Are we celebrating the wrong leaders?

 Here are some examples of the action fallacy as defined by "the best leaders are those that generate the most noise, action, sensational activity in the most dramatic circumstances":

1. Claiming that a political leader is effective simply because they frequently make controversial statements or take divisive actions that generate a lot of media attention and public outcry. This confuses sensationalism with actual leadership qualities like sound judgment, vision, and the ability to unite people.
2. Arguing that a CEO is a great leader because they constantly shake up the company with dramatic reorganizations, high-profile firings, and splashy new initiatives. While such actions create a perception of activity, they do not necessarily translate into positive results or effective leadership.
3. Asserting that a military commander is skilled because they favor bold, risky maneuvers that create dramatic battlefield situations, regardless of whether those tactics achieve strategic objectives or result in excessive casualties.
4. Praising an activist as a great leader solely because they organize attention-grabbing protests, civil disobedience, and confrontational tactics, without evaluating whether their methods are ethical, legal, and effective at achieving their stated goals.
5. Judging the leadership of a sports coach primarily by how much they yell, argue with officials, and create emotionally-charged sideline scenes, rather than their ability to develop strategy, motivate players, and produce winning results.

In each case, the action fallacy occurs by equating leadership quality with the generation of noise, drama, and sensationalism, instead of directly assessing the leader's competence, decision-making, integrity, and ability to achieve positive outcomes through their actions.

Fallacies of Capitalism 12: The Lump of Labour Fallacy

The Lump of Labour Fallacy

The lump of labor fallacy is a mistaken belief that there is only a fixed amount of work or jobs available in an economy. It suggests that if someone gains employment or works fewer hours, it must mean that someone else loses a job or remains unemployed. However, this idea is flawed.

Here's a simple explanation:

1. Fixed Pie Fallacy: Imagine a pie that represents all the available work in the economy. The lump of labor fallacy assumes that the pie is fixed, and if one person takes a larger slice (more work), there will be less left for others. This assumption overlooks the potential for economic growth and the creation of new opportunities.

Example: "Assuming that there is only a fixed amount of work available is like believing that the pie will never grow bigger, even when more bakers join the kitchen."

2. Technological Advancements: Technological progress often leads to increased productivity and efficiency. While it may replace certain jobs, it also creates new ones. The lump of labor fallacy fails to account for the dynamic nature of the job market and how innovation can generate fresh employment opportunities.

Example: "When ATMs were introduced, people worried that bank tellers would become jobless. However, the technology not only made banking more convenient but also led to the emergence of new roles in customer service and technology maintenance."

3. Changing Demand and Specialization: Economic shifts and changes in consumer preferences continually reshape the job market. As demand for certain products or services diminishes, it opens up avenues for new industries and occupations to thrive. The lump of labor fallacy overlooks this adaptive nature of economies.

Example: "When the demand for typewriters declined, many feared that typists would become unemployed. However, the rise of computers and the internet created a surge in demand for IT specialists and web developers."

In summary, the lump of labor fallacy wrongly assumes that there is a limited amount of work available, failing to consider factors like economic growth, technological advancements, and changing market demands. By understanding the dynamic nature of economies, we can see that job opportunities can expand and transform rather than being fixed or limited.

Fallacies of Capitalism 5: The Self Regulating Market Fallacy

How does the "self-regulating markets" fallacy fail to account for the need for government intervention to address market failures and ensure fair competition? 

The "self-regulating markets" fallacy is the belief that markets can regulate themselves without the need for government intervention. This idea suggests that if left to their own devices, markets will naturally correct any imbalances and ensure fair competition. However, this fallacy overlooks the need for government intervention to address market failures and promote a level playing field. Let's explore this concept with simple examples:

1. Market failures: Markets can experience various failures that prevent them from functioning optimally. For instance, externalities like pollution or the depletion of natural resources are costs or benefits that affect third parties not directly involved in transactions. Without government intervention, these external costs or benefits are not taken into account, leading to inefficient outcomes. For example, if factories are allowed to pollute freely, it may harm public health and damage the environment, but the market alone may not correct this issue. Government intervention, through regulations or taxes, can internalize these externalities and ensure a more efficient allocation of resources.

