Random thoughts (5)

Four decades ago, I was the manager of a corporate department that frequently needed temporary secretarial help. By far, the two best secretaries I ever hired were a young Mormon and a retired U.S. Marine. Since then, in the course of business, I’ve met other Mormons and Marines, all superior producers. I’m self-employed now, and that’s probably a good thing, because corporate types tell me that nowadays managers can be fired for noticing differences in productivity.

I used to patronize a certain long-established local printing company. One day in 2008 when I was picking up my letterhead and envelopes, the saleswoman announced, “We’re a green printer now.” This mature, practical, capable woman whom I had known for many years was disturbingly out of character; she was wearing a dreamy, cultish expression and her voice was ethereal and creepy. A few months later, the owner suddenly laid everyone off, closed the business and sold the presses. Coincidence? I don’t know; nobody from the company would talk publicly about anything.

Do you remember this? Customer service reps who asked you for your telephone number would read it back to you, to check whether they had typed it correctly. Well, you’ve probably noticed that a lot of reps don’t bother to do that any more. And the ones who do bother will read back only the last four digits. Sometimes, when I’m not in a hurry, I’ll experiment. I’ll say, “No, my number is not 2789. It’s 603-279-2789.” Usually, the rep will respond, “Right. 2789.” Or sometimes, “2789. Right.” I call these people “The Oblivitons” – short for “oblivious automatons.”

We writers are usually chagrined (I know I am) whenever we learn that we have committed a fallacy – that is to say, whenever we make a mistake that’s so common it actually has a name. The fact is, we don’t want to be common in any way. Like Luisa in The Fantasticks, we pray, “Please, God, please, don’t let me be normal!”

The Takeaway: Be here now.

See disclaimer.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (37) – John Derbyshire

The controversial mathematician, author and essayist John Derbyshire (pictured) provides a good example of concision and clarity in this response to a reader’s point:

• Reader’s point: Seems you really don’t want to associate with NAMs.  [I.e. Non-Asian Minorities, 32.9 — JD]

• Author’s reply:     Let me tell you who I want to associate with: people like me.

What’s the criterion for “people like me”? Obviously it isn’t race, or I would have made a different choice of marriage partner [Mr. Derbyshire’s wife is Chinese — Mr. C.]. Obviously it isn’t nationality, or I would never have left my home country [He moved from the United Kingdom to the USA — Mr. C.]. It’s not religion, either: my friends run the gamut from High Church Anglican to Falun Gong. It isn’t even politics: my wife, most of our neighbors, and several of my friends, are political liberals.

The criterion, as nearly as I can pin it down, is: I want to associate with bourgeois people — people whose have bourgeois attitudes and behaviors.

It would, it seems to me, be absurd to avoid association with any individual person because of some accidental quality like race (or nationality, or height, or education, or religious confession, or political affiliation). On the other hand, I would prefer to live my life as far away as possible from people who take illegal drugs, or practice promiscuous sexual behavior, or use bad language in ordinary speech, or don’t consider industrious support of self and family to be an important value, or are uninterested in the glories of Western Civilization, or break the law often enough to make themselves interesting to the police.

Plenty of NAMs are bourgeois, and plenty of non-NAMs are non-bourgeois. The regrettable fact is, though, that the proportion of bourgeois among NAMs is way lower than among non-NAMs — look at the crime statistics. If I practice generalized NAM avoidance, that is the reason. For example, I want my kids to grow up with bourgeois values. My judgment is, that they are more likely to do so if educated in schools with not too many NAM students. (My local high school is actually 35 percent NAM, which is a tad more than I’d like, but the best I can do on my income. Low-NAM school districts, like other much-desired goods of limited supply, are expensive [32.8].)

To judge from the data in my education chapter [122.9 etc.], my preferences in this regard are shared by most Americans. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with such preferences. If you think there’s something wrong with them, tell me what it is. Then, go tell the couple of hundred million Americans who, to judge by patterns of voluntary residential and educational segregation noted in by book, share my preferences.

Analysis: The reader misstated Mr. Derbyshire’s preferences and insinuated his disagreement with the misstated preferences, so Mr. Derbyshire took pains to restate his preferences. His preferences are complex but he stated them clearly and concisely. Then he politely challenged the reader to state (as opposed to insinuate) his disagreement:

If you think there’s something wrong with [my preferences], tell me what it is.

Please keep in mind that this is a blog about clear writing. When I select samples for this blog, it is because the writing is especially clear (or especially unclear). Any opinions expressed in samples are irrelevant to my purpose here. I’m not pushing opinions; I’m pushing clear writing.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful diction and the scatterbrain diction (sample here) that besets us every day. The topic you select for your reading doesn’t matter, because you’re reading for style not content. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

See disclaimer.

