“Life isn’t logical” says director Quentin Dupieux. Julie James writes “Life isn’t always about logic and reasons….particularly when it comes to relationships.” Are they right? Or does logic have a lot to do with arguing about who does the dishes?
A little story will give us the answer.
Do You Know What Time It Is?!
Irma wants John to go with her to a company cocktail party. John hates these things. Irma promises they will only stay an hour. They arrive at 5:30. By 7:30 Irma is still talking, despite several hints by John. Growing increasingly impatient, John loudly grunts out “Do you know what time it is?” Irma, embarrassed, hastily says goodbye and leaves. When they get home, a predictable fight ensues. John angrily says “you promised we’d only stay an hour.” Irma, even more angrily interjects “why would you try to embarrass me in front of all my co-workers?” “What are you talking about,” asks John. “I was just reminding you of your promise. I wanted to go home.” “I can’t believe you,” says Irma. “Are you stupid?” And so the fight escalates.
How can logic help? Well, first of all, there are two issues. Irma broke her promise and John embarrassed her. One does not negate the other: Irma must address breaking her promise and John must address embarrassing her. Irma can’t negate John’s legitimate point by saying “well but you embarrassed me” and John can’t negate Irma’s legitimate point by saying “but you broke your promise.” Logicians sometimes call switching the topic to deflect attention a “red herring.” A common form of it is called “tu quoque” or “you’re another,” like when Irma says “you were supposed to do the dishes last night” and John says “well you were supposed to take out the garbage Sunday.” Irma’s lapse on Sunday doesn’t change the fact that John failed to do what he was supposed to (and vice versa). Another example is Alonso’s saying “my doctor said I have to stop smoking, but she’s way overweight herself.” The doctor’s weight will not keep Alonso from dying of emphysema.
Next, let’s focus on John’s behavior. Interestingly, John and Irma are both correct in what they say. Language has multiple functions. John saying, “do you know what time it is,” on the surface, is a request for information but more pointedly a request to leave the party. (It is a “directive” telling or asking or suggesting someone do something). He is also expressing his annoyance and impatience. His purpose or intent is to get them to leave. The effect of his loudly saying that is to embarrass Irma. So John was right that his purpose was not to embarrass Irma and Irma is right that the effect was to embarrass her. Irma should acknowledge that she was wrong to break her promise and in future she will either not make promises she can’t really keep or stick to what she agreed to. John should acknowledge he was wrong to embarrass her and should have found a more discrete way to remind Irma they need to leave. Sorting all this out logically before jumping to an angry exchange allows them to make constructive progress instead of seeing each other as perverse idiots.
John and Irma were not really disagreeing—they had what philosophers call a “merely apparent disagreement” (as opposed to a genuine disagreement about facts or how to evaluate them). An awful lot of arguments would be avoided if people were clear about exactly what they’re really saying and if they really disagree. Who was the best baseball player ever? A says it was Jackie Robinson, B says it was Babe Ruth. They argue loud and long. But do they really disagree? A is pointing to Jackie Robinson’s powerful effect on baseball (and society) by breaking the color line, an effect arguably more important than baseball itself. B is pointing to the way Babe Ruth revolutionized the game. Before him, the lifetime home run record was 138 (Ruth hit 714.) In 1927, Babe Ruth alone hit more home runs than any other entire American League team. He was also an outstanding pitcher. They could both acknowledge that Ruth revolutionized how the game was played and Robinson had the most important social impact. They might be disagreeing about what “best” means here, but more likely they would just acknowledge the other had a valid point. End of argument.
Btw, you’ll all recognize a very common argument fueled by confusion over different functions of language. Irma tells John about a problem she was having at work. John offers her advice. Irma gets angry: “you don’t think I’m capable of handling it myself?” John: “are you on your period?” Predictable mayhem ensues. No, John is not implying Irma can’t handle the problem. Irma should not be offended. He interprets her story as an invitation to problem solve, a directive (“let’s think about this together”). No, Irma is not crazy. She intended her story as social bonding, another important function of language. She wanted to share her day and connect, so the kind of response she anticipated was, for example, “I can’t believe they did that to you.” Understanding the different functions of language and being clear about them would keep this fight from ever happening.
Flirting and Types of Definition
For John and Irma, the argument is just getting started.
John: Anyway, I can’t believe how you were flirting with Leo.
Irma: I wasn’t flirting with him. We were just talking.
John: I saw how you kept laughing and tossing your hair. And how you told him “you’ve been going to the gym—you look great” and kept touching his elbow. I’m not deaf and blind.
