Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
10 logical mistakes you make every day — and what to do instead
Do you ever act irrationally? You probably have. Let's take a look at how to fix that.
Most of us like to suppose that we are rational people, going about our days with at least some attempt at using logic and reason. However, logical fallacies and simple mistakes are everywhere. Some wrong ways of thinking are so familiar or so easy to overlook that it is possible you're unaware that there is even a mistake being made.
Here are ten logical fallacies and mistakes you make every day that cause life to be a little more difficult, and how you can avoid making those mistakes again.
The Gambler's Fallacy
When you flip a coin nine times in a row, can you use the results to predict what will happen the tenth time? While many people might try to say "tails has been on a streak" or "heads is overdue," neither of these past events has any effect on the next outcome. Both outcomes still have a 50-50 chance of happening on the next flip. The results of the next coin toss cannot be affected by the results of the last.
What should I do?
Instead of viewing probabilities in the long run, such as the idea that the coin has to have 50 heads and 50 tails results in a set of 100, or that a roulette wheel must hit all numbers at the same rate over a long enough time, look at each bet as separate from all others. The odds never change as a result of the last outcome for a fixed odds, random system.
The Appeal to Authority
Authority figures, but only on law.
Can something be true just because I say it is? Of course not. If your mechanic tells you that you need an oil change, is that true? It probably is. The appeal to authority is one of the subtler fallacies, but one that can still be overcome. Nothing is true just because an authority figure says it is. Instead, something is correct, and the authority figure has determined that fact by using their expertise on the subject.
Determining if the person you are talking to is trying to use raw, irrelevant authority to persuade you or if they actually are an expert on the subject is essential. The difficulty in saying that an authority figure is wrong was studied in the Milgram Experiment. However, it is rarely considered a good excuse to say you were just doing what you were told.
What should I do?
Don't blindly take a statement as true just because an authority figure gave it. My doctor is an authority on medicine and what he tells me about my health is likely to be correct. However, he has less knowledge when it comes to woodworking. On that subject, his authority as a doctor is meaningless. Always assure that an authority figure is qualified and that what they say is likely to be true before taking it as a fact.
The False Dilemma
We've all either heard or made this argument. We must do either A or B, and since A is not what we want then we must do B. However, very often we are facing a false dilemma. A situation where we have more than two choices and are being railroaded into thinking we don't.
What should I do?
When it seems you only have two choices, always make sure there are actually only two options. If a person starts a sentence with the phrase, "The choice is simple," know they are probably about to introduce a false dilemma.
The Post-Hoc Fallacy
Good luck charms, the most common form of this fallacy.
Many people tend to see patterns where they don't exist. This fallacy is when you connect two unrelated events and presume one caused the other. For example, when you flip on a light switch and hear a crash in the next room. Did flipping the switch cause the noise? No, but we often still try to connect events with no relationship. This fallacy is often the basis for good luck charms. "I brought my rabbit's foot with me, and it went well!" you might hear. But, it does not follow that the rabbit's foot caused the outcome.
What should I do?
Remember that coincidences sometimes happen and that sometimes two unrelated events can occur in a way to make them look related. Likewise, remember that one incident seeming to cause another wouldn't prove a relationship anyway; you would need many more tests to demonstrate that.
Affirming the Consequent
The building has collapsed, but do you know why?
This mistake is so easy to make that there can be no doubt that nearly everyone has done it. It is so similar to a valid form of thinking that the mistake can slip right past us.
While it is correct to argue this way:
If A, then B.
However, this is not correct:
If A, then B.
For example, saying "If the cornerstone is removed from the building it will fall over" is fine. But if we see the building has collapsed, it is still possible that another event caused it. The cornerstone might never have moved.
What should I do?
If-then thinking is beneficial and a useful tool, but always be sure that your thinking is going in the right direction. The cause can be used to predict the effect, but the result cannot be used to prove what the cause was. You need more evidence for that.
The Relativist Fallacy
If you believe it hard enough, is this dog really a unicorn?
Can the statement, "Well, it's true for me," ever be correct? It can, but you must use it carefully. While some statements are fully relative, like "I think cilantro tastes horrible," others are fully objective, like "Unicorns do not exist." While it makes sense for a person to say that cilantro tastes terrible to them, it doesn't work to say that unicorns are real for one person and not the next. The existence or non-existence of unicorns is an objective fact not influenced by any belief in that fact.