2. Monopolies and market power: Unregulated markets can result in the concentration of market power and the emergence of monopolies. Monopolies can abuse their power by setting high prices, reducing quality, and stifling competition. This restricts consumer choice and hampers innovation. Government intervention, such as antitrust laws and regulations, helps prevent and address monopolistic behavior, promoting fair competition and benefiting consumers. For example, if a single company dominates the internet search engine market, it may unfairly prioritize its own services over competitors' offerings, leading to biased search results. Government intervention can help maintain a competitive market where multiple players have an equal opportunity to compete.

3. Information asymmetry: In many transactions, there is an imbalance of information between buyers and sellers. This information asymmetry can lead to market failures. For instance, in the market for used cars, sellers may have more information about the condition of the vehicle than buyers. This can result in "lemons" being sold at higher prices, as buyers are unable to make informed decisions. Government intervention, such as consumer protection laws and regulations, can require sellers to disclose relevant information and ensure transparency, enabling fair transactions and reducing information asymmetry.

4. Ensuring fair competition: Self-regulating markets may not always guarantee fair competition. Unfair business practices, such as price fixing, collusion, or deceptive advertising, can harm consumers and undermine competition. Government intervention through competition policies and regulatory bodies ensures that businesses compete on a level playing field, preventing anti-competitive behavior and promoting fair markets. For example, if two competing companies agree to fix prices, it harms consumers who are deprived of the benefits of competitive pricing. Government intervention can enforce regulations that prohibit such anti-competitive practices.

In summary, the "self-regulating markets" fallacy fails to account for the need for government intervention to address market failures, prevent monopolies, mitigate information asymmetry, and ensure fair competition. Without appropriate regulations and interventions, markets can result in inefficient outcomes, reduced consumer welfare, and unequal distribution of resources. Government intervention plays a crucial role in maintaining a well-functioning and fair economic system.

Fallacies of Capitalism 4: The Free Market Always Leads to Optimal Outcomes

 The Free Market Always Leads to Optimal Outcomes' Fallacy

The "free market always leads to optimal outcomes" fallacy is the belief that a completely unrestricted market, with no government intervention, will always result in the best possible outcomes for individuals and society. However, there are several limitations to this idea. Let's explore them with simple examples:

1. Market failures: Free markets can sometimes fail to produce optimal outcomes due to various factors. For instance, in the case of public goods like clean air or national defense, individuals may not have sufficient incentives to voluntarily contribute or produce them. In this situation, the market fails to allocate resources efficiently, and government intervention may be necessary to ensure the provision of public goods.

2. Externalities: Externalities occur when the actions of one party impose costs or benefits on others who are not directly involved in the transaction. For example, consider a factory that emits pollutants into the air. The negative effects on the environment and public health are external costs that are not reflected in the market price of the goods produced. Without government intervention, the market fails to consider and address these external costs, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for society.

3. Monopolies and market power: Unregulated free markets can lead to the concentration of market power and the emergence of monopolies. Monopolies can exploit their market dominance by setting high prices, reducing quality, and stifling competition. This reduces consumer welfare and can hinder innovation and economic growth. Government intervention, such as antitrust regulations, may be necessary to prevent and address market distortions caused by monopolistic behavior.

4. Income inequality and social justice: Free markets do not necessarily lead to fair or equitable outcomes. In the absence of regulation and redistribution measures, income and wealth disparities can become significant. This can result in social unrest, decreased social mobility, and unequal access to essential resources and opportunities. Government intervention may be required to address income inequality and promote social justice.

