Beyond Feelings: Errors of Perspective PDF

CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective Imagine that you wear eyeglasses with serious distortions in the lenses but are unaware of the problem. You have every reason to believe that the people, places, and things you look at are as they appear, whereas in real-...

CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective Imagine that you wear eyeglasses with serious distortions in the lenses but are unaware of the problem. You have every reason to believe that the people, places, and things you look at are as they appear, whereas in real- ity they are quite different. When you share your perceptions with others and they challenge them, you are surprised at first, puzzled at their inabil- ity to see the world as clearly as you do. Eventually you either stop com- municating with others or become more assertive, hoping by the sheer force of your expression to solve what you are convinced is their problem. Now imagine that, by some happy circumstance, you suddenly realize that the problem is not their faulty perception but your defective glasses. You rush to the nearest optician, purchase a new pair, see more accurately, grow in knowledge, and experience a new sense of confidence and contentment. Errors of perspective are like seriously distorted lenses, except in- stead of being perched on our noses, they inhabit our minds. If you are prone to one or more of these errors, you can be sure that they will work their mischief more or less constantly. They will shape the attitudes and habits you bring to the evaluation of issues and create expectations that bias your thinking. Moreover, you may not even be aware of their exis- tence unless you evaluate your patterns of thought. This chapter is designed to help you do that and to root out whatever errors of perspec- tive are obstructing your critical thinking. We will examine seven specific errors: poverty of aspect, unwarranted assumptions, the either/or outlook, mind- less conformity, absolutisim, relativism, and bias for or against change. Poverty of Aspect* Karl Duncker, a cognitive researcher, coined the term poverty of aspect to refer to the limitation that comes from taking a narrow rather than a broad view on problems and issues. A similar term, with which you may *This section copyright © 2006 by MindPower, Inc. used with permission. 102  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 103 be more familiar, is tunnel vision. In Duncker’s view, poverty of aspect is “the chief characteristic of poor thinking.” No doubt poverty of aspect has many causes, including simple intellectual sloth. But two causes are especially noteworthy: the multiplication of the academic disciplines over the course of history and the explosion of knowledge that has taken place in every discipline, especially during the previous century. In ancient times a single discipline, philosophy, embraced every area of knowledge. Over the course of centuries, other disciplines were added: grammar, logic, rhetoric, geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music in the Middle Ages; physics, biology, and chemistry in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries; psychology, sociology, and anthropology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (Business and the various tech- nologies came even later.) As more disciplines were formed, scholarly research became more specialized. For example, psychologists focused on activities occurring within individual people, sociologists on interac- tions among people, anthropologists on the physical and cultural devel- opment of societies. Such differences produced specialized vocabularies and different approaches to research. Eventually there came an explosion of knowledge that prompted scholars to even greater specialization than ever. This specialization deep- ened understanding and multiplied scholarly insights. Unfortunately, it also cut off many scholars from the insights of disciplines other than their own and aggravated the condition Duncker called poverty of aspect. This poverty creates significant problems in the analysis of complex issues. Consider the issue of the causes of a particular war. Sociologists will tend to focus on social conditions, economists on economic conditions, and psychologists on the inner drives and urges of the leaders of the countries involved.* Because war is a complex phenomenon, however, the most meaningful answer usually will be a combination of all these factors (and perhaps some others as well). Only scholars who have learned to go beyond the limitations of their individual discipline’s perspective are likely to find meaningful answers. Of course, poverty of aspect is a danger for everyone, not only people with highly specialized educations. Unless you recognize the limitations of your experience and discipline your mind to broaden your outlook beyond the familiar, to examine all relevant points of view, and to under- stand before judging, you are almost certain to see narrowly and, as a result, to think poorly. *A similar tendency exists among physicians: For the very same physical condition, an internist is likely to write a prescription for a drug, a homeopathic physician is likely to prescribe vitamin therapy, and a surgeon is likely to recommend an operation. 