3 replies to this topic

[Ashton]

A by no means exhaustive compilation on species of malreasoning encountered in Socionics, subtle and obvious forms alike. The scope of this survey on bad thinking is divided into two categories: Logical Fallacy and Methodological Fallacy. Some of these are conventionally familiar forms of malreasoning, others I've crafted definitions where an adequate existing parallel was unavailable. This list will be continually revised and updated.

You'll probably notice a bit of overlap in some of these, where one could be seen as a redundant variation or extension of another. This is intentional where I felt like the specificity was worth illustrating.

Logical Fallacy

False Analogy: Asserting that X is like Z, and that since Z has property Y, then X also has property Y.

Fairly ubiquitous practice in Socionics when discussing the theory and what different concepts mean. Aushra herself often employed false analogies when discussing information metabolism and functions (though it's not certain how literal these were meant to be taken).

Example: "Se is like Kinetic Energy. Kinetic Energy pertains to movement. Therefore Se pertains to movement." (paraphrase)

Hypostatization: Treating an abstraction, concept, or theoretical construct as if it were something concrete, tangible, or a real entity. Also inversely known as Reification.

Example: Citing particular descriptors in Socionics type profiles as direct corresponding evidence to support one's case for someone (or themselves) being a particular type.

Vagueness: Use of a term/concept in which there are no clear semantic boundaries on when, where, or how it applies. Often this takes the form of a Nominal Fallacy, where it's assumed that because something has been given a name, it has therefore been explained.

Example: Ill-defined usage of information aspects in a poorly explained manner without clear qualification of what they mean or refer to, such as the following all too common scenario -

A: "What is Ni?"
B: "Ni is Internal Field Dynamics."
A: "Okay, what do those words mean?"
B: "Ni deals with internal, dynamic, and field aspects."
A: "You're not answering my question."

Equivocation: Use of a term in two or more different senses/meanings within the same statement. Related to Shifting Ground.

Example:

Redefinition: An ad-hoc change to a definition of a term, done for the particular purpose of attempting to dismiss an opposing statement. Also known as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

Example:
A: "No <type> does this. Person X does this, therefore they cannot be <type>.
B: "But Person Y does this too, how are they <type> then?"
A: "Yes that is correct, but no true <type> does this in that particular <insert ad hoc redefinition> way Person X does."
B: "… ?"

Aside from making deceitful argument tactics easier to employ, the cohesive lack of clear and established semantics standard is a pervasive issue in Socionics yet to be addressed. Nominally, many people speak in the same terms, concurrent with a myriad of individually differing interpretations in both conceptual and operational nuance of said terms. Even most basic Socionics nomenclature lacks adequate denotation: Introversion/Extroversion, Accepting/Producing, Temperaments, Information Elements, etc. The majority of Socionics disputes invariably revolve around pointless language debates over hazy semantics. Conversely, participants can frequently talk past one other without realizing it, leading to mutual agreements on POVs which are commensurable in name only and otherwise wouldn't happen if it were clearer what was actually meant.

Proof by Anecdote: Use of case-based reasoning (casuistry) to purportedly prove or disprove something about a general theory or construct.

Example: "My <friend, relative, whatever> is type is X, therefore I know for a fact that type X really is like this." This also ignores the possibility that the person they know may not be type X.

Cherry Picking: Pointing to particular instances/examples that seem to confirm an assertion and justify one's position, ignoring other evidence that would contradict that position. Also known as "Confirmation Bias." Related to the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Example:
A: "Person X did this one particular action one time, therefore it is obvious that this person is an <type>."
B: "But Person X has also done all these other things on so many different occasions that I would suggest are contrary to the <type> you are asserting. I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion so quickly."
A: "That is all irrelevant. It is clear that anyone who has ever done this one particular action is an <type>."
B: "Um..."

Proof by Repetition: Asserting the same proposition and/or case repeatedly in the face of contradictory arguments, leaving their opponent(s) rebuttals entirely unaddressed. Gradually opponent(s) are worn down by sheer force of attrition and give up trying to reason with the person, leaving the fallacious claim unopposed.

Typically among a group, this form of argument can induce an "echo chamber effect." That is, with enough frequency and lack of opposition, the fallacious claim begins to be accepted as legitimate as if by osmosis. Eventually nearly everyone takes the claim for granted as true by default and scarcely anyone seems to remember a time when it wasn't.

Appeal to Authority: Asserting or implying that some statement/theory is more (or less) valid on account of who said it or what source it came from.

Example: Backing one's claim with something along the lines of, "This is what Socionists believe, this is what the experts on Socionics have said, this is the opinion of Socionist X, therefore..."

There are other problems with this defense. "Socionists" is typically undefined, leaving open the question of who or what Socionists are being referred to. Also, what exactly is it that makes one a Socionist or Socionics expert anyway? Are there rigorous accreditation standards for this sort of thing? What qualifications justify their statements as having more credibility than others?