More on fallacies

When debating a topic, we often make the mistake of resorting to fallacies. We are especially prone to making this mistake when the topic is controversial. Here’s an example.

The Denver Post reported that Richard Lamm, a former governor of Colorado, had said that blacks and Latinos lack the drive and ambition of Asians and Jews. Six people spoke to the Post about Mr. Lamm’s assertion, but none of them (insofar as they were quoted by the Post) directly stated whether the assertion was true or false. Instead, they used fallacies:

“Dick Lamm is out of control. [Argumentum ad Hominem] We are not victims [Straw Man], and to take our culture and our way of living and our whole being and try to turn us into something else devalues who we are as Latinos and as blacks. [Straw Man] He goes around wanting to make people think he is Mary Poppins [Straw Man], when the reality is that he is a hard-core racist.” [Argumentum ad Hominem]

“I can’t account for statements that seem to condone sophisticated kinds of racial profiling and racial characterization.” [Red Herring]

“To say that in the face of César Chávez and Martin Luther King [Red Herring] and some of the other pioneers from the minority community is appalling.” [Appeal to Emotion]

The type of generalizations Lamm made “are not constructive to finding solutions.” [Appeal to Consequences]

“To me, cultural criticism is the opposite of racism. Racial characterizations are not chosen, but culture is. If the data suggests that some cultural attitudes are working more than others, why not make the change? [Appeal to Consequences] For there to be this thought police crackdown against a Dick Lamm to punish him for raising this issue, it’s a disservice [Red Herring] to people who find themselves at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in America. They need all the encouragement and the tough love to help them climb that ladder.” [Appeal to Pity]

“I reject those sentiments [Appeal to Emotion], I do not share them [Appeal to Emotion], and I think to make that suggestion is flat-out wrong.” [Appeal to Emotion]

The Takeaway: Be careful to avoid fallacies in your writing and speech; instead, use direct, clear and rational language. In situations where you are afraid to use direct, clear and rational language, don’t write or say anything – resorting to fallacies makes you sound shifty and evasive.

Disclaimer: I do not know or care whether Mr. Lamm’s assertion is true or false. My purpose in this post is to point out examples of invalid argument: six people who presumably do care a lot about whether the assertion is true or false avoided that question as if it were poison. Please remember, I do not choose examples for the ideas they express. I choose examples for their value as illustrations of especially bad (sometimes especially good) writing and speaking. Also see my general disclaimer.

A fallacy festival

Here’s a video that shows a speaker (U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, pictured) using ten fallacies in a row while answering a question. The video is ten minutes long, but it is worth watching; it will improve your ability to spot fallacies in others’ (or your) speech and writing.

According to the narrator of the video, the speaker uses these fallacies in her answer:

Straw Man
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Accomplishment
Appeal to Emotion
Straw Man (also an Appeal to Pity)
Red Herring
Straw Man
Mind Control
False Analogy
False Analogy

The Takeaway: Don’t talk or write like a politician. Talking or writing like a politician makes you sound shifty.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this post is not a legal opinion. It is not an argument for or against restrictions on gun ownership; it is a commentary on diction and logic. Also see my general disclaimer.

The five most popular posts

This week is the blog’s fifth anniversary (founded April 20, 2008). I thought I would show you the five all-time most-visited posts. Yes, that’s an obvious thing to do on an anniversary – however, because this is an educational blog, I pay close attention to which topics are attracting readers the most.

Here are the five posts:

“Having said that.” Most writers who use this fad expression confuse and irritate their readers. (October 1, 2008)

The danger of euphemism. How a nurse used a politically correct euphemism in order to increase the self-esteem of an incarcerated serial rapist; the euphemism allowed the rapist to escape. (November 21, 2008)

Empathetic and persuasive writing. Dale Carnegie analyzes a sales letter by telling us – line by line – how he reacts as a reader of the letter. Do this kind of analysis yourself and make your letters (emails, ads, web site) more empathetic and persuasive. (August 30, 2010)

A common fallacy. We writers should diligently strive to avoid using fallacies. One of the more common fallacies is “cherry picking.” (February 7, 2011)

Mixed metaphors. Thomas L. Friedman is a heavy user of mixed metaphors. He appears to be genuinely unaware of how clownish his writing sounds. But with three Pulitzers on his resume, Mr. Friedman can get away with such carelessness. Unfortunately, you and I cannot. (February 25, 2013)

The Takeaway: Thank you for your attention – today and over the years. I welcome your suggestions on topics to cover; please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Best to you.

See disclaimer.

Specious writing

Specious writing is writing that appears to be plausible but contains one or more fallacies.