104 PART TWO The Pitfalls Unwarranted Assumptions Assumptions are ideas that are merely taken for granted rather than pro- duced by conscious thought. Making assumptions is natural enough, and many assumptions are not only harmless but helpful. When you get up in the morning and head out for class, you assume your watch is working, the car will start, and the professor will be there to teach. You may occa- sionally encounter a surprise—a broken watch, a dead car battery—but that won’t invalidate the assumption or diminish the time it saves you. (You wouldn’t get much accomplished if you had to ponder every move you made each day.) When are assumptions unwarranted? Whenever you take too much for granted—that is, more than is justified by your experience or the par- ticular circumstance. Smokers who assume that because the habit hasn’t caused them noticeable physical harm already it never will are making an unwarranted assumption. So are sunbathers who assume that their skin is impervious to solar radiation and investors who assume a stock tip they found on an Internet bulletin board is reliable. Many people who hold a pro-choice position on abortion assume that the right to an abortion is expressed in the U.S. Constitution, that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is logically unassailable, and that the pro- life position is held only by conservative Christians. All three assump- tions are unwarranted. Justice Byron White, in his Roe v. Wade dissent, rejected any constitutional basis for the majority decision, terming it an “exercise of raw judicial power.” The argument that life begins when the genetic “blueprint” is established at conception and that a human being is present from that moment on, though unfashionable, is not illogical. And abortion is opposed not only by conservative Christians but also, for example, by Mennonites, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. Although Jews remain divided on the issue, many oppose abortion (for example, members of Jews for Life and Efrat). Nonreligious groups opposing abor- tion include the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Pagans for Life, Libertarians for Life, Feminists for Life, and the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. (All of these groups have Web sites). The most common unwarranted assumptions include the following: The assumption that people’s senses are always trustworthy. The fact is that beliefs and desires can distort perception, causing people to see and hear selectively or inaccurately. The assumption that if an idea is widely reported, it must be true. Fiction can be disseminated as far and as widely as truth. The assumption that having reasons proves that we have reasoned logically. Reasons may be borrowed uncritically from others, and even if they have been thought out, they may still be illogical.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 105 The assumption that familiar ideas are more valid than unfamiliar ones. Familiarity merely indicates having heard or read the idea before; it provides no guarantee that what we have heard or read is correct. The assumption that if one event follows another in time, it must have been caused by the other. The order of and closeness in time between two events could have been accidental. The assumption that every event or phenomenon has a single cause. Some events have multiple causes. For example, in medicine it is well known that numerous risk factors may contribute to a person’s contracting a disease. The assumption that the majority view is the correct view. Majorities have been wrong—for example, in supporting the execution of witches and in condoning slavery. The assumption that the way things are is the way they should be. Humans are imperfect, and their inventions, including ideas, always allow room for improvement. The assumption that change is always for the better. In some cases, change improves matters; in others, it makes matters worse. For example, when the government has sought to gain revenue by increasing tax rates, the net effect usually has been a decline in revenue. (For numerous examples of the error of this assumption, do a Google search using the search term “unintended conse- quences.”) The assumption that appearances are trustworthy. Appearances can be mistaken. For example, American novelist Sinclair Lewis was travel- ing on an ocean liner to England. As he and a friend were walking on the deck, he noticed a woman sitting on a deck chair reading one of his novels. Filled with pride, he remarked to his friend what a good feeling it was to see someone so absorbed in his work. At that very moment, the woman threw the book overboard.1 The assumption that if an idea is in our mind it is our own idea and deserves to be defended. Some, ideally most, ideas in our mind are the result of our careful analysis. Others, in some cases an embarrass- ingly large number, are uncritically absorbed from other people and therefore are not “our own” in any meaningful sense. The assumption that the stronger our conviction about an idea, the more valid the idea. An idea’s validity is determined by the amount and quality of the evidence that supports it. The strength of our convic- tion is irrelevant. In other words, it is possible to be absolutely con- vinced and still be wrong. The assumption that if we find an error in someone’s argument, we have disproved the argument. An argument can contain minor flaws yet be sound. For example, one or two items of evidence may be flawed, yet the remaining evidence may be sufficient to support the argu- ment. Simply said, it takes more than nitpicking to disprove an argument. 106 PART TWO The Pitfalls Remember that assumptions are usually implied rather than expressed directly, much like the hidden premises in arguments. To identify them, develop the habit of reading (and listening) between the lines for ideas that are unexpressed but nevertheless clearly implied. Once you have identified an assumption, evaluate it and decide whether it is warranted. The Either/Or Outlook The either/or outlook is the expectation that the only reasonable view of any issue is either total affirmation or total rejection. Unfortunately, it is not hard to find examples of this outlook, even in serious discussions. David Hackett Fischer gives the following examples from actual book titles: The Robber Barons—Pirates or Pioneers? The New Deal—Revolution or Evolution? The Medieval Mind—Faith or Reason? What Is History—Fact or Fancy?2 The problem with the either/or outlook is that it rejects the very real possibility that the most reasonable view may be both/and—in other words, a less extreme view. Take, for example, the troubling issue of wel- fare reform. One extreme position is to keep the present welfare system just as it is. The opposite extreme is to eliminate the system entirely. Might one of those views be correct? Absolutely. On the other hand, the best solution might be neither to keep nor to abandon the old system but to change it for the better. Similarly, in