5. Market imperfections: Free markets rely on certain assumptions, such as perfect competition, perfect information, and rational decision-making by all participants. However, in reality, these assumptions often do not hold true. Market imperfections, such as information asymmetry, unequal bargaining power, and imperfect competition, can distort market outcomes and lead to suboptimal results. Government intervention and regulations can help mitigate these imperfections.

In summary, the "free market always leads to optimal outcomes" fallacy fails to consider the limitations and challenges of unrestricted markets. Market failures, externalities, monopolies, income inequality, and market imperfections are examples of situations where the free market may not produce the best possible outcomes. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for understanding the importance of government intervention and regulation to promote a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable economy.

Fallacies of Capitalism 2: The Trickle down Effect

What is the "trickle-down" fallacy, and how does it relate to the distribution of wealth in a capitalist system?

The "trickle-down" fallacy is the belief that when the wealthy and corporations accumulate more wealth, it will eventually "trickle down" to benefit everyone in society. This theory suggests that if the rich have more money, they will invest, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, which will ultimately improve the well-being of everyone, including those at the bottom of the income ladder. However, this theory ignores several important aspects of wealth distribution in a capitalist system. Let's understand it with simple examples:

1. Tax cuts for the wealthy: Advocates of the trickle-down theory often argue for tax cuts for the rich, believing that they will use the extra money to invest and create jobs. However, in practice, the wealthy may not necessarily invest their additional wealth in ways that benefit the broader economy. They might opt to invest in offshore accounts, buy luxury goods, or engage in speculative activities like stock trading, which may not lead to significant job creation or widespread economic growth.

2. Wage stagnation: Trickle-down economics assumes that as the wealthy accumulate more wealth, they will increase wages for workers. However, in reality, wages for many workers have stagnated or grown at a slower pace compared to the rising incomes of the wealthy. For example, over the past few decades, productivity has increased significantly, but the gains have primarily gone to executives and shareholders, while workers' wages have not kept pace. This demonstrates that the benefits of wealth accumulation often do not trickle down to workers in the form of higher wages or improved living standards.

3. Rising income inequality: Trickle-down economics fails to address the issue of income inequality. Over the past few decades, the wealth gap has widened, with the top earners capturing a disproportionately large share of economic gains. This suggests that the benefits of economic growth and wealth accumulation are not evenly distributed across society. Instead, they tend to concentrate in the hands of a few, exacerbating income and wealth disparities.

4. Lack of investment in public goods: The trickle-down theory assumes that the wealthy will invest their additional wealth in ways that benefit the broader society. However, in practice, a significant portion of wealth accumulation may not be directed towards public goods, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs. Instead, the wealthy may focus on maximising their personal wealth through financial instruments, real estate, or other investments that primarily benefit themselves, further exacerbating societal inequality.

In summary, the "trickle-down" fallacy suggests that the benefits of wealth accumulation by the rich will automatically benefit everyone in a capitalist system. However, this theory ignores the reality that wealth does not necessarily trickle down to the broader population. Instead, it often perpetuates income inequality, fails to address wage stagnation, and may not result in significant investment in public goods. Understanding these limitations is crucial for developing policies that promote a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities in society.

Fallacies of Capitalism 1: Inevitability of Inequality

How does the 'inevitability of inequality' fallacy ignore the role of social and institutional factors in perpetuating the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities in a capitalist system?

The "inevitability of inequality" fallacy suggests that inequality is a natural and unavoidable outcome of a capitalist system, implying that it is inherently fair and just. However, this fallacy ignores the significant role of social and institutional factors that contribute to the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities. Let me break it down with some simple examples:

1. Unequal starting points: In a capitalist system, individuals have different starting points due to factors like family wealth, education, and social connections. These disparities make it harder for those with fewer resources to compete on an equal footing. For instance, imagine two children who want to become doctors. One child comes from a wealthy family with access to the best schools and tutors, while the other child comes from a low-income family and attends underfunded schools. The unequal starting points put the second child at a significant disadvantage, limiting their opportunities for success.

