A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

fear

Fearful Generalization

by Leave a Comment

Reasoning is a lot like chainsaw. It is a useful tool when handled properly, but when wielded badly (perhaps while impaired by fear) it can create a bloody mess. While this analogy can be applied broadly to the various methods of logic, the focus is on the inductive generalization and how it can be turned into a wayward chainsaw under the influence of fear.

Consisting of a premise and a conclusion, the inductive generalization is a simple argument:

Premise 1: P% of observed Xs are Ys.

Conclusion: P% of all Xs are Ys.

Briefly put, the quality of an inductive generalization depends on the quality of the first premise, which is usually referred to as being a sample. The larger and more representative the sample, the stronger the argument (the more likely it is that the conclusion will be true if the premise is true). There are thus two main ways an inductive generalization can be bad. The first occurs when the sample is too small to adequately support the conclusion. For example, a person might have a run-in with a single bad driver from Ohio and conclude that all Ohio drivers are terrible. This is known as a hasty generalization and is a standard fallacy.

The second occurs when the sample is biased so that it does not properly represent the population in question. For example, a person who concludes that most people are Christians because everyone at her Christian church is a Christian would commit this fallacy. This is also a standard fallacy and is known as a biased generalization.

While works on fallacies do discuss these two fallacies, it is worth considering them in the specific context of fear—what I am calling a fearful generalization. On the one hand, it is not a new fallacy: a fearful generalization is structurally a hasty generalization or, less often, a biased generalization. On the other hand, the hallmark of a fearful generalization (that it is fueled by fear) does seem to make it worth considering on its own. I think that the role of fear in this sort of bad reasoning is worth considering, especially since addressing the fueling fear seems to be key to disarming this sort of poor reasoning.

As noted above, a fearful generalization is not a new fallacy structurally. Its defining quality is that a fallacious generalization is committed because of the psychological impact of fear. In the case of a hasty fearful generalization, the error is to draw an inference from a sample that is too small, and the error is caused by fear. For example, a female college student who hears about incidents of sexual harassment and assault on campuses might, from fear, infer that all or most male students are likely to harass or assault her. As another example, a person who hears about an undocumented migrant/illegal alien who commits a murder might, from fear, infer that all or most undocumented migrants/illegal aliens are murderers. In such cases the inference is fueled by fear. Metaphorically, the fear fills out the sample, making it feel like the conclusion is true. However, this is obviously an error in reasoning.

The biased fearful generalization occurs when the inference is based on a sample that is not representative, but this fact is overlooked because of the emotion of fear. Metaphorically, the fear makes the sample feel diverse enough to support the conclusion. For example, a person might look at data about migrants arrested by the police for crimes other than being in a country illegally and infer from the conviction data that most migrants are guilty of crimes. The bias is, of course, that migrants arrested for other crimes will obviously not represent the migrant population. A good generalization about what percentage of migrants commits crimes needs to include the entire population, not a sample consisting solely of those arrested.

As another example, if someone who is terrified of guns looks at crime data about arrests of people who have guns and infers from the conviction data that most gun owners are criminals, they would commit a biased generalization. This is because those arrested for gun crimes will not represent the entire gun-owning population. A good generalization about what percentage of gun-owners commit crimes needs to include the entire population, not a sample consisting solely of those arrested for such crimes.

It must be noted that when considering any fallacy, there are three things to always keep in mind. First, not everything that looks like a fallacy is a fallacy. After all, a good generalization has the same argument form as a hasty or biased generalization. Second, to infer that a fallacy must have a false conclusion is itself a fallacy (the fallacy fallacy). So, a biased or hasty generalization could turn out to have a true conclusion. Third, having a true conclusion does not mean that a fallacy is thus not a fallacy. As just noted, a hasty generalization could have a true conclusion—the problem lies in the logic. For example, if I go to a forest and see one red squirrel and infer all the squirrels in the forest are red, then I have made a hasty generalization. Even if I am right that all the squirrels are red. To use an analogy, it is like a lucky guess on a math problem: getting the right answer does not mean that one did the math properly. But how does one neutralize the fearful generalization?

On the face of it a fearful generalization would seem to be easy to neutralize. One would simply present the argument and consider the size and representativeness of the sample in an objective manner. The problem is, of course, that a fearful generalization is motivated by fear and fear impedes rationality and objectivity. Even if a fearful person tries to consider the matter, they might persist in their error because of their fear. To use an analogy, I have an irrational fear of flying—I know that I am probably the safest I will ever be while in a plane, but this does not impact my fear (I still fly, since I learned long ago to lock away fear in its own special place). Likewise, someone who is afraid of migrants or men might be able to do the math yet persist in their fearful conclusion. As such, one way of dealing with fearful generalizations would be the best way to deal with fear in general—but this goes beyond the realm of critical thinking and into the realm of virtue.