the debate over school vouchers, the question is often posed, “Should we improve public schools or give parents vouchers to use in the schools of their choice?” It is not necessary to accept one of these views and reject the other. It is possible to affirm both—in other words, to increase the funding of public schools and allow parents to use their children’s share of the money to choose the particular school, public or private, they prefer. Yet another example of either/or thinking has occurred in the dis- cussion of an even more recent controversy—why so many boys have fallen behind girls academically in the past few decades. In a talk show exchange, one professor argued that teachers, sensitive to feminist criti- cism, have been giving more attention to girls than to boys. Another rejected that explanation and blamed the excessive emphasis fathers place on their sons’ involvement in sports. Each felt it necessary to denounce the other’s view, but there was no need for that. The academic problems of boys may be traceable to both those causes and perhaps to several others as well. Whenever you are examining an issue and find yourself considering only two alternatives, ask yourself whether additional alternatives exist and, if they do, give them a fair hearing.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 107 Mindless Conformity The term for behaving as others do is conformity. In some situations con- formity is the wisest course of action. Children conform when they stay away from hot stoves and look both ways before crossing the street. We all conform when we enter and exit buildings through the designated doors, use the “up” escalator to go up, and go to the end rather than the front of the checkout line. Such conformity makes life easier and safer. (The person you cut in on may be bigger, stronger, and armed!) Another positive kind of conformity is imitation of good role models—people whose example is worth imitating. This kind of conformity helps us develop our capacities and become better individuals. In contrast, mindless conformity is unreasonable and, in many cases, unreasoning. It consists of following others’ example because we are too lazy or fearful to think for ourselves. In a well-known experiment, eight students entered a laboratory. Seven were in league with the professor; the eighth was the unknowing subject of the experiment. The students were shown four lines on an otherwise blank page and asked to decide which of the three lower lines (identified as A, B, and C) matched the top line in length. Line A was exactly the same length as the top line, 10 inches. The other lines were clearly much shorter or longer. Each of the seven collabo- rators, in turn, gave the wrong answer, and the pressure mounted on the unknowing subject. When he or she was asked, the choice was clear: Give the obviously right answer and stand alone or the wrong answer and enjoy the support of the group. Believe it or not, only one out of every five who participated in the experiment gave the correct answer.3 Many advertisers encourage mindless conformity. An excellent example is a Budweiser commercial that featured the line, “Why ask why? Try Bud Dry.” The various groups people belong to—from Friday night poker clubs to churches, political parties, fraternities, and unions— can also generate pressure to conform. Even groups pledged to fight con- formity and promote free thinking can do so. Hippie communes in the 1960s were often as intolerant of dissenting ideas, values, and lifestyles as was the mainstream society they were rebelling against. Liberal col- leagues praised author Nat Hentoff for his defense of freedom of expres- sion as long as he agreed with them, but many were quick to denounce him when he took the position that a fetus is a human being and as such is entitled to the protection of the law.4 Conservatives who favor gun con- trol and black authors who oppose affirmative action have been similarly pressured to conform to the majority views of their groups. The secret to avoiding mindless conformity is to resist whatever pleading, teasing, and prodding others exert to make you think and speak and act as they do. Instead of succumbing, ask yourself what is 108 PART TWO The Pitfalls reasonable and right and follow that path, regardless of whether that places you in the majority or the minority. Absolutism Absolutism is the belief that there must be rules but no exceptions. Absolutists expect the truth about issues to be clear-cut, certain, and simple when, in reality, it often is ambiguous, less than certain, and complex. Because of their unreasonable expectations, absolutists tend to be impatient in their thinking and therefore susceptible to oversimplification and hasty conclusions. Moreover, once they have made up their minds, they tend to hold their views more dogmatically than do critical thinkers—that is, they tend to be unwilling to entertain evidence that challenges them. And once a rule is established, absolutists refuse to allow exceptions. For example, after entering the school building, a young honor student realized he had forgotten to remove his knife from his pocket. Realizing that his school had a zero weapons policy, he immediately went to the principal’s office and turned over the knife to a staff member. Instead of praising him for being responsible, the administrator suspended the boy from school and announced that he was considering expelling him.5 To say that vulnerability to errors and reluctance to change one’s mind characterize absolutists is not to suggest that other people do not possess the same weaknesses. (As noted in previous chapters, all human beings are susceptible to these and other cognitive shortcomings.) It is only to say that absolutists are more vulnerable than others because of their aversion to exceptions. Note, too, that it is possible to believe in absolutes without being an absolutist. For example, you can believe that murder is always morally wrong but that in certain circumstances, such as self-defense, culpability for the act is diminished or eliminated. The key to overcoming absolutism is this: When you begin to exam- ine any issue, even one that