So, stop trying to be perfect. You’ll not only get more done, but you’ll feel better about what you produce.

Put a Stake Through the Your Ego's Heart: Shift the Focus from You to Your Audience

Striving for perfection is selfish. I told myself I wanted to give my readers the best experience to justify my perfectionism. But, the truth is most readers only care about getting educated on a topic. They don't care about perfect writing. They're happy as long as the posts are readable and informative.

When I realized that readers don't expect perfect, I understood that I had my focus on me, not on my audience. So, I shifted my attention to the reader. Now, when I write, I emphasize clarity and readability over other considerations.

The great thing was when I stopped focusing on my ego, it got easier to write.

Remember, your work is for your audience, not your ego.

Be Honest: Make Your Mama Proud

Authenticity wins people over because it makes you more relatable. But, presenting yourself as perfect and an expert in everything will turn people off. So, don’t try to be something you’re not.

People have a knack for sniffing out phoniness. And they appreciate it when you admit your limitations and imperfections. Don't claim that you're an expert in a particular area. Instead, be clear that you're learning, and you're doing it along with your reader. Be open to corrections and criticism.

I've found that including a list of resources or using footnotes in my blog posts makes me more transparent. When readers see that I'm researching and informing them on a topic, they know that I'm no more of an expert than they are. I'm just doing the service of gathering and presenting information I think will be valuable to them.

Be authentic and transparent. If you’re not an expert, don’t try to make it look like you are.

Own Your Successes, You Paid For 'Em

Sometimes people find it difficult to accept their successes. They attribute wins to luck rather than taking credit for them. You may do this because you're afraid of coming across as arrogant, or your parents raised you to be humble.

Whatever the reason, when you can't accept your successes, you begin to think you don't deserve them. You'll start to question whether you have the knowledge necessary to be successful.

Remember, when you have success, it’s a result of your skill and effort. So, accept it when success comes rolling along.

The truth is, even if luck played a role, you still had something to do with it. At the very least, you took action to start the process that led to your getting lucky. So, own your successes. You had some part in all of them.

Be proud of what you produce and acknowledge the skill and effort that went into creating it.

Keep Pushing Your Boundaries

A lack of confidence is a significant cause of impostor syndrome. Build your confidence by pushing beyond your comfort zone.

Push yourself to keep producing content and putting your work out into the world. The more you create, the more success you have, the more confidence you build. As your successes pile up, you'll come to view yourself as competent and capable.

Nothing destroys doubt better than confidence. So, keep pushing yourself forward.

Conclusion

Dealing with impostor syndrome isn't easy. There's an Internet worth of articles with tips and tricks to overcome it. I don't know how to get rid of it entirely, but the above tactics worked for me to get it under control.

I hope you can use these tips to kick that nagging feeling of inadequacy to the sideline. And get back to producing high-quality work.

Image by Ryan McGuire from Pixabay

- T. Harv Eker

Unlike movies, I’m strict about what I look for in a good book. First, it must answer some immediate question or need. Second, it must provide a transferable framework to improve my decision making. In this review, I’ll explain why Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth,^{[affiliate link]} by T. Harv Eker, does both.

Success Starts with Mindset

Without the right mindset, you fail before you start. But what is the right mindset? How should you alter your thinking to push the odds of financial success into your favor?

According to T. Harv Eker, the answer is in understanding your “money blueprint.” Then, updating your money blueprint to reflect the way rich people think and act.

The basic premise is that your money blueprint, i.e., how you think about money, determines whether you’ll be rich.

People who have a positive money blueprint find it easy to make and keep their money. Those with a negative money blueprint will never have enough.

For example, look at lottery winners who were poor when they won the lottery. It's common for them to lose their prize within a few years of winning it. Now take the self-made millionaire. They make their money through value creation. They don't always keep it, but if they lose it, they manage to get it back. And this may happen several times over.

Overview of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind

Eker divides Secrets of the Millionaire Mind into two sections. We can think of them as the two steps for developing a success mindset: Learn and Reprogram.

Part 1 – Your Money Blueprint

What is Your Money Blueprint?