2. Discrimination and bias: Social factors such as discrimination based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status can perpetuate inequality. Discrimination may lead to unequal treatment in hiring practices, education, or access to resources. For example, imagine a qualified job applicant who is denied a position because of their gender or ethnicity, while a less qualified candidate from a privileged background is chosen. Discrimination hinders individuals' ability to succeed and reinforces inequality in society.

3. Power imbalances: Capitalist systems often concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few individuals or corporations. These powerful entities can influence policies, regulations, and institutions to their advantage, further perpetuating inequality. For instance, consider a large corporation that has significant political influence. They may lobby for policies that favour their interests, such as tax breaks or deregulation, while undermining measures that could reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation or workers' rights.

4. Lack of social mobility: Inequality can persist if social and institutional factors make it difficult for individuals to move up the social ladder. For example, imagine a society where access to quality education is primarily determined by wealth. If children from low-income families are unable to receive a good education, it becomes challenging for them to break the cycle of poverty and improve their economic prospects. This lack of social mobility reinforces existing inequalities over generations.

These examples demonstrate that the "inevitability of inequality" fallacy overlooks the social and institutional factors that contribute to the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities in a capitalist system. By recognising these factors and working towards creating a more equitable society, we can address and reduce the systemic barriers that perpetuate inequality.

Quitting is underrated

We are far too stubborn, committing to an idea, job or romantic partner even when it becomes clear we’ve made a mistakeTim Harford in The FT

“I am a fighter and not a quitter,” said Liz Truss, the day before quitting. She was echoing the words of Peter Mandelson MP over two decades ago, although Mandelson had the good sense to speak after winning a political fight rather than while losing one. 

It’s a curious thing, though. Being a “fighter” is not entirely a compliment. It’s a prized quality in certain circumstances, but it’s not a word I’d use on my résumé or, for that matter, my Tinder bio. 

There can be little doubt about the term “quitter”, though. It is an unambiguous insult. That’s strange, because not only is there too much fighting in the world, there’s not nearly enough quitting. We are far too stubborn, sticking with an idea, a job, or a romantic partner even when it becomes clear we’ve made a mistake. 

There are few better illustrations of this than the viral popularity of “quiet quitting”, in which jaded young workers refuse to work beyond their contracted hours or to take on responsibilities beyond the job description. It’s a more poetic term than “slacking”, which is what we Gen-Xers would have called exactly the same behaviour 25 years ago. It’s also a perfectly understandable response to being overworked and underpaid. But if you are overworked and underpaid, a better response in most cases would not be quiet quitting, but simply quitting. 

I don’t mean this as a sneer at Gen-Z. I remember being utterly miserable at a job in my twenties, and I also remember how much social pressure there was to stick it out for a couple of years for the sake of making my CV seem less flaky. A flaky CV has its costs, of course. But if you’re a young graduate, so does spending two years of your life in a job you hate, while accumulating skills, experience and contacts in an industry you wish to leave. Most people cautioned me about the costs of quitting; only the wisest warned me of the costs of not quitting. 

Everything you quit clears space to try something new. Everything you say “no” to is an opportunity to say “yes” to something else. 

In her new book, Quit, Annie Duke argues that when we’re weighing up whether or not to quit, our cognitive biases are putting their thumb on the scale in favour of persistence. And persistence is overrated. 

To a good poker player — and Duke used to be a very good poker player indeed — this is obvious. “Optimal quitting might be the most important skill separating great players from amateurs,” she writes, adding that without the option to abandon a hand, poker would not be a game of skill at all. Expert players abandon about 80 per cent of their hands in the popular variant of Texas Hold’em. “Compare that to an amateur, who will stick with their starting cards over half the time.” 

What are these cognitive biases that push us towards persisting when we should quit? 