you have thought about before, commit your- self to accepting the truth as you find it rather than demanding that it be neat and simple. Relativism Relativism is the polar opposite of absolutism. Whereas the absolutist does not acknowledge exceptions to rules, the relativist believes that the existence of exceptions proves there can be no rules. The central error of relativism is the belief that truth is created rather than discovered. If some- one attempts to demonstrate that something is true, relativists tend to say, “Whose truth are you talking about? Mine may be different from yours.” They believe that whatever a person believes is true is, by that belief, true  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 109 for him or her. Relativism also holds that morality is subjective rather than objective—in other words, that moral rules are binding only on those who accept them. The relativist’s credo is “If a person thinks any behavior is morally acceptable, then it is acceptable for that person.” Relativism opposes critical thinking, the study of ethics, and the processes of law. The point of critical thinking is to separate truth from falsity, the reasonable from the unreasonable; if nothing is false or unrea- sonable, critical thinking is pointless. Similarly, if everything that anyone wants to do is good, then nothing is bad and moral discourse has no pur- pose. And if choosing to do something is a justification for doing it, the laws against rape, child molestation, and murder are an infringement on the rights of the perpetrator. The simple test of any perspective is whether it can be consistently applied in everyday life. Relativists can’t challenge the correctness of other people’s views without contradicting themselves. Nor can they protest genital mutilation in North Africa, genocide in Central Europe, slave labor in the Orient, or racism in North America without denying their own belief that morality is subjective. To overcome relativism, remind yourself from time to time that some ideas, and some standards of conduct, are better than others and that the challenge of critical think- ing is to discover the best ones. Bias for or Against Change Are you for or against change? The only reasonable answer is “It depends on what the change is.” Some changes improve matters; others make matters worse. Yet many people lack that balanced perspective. They have a bias for or against change. Bias for change is more common than it used to be, no doubt because we live in an age of unprecedented change, especially in technology; because many changes are beneficial, we may make the mistake of believing that all are. Bias against change, however, is still more prevalent than bias for change. One reason is the force of familiarity. Most of us prefer ideas that we know and feel comfortable with. When Galileo said, “The earth moves around the sun,” people were upset, partly because thousands of sunrises and sunsets had told them the sun did the moving, but also partly because they simply had never before heard of the earth’s moving. The new idea threatened their fixed belief that the earth was the center of the solar system. They had that idea neatly packaged in their minds. It was a basic part of their understanding of the universe, and it was intertwined with their religion. And now this upstart Galileo was demanding no less than that they untie the package, or reopen the issue. 110 PART TWO The Pitfalls Shortly after the advent of bicycles, people said they would undermine “feminine modesty.” Physicians said they would cause “nymphomania,” “hysteria,” “voluptuous sensations,” “lubricious overexcitement,” and “sensual madness.”6 Some people considered the movement to restrict child labor in sweatshops a communist plot. And when astronauts first landed on the moon, at least one elderly man expressed total disbelief. “It’s a trick thought up by the TV people,” he said. “It’s impossible for a man to reach the moon.” Another reason bias against change is so prevalent is our “mine-is- better” perspective. Our habits of thinking and acting seem to us the only right ways of thinking and acting. New ideas challenge our sense of secu- rity, so we tend to resist them. This explains why many people cling to outmoded traditions.* For example, the man in Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” kept repairing the wall between his land and his neigh- bor’s not because there was still any good purpose in doing so, but only because his father had done so before him. And consider this case of uncritical dependence on past ways: A girl was told by her mother, “Never put a hat on a table or a coat on a bed.” She accepted the direction and followed it faithfully for years. One day, many years later, she repeated the direction to her own teenage daughter, and the daughter asked, “Why?” The woman realized that she had never been curious enough to ask her own mother. Her curiosity at long last aroused, she asked her mother (by then in her eighties). The mother replied, “Because when I was a little girl some neighbor children were infested with lice, and my mother explained I should never put a hat on a table or a coat on a bed.” The woman had spent her entire adult life following a rule she had been taught without once wondering about its purpose or validity.7 Despite resistance to change, however, many new ideas do manage to take hold. We might suppose that when they do, those who fought so hard for them would remember the resistance they had to overcome. Ironically, however, they often forget very quickly. In fact, they some- times display the same fear and insecurity they so deplored in others. An example occurred in psychiatry. Sigmund Freud and his followers were ostracized and bitterly attacked for suggesting that sexuality was an important factor in the development of personality. The hostility toward Freud was so strong, in fact, that his masterwork, The Interpretation of Dreams, was ignored when it was first published in 1900. It took eight years for six hundred copies of the book to be sold.8 Yet when Freud’s ideas became accepted, he and his followers showed no greater tolerance; in fact, they ostracized and attacked those *Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the older the tradition, the less valuable it is. An ancient tradition may be more sensible than the latest vogue idea. The only way to be sure, of course, is to give it fair and impartial consideration.