Appeal to Common Practice: Asserting or implying that some statement/theory is more (or less) valid on the basis of it being (or not being) in accordance with what is (or professed to be) the standard, accepted, or mainstream paradigm.

Example: Arguing that one is speaking from a "Classical Socionics" POV, and/or dismissing something by fiat on grounds that it is "not Classical Socionics."

There presently exists no definite explication of what exactly it is that constitutes so-called "Classical Socionics" theory - making it essentially a contentless buzz-phrase at best that could arbitrarily be used to represent an ulterior viewpoint. Furthermore, it seems to have inherited the same fundamental flaw suffered by the rest of Socionics in general, which is that the basic semantics used are in critical need of established and consistent denotation (see Redefinition).

False Dilemma: Also known as the "Either/or Fallacy" and "Many Questions Fallacy." Assertions of this form attempt to isolate the crux of an issue as being wholly contingent upon some binary-valued outcome. This fallacy is especially subversive, since not only does it ignore the range of other possible outcomes, but also narrows the scope of an issue down in such a way that is non-comprehensive of other relevant dependencies (evidence, variables, etc.) involved in the issue.

Often this sort of fallacy is used in attempts to redefine the criteria by which the validity of an opponent's argument may be considered, clandestinely shifting the burden of proof in such a way that makes their opponent's stance easily refutable or at least impossible to confirm. This seems to be one of the most popular fallacies to fall for, as people will often accept the invitation of a false dilemma, unknowingly complicit in agreeing to play by rules that are intended to entrap them.

Argument from Fallacy: Asserting that because an argument itself given to support a proposition was fallacious, then the proposition must also be false. Straw Man fallacies often take this form.

Smorgasbord Thinking: Inventing ad-hoc hypotheses to defend a theory post-hoc when contradictions to it are encountered. Often times this is unconscious.

Loki's Wager: Unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.


Methodological Fallacy

Fundamental Attribution Error: Interpreting an individual's behavior without regard to the situational context in which the action was observed, and then deeming the action as something inherent to that individual's personality or character. Related to Cherry Picking.

Example: "Person X exhibited <some vaguely defined and general behavior>, therefore Person X is <some type commonly associated with that vaguely defined and general behavior>."

False Colligation: Fallacious conjoining of facts/evidence into a pattern alleged to reveal a general principle or prove a certain claim. False Colligations are often built upon a cumulated series of Cherry Picked premises. Justifications of this nature can often appear readily valid and reasonable when its premises consist of objective data - but are actually misleading because the objective data given has been arranged into connections not objectively given, for the sake of corroborating what is a more genuinely subjective idea or conclusion. Generally speaking, False Colligations do not occur as deliberate attempts by a person to consciously deceive others, but rather are born from a person not recognizing, for whatever reason, the extent to which their own thought processes and outlooks are being skewed by non-objective biases.

Example: Fairly self-explanatory. Anything along the lines of, "Person A has done 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore we can quite clearly see on the basis of this collection of evidence that they must be <type>." Niffweedian subjective analyses exemplify this fallacy.

Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth: Assuming that because an argument/theory/system is deductively valid then it also true in reality. Also related to the Hypostatization.

Positivist Fallacy: Asserting that because no evidence exists for a phenomenon, that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Absence of evidence treated as evidence of absence. Also known as "Fallacy of Negative Proof." Exceptions to this fallacy might be situations involving an either/or outcome strictly between 2 possibilities, where it may be reasonable to infer the existence of one due to non-existence of the other.

Validity Problem: When an operational definition of a term/variable fails to reflect the theoretical meaning of the term/variable.

Example: Definitions of functions that reduce processes of information metabolism into sets of ostensible behavioral traits or as competencies in certain skill-sets, when it is not clear that such a reduction meaningfully refers to anything about that function. For instance, saying "Se = aggression, will power, crude language" would constitute an inappropriate operational definition. This is also a problem with Reinin Dichotomies, Temperaments, etc.

Fallacy of Compromise: Assumes that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two or more competing positions. Otherwise known as the "Golden Mean Fallacy."

Truth by Social Consensus: An approach which assumes that the most valid point of view is one in which there exists a generalized agreement by a majority of the group as being true.

Example: Any argument implying that opinion polls, such as Socionics Benchmarks or Consensus Lists, are demonstrative proof of a type claim.

Truth by Plurality: An approach which assumes that the most valid conclusion can be converged upon by being inclusive of as many viewpoints as possible.

Example: Forum discussions in general. Wikisocion.

Truth by "Survival of the Fittest": An assumption that the most valid ideas can be arrived at by way of debate and argument between competing points of view, emerging victoriously through force of superior reason and justification that drives inferior ideas to extinction.

Example: Most forum debates.

Quantitation Fallacy: Assuming that a theory is more likely be true simply because it can be expressed mathematically and/or is supported with use of quantitative analysis.

Example: Smilexian Socionics.