The first section is what I view as the Learn section. It’s here that Eker explains your money blueprint and how your programming leads to the results you get in life. According to Eker,

“Each of us has a personal money and success blueprint already embedded in our subconscious mind. And this blueprint, more than anything and everything else combined, will determine your financial destiny.”

He goes on to say that,

“[Y]our money blueprint is simply your preset program or way of being, in relation to money.”

This preset program is the result of what our parents, siblings, friends, authority figures, the media, and our culture teach us about money.

Much of that learning came when we were young, but not all. Even as adults, others can still influence us.

Eker next moves on to describe how our programming turns into results.

From Programming to Results

A cause and effect mechanism moves us from programming to results. Our money blueprint is a combination of thoughts, feelings, and actions. So, the cause and effect chain looks like this:

P → T → F → A = R

Our programming leads to thoughts. Our thoughts lead to feelings. Our feelings lead to actions. And our actions lead to results. So, we can see that our programming is the input into the system that leads to our results. When we change our programming, we can improve our results.

Now we know how our programming around money leads to results. Let's move to part 2.

Part 2 – The Wealth Files

In part 2, Eker presents 17 ways that wealthy people think and act that differs from the poor and middle class. What he calls "wealth files."

The wealth files are the ways we must change our thoughts and actions. When we do that, we change the input into the causal chain discussed above. With the input changed, we improve our financial destiny.

The 17 wealth files offer a lot of valuable takeaways. Someone working to take control of their life by building wealth would do well to study them. While all are valuable, I found the following most compelling:

Rich people believe “I create my life.” Poor people believe “Life happens to me.”
Rich people are committed to being rich. Poor people want to be rich.
Rich people think big. Poor people think small.
Rich people focus on opportunities. Poor people focus on obstacles.
Rich people associate with positive, successful people. Poor people associate with negative or unsuccessful people.
Rich people are willing to promote themselves and their value. Poor people think negatively about selling and promotion.
Rich people are bigger than their problems. Poor people are smaller than their problems.
Rich people choose to get paid based on results. Poor people choose to get paid based on time.
Rich people manage their money well. Poor people mismanage their money well.
Rich people act in spite of fear. Poor people let fear stop them.
Rich people constantly learn and grow. Poor people think they already know.

These points seem like common sense. But when I examined some of my recent decisions, it surprised me how much my thinking matched that of a poor person. Now, I'm making a conscious effort to push my money blueprint in the other direction.

Analysis of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind

We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

One lesson from Secrets of the Millionaire Mind^{[affiliate link]} is that we are our own worst enemy. So, we should focus on reprogramming our attitude toward money. Focus our energy on improving ourselves to increase our chance of success. That's a Strength and Reason core value.

Another lesson is that we live in a world of cause and effect. That's yet another core value. Building wealth requires us to take responsibility for our success. That means taking the actions necessary to be successful. Don't wait for the perfect time or for someone else to take the lead.

Eker demonstrates this concept when he explains how our programming leads to results. We must be responsible for changing the input into that cause and effect chain to get better results.

Secrets of the Millionaire Mind contributes to our freedom and independence. As I’ve said, my goal is to build wealth to build freedom. So, a book that teaches me how to develop the proper mindset to build wealth is a valuable tool in my arsenal.

Influences that Shape our Money Blueprint

We’ve established that our programming shapes our attitude towards money. And, our attitude towards money then determines our likelihood of building wealth.

Besides our family, the media and authority figures also contribute to our programming. Many authority figures and people in the media attack the rich as being greedy. Some politicians go so far say they will use government force to take wealth from the rich. They argue that this serves the greater good. In doing so, they paint the rich as villains and the reason why some people are less prosperous.

Given this rhetoric, it’s easy to develop a negative attitude toward building wealth.

Building wealth is our source of independence. So, we must have the tools to overcome that negative programming. When we do so, we can get down to the business of building wealth and gaining freedom.¹

We now see why we must take the lessons in Secrets of the Millionaire Mind to heart.

Conclusion

Secrets of the Millionaire Mind isn’t perfect. For one thing, Eker pushes his seminars a little too hard throughout the book.²

Also, some readers may complain that the book provides too few specific steps to follow. But that's its strength. It avoids specifics to give you an adaptive framework for achieving success.