What should I do?
While some truths, such as ideas on what tastes good, are relative, others, such as what the capital of Canada is, are not. Before you either argue or listen to an argument that somebody is entitled to their own truth, first ask if the fact in question is one that can be relative. If that fact cannot be made true just by believing in it, then they this fallacy may be present.
The Genetic Fallacy
If I am made up of DNA, am I a double helix?
If one thing comes from another, do they have to share traits? This might seem like a convenient bias to have. However, do redwood trees seem to have much in common with their seeds? The genetic fallacy is the assumption that anything with an origin in one thing is highly likely to share traits.
What should I do?
This one is easy to do by accident, but also simple to overcome with a little extra thinking. Remember that things need not have the same traits as their origin. Think of the Volkswagen company; it was founded by the Nazi labor front. Does that make it a Nazi company now? Of course not, we would have to examine its present merits by themselves to determine that. The best thing to do for this fallacy is to try to examine why a thing has the traits it has without using its origin as an end-all answer.
The Inductive Fallacy
Will the sun always come up? It always has!
The sun came up today, does that mean it will come up tomorrow? David Hume showed us in 1748 that inductive arguments can never give us certainty, only probabilities and useful generalizations. The fact that apples always have fallen to the earth doesn't mean it will forever continue to happen. It is simply probable. Here's another example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." Inductive thinking makes a broad and highly probably generalization from specific information, but it is assumption, not certainty.
What should I do?
While you don't need to worry about the sun taking a day off tomorrow, it's not because it has never failed to rise. Inductive reasoning can't prove things, but it can be used to help find the best explanation for things. These reasons are better to use in arguments as to why an event will or will not happen than just saying that it has always happened before.
The Slippery Slope
A very slippery slope.
This fallacy is a common one. You have undoubtedly heard somebody say that taking action A is a slippery slope to taking action B, and B is horrible. They argue that we shouldn't take action A because it will, inevitably, lead us to take action B. But is that true? Generally speaking, no.
Now, slippery slope arguments can be good ones if it can be proved that the slope exists. If you can show that taking action A will inevitably lead to me taking action B then you have a good argument. However, most of the time people fail to demonstrate that inevitability.
What should I do?
If you are making the argument, be sure to demonstrate that action A concretely leads to action B. Simply saying "It could happen" doesn't count. You have to either prove it or show that it is much more likely to happen by action A taking place. If you are listening to the argument, always make sure that claimed connections between events are there.
The Masked Man Fallacy
A masked man.
Identical objects share all of the same properties. This rule, called Leibnitz's law, seems simple enough to understand. However, it is very easy to misuse this concept to make bad arguments.
This argument is correct:
1. A is C
2. B is not C
Therefore: A is not B.
However, you can't plug in just any property into the argument and have it work. Think about this one:
The Joker believes that Batman beat him up.
The Joker does not believe that Bruce Wayne beat him up.
Therefore: Batman is not Bruce Wayne.
While physical properties follow Leibnitz's law, attitudes, beliefs, and psychological states don't necessarily do so.
What should I do?
When you are identifying a person, object, or idea be sure to check that the properties you are looking for are non-relative ones.
Here are more tips for making better decisions, from poker pro Liv Boeree:
Inventions with revolutionary potential made by a mysterious aerospace engineer for the U.S. Navy come to light.
- U.S. Navy holds patents for enigmatic inventions by aerospace engineer Dr. Salvatore Pais.
- Pais came up with technology that can "engineer" reality, devising an ultrafast craft, a fusion reactor, and more.
- While mostly theoretical at this point, the inventions could transform energy, space, and military sectors.
The U.S. Navy controls patents for some futuristic and outlandish technologies, some of which, dubbed "the UFO patents," came to light recently. Of particular note are inventions by the somewhat mysterious Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, whose tech claims to be able to "engineer reality." His slate of highly-ambitious, borderline sci-fi designs meant for use by the U.S. government range from gravitational wave generators and compact fusion reactors to next-gen hybrid aerospace-underwater crafts with revolutionary propulsion systems, and beyond.
Of course, the existence of patents does not mean these technologies have actually been created, but there is evidence that some demonstrations of operability have been successfully carried out. As investigated and reported by The War Zone, a possible reason why some of the patents may have been taken on by the Navy is that the Chinese military may also be developing similar advanced gadgets.