Examples of specious writing

The American historian and economist Thomas E. “Tom” Woods, Jr., wrote an article criticizing portions of the book The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913, by the American historian Walter LaFeber.

Here are two passages from the article:

“LaFeber notes that between 1897 and 1904 (but really 1899 and 1902) ‘the greatest corporate merger movement in the nation’s history occurred.’ He chooses to omit the central point that most of these mergers failed. By leaving that out, LaFeber leaves us to imagine these great behemoths growing without limit, suffocating the poor consumer until the wise hand of government brings relief.” (Emphasis in original article.)

In this case, it is the omission of a material fact that makes the language specious.

“Andrew Carnegie, LaFeber tells us, ‘later admitted that he used the 1873 to 1875 depression years to buy cheaply and save 25 percent of his costs.’ Note the choice of the word ‘admitted,’ as if buying cheaply and keeping costs low were some kind of conspiracy against the public.”

In this case, it is the use of a loaded word that makes the language specious.

The Takeaway: Specious writing (whether intentional or unintentional) can attract embarrassingly accurate criticism. Unless you intend to be specious, seek the help of an intelligent editor who can keep you out of trouble.

See disclaimer.

Fallacies (4) - false dichotomy (2)

False dichotomy* is the fallacy of presenting two alternatives when in fact more than two alternatives are available. If done deliberately, it is a form of rhetorical bullying. A more detailed definition is here.

Example of a false dichotomy

Rutgers University historian David Greenberg, in the New York Times, writes (requires login):

“Suddenly, after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years, isolationism – a stance that rejects America’s leadership role in the world – is on the rise among Republicans.”

American author Justin Raimondo reacts:

“By posing a false choice between a hyperactive foreign policy and an ‘isolationist’ one, the War Party gets to argue as if they are the reasonable ones, and everyone else – in this case, most of the country – are marginal cranks.” (Emphasis in original.)

The Takeaway: In any formal writing or formal public speaking, be careful whenever you present an either-or choice. You may be overlooking additional alternatives, which is the fallacy of false dichotomy. False dichotomy can make you look like a fool or a bully. Your readers or listeners may call you on it.

Related: Fallacies (2) – cherry picking

See disclaimer.

*Also called false dilemma, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. More here. Dichotomy, from the Greek for cut in two, means division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions. More here.

Fallacies (4) - false dichotomy

False dichotomy* is the fallacy of presenting two alternatives when in fact more than two alternatives are available. If done deliberately, it is a form of rhetorical bullying. Here’s a more detailed definition.

Two historical examples of false dichotomy

1844

“Fifty-four Forty or Fight” was the campaign slogan of James Knox Polk (pictured). Mr. Polk and other Democrats wanted the U.S. Government to control all the land in the Pacific Northwest as far north as 54° 40′ N. (The government of Great Britain controlled Canada.)

Clearly there were more alternatives than a latitude and a war. For example, what if the government of Great Britain offered Mr. Polk the entire land mass of Australia? Would he have turned it down, stamped his foot like a child, and insisted on Fifty-four Forty?

In fact, after Mr. Polk was elected U.S. President, the two governments reached a compromise at 49° N. Not one shot had been fired.

1931

Florence Reece wrote the song “Which Side Are You On?” A bullying tone is unmistakable in the lyrics, which say that a coal miner in Harlan County (KY) who doesn’t join the United Mine Workers is “a thug for (mining boss) J. H. Claire.”

Clearly a miner would have had several additional alternatives, including seeking another line of work (I’m not saying this alternative would have been easy or attractive, only that it existed).

There is nothing wrong with asking people to choose either of two alternatives. The fallacy – and the bullying – is in the refusal to consider alternatives beyond the two. By refusing to consider them, the speaker or writer attempts to forestall negotiation and to distract the listener or reader from examining the situation for himself. He’s like a used-car salesman trying to hustle someone into signing a contract.

The Takeaway: In any formal writing or formal public speaking, be careful whenever you present an either-or choice. You may be overlooking additional alternatives, which is the fallacy of false dichotomy. Often some of the additional alternatives are obvious (to intelligent readers and listeners if not the general public), as in the above examples. False dichotomy can make you look like a fool or a bully. Your readers or listeners may call you on it.

Related: Fallacies (2) – cherry picking

See disclaimer.

*Also called false dilemma, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. More here. Dichotomy, from the Greek for cut in two, means division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions. More here.

Fallacies (3) – anecdotal evidence

There is nothing wrong with the informal use of anecdotal evidence (stories and examples) to explain or support a position or to “prove” a point. For example, we all do it frequently in conversation, and reporters do it in news articles. This use of anecdotal evidence is not usually considered a fallacy.