One is the sunk cost effect, where we treat past costs as a reason to continue with a course of action. If you’re at your favourite high-end shopping mall but you can’t find anything you love, it should be irrelevant how much time and money it cost you to travel to the mall. But it isn’t. We put ourselves under pressure to justify the trouble we’ve already taken, even if that means more waste. The same tendency applies from relationships to multi-billion-dollar mega-projects. Instead of cutting our losses, we throw good money after bad. 

(The sunk cost fallacy is old news to economists, but it took Nobel laureate Richard Thaler to point out that if it was common enough to have a name, it was common enough to be regarded as human nature.) 

The “status quo bias” also tends to push us towards persevering when we should stop. Highlighted in a 1988 study by the economists William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser, the status quo bias is a tendency to reaffirm earlier decisions and cling to the existing path we’re on, rather than make an active choice to do something different. 

Duke is frustrated with the way we frame these status quo choices. “I’m not ready to make a decision,” we say. Duke rightly points out that not making a decision is itself a decision. 

A few years ago, Steve Levitt, the co-author of Freakonomics, set up a website in which people facing difficult decisions could record their dilemma, toss a coin to help them choose and later return to say what they did and how they felt about it. These decisions were often weighty, such as leaving a job or ending a relationship. Levitt concluded that people who decided to make a major change — that is, the quitters — were significantly happier six months later than those who decided against the change — that is, the fighters. The conclusion: if you’re at the point when you’re tossing a coin to help you decide whether to quit, you should have quit some time ago. 

“I am a quitter and not a fighter.” It’s not much of a political slogan. But as a rule of thumb for life, I’ve seen worse.

The Straw Man and The Great Indian Kitchen

By Girish Menon

In the introduction to his book ‘How to win every argument’ Madsen Pirie writes:

Sound reasoning is the basis of winning an argument. Logical fallacies undermine arguments…Many of the fallacies are committed by people genuinely ignorant of logical reasoning, the nature of evidence or what counts as relevant material. Others however might be committed by persons bent on deception. If there is insufficient force behind the argument and the evidence, fallacies can add enough weight to carry them through.

The Malayalam film The Great Indian Kitchen is one such exercise in fallacious reasoning. The film maker sets up and destroys a Straw Man in the form of some highly conservative Sabarimala devotees who are male, upper caste and Hindu­. In such households, the film argues, the women are perennially confined to the kitchen and subject to male whims. Some women have bought into the system while the female protagonist and her mother-in-law take up the feminist cause of subversion and rebellion.

A Straw Man, Pirie writes, is a misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down. This is usually done by over-stating an opponent’s position. If your opponent will not make himself an extremist, you can oblige with a Straw Man.

The Straw Man is fallacious because he says nothing about the real argument. Its function is to elicit, by the ease of his demolition, a scorn which can be directed at the real figure he represents.

This writer carried out a straw poll (not representative at all!) among those who supported the filmmaker’s thesis and not one of them stated that they were aware of such instances happening to people known to them. Instead, most of them pointed their fingers to North Kerala where apparently such practices are rife. I did ask a former resident of North Kerala if such things happened there and his response was that ‘Women everywhere were the same North or any part of Kerala’.

Some feminists I know took up cudgels on behalf of the female protagonist even though their own life experiences did not match the film’s heroine. They quoted some sisters who were treated badly by their husbands, but added that these husbands also wanted to live of their wife's earnings. However, they were not willing to question the failure of the female protagonist, who is depicted as educated and modern, to carry out due diligence before entering into the marital contract.

In this writer’s view, the creation and destruction of the Straw Man is the only protest available to progressives and feminists. Because, despite the Supreme Court’s progressive decision in the Sabarimala case, even the progressive left government has declared its inability to implement reforms to Sabarimala rituals. This is because the majority opinion which includes many Hindu women want to maintain the status quo and are unconvinced by the feminist rhetoric.

The Buddha Speaks on Red Herrings and the Babri Masjid. Ep.2 English

A Bhakt and his Logical Fallacies and a Rebuttal

Logical Fallacies - How to win every argument

From Purdue Online Writing Lab

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.  

Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may effect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.