#137: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, Observational Selection & G.I. Joe Fallacy
3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on Fateful Fallacies
I. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
A while back I wrote about Apophenia, the human tendency to see connections where none exist. In a similar way, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy invokes the image of a gunman randomly firing at his barn. He then draws a target around the cluster where most of the bullets hit, declaring himself a marksman. (It should be noted that it’s a good shooting tradition to set up the target before you start firing.)
The same applies to everyday life, say, when meeting new people. It’s misleading to ignore the differences and focus on our similarities. But it’s what we do when we meet someone who also likes fitness, mental challenges and BJJ. Wow, just like us! We have so much in common! In reality, the chance of meeting such a person, particularly in your BJJ gym, is pretty high. But we focus on the similarities and ignore the randomness because we want it to be meaningful.
II. Observational Selection
Observational Selection is a fallacy English philosopher Francis Bacon once described as counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Science communicator Carl Sagan, who included it in his Baloney Detection Kit, knew a fitting anecdote:
My favorite example is this story, told about the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, newly arrived on American shores, enlisted in the Manhattan nuclear weapons Project, and brought face-to-face in the midst of World War II with U.S. flag officers:
So-and-so is a great general, he was told.
What is the definition of a great general? Fermi characteristically asked.
I guess it's a general who's won many consecutive battles.
How many?
After some back and forth, they settled on five.
What fraction of American generals are great?
After some more back and forth, they settled on a few percent.But imagine, Fermi rejoined, that there is no such thing as a great general, that all armies are equally matched, and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance. Then the chance of winning one battle is one out of two, or 1/2; two battles 1/4, three 1/8, four 1/16, and five consecutive battles 1/32 — which is about 3 percent. You would expect a few percent of American generals to win five consecutive battles — purely by chance. Now, has any of them won ten consecutive battles...?
—Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
III. G.I. Joe Fallacy
Every episode of the animated series G.I. Joe famously ended with a public service announcement for the kids. Tell the truth! Listen to your friends! Don’t step on frozen lakes! The kids in the series thanked the protagonists with a catchphrase: “Now we know.” But is that enough?
The G.I. Joe Fallacy is a reminder that merely knowing about a fallacy or bias is not enough to overcome it. According to researchers from Harvard and Yale, some biases are too “encapsulated”. For example, the Halo Effect (when positive impressions of someone influence our judgment about them in other areas) could not be averted by mere cognition. Then there’s the general problem of distraction while we’re in the heat of an emotional decision-making moment.
This isn’t to blame G.I. Joe, though. He knew better: "Knowing is half the battle," was the real sign-off. 🐘
Have a great week,
Chris
themindcollection.com