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 111 who challenged any part of his theory. Karen Horney, for example, chal- lenged Freud’s view of women as being driven by penis envy. She believed, too, that neurosis is caused not only by frustrated sexual drives but also by various cultural conflicts and that people’s behavior is not only determined by instinctual drives but can in many instances be self- directed and modified. For these theories (today widely accepted), she was rewarded with rebuke and ostracism by the Freudian dogmatists.9 To overcome either variety of bias toward change, monitor your reac- tion to new ideas. Don’t be surprised if you strongly favor or oppose an idea the first time you encounter it. However, refuse to endorse your first impression uncritically. Instead, suspend judgment until you have exam- ined the idea carefully. If the idea proves insightful and well substanti- ated, accept it regardless of its oldness or newness; if it is flawed, reject it. Applications 1. Examine each of the following dialogues. Identify any assumptions made by the speakers. Be precise. If possible, decide whether the assumptions are warranted. a. Olaf: Did you hear the good news? School may not open on schedule this year. Olga: How come? Olaf: The teachers may be on strike. Olga: Strike? That’s ridiculous. They’re already making good money. b. Janice: What movie is playing at the theater tonight? Mike: I don’t know the title. It’s something about lesbians. Do you want to go? Janice: No thanks. I’ll wait for a quality film. c. Boris: Boy, talk about unfair graders. Nelson’s the worst. Bridget: Why? What did he do? Boris: What did he do? He gave me a D! on the midterm, that’s all—after I spent twelve straight hours studying for it. I may just make an appoint- ment to see the dean about him. d. Mrs. Smith: The Harrisons are having marital problems. I’ll bet they’ll be separating soon. Mr. Jones: How do you know? Mrs. Smith: I heard it at the supermarket. Helen told Gail and Gail told me. Mr. Jones: I knew it wouldn’t work out. Jeb Harrison is such a blah person. I can’t blame Ruth for wanting to leave him. 2. Apply your critical thinking to the following cases. Be sure to identify all your assumptions and decide whether they are warranted. a. A Cambridge, Massachusetts, man got tired of looking at his neighbor’s uncut lawn, and the untrimmed shrubs that reached above the second-story window, and took his grievance to court. The neighbor admitted to the judge that he hadn’t cut the lawn in fourteen years, but he argued that he preferred a natural lawn to a manicured one and untrimmed to trimmed shrubs. The judge decided he was perfectly within his legal rights in leaving his lawn and shrubs uncut, regardless of what his neighbor felt.10 Do you think the judge’s decision was fair?  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure In Chapter 9 we examined errors of perspective, flawed outlooks that create significant obstacles to critical thinking even before we address any issue. In this chapter we will examine the kinds of errors that occur in the process of addressing specific issues: biased consideration of evidence, double standard, hasty conclusion, overgeneralization and stereotyping, oversimplifica- tion, and the post hoc fallacy. Biased Consideration of Evidence We have noted that although you may find it pleasant to believe you approach issues with perfect impartiality, such is seldom the case. You will generally lean in one direction or another. There’s nothing odd or shameful about this fact. It’s a natural reaction, not just for you but for everyone else as well. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how that leaning can cause you to commit the error of biased consideration of evidence. One form of this error is seeking only evidence that confirms your bias. Another form occurs when evidence is presented to you that challenges your bias and you choose an interpretation that favors your bias, even when other interpretations are more reasonable. In his exami- nation of where everyday reasoning goes wrong, Thomas Gilovich docu- ments both forms of bias.1 How exactly does biased consideration of evidence affect our judg- ment in actual cases? Suppose you are examining the issue of why some African American communities are plagued with crime, low levels of aca- demic achievement, and high unemployment. Suppose, too, that you are approaching the issue not with an open mind but instead with a firm belief that the cause of the problem is poverty and discrimination. (This belief would be understandable because poverty and discrimination have received more attention in the press than other explanations.) Your 115 116 PART TWO The Pitfalls unintended and perhaps unconscious bias would likely keep you from consulting opposing viewpoints, and might even lead you to label all such viewpoints as manifestations of racism! Here are some valuable facts and arguments that your bias would cause you to ignore. (Note: All of the authors are African American.) Larry Elder casts doubt on the notion that poverty causes crime by demonstrating that in the 1960s the San Francisco neighborhood that had the lowest income, highest unemployment, and highest amount of substandard housing was Chinatown, yet in 1965 in the entire state of California only five Chinese individuals were sent to prison. Concerning the idea that poverty causes poor academic per- formance, he points out that the schools in Barbados have smaller budgets than urban schools in the United States and over 50 percent of the students come from single-parent homes, yet the average scores of Barbados students on the SAT is 1345 out of a possible 1600 (nearly double the average score of their U.S. inner-city counterparts and considerably higher than the average for all U.S. students.2 John McWhorter argues that most problems in the black community can be traced