John and Irma probably have different definitions of flirting. Each would insist that their definition is the right one. Who’s right?
The answer is that there are different kinds of definitions. A lexical definition spells out how the word is ordinarily used in English. You can check a dictionary for this. Some words have more than one ordinary meaning (“I heard a sound” v. “that’s sound advice”). You need to beware of ambiguity, of using a word in two different ways. John and Irma can recognize they mean different things by “flirting.” Each can stipulate what they mean. Stipulative definitions are often used for convenience or precision (“precising” definitions), like when the draft board says “flat feet shall mean feet with less than a ¼ inch arch.” But they should fit the purpose at hand. Here, the purpose is to help draw a line around what is permitted in a monogamous relationship. John and Irma agree that “flirting” with other people is not appropriate in their relationship. So defining “flirting” is really deciding what behavior is ok and what is questionable at best. (Another couple might agree that “flirting” is ok but kissing is not. Or they might decide to have an “open” relationship.) If John and Irma understand this, they can work through the real issue of what the boundaries are instead of fighting about the word “flirting.”
Housework and Straw
Let’s eavesdrop on another conversation:
Imelda: I’m tired of doing most of the housework. You need to do more.
Roberto: How can you say I never do any housework? Who emptied the dishwasher last night?
This is a classic case of what philosophers call the “straw man” fallacy. Imelda said she does most of the housework. Roberto can’t really answer that—she has a valid point. She does a lot more housework than he does and he should do more. So he changes what she said to something obviously false, namely, that she does all of the housework. Now he can dismiss what she says by pointing to one example when he did some housework. “Most” and “all” are not the same. Roberto pulled a dirty trick by changing what Imelda said. Unless Imelda is able to spot Roberto’s move and get him to see it, they will never get anywhere: she will get furious at his evasion of responsibility and he will get angry that she’s making sweeping false accusations. Logic can help here. Of course, even if Imelda explains clearly that she’s not saying he does no housework, just that she does a lot more, Roberto can ignore what she’s saying and insist she’s being unfair in saying he does no housework. That’s the equivalent of covering your ears and yelling “nah nah nah.” But if your adult partner routinely throws childish tantrums, you have bigger problems than housework.
Bait and Switch
This kind of bait and switch takes many forms. “Roberto, you’re a disgusting slob. Were you raised in a pig-sty? Put your dirty clothes in the hamper now, not after you shower.” Roberto predictably gets angry. Imelda tells her friend “Roberto got furious just because I asked him to put his clothes in the hamper.” But that’s not what Roberto complained about—Roberto objected to her insults, not the request. (Plus, the request was not about putting clothes in the hamper, which Roberto does, but about whether he should do it pre or post shower.)
Kelly Anne Conway was famous for “whatboutism”: instead of answering a difficult question about Republicans, she frequently switched the topic by saying “what about” something unrelated that a Democrat did. She was not the first or last to use this strategy, and it pops up in relationship and family arguments even more than in politics. A: “You were mean to my mother. B: “Really? You’re going to bring that up? What about you flirting at the Christmas Party?” Whether or not a flirted at the party doesn’t change the fact that B was mean to A’s mother.
Darryl: You didn’t pay your share of the rent again this month. Bill: You count everything, don’t you? You think you’re so perfect!”
As I’ve said before (The Gift of Failure https://acupofwhy.com/the-gift-of-failure-learning-from-mistakes/), whether or not Daryll counts everything, there’s something to count; it doesn’t change the fact that Bill didn’t pay. Whether or not Darryl thinks he’s perfect, Bill still didn’t pay.
One good question to ask when faced with these fallacies is: “even if that’s true, does it really change anything?”
Deflection
Straw man, you’re another, whataboutism, and bait and switch generally are all forms of deflection or smoke screens we put up to avoid the real issue. There are many forms of deflection. Another way some people avoid an issue is with an emotional display. Don’t want to answer an inconvenient question? Act offended that the question was asked. Don’t have an answer to your spouse’s point? Throw a fit and storm out of the room. Or break into tears and sob “you don’t love me.” The absolute worst form of this is physical violence. The next time you’re tempted to silence your partner by throwing a fit of some sort, realize that’s on the spectrum with silencing them by punching them. It’s of course a less bad part of the spectrum: hitting is much worse than yelling. But it’s still the same basic strategy.