Secrets of the Millionaire Mind focuses on becoming rich. But with imagination, you can transfer the framework to other areas of life. For example, health and relationships.

Mindset is everything. Secrets of the Millionaire Mind explains the problem then provides a solution. It delivers the message that we are our own worst enemy when it comes to financial success. Then, it gives us the tools to identify and overcome our limiting beliefs, freeing us to build wealth. Remember, use your mind.

1 See my post on Reason for information on why reason and using your mind are essential.

2 Eker published the book in the early 2000s. I don't know if he still does the seminars.

Don't you want to dump a beer over that guy's head? Don't. Instead, shut him up by pointing out his logic errors. Then, leave him speechless with your own, well-reasoned argument.

In this article, I'm going to introduce logical fallacies and provide some examples. Then, I'll give you some tips on how to avoid errors in your reasoning. So, let's get rolling.

What Is A Logical Fallacy?

When we live a life based on reason, we need to be able to identify and avoid logical fallacies. But what is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is an error in reason that often leads to a weak or invalid conclusion.

Remember, when an argument is fallacious, it doesn’t mean that the conclusion is incorrect. It only means that the conclusion doesn't flow from the premises.

If we aren’t careful, that logic error, intentional or not, can lead us astray.

So, when you encounter a logical fallacy, don't assume that the conclusion is incorrect. Instead, put more thought into the argument and do more research if necessary. In the end, you need to determine for yourself the conclusion's strength or validity.

Why Is It Important to Spot a Logical Fallacy?

We must consider all the available information when evaluating an argument. When we don’t, we open the door to logical fallacies.

Many times, a logical fallacy is a mistake resulting from a quick or emotional decision. But, on occasion, people such as politicians and the media, use logical fallacies to blur facts. They then use these blurred facts to create hatred and win votes or sell advertising.

Your ability to spot a logical fallacy is a valuable skill to keep you grounded as close as possible to the truth. It's a tool that rewards you with independent, sound, and rational judgments.

Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments

Before we continue, let's take a step back to understand the two types of arguments. They are deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive

A deductive argument is one in which it's impossible to have true premises and a false conclusion. Take the following case:

(1) All men are mortal (true)

(2) Socrates is a man (true)

(3) So, Socrates is mortal (true)

Since the premises (lines 1 & 2) are true, the conclusion (line 3) must be true. An argument that violates this standard commits a logical error. We describe deductive arguments as either “valid” or “invalid.”

Inductive

An inductive argument is one with true premises but an uncertain conclusion. An inductive argument lacks the rigor of the deductive argument. So, the conclusion is on a sliding scale between valid and invalid. As such, we use the terms “strong” and “weak” to describe good and bad inductive arguments.

The following inductive argument is an example of a strong argument:

(1) Every day to date, the law of gravity has held

(2) So, the law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Gravity has never failed. So, it’s probable that when you jump out of bed tomorrow morning, you’ll land on the floor. Same as every other morning. But we can’t say that for sure.

Overnight some alien could come to Earth and use an unknown weapon to cancel out Earth’s gravity. If that happens, you'll instead wake up in the morning floating above your bed.

Formal vs. Informal Fallacies

Fallacies break down into two broad categories: formal and informal.

Formal

A formal fallacy, also known as a non-sequitur, is an error in a deductive argument's form. It is an error where an argument's conclusion does not follow from its premises. For example:

(1) All sharks are fish

(2) All salmon are fish

(3) So, all salmon are sharks.

Because both sharks and salmon are fish doesn’t mean that salmon and sharks are the same things.

Informal

An informal fallacy is an inductive argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Informal fallacies are what we refer to when we say an argument is a logical fallacy. I’ll go over some examples in the next section.

Logical Fallacy Examples

I’m going to start a series of blog posts discussing common logical fallacies. But, to give you an idea of what a logical fallacy is, here are a few examples.

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

Ad hominem is an attack that shifts focus from the argument to the opponent's character. And the opponent's character is not at issue.

The attacker doesn’t have a counter-argument. So, the attacker resorts to attacking the opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

Example:

Jack says that we need Medicare for All. Everyone knows that Jack is lazy and doesn't want to work hard for anything, so Medicare for All is a bad idea.