Among Dr. Pais's patents are designs, approved in 2018, for an aerospace-underwater craft of incredible speed and maneuverability. This cone-shaped vehicle can potentially fly just as well anywhere it may be, whether air, water or space, without leaving any heat signatures. It can achieve this by creating a quantum vacuum around itself with a very dense polarized energy field. This vacuum would allow it to repel any molecule the craft comes in contact with, no matter the medium. Manipulating "quantum field fluctuations in the local vacuum energy state," would help reduce the craft's inertia. The polarized vacuum would dramatically decrease any elemental resistance and lead to "extreme speeds," claims the paper.
Not only that, if the vacuum-creating technology can be engineered, we'd also be able to "engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level," states the patent. This would lead to major advancements in aerospace propulsion and generating power. Not to mention other reality-changing outcomes that come to mind.
Among Pais's other patents are inventions that stem from similar thinking, outlining pieces of technology necessary to make his creations come to fruition. His paper presented in 2019, titled "Room Temperature Superconducting System for Use on a Hybrid Aerospace Undersea Craft," proposes a system that can achieve superconductivity at room temperatures. This would become "a highly disruptive technology, capable of a total paradigm change in Science and Technology," conveys Pais.
High frequency gravitational wave generator.
Credit: Dr. Salvatore Pais
Another invention devised by Pais is an electromagnetic field generator that could generate "an impenetrable defensive shield to sea and land as well as space-based military and civilian assets." This shield could protect from threats like anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles that evade radar, coronal mass ejections, military satellites, and even asteroids.
Dr. Pais's ideas center around the phenomenon he dubbed "The Pais Effect". He referred to it in his writings as the "controlled motion of electrically charged matter (from solid to plasma) via accelerated spin and/or accelerated vibration under rapid (yet smooth) acceleration-deceleration-acceleration transients." In less jargon-heavy terms, Pais claims to have figured out how to spin electromagnetic fields in order to contain a fusion reaction – an accomplishment that would lead to a tremendous change in power consumption and an abundance of energy.
According to his bio in a recently published paper on a new Plasma Compression Fusion Device, which could transform energy production, Dr. Pais is a mechanical and aerospace engineer working at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), which is headquartered in Patuxent River, Maryland. Holding a Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, Pais was a NASA Research Fellow and worked with Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. His current Department of Defense work involves his "advanced knowledge of theory, analysis, and modern experimental and computational methods in aerodynamics, along with an understanding of air-vehicle and missile design, especially in the domain of hypersonic power plant and vehicle design." He also has expert knowledge of electrooptics, emerging quantum technologies (laser power generation in particular), high-energy electromagnetic field generation, and the "breakthrough field of room temperature superconductivity, as related to advanced field propulsion."
Suffice it to say, with such a list of research credentials that would make Nikola Tesla proud, Dr. Pais seems well-positioned to carry out groundbreaking work.
A craft using an inertial mass reduction device.
Credit: Salvatore Pais
The patents won't necessarily lead to these technologies ever seeing the light of day. The research has its share of detractors and nonbelievers among other scientists, who think the amount of energy required for the fields described by Pais and his ideas on electromagnetic propulsions are well beyond the scope of current tech and are nearly impossible. Yet investigators at The War Zone found comments from Navy officials that indicate the inventions are being looked at seriously enough, and some tests are taking place.
If you'd like to read through Pais's patents yourself, check them out here.
Laser Augmented Turbojet Propulsion System
Credit: Dr. Salvatore Pais
A new study suggests that reports of the impending infertility of the human male are greatly exaggerated.
- A new review of a famous study on declining sperm counts finds several flaws.
- The old report makes unfounded assumptions, has faulty data, and tends toward panic.
- The new report does not rule out that sperm counts are going down, only that this could be quite normal.
Several years ago, a meta-analysis of studies on human fertility came out warning us about the declining sperm counts of Western men. It was widely shared, and its findings were featured on the covers of popular magazines. Indeed, its findings were alarming: a nearly 60 percent decline in sperm per milliliter since 1973 with no end in sight. It was only a matter of time, the authors argued, until men were firing blanks, literally.
Well… never mind.
It turns out that the impending demise of humanity was greatly exaggerated. As the predicted infertility wave crashed upon us, there was neither a great rush of men to fertility clinics nor a sudden dearth of new babies. The only discussions about population decline focus on urbanization and the fact that people choose not to have kids rather than not being able to have them.