But in a formal report, such as a report of a scientific study, it is a fallacy to use anecdotal evidence if (1) the evidence is questionable or (2) the amount of evidence, however sound in itself, is insufficient. (More detail here.) Of course, the conclusion may be valid notwithstanding.

An example of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence

For example, during the 1940s the U.S. Government decided to introduce sodium fluoride into municipal water systems in the United States. This decision was based on only one study of fluoridation, conducted in the cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. In that study, fluoride appeared to help prevent dental cavities in children between five and nine years of age.

Today, many dentists and doctors are reconsidering whether fluoridation was prudent. I am not arguing for or against fluoridation here; my point is that the government apparently began, based on a small amount of evidence, a massive public health program that treated people of all ages. This action was probably a fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

The Takeaway: If you have occasion to write formal reports, be aware of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. Ask whether your evidence is: (1) sound in itself and (2) sufficient to warrant generalization.

Related: Fallacies (2) – cherry picking

See disclaimer.

Fallacies (2) – cherry picking

Cherry picking is a familiar fallacy in research.* A simple definition of cherry picking is “the intentional or unintentional** selection of evidence to prove one’s point or support one’s position, in research that is presumably objective.” Here’s a more detailed definition.

The activity of cherry picking is very common; so is the allegation of cherry picking. Here are some examples of the contexts in which cherry picking may occur or may be alleged to occur (I do not know or care whether these allegations are correct or incorrect).

Examples of actual or alleged cherry picking

First example

“[News reports that allege ‘Facebook raises cancer risk’ are] based on an appalling article by psychologist Aric Sigman which was published in the magazine Biologist. You can read it online as a pdf and it is a wonderful example of cherry-picking evidence and citing correlations as causes.” Full story

Second example

“[Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council] told TheDC that the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] cherry-picked the scientific evidence it chose to cite against the Family Research Council and other similar groups in its related report, titled ‘10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked,’ and ignored contrary evidence.” Full story

Third example

“[The United Kingdom’s national weather service] was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming. UK climatologists ‘probably tampered with Russian-climate data’ to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.” Full story

Fourth example

“[Two researchers who studied the risk of cancer among smokeless tobacco users] make it clear that they produced their summary estimates by either combining risks for exclusive users (i.e. 1.8 and 0.85), or risks for users who might have smoked (0.9 and 1.67). This is both logical and scientifically valid. But which estimates did [another researcher] use? The highest, of course. For the Lancet study he used the estimate of 1.8 in exclusive users, but for the International Journal of Cancer study he used the estimate of 1.67 in smokeless users who might have smoked. His goal was to maximize the health risks from smokeless tobacco use…. The scientific term for this epidemiologic method is cherry picking.” Full story

Fifth example

“Many [securities] trading systems do backfitting, avoiding the recessions or downturns. It is easy to find an indicator that gave a definitive signal when looking at past data. The problem is that such systems, lacking rigorous development of hypotheses, failing to use out-of-sample data, and willing to accept an insufficient number of cases, usually produce post-diction rather than robust predictive models.” Full story

The Takeaway: Remember that clear writing presupposes clear thinking. Try to avoid fallacies such as cherry picking.

See disclaimer.

*In debating, selling, and litigating, the use of cherry picking is not usually considered a fallacy; generally, one is assumed to be subjectively promoting one’s own position. But in research, one is assumed to be striving for objectivity.

**Unintentional (often unconscious) bias is very common; we all prefer familiar evidence to strange evidence and comforting evidence to disturbing evidence. But we must overcome this preference.

Fallacies (1) – sunk costs

The fallacy of sunk costs is one of dozens of common fallacies. A fallacy is any example of “[p]lausible but invalid reasoning.” Many fallacies have been known since ancient times.

The fallacy of sunk costs is the consideration of spent time or spent money as a factor in a decision.

For example, an investor holds 500 shares of a stock, and is trying to decide whether to sell the shares. The shares have lost 40 percent of their value since he bought them. He would like to sell in order to invest the proceeds elsewhere. He would also like to hold the 500 shares until he regains the value he has lost. So, he is torn.

But the amount he has lost in the past, however painful it may feel to him, is irrelevant. It should not be a factor in the present. He should consider only the likely future performance of the shares as compared to the likely future performance of the other investment he could make if he liquidates the shares.

For more detail on the fallacy of sunk costs, read this easy-to-follow article by business coach Paul Lemberg.

Here’s an excerpt:

Sunk costs are sunk.

They are gone.

They are spent.

The assets you’ve created may have some surplus value, like unused inventory. Or they may have salvage value [like gold in a shipwreck]… But in many cases the value of your sunk costs is a tiny fraction of the original price.

The Takeaway: Remember that clear writing presupposes clear thinking. Try to avoid fallacies such as the fallacy of sunk costs. Best wishes for the New Year.