Relativist Fallacy: Asserting that two potentially contradictory statements/theories/models which refer to the same aspect of reality can both be equally valid because "truth is only relative" to the context of your own perspective, or theoretical outlook, or model/system, etc. Polylogism is an instance of the Relativist Fallacy.

In Socionics, the Relativist Fallacy often manifests as an unreasonable insistence that the phenomenon which the theory/model pertains to, must be discussed and evaluated exclusively within a certain paradigm particular to that theory. Other theories concerning same, similar, or related phenomenon are deemed incommensurable to the context of this theory, and hence irrelevant. This effectively avoids any question of the theory's consilience with other knowledge about reality, resulting in a closed, circular epistemology where the theory can only be understood according to itself - as if to say, "the theory is valid because the theory says the theory is valid." Can also be called the "Model A Fallacy." Also see the Black Box Fallacy.

Example: Arguments that Jung's function and temperament descriptions are not relevant to understanding functions/temperaments in the context of Socionics, on the grounds that Jungian typology and Socionics somehow refer to completely different things. This absurd claim is professed despite the fact that Aushra's work in Socionics is fundamentally contingent upon and make direct use Jung's work in psychological functions. Similar arguments are also made from time to time that contemporary psychological research has no bearing on Socionics.

Black Box Fallacy: Premises that an entity's characteristics may be presented in terms of a model, and that correspondence to the model implies essential similarity. Something like primitive thinking by analogy, i.e.: If two things look alike, they are alike; the question of what prior conditions result in correspondence to the model is considered secondary and unimportant. The implicit idea is that as long as we don't see what is happening inside the box, all that counts is what comes out of the box. What is unseen is relegated to the realm of non-identity (see Epistemic Fallacy), hence that which can't be observed from without and superficially congealed into the model is dismissed as stupid, crazy, "merely subjective," or "not Socionics." In very simple situations, the Black Box approach isn't necessarily unreasonable: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then chances are it's a duck. The problem is that to understand reality in all but these very simple instances, it is not enough to merely collate a set of particular data with a particular model. One must also discover the preconditions of observation, and be able to recognize when an existing conceptual framework is inadequate, how it should be improved upon, or if it ought to be abandoned entirely.

Example: Type-by-behavioral-trait approaches in general.

Epistemic Fallacy: Assertions about the nature/being (ontology) of an entity, reduced to existing theory/knowledge (epistemology) about that entity. Theoretical representations are assumed equivalent to the existent world (see Hypostatization), regardless of whether the theory sufficiently or accurately encompasses the entities it (supposedly) refers to. Methodologically, this assumption is an inverted approach to understanding reality: That is, the nature of reality becomes implicitly regarded as supervenient upon our theories about reality, and real entities become mere abstract theory-dependent constructs whose properties are defined by their theoretical parameters. As a result, any methodology derived from this approach will be ontologically oblivious. No matter how rigorously designed and executed the method of study, it is unlikely to apply to reality in a meaningful way such that it yields accurate/useful knowledge about it's object of study. A method must be amenable to the nature of what is being studied, in the same sense that a tool is only useful for tasks it is appropriately designed for - a hammer is great at hammering nails; usually not so great at hammering screws.

Example: Social sciences are notorious for attempting to emulate the research methodologies of the natural sciences. For instance, mainstream economists study the economic behavior of individuals and societies as if it were an objective natural phenomena that can be observed, measured, quantitated, and analyzed for causal regularities deducible into "economic laws." The economist attempts to carry out their study similar in manner to the way a physicist studies the tangible behavior of matter and energy. The difference here of course is that the nature of what a physicist studies, is less complex than the nature of what an economist studies; systems of people are exponentially greater in complexity and characteristic unpredictability relative to isolated systems of particles. Which makes the latter amenable to methods of objective measurement and quantitative analysis, whereas the former is not. Hence, such methods yield useful information when applied to matters of physics, and misleading convolutions when applied to economic matters. And given rise to "economic laws" in form of obtuse mathematical theorems and idealized econometric models which fail to render useful predictions or explanatory power regarding real-world economic behavior.


Fallacies I Might Add

Appeal to Motive / Bulverism
The "You Don't Know Me in Real Life" Fallacy (pending better name)
Frozen Abstraction
Boolean Fallacy
Falsifiability Fallacy
Moving Goalpost
Simplistic Complexity
Spurious Superficiality
I-Cubed
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Perspectivist Fallacy
Hyperliteralization
Discovery Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Egocentric Bias
False Cause
False Dichotomy
Slanting Fallacy
Contextomy
Appeal to Ridicule
Hypocrisy
Burden of Proof
Red Herring
Begging the Question
Straw Man
Shifting Ground
Fallacy of Accident

[Ajax]

good thread, it needs to be continued

[Golden]

Very cool. Given my way of thinking, it could take me weeks to absorb those concepts--and they're worth going sponge-y over.

[Ashton]

Golden, on 11 October 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

Very cool. Given my way of thinking, it could take me weeks to absorb those concepts--and they're worth going sponge-y over.

Thanks. I might update some of these / add some in the list sometime soon.