to one or more of the following causes: a sense of victimhood, the idea that black Americans are exempt from the rules and standards other Americans must live by, and anti-intellectualism—that is, the idea that education and the development of the mind are unimportant.3 Jesse Lee Peterson claims, “Black leaders do not need the kind of self- appointed leaders they currently have.... By preaching race hatred and the cleverly packaged ideology of socialism, these leaders have convinced millions of blacks that white America owes them special treatment: welfare checks, affirmative action programs, and even dif- ferent grading systems in our nation’s universities. Black educators have even created a fictional Afrocentrist history that pushes phony notions of black racial superiority in our nation’s schools.”4 Shelby Steele argues that the goals of the Civil Rights movement in America have been compromised by both the white and the black communities—whites by letting their guilt over slavery and discrimi- nation lead them to create giveaway programs that made blacks de- pendent on the government and blacks by accepting the programs and exchanging personal responsibility for a sense of entitlement.5 Juan Williams’s Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America—and What We Can Do About It—begins by crediting Bill Cosby for courageously call- ing on American blacks to develop a healthier attitude toward educa- tion, to stop having children out of wedlock, and to take parenting seriously. Williams documents the accuracy of Cosby’s views, expands on their import, and offers a plan to accomplish related goals.6 Should the views of these authors be considered the final, authorita- tive word on the issue? Of course not. Yet they represent a serious,  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 117 informed contribution to the public debate, and no analysis that ignores them can be considered fair and responsible. The worst aspect of bias is that it often occurs innocently, without one’s awareness, and not just among students. Even professional scholars can commit this error. (That is why you should test the views of authori- ties for impartiality.) To avoid biased selection of evidence, begin your investigation by seeking out individuals whose views oppose your bias and then go on to those that support it. Also, choose the most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether it flatters your bias. Double Standard As the name implies, double standard consists of using one standard of judgment for our ideas and ideas compatible with our own and an entirely different—and much more demanding—standard for ideas that disagree with ours. People who employ a double standard ignore incon- sistencies, contradictions, and outrageous overstatements in arguments they agree with, yet engage in nitpicking when evaluating their oppo- nents’ arguments. Even their vocabulary reflects the double standard. The very same behavior is called “imaginative,” “forceful,” or “forthright” in the case of an ally and “utopian,” “belligerent,” or “mean-spirited” in the case of an opponent. The error of the double standard is also common in issues of free speech. Many people who are outspoken proponents of free speech for ideas they agree with are eager to silence those they disagree with. To avoid the error of the double standard, decide in advance what judgment criteria you will use and apply those criteria consistently, even if the data in question do not support your view. Hasty Conclusion Hasty conclusion is a premature judgment—that is, a judgment made with- out sufficient evidence. It takes mental discipline to resist jumping to con- clusions, and many people lack such discipline. They are in the habit of accepting the first judgment that comes to mind, never bothering to inquire whether a different judgment might be as reasonable or perhaps even more so. If they see a man getting into a taxicab with a woman other than his wife, they immediately conclude she is his mistress, when she could just as well be a relative, a business associate, or a client. If a friend passes without speaking to them, they conclude that they have been snubbed, when the person may have been preoccupied and have failed to notice them. Hasty conclusions can occur in scholarly pursuits as well as in everyday situations. As noted briefly in Chapter 1, one of the most ambitious tests 118 PART TWO The Pitfalls of human intelligence ever conducted led to hasty conclusions; almost a century later it remains a vivid testimony to the harm they can do. During World War I, psychologists administered intelligence tests to almost 2 mil- lion army recruits. The resulting scores, expressed in terms of mental age, were as follows: immigrants from northern Europe, 13; immigrants from southern and central Europe, 11; U.S.-born blacks, 10. The psychologists leaped to the conclusion that southern and central Europeans and blacks are morons. (The term was considered scientific at that time.) This conclu- sion was instrumental in the framing of the 1924 immigration law that discriminated against southern and central Europeans and reinforced negative stereotypes about African Americans.* If these psychologists had asked one simple question—Is the conclusion that southern and central Europeans and U.S.-born blacks are morons the only possible conclusion?—they would have wondered whether the design and administration of the test might be at fault. They also would have found that the test directions varied from site to site, with some recruits told to fin- ish each part before moving on and others not, and that recruits at the back of the test room sometimes could not hear the instructions at all. In addition, they would have found that the same form of the test was given to recruits who could read and write English, those who spoke only a foreign lan- guage, and those who had never learned to read and write. What could have explained why the different groups had very different scores? On average, the northern Europeans had been in the United States for twenty or more years and therefore were fluent in English and reason- ably well educated. In contrast, the southern and central Europeans had arrived more recently and were neither fluent in English nor (since many were poor) well educated. Finally, many U.S.