Now, a new analysis of the 2017 study says that lower sperm counts is nothing to be surprised by. Published in Human Fertility, its authors point to flaws in the original paper's data and interpretation. They suggest a better and smarter reanalysis.
Counting tiny things is difficult
The original 2017 report analyzed 185 studies on 43,000 men and their reproductive health. Its findings were clear: "a significant decline in sperm counts… between 1973 and 2011, driven by a 50-60 percent decline among men unselected by fertility from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand."
However, the new analysis points out flaws in the data. As many as a third of the men in the studies were of unknown age, an important factor in reproductive health. In 45 percent of cases, the year of the sample collection was unknown- a big detail to miss in a study measuring change over time. The quality controls and conditions for sample collection and analysis vary widely from study to study, which likely influenced the measured sperm counts in the samples.
Another study from 2013 also points out that the methods for determining sperm count were only standardized in the 1980s, which occurred after some of the data points were collected for the original study. It is entirely possible that the early studies gave inaccurately high sperm counts.
This is not to say that the 2017 paper is entirely useless; it had a much more rigorous methodology than previous studies on the subject, which also claimed to identify a decline in sperm counts. However, the original study had more problems.
Garbage in, garbage out
Predictable as always, the media went crazy. Discussions of the decline of masculinity took off, both in mainstream and less-than-reputable forums; concerns about the imagined feminizing traits of soy products continued to increase; and the authors of the original study were called upon to discuss the findings themselves in a number of articles.
However, as this new review points out, some of the findings of that meta-analysis are debatable at best. For example, the 2017 report suggests that "declining mean [sperm count] implies that an increasing proportion of men have sperm counts below any given threshold for sub-fertility or infertility," despite little empirical evidence that this is the case.
The WHO offers a large range for what it considers to be a healthy sperm count, from 15 to 250 million sperm per milliliter. The benefits to fertility above a count of 40 million are seen as minimal, and the original study found a mean sperm concentration of 47 million sperm per milliliter.
Healthy sperm, healthy man?
The claim that sperm count is evidence of larger health problems is also scrutinized in this new article. While it is true that many major health problems can impact reproductive health, there is little evidence that it is the "canary in the coal mine" for overall well-being. A number of studies suggest that any relation between lifestyle choices and this part of reproductive health is limited at best.
Lastly, ideas that environmental factors could be at play have been debunked since 2017. While the original paper considered the idea that pollutants, especially from plastics, could be at fault, it is now known that this kind of pollution is worse in the parts of the world that the original paper observed higher sperm counts in (i.e., non-Western nations).
There never was a male fertility crisis
The authors of the new review do not deny that some measurements are showing lower sperm counts, but they do question the claim that this is catastrophic or part of a larger pathological issue. They propose a new interpretation of the data. Dubbed the "Sperm Count Biovariability hypothesis," it is summarized as:
"Sperm count varies within a wide range, much of which can be considered non-pathological and species-typical. Above a critical threshold, more is not necessarily an indicator of better health or higher probability of fertility relative to less. Sperm count varies across bodies, ecologies, and time periods. Knowledge about the relationship between individual and population sperm count and life-historical and ecological factors is critical to interpreting trends in average sperm counts and their relationships to human health and fertility."
Still, the authors note that lower sperm counts "could decline due to negative environmental exposures, or that this may carry implications for men's health and fertility."
However, they disagree that the decline in absolute sperm count is necessarily a bad sign for men's health and fertility. We aren't at civilization ending catastrophe just yet.
A year of disruptions to work has contributed to mass burnout.
- Junior members of the workforce, including Generation Z, are facing digital burnout.
- 41 percent of workers globally are thinking about handing in their notice, according to a new Microsoft survey.
- A hybrid blend of in-person and remote work could help maintain a sense of balance – but bosses need to do more.
More than half of 18 to 25 year-olds in the workforce are considering quitting their job. And they're not the only ones.
In a report called The Next Great Disruption Is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready?, Microsoft found that as well as 54% of Generation Z workers, 41% of the entire global workforce could be considering handing in their resignation.
Similarly, a UK and Ireland survey found that 38% of employees were planning to leave their jobs in the next six months to a year, while a US survey reported that 42% of employees would quit if their company didn't offer remote working options long term.