Jack may be a lazy clod who only wants a benefit he didn’t earn. But that is irrelevant to whether Medicare for All is a good idea.

Note that even though this argument is a logical fallacy, it doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. It only means that the premises do not support the conclusion. Medicare for All may be a terrible idea, but Jack’s laziness has no bearing on that conclusion.

Strawman

Strawmanning is misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Think of the 3 Little Pigs. The Big Bad Wolf made short work of the straw house but couldn't blow down the brick house. Imagine that the Big Bad Wolf had a magic wand that could turn the brick house to straw. Mr. Big Bad Wolf could now blow the house down.

Now, imagine the magic wand worked on an argument. With one wave of the wand, a person could turn a strong argument into a weak one.

Example:

Jane: I’m against gun control legislation.

Christine: So, you support people shooting up kindergarten classrooms.

In this example, Jane never said that she supported gun violence in classrooms. She only said that she didn’t support gun control legislation. It could be that Jane thinks non-legislative solutions are better to keep guns out of schools.

Strawmanning is a tactic to avoid debating the opponent's real argument. An attacker can also use it to make the opponent's argument appear ridiculous.

Appeal to Authority

How many times have you seen an argument something like this: “Person X said Y, so Y must be true?” We see it in the following examples:

1) celebrities selling goods and services,

2) cable news pundits ranting about social issues, or

3) former government officials criticizing political policy.

Person X may or may not be an authority on the topic, but it doesn’t matter. Because someone is an authority doesn’t mean he's right or isn’t biased.

Example:

Ben is a scientist, and he says global warming is real. So, global warming is real.

In this example, we don’t know Ben’s field of expertise. He could be a biologist who has never studied the environment. Or, the company funding his research may stand to profit from renewable energy.

These are only a few common logical fallacies. There are many more. Check out Logically Fallacious^[affiliate] (website) for more examples.

How to Avoid Logical Fallacies

I haven’t run across a secret formula for avoiding logical fallacies. Like I mentioned in my post on reason, your mind is your best tool to avoid getting misled.

So, what can you do? Start by learning the structure of a persuasive argument. Next, understand the ways an argument may fall apart. Finally, learn the most common logical fallacies.

Remember, the issues we deal with in real life are often complex and multi-faceted. So, don't be hasty and avoid global conclusions. Another good tactic is to eschew either-or arguments since life is not a binary, black-or-white proposition.

When you read or listen to commentary, study the arguments to identify any logical errors. Try to determine if the errors are intentional or if the fallacy is a mistake in reasoning.

Pay special attention to political speech. Politicians are good at misleading voters with logical fallacies.

Pay attention to how logical fallacies creep into your arguments. Then, see if you can rework your case to correct the error.

Understanding Logical Fallacies is Important

Understanding logical fallacies help us recognize when people try to mislead us.

Logical fallacies may be intentional or unintentional. Either way, such errors hurt the credibility of the person making the argument. When used to mislead, such as in a political speech, logical fallacies are even more egregious.

If you don’t know how to spot them, they’ll lure you into an incorrect line of thinking. Worse, if you’re the one making the argument, your credibility gets hurt.

Strength and Reason is about building a life of freedom and independence. Spotting logical fallacies is your best tool to remain an independent thinker. It keeps you from getting swayed by emotional, flawed arguments.

-Thomas Sowell

Why is reason important? Let me start with an example. In December 2018, a couple of days after President Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, a friend of mine who has never been bashful about his dislike for the President criticized the announcement because, he argued, "We either fight them over there or we fight them over here." I don’t remember the specifics of the conversation but I do remember that one line because it’s a frequent justification for current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

To bolster his argument, my friend pointed out that he agrees with Senator Lindsey Graham, who also criticized the President. Since, my friend asserted, he never thought he would agree with Senator Graham on anything, I was to take this as evidence of the correctness of my friend’s criticism of President Trump.

We’ve all heard this type of argument before: First, we’re given a platitude that we’re supposed to believe without the benefit of evidence. Something like: “We either fight them over there or we fight them over here.”