-born blacks had been denied the opportunity for an education. To avoid hasty conclusions, identify all possible conclusions before you select any one. Then decide whether you have sufficient evidence to support any of those conclusions and, if so, which conclusion that is. Remember that there is no shame in postponing judgment until you obtain additional evidence. Overgeneralization and Stereotyping Generalizing is the mental activity by which we draw broad conclusions from particular experiences. A child hears one dog bark and concludes that barking is characteristic of dogs. This generalization is true, barkless *For a fuller discussion of this subject, see Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: Norton, 1981), chap. 5. Incidentally, many of the psychologists who embraced this conclusion went on to popularize the use of the IQ test in education. One of them, Carl Brigham, later developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, popularly known as the SAT.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 119 Basenjis notwithstanding. When Mommy says, “Be careful of that pencil, it can poke your eye out,” the child understands, again rightly, that all pencils have that capacity. As these modest examples suggest, generaliz- ing is not only natural but indispensable to learning. We never see things in general—that is, all dogs, all pencils, all mountains, all rivers, all teach- ers, or all anything else. Rather, we see particular members of a general class—individually or in groups—and generalize from them. As long as we exercise reasonable care, generalizing serves us well. Unfortunately, it is easy to overgeneralize—that is, to ascribe to all the members of a group what fits only some members. If you visit New York City and meet a few rude people, you would be correct in saying, “Some New Yorkers are rude,” but not “Most New Yorkers are rude,” let alone New Yorkers are rude,”* Yet such sweeping generalizations are heard every day, not only about New Yorkers, but also about liberals, conserva- tives, born-again Christians, politicians, homosexuals, feminists, environ- mentalists, intellectuals, and many other groups. A stereotype is an overgeneralization that is especially resistant to change. The most common types of stereotypes are ethnic and religious. There are stereotypes of Jews, Poles, African Americans, Hispanics, Italians, fundamentalists, Catholics, atheists—and “dead, white, European males,” or DWEMs. As you might expect, any generalization that is fixed and unbending can be considered a stereotype. Although stereotypes may be either positive or negative, they are more often negative. Sadly, people who deplore the negative stereotyping of their own groups often do not hesitate to negatively stereotype other groups. Does every reference to group characteristics constitute a stereotype? No. Recurring patterns of thinking and acting are observable in groups, and references to those patterns are therefore legitimate. In ancient times the Chinese were more creative than most other peoples; in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth, German industrial technology led the world; in recent decades the Japanese have demonstrated remarkable inventiveness and concern for quality. Furthermore, not all cultural patterns are complimentary. For centuries the Spanish and Portuguese disdained manual labor, thinking it a sign of dishonor, and emigrants to Latin America carried that attitude with them. Today Sri Lankans have a similar attitude. The prevalence of this attitude in these societies can be acknowledged with- out suggesting that all Hispanics and Sri Lankans are lazy. (Incidentally, the belief that manual labor is dishonorable reflects illogical reasoning rather than indolence.) As Thomas Sowell points out, the acknowledgment and examination of all cultural patterns, desirable and undesirable, advantageous *Note that any generalization that does not include a specific qualification such as most, many, some, several, or Agnes is understood to mean all members of the group. Thus saying, “New Yorkers are rude,” is the same as saying, “All New Yorkers are rude.” 120 PART TWO The Pitfalls and disadvantageous, is essential to understanding the success and failure of groups, nations, and entire civilizations.7 Both overgeneralizations and stereotypes hinder critical thinking be- cause they prevent us from seeing the differences among people within groups. To avoid these errors, resist the urge to force individual people, places, or things into rigid categories. In forming generalizations, keep in mind that the more limited your experience, the more modest you should make your assertion. In the continuums presented below, the center terms (one or some, occasionally, and possible) require the least experience. Each division to the right or the left of the center requires additional experience. The Subject Continuum all / most / many / one or some / few / almost none / none The Frequency Continuum always / usually / often / occasionally / seldom / hardly ever / never The Certainty Continuum certainly so / probable / possible / improbable / certainly not so Oversimplification Simplification is not only useful but essential, particularly at a time like the present, when knowledge is expanding so rapidly. People who know a great deal about a subject find it necessary to communicate with those who know little or nothing about it. Teachers must explain to students, experi- enced employees to novices, attorneys to clients, physicians to patients, and scientists to the general public. Simplification scales down complex ideas to a level that can be understood by less knowledgeable people. Oversimplification, on the other hand, goes beyond making complex ideas easier to grasp; it twists and distorts the ideas. Instead of informing people, oversimplification misleads them. Unfortunately, oversimplified statements can sound insightful; in such cases, the errors can be detected only by careful analysis. Here are two typical examples of oversimplification: Oversimplification Analysis If the students haven’t learned, Students’ failure to learn is some- the teacher hasn’t taught. times the teacher’s fault and sometimes the students’ own fault for not putting forth the required effort. This statement suggests that the fault always lies with the teacher; thus it oversimplifies.