New work trends
Based on surveys with over 30,000 workers in 31 countries, the Microsoft report – which is the latest in the company's annual Work Trend Index series – pulled in data from applications including Teams, Outlook and Office 365, to gauge productivity and activity levels. It highlighted seven major trends, which show the world of work has been profoundly reshaped by the pandemic:
- Flexible work is here to stay
- Leaders are out of touch with employees and need a wake-up call
- High productivity is masking an exhausted workforce
- Gen Z is at risk and will need to be re-energized
- Shrinking networks are endangering innovation
- Authenticity will spur productivity and wellbeing
- Talent is everywhere in a hybrid world
"Over the past year, no area has undergone more rapid transformation than the way we work," Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says in the report. "Employee expectations are changing, and we will need to define productivity much more broadly – inclusive of collaboration, learning and wellbeing to drive career advancement for every worker, including frontline and knowledge workers, as well as for new graduates and those who are in the workforce today. All this needs to be done with flexibility in, when, where and how people work."
Organizations have become more siloed
While the report highlights the opportunities created by increased flexible and remote working patterns, it warns that some people are experiencing digital exhaustion and that remote working could foster siloed thinking. With the shift to remote working, much of the spontaneous sharing of ideas that can take place within a workplace was lost. In its place are scheduled calls, regular catch-ups and virtual hangouts. The loss of in-person interaction means individual team members are more likely to only interact with their closest coworkers.
"At the onset of the pandemic, our analysis shows interactions with our close networks at work increased while interactions with our distant network diminished," the report says. "This suggests that as we shifted into lockdown, we clung to our immediate teams for support and let our broader network fall to the wayside. Simply put, companies became more siloed than they were pre-pandemic."
Burnout or drop out
One of the other consequences of the shift to remote and the reliance on tech-based communications has been the phenomenon of digital burnout. And for those who have most recently joined the workforce, this has been a significant challenge.
The excitement of joining a new employer, maybe even securing a job for the first time, usually comes with meeting lots of new people, becoming familiar with a new environment and adapting to new situations. But for many, the pandemic turned that into a daily routine of working from home while isolated from co-workers.
"Our findings have shown that for Gen Z and people just starting in their careers, this has been a very disruptive time," says LinkedIn Senior Editor-at-Large, George Anders, quoted in the report. "It's very hard to find their footing since they're not experiencing the in-person onboarding, networking and training that they would have expected in a normal year."
But it is perhaps the data around quitting that is one of the starkest indications that change is now the new normal. Being able to work remotely has opened up new possibilities for many workers, the report found. If you no longer need to be physically present in an office, your employer could, theoretically, be located anywhere. Perhaps that's why the research found that "41% of employees are considering leaving their current employer this year".
In addition to that, 46% of the people surveyed for the Microsoft report said they might relocate their home because of the flexibility of remote working.
A hybrid future
In looking for ways to navigate their way through all this change, employers should hold fast to one word, the report says – hybrid. An inflexible, location-centred approach to work is likely to encourage those 41% of people to leave and find somewhere more to their tastes. Those who are thinking of going to live somewhere else, while maintaining their current job, might also find themselves thinking of quitting if their plans are scuppered.
But remote working is not a panacea for all workforce ills. "We can no longer rely solely on offices to collaborate, connect, and build social capital. But physical space will still be important," the report says. "We're social animals and we want to get together, bounce ideas off one another, and experience the energy of in-person events. Moving forward, office space needs to bridge the physical and digital worlds to meet the unique needs of every team – and even specific roles."
Bosses must meet challenges head on
Although the majority of business leaders have indicated they will incorporate elements of the hybrid working model, the report also found many are out of touch with workforce concerns more widely.
For, while many workers say they are struggling (Gen Z – 60%; new starters – 64%), and 54% of the general workforce feels overworked, business leaders are having a much better experience. Some 61% said they were 'thriving', which is in stark contrast to employees who are further down the chain of command.
Jared Spataro, corporate vice president at Microsoft 365, writes in the report: "Those impromptu encounters at the office help keep leaders honest. With remote work, there are fewer chances to ask employees, 'Hey, how are you?' and then pick up on important cues as they respond. But the data is clear: our people are struggling. And we need to find new ways to help them."
Buildings don't have to be permanent — modular construction can make them modifiable and relocatable.