Second, we’re given as support for that platitude some argument like: “I don’t normally agree with person X but in this case, I do, so you should take that as justification that I’m correct.” As if sworn enemies, such as my friend and Lindsey Graham, agreeing on some point is all the proof we need.

Except it isn’t all the proof we need. We must demand more.

In the above example, we know two biases exist:

1. Senator Graham favors armed conflict, hence his carrying the label of a 'war hawk.' So, he’s likely opposed to any decision that reduces the likelihood of armed conflict.

2. My friend opposes President Trump. As far as I know, my friend has never missed an opportunity to criticize the President. In fact, if President Trump were to bring peace and prosperity to the world, my friend would call him a devil-worshipping, authoritarian, dirt-bag for not bringing peace and prosperity sooner.

But what if I were unaware of the biases at play in this example? If I’d accepted the facts as given by the corporate media, Senator Graham, and my friend, I would’ve reached a weaker conclusion.

Reason is our tool to guard against such manipulation because reason seeks the truth while avoiding bias–whether we like that truth or not. That’s why reason is important.

The Overton Window

The Overton window is the idea that public discourse only tolerates a certain range of ideas. The establishment only considers ideas that fall within this window as viable. Any idea that falls outside the window, no matter how much the facts support the idea, is extreme and not taken seriously.

For example, we can discuss whether marijuana should be legal, but not whether the government should have the authority to regulate what substances we put in our bodies.

Noam Chomsky described it best:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. Anyone who steps outside the bounds of acceptable discourse are, at best, labeled crackpots, conspiracy theorists, or, a term popular right now, a Russian asset. At worst, the self-appointed enforcers of public discourse will work to silence such radical, independent thinkers."

In an era of alternative facts, fake news, and quotes taken out of context, reason is increasingly important to maintain our independence.

Politicians present half-truths and make arguments that appeal to emotion while providing minimal, if any, factual support to win our votes.

Corporate media outlets deliver biased news to feed our desire to affirm our own beliefs, even if it means turning friends and family against each other, in the name of making money.

What’s worse, neither seems to care about the negative impact the divisiveness it foments has on the country.

Matt Taibbi, describes media deception in Hate Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another^{[affiliate link]}:

“First, we’re taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we’re all herded into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum of permissible thought.

“Once safely captured, we’re trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for our team, and hate all the rest.

“Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling both.”¹

The Overton window in action.

Use Your Mind

“You have power over your mind–not outside events. Realize this and you will find strength.”

- Marcus Aurelius

We all have a mind, and we are all capable of reason. As Marcus Aurelius pointed out, our rational mind has the power to control our opinions. Our mind gives us the power to stand separate from outside events. As a result, we are better able to see attempts to use biased facts to influence us. These biased facts only control us when we refuse to use that power.

Reason is our tool to cut through the fog of lies and half-truths to reach informed, justified, and supported conclusions.

To do so, we can’t be lazy information consumers living in an echo-chamber of unfettered confirmation bias. Instead, we must expand our sources of information. We can’t shrink from the cognitive dissonance caused by facts and opinions that challenge our beliefs.

As I mentioned above, reason's power lies in its attempt to seek the truth while avoiding bias. In seeking the truth, reason tells us to reject the notion that we should listen to any authority who wants to tell us what to believe.

Instead, we must, through our own research and analysis, determine for ourselves what truth to believe. We won’t always be correct, but by treating reason as an iterative process where we’re constantly updating our conclusions based on new information, we’ll continue to move closer to the truth.

For example, because my coworker drives to work every day in a white car, I can conclude that he’ll drive to work in a white car tomorrow. Suppose, however, that on Tuesday after work, my coworker posts a picture of his new, black car on Instagram. Given this new information, I must update my conclusion from “white car” to “black car.”

We can see that reason protects us from manipulation. But what is reason exactly?

What is Reason?

I recently watched an old episode of Friends. It was the one where Joey figures out that Chandler and Monica are sleeping together. In that episode, Chandler and Monica decide that they want to spend a weekend away together. Since their relationship is secret, they can’t tell the friends group, so each makes up an excuse to escape for the weekend. So far so good.