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 121 We know ourselves better than It is true that we know some others know us. things about ourselves better than others do; for example, our hopes, dreams, and fantasies. Yet there are things about ourselves that we unconsciously block to preserve our self-image; for example, per- sonal faults such as envy, petti- ness, and hypocrisy. These faults are often perfectly clear to others. By ignoring this fact, the statement in question oversimplifies. Oversimplification often occurs in matters about which people have strong feelings. When laws were passed requiring restaurants to serve any customer, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, some restaurant owners were angry. They reasoned that people who invest their hard-earned money in a business have the right to serve or not serve whomever they please. That side of the issue was so important to them that they regarded it as the only side. But there was another important side: the right of citizens to have access to public places. Similarly, when the Federal Aviation Administration published regu- lations governing hang gliders and ultralight motorized aircraft, the U.S. Hang Gliders Association protested. It argued that the government “has no business regulating an outdoor recreational sport that consists largely of people running and gliding down remote hills and sand dunes.” The association was seeing one side of the issue, the side that affected it. If that were the only side, this position would be reasonable. But there is another important side to the issue: keeping the airspace safe for all who use it, including commercial and private planes. (The FAA reports that hang gliders have been observed as high as 13,000 feet.8) By ignoring that side, the association oversimplified the issue. The desire for ratings and financial success has pressured some jour- nalists to abandon the traditional ideals of balanced, accurate reporting and instead to sensationalize their stories. That is why a considerable amount of contemporary news and commentary deals in speculation, gossip, and unfounded opinion and why shouting matches between proponents of opposing views often substitute for reasoned debate. The unfortunate result of this sensationalizing is that issues are oversimplified. Be alert for over- simplification in what you read and hear, and avoid it in your own thinking and expression. The Post Hoc Fallacy Post hoc is an abbreviation of a Latin term, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore because of this.” It expresses the reasoning 122 PART TWO The Pitfalls that when one thing occurs after another, it must be the result of the other. The error in this thinking is the failure to realize that mere order and close- ness in time does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. One event can follow another by coincidence and thus be entirely unrelated to it. The post hoc fallacy is likely the basis of most superstitions. Misfortune befalls someone shortly after he walks under a ladder or breaks a mirror or has a black cat cross his path, and he judges that event to be responsi- ble for the misfortune. Sam is in the habit of arriving late to English class. Yesterday the pro- fessor told him that the next time he was tardy, he would be refused admis- sion. Today Sam got a composition back with a grade of D. He reasons that the professor gave him a low grade out of anger over his lateness. Sam has committed the post hoc fallacy. Maybe the professor did lower the grade for that reason, and maybe not. The paper may simply have been inferior. Without additional evidence, Sam should withhold judgment. There is nothing wrong with inquiring into cause-and-effect relation- ships. In fact, the search for truth will often require that you do so. However, you should be careful to avoid the post hoc error––withhold judgment until you have evaluated all possible explanations, including coincidence. Applications 1. Ebonics is an African American dialect that some educators wanted to make a legitimate second language in California schools. One critic of the proposal wrote the following: “In plain talk, ‘Ebonics’ is no more than African American gutter slang.... If Ebonics has any credibility at all, it is as the dialect of the street—the dialect of the pimp, the idiom of the gang-banger and the street thug, the jargon of the school dropout, a form of pidgin English that reeks of African American fail- ure.”9 Does anything you read in this chapter apply to this quotation? Explain. 2. An author argued that the real meaning of Christmas, the birth of Christ, has been “buried under an avalanche of toys, tinsel, artificial trees, and fruit cakes”and that we ought to rediscover that lost meaning and message. One of his points was this: “The more Christian, in the true sense of the word, America becomes, the more morally sensitive it will be and the better for all of us— Christians and non-Christians, atheists and agnostics alike.” Does anything you read in this chapter apply to this quotation? Explain. 3. Charles, an atheist, is writing a paper on the issue of prayer in public schools. He is well acquainted with the arguments advanced by those who oppose such prayer but unfamiliar with the other side of the issue. Charles reasons that because the paper he produces will be his own, it would be not only distasteful but foolish for him to read material that he knows he disagrees with and will ulti- mately argue against. So he confines his research to articles and books that oppose all prayer in the schools. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Explain. 4. Describe one or more situations in which you or someone you know committed the error of the double standard. Explain the error in terms that someone who did not read this chapter would understand.