Its strange how many times we react to circumstances, owing to our impulsive instincts. As I learnt it the hard way, its always best to respond than to react to any stimulus or external triggers, even during casual conversations.
Today, as part of a daily conversation I casually made the statement “Decent guys usually don’t talk to girls“, which a few of my colleagues took offence to, and the impulsive nature of their rebuttal just blinded their vision to the logical fallacy of their argument. I am not sure why they got so animated, but I am here trying to unravel the mystery of their irritation.
There were possibly 2 mistakes that took place. First, was the implicit assumption of the counter statement (to the original statement), that only “Indecent guys speak to girls” or “If some guy speaks to girls, then he is indecent“. Both of these conclusions are classical Non Sequiturs.
If its not white, then it should be black is a false assumption. It can be any of the shades between white and black which can include all sorts of gray matter!. No where did my statement imply that only “If Indecent, then you speak to girls“.
For an analogy, “Brahmins usually don’t eat non-vegetarian food” is also a similar statement. People must not implicity assume, that only “If Non Brahmin, you eat non vegetarian food”. It just means that all those people who are vegetarian by choice are that way because they choose to be so.
Second, lets look at the logical fallacy in “If Decent, then you don’t speak to girls” statement above. This is a classical “Affirming the consequent“. So no where does it state that just because one does not speak to girls, the person is Decent. Its not sufficient to the condition of being decent. There are other necessary conditions for Decency to be satisfied. However one of the accepted social norm is that “Decent guys usually don’t speak to girls”.
Again, bringing the Brahmin and not eating non-vegetarian analogy, just not eating non-vegetarian does not make one a Brahmin. However, its an accepted social norm, that “Brahmins usually don’t eat non-vegetarian food”
I would live with such misunderstandings by people, but it hurts when people assume another non sequitur called “Denying the Antecedent“. Using exactly similar equations, mostly this is what people conclude,
If I accept my mistakes, then I am Ordinary (not the Boss).
But I don’t accept my mistakes.
Therefore, I am not Ordinary (I am the Boss).
Some people just think I don’t accept my mistakes because I want to assert my authority as their Boss, but again, that is another logical fallacy that people make. I don’t appear to accept my mistakes because I believe in Logical Authority more than Positional Authority, which I have blogged about a year and a half ago.
Next time around, may be I will learn to be a little more tolerant to such Irrelevant conclusions (non sequiturs).