Deflection is dishonest. It is a form of disrespect. Most importantly, it creates resentment and leaves the problem unresolved. Darryl may be more tempted to break up with Bill because they can’t talk about an issue than because he doesn’t pay rent sometimes. Bill’s “cure” is worse than the original problem. Roberto keeps resenting Imelda because she not only failed to apologize for or take back what she said about him but refused to acknowledge there was even an issue. People deflect because they want to protect their ego and not admit to being wrong, or because they want to keep doing something they know is wrong or unfair. Or there may be another reason why someone wants to avoid dealing with an issue or an inconvenient truth. But it’s almost never worth it. The harm you do to your relationship (and your integrity) is too high a price.
Infidelity and a Slippery Slope
Now let’s listen to Mae and Chen: “Really? You want to have coffee with your ex whom you haven’t seen in ten years? What’s next? A cozy romantic dinner for two? How would you like it if I went away on vacation with my boss?”
This is an example of what philosophers call “slippery slope.” Maybe having coffee is the “first step” toward having an affair, but there is no reason to think Chen will take steps two, three, and four. Taking one step to my left is the first step to drowning in the Pacific Ocean (which is forty miles to my left), but taking that step toward the door poses no risk of drowning.
There are many more logical fallacies that crop up in personal life, politics, online arguments, and almost every phase of life. You can explore the world of informal logic by visiting the sites and books listed below.
You Can Ignore Logic but It Won’t Ignore You
The Logic Police are not going to break down your door and handcuff you if you ignore everything in this blog post. But there is a price if you do. As I always told my students, you can ignore logic, but it won’t ignore you. If you’re standing on a train track and a train is speeding toward you, you know that if you don’t jump off the track you will be hit and that if you are hit you will be killed or seriously injured. You don’t want to be killed or injured. It follows that you should jump. You can ignore this bit of logical reasoning. But the train doesn’t care what you know in your heart, or what you feel, or what your gut tells you. If you don’t jump off the track, you’re applesauce.
Ignoring logic in the examples I gave creates only a metaphorical trainwreck. You’re not likely to wind up in the hospital (though possibly in divorce court). But the consequences are real. People who respect logic get along better. After all, conflicts in life are inevitable. One way to settle them is by whoever exerts the most force, physically, financially, or emotionally. (Even small kids understand that pouting or looking sad can be a powerful weapon.) This way usually leaves somebody resentful and unhappy. The other way is with reason, thinking reasonably about what is fair, true, or works best for everyone. If you can’t tell which way is more likely to lead to a happy marriage, you need more help than I can give. In short, Fallacy? Falla No!
Further Reading
Logical fallacies: Seven Ways to Spot a Bad Argument by Amanda Ruggeri https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-seven-ways-to-spot-a-bad-argument
How to Win Every Argument by Madsen Pirie http://livre2.com/LIVREE/E1/E001006.pdf
How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24V8SX4EF3H7N&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DSCJ_TelfhmIpP15sb_02Hfdzj6CZrovjN7XSWZFtobXrGz3T-kXqEeSnMVhFk-cxJRJLnQUyHINVWJZtbGOTHD6ghwyyH_Z6czMlU3VwaDnBPHOkv_4PC6TBPYeep0R3VKpZavCMfh3zvB2bq3GftvQtp5dcihCJ4N48bsgChSxyAZmYrO-9R7DeqxATdwl6ZSWSTJCZ8vLvUZh0rPYwGbv996g3QndiKHsS4dYwnY.-_Tnv6vrFqT6OqH9XA11uNjYGH16B9fZ9ewXU-AXZOI&dib_tag=se&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics&qid=1755973477&sprefix=huff+how+to+lie%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9YFSO8FFKWPS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._sSAzNMeubola2iVTSnVxs7DKR7PA7pReV219DqmwmsG6_ep3CuBXqlyWfTN83rsTDxw3–SxQy1eQDraCW1Rw.R7wq1krxopKwO-W-QFATuBHZ9ysmJDCcgkySRn_xvFs&dib_tag=se&keywords=An+Illustrated+Book+of+Bad+Arguments+by+Ali+Almossawi&qid=1755973661&sprefix=an+illustrated+book+of+bad+arguments+by+ali+almossawi+%2Caps%2C216&sr=8-1
And, for a more complex but authoritative take, delve into the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
Disclaimer
Nothing that appears on this blog is meant to replace legal advice, therapy, or medical treatment. I am not providing legal, medical, or mental health advice. Always seek the advice of your own attorney or medical or mental health provider about specific questions concerning your specific health or legal issues.