After the weekend, when Chandler and Monica are back home, Joey tells Chandler that the hotel called to say that someone left an eyelash curler in his room. Chandler bumbles his way to an explanation that the slow-witted Joey accepts.

Later, Monica tells Rachel, in front of the group of friends, that she lost her eyelash curler and asks to borrow Rachel's. It takes a few seconds, but Joey puts two and two together to uncover Chandler’s and Monica's secret. That’s reason: using available evidence to reach a justifiable conclusion.

More specifically, I researched reason on the Internet and found the following definitions:

1. "Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and adapting or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information."

2. "Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic."

3. "Reason is the method of identifying entities through one's senses. It is the means of integrating those perceptions into concepts, gaining knowledge through this integration, integrating that knowledge into the rest of one's knowledge, and evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts. Reason is the process of thinking."

4. "[Reason] (or rationality) is a tradition about how to think properly. It tries to avoid bias and find the truth or not. It avoids superstition, magical thinking, parochialism, faith, hardheadedness, and whim . . . Reason is not about which ideas are true. It's a meta-tradition. It's about how to treat ideas, and how to treat disagreements."

As you can see, there is no hard and fast definition of reason, but all these definitions have the same character. Based on that, my definition of reason is: “collecting and evaluating available evidence for the purpose of deciding the likelihood of something being true.”

Reason is not refusing to look at facts that may contradict your already arrived at conclusion. Indeed, a key part of reason is avoiding the cherry picking of facts to confirm an already reached conclusion, but instead using reason as the framework for finding the correct conclusion given the available evidence.

Reason is using facts to reach a conclusion, not searching out facts to prove a conclusion while ignoring all contradictory evidence.

When using reason, we need to accept that sometimes truth is subjective. An example given on the Farnam Street blog is the difficulty ethicists have in establishing whether something is right or wrong given changing standards over time and varying standards around the world.

Reason is difficult because we all have biases that we must overcome. A lifetime of hearing the opinions and conclusions of our friends, family, teachers, coworkers, and others has influenced us to think in certain ways. We may actively avoid learning new facts that upset our already arrived at conclusions because most of us don’t enjoy having to admit that we’re mistaken.

Mistakes, however, are part of life. None of us is perfect. The strength in reason comes in being able to accept conclusions that do not comport with popular opinion, expose our biases, and invalidate our previous conclusions considering available evidence.

Reason for the Entrepreneur

There are several ways in which reason is important for the entrepreneur. I’m going to cover them in more detail in a later post, but for now, here is a brief rundown.

1. Overcome the deterrent effect of alarmism. Corporate media and politicians are doing their best to convince us that the U.S. is in bad shape and only getting worse. This alarmism has a deterrent effect on people wanting to better themselves. After all, why bother to put the effort if we’re speeding our way to hell in a hand-basket?

2. Fear that friends and family will see us in a negative light can deter would-be entrepreneurs from starting a business. Politicians and media want to paint entrepreneurs as greedy and the cause of many, if not all, of these exaggerated problems. Reason will show you that entrepreneurs are not only good for an economy, but they're also essential to a strong economy.

3. Reason helps you build a solid business:

   1. Reason keeps you from becoming emotionally tied to a product or idea that isn’t working.

   2. Reason is an iterative process that keeps success and failure in perspective. When you start a new endeavor, you’re going to make mistakes. Reason is the process where you gather new information based on your mistakes and update your conclusions to make them stronger.

   3. Reason keeps the business building process in perspective. The Internet is full of training programs that promise riches with minimal work. Reason keeps you from falling for such marketing puffery and wasting money on useless get-rich-quick programs. The truth is, building anything takes hard work and patience.

Conclusion

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”

- Friedrich Nietzsche

There is an unprecedented amount of information at our fingertips. Unfortunately, the reward for presenting misleading information is great enough that politicians and corporate media do so without a second thought. When we accept what others say without casting a critical eye in their direction, we cede away our independence. Reason, in providing a framework to evaluate facts for ourselves, is our tool to prevent that from happening.

Without reason, we cannot have freedom.

If you like this post, please comment or share it.

1 Taibbi, Matt. Hate Inc.: Why Todays Media Makes Us Despise One Another. New York: OR Books, 2019, 21.