One way to try to at least briefly defuse the impact of fear is to try the method of substitution. The idea is to replace the group one fears with a group that one belongs too, likes or at least does not fear. This works best when the first premise remains true when the swap is made, otherwise the person can obviously reject the swap. This might have some small impact on the emotional level that will help a person work through the fear—assuming they want to. I will illustrate the process using Chad, a hypothetical Christian white male gun owner who is fearful of undocumented migrants (or illegals, if you prefer).

Imagine that Chad reasons like this:

Premise 1: Some migrants have committed violent crimes in America.

“Premise” 2: I (Chad) am afraid of migrants.

Conclusion: Most or many migrants are violent criminals.

As “critical thinking therapy” Chad could try swapping in one of his groups and see if his logic still holds.

Premise 1: Some white men have committed violent crimes in America.

“Premise” 2: I (Chad) am a white man.

Conclusion: Most or many white men are violent criminals.

Chad would agree that each argument starts with a true first premise, but Chad would presumably reject the conclusion of the second argument. If pressed on why this is the case, Chad would presumably point out that the statistical data does not support the conclusion. At this point, a rational Chad would realize that the same applies to the first argument as well. If this does not work, one could keep swapping in groups that Chad belongs to or likes until Chad is able to see the bias caused by his fear or one gets exhausted by Chad.

This method is not guaranteed to work (it probably will not), but it does provide a useful method for those who want to check their fears. Self-application involves the same basic process: swapping in your groups or groups you like in place of what you fear to see if your reasoning is good or bad.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

The Fear of Men

by 20 Comments

Shortly after the #metoo movement began gaining nationwide attention, a female student arrived at my office and started to close the door as she introduced herself. While it is embarrassing to admit this, I felt a sudden spike of fear. In an instant, my mind went through a nightmare scenario: what if she is failing the class and is planning to use an accusation of sexual harassment to try to scare me into passing her? Struggling to remain calm, I casually said “Oh, you can leave the door open.” She stopped closing it, sat down and we talked through the paper she was working on. I recall thinking at the time that my moment of fear was something women felt quite often when a man closed an office door behind them. Being a philosopher, my job is to rationally analyze things. So, naturally, I thought a great deal about the situation and want to share these considerations.

To head off any criticisms about inconsistency, I have always had an open-door policy for all my students. The cause of this dates to my grad school days when a female friend told me that when a male professor closes his office door on her, she feels trapped and vulnerable. As various famous cases indicate, her fear was not unfounded. As such, when I finally had my own office, I made sure to always keep the door open. To be consistent, I did the same for all students. As such, it was rather ironic that I would be one scared by the mere closing of my office door by a woman.

Like everyone else, I have various fears. A rather important question about a fear is whether it is rational or not. To illustrate, I will use my biggest fear, the fear of heights. Part of this fear is quite rational: I suffered a full quadriceps tear when a ladder went out from under me. As such, being wary about being on ladder, roofs and the edges of tall things like mountains is sensible. However, my fear also extends to flying: I am terrified by the though of flying. This fear, I know, is utterly irrational. Being inside a commercial airliner is one of the safest places a normal person can be; yet I have a deep fear of flying. I have never been in a crash or mishap, so there is not even an instigating incident to explain this fear.

While I have been told and have told myself that flying is nothing to fear, this does not work. Statistics and proof do not move the emotions. So, I deal with the fear using Aristotle’s method: I have made myself face my fear over and over until I can function perfectly normally—despite being utterly terrified. Because of my own crazy fear of flying, I do not dismiss other peoples’ fears, even when they might seem unfounded or even silly. As such, when men claim to be terrified of false accusations of sexual assault I do not dismiss this fear. This is, I am obligated to say, a fear I have felt as well.

As with any fear, a rather important question is whether the fear of a false accusation is a rational one or not. That is, is it like the sensible fear that leads me to be careful on ladders and roofs or is it like the irrational fear of flying that causes me needless suffering? As with any fear, this cannot be judged by the strength of the feeling—this gives no indication of the likelihood of a bad thing happening. To illustrate, most people are not terrified of the health complications of not exercising and not eating properly but are afraid of being attacked by a shark. But, poor health habits are vastly more likely to kill a person than a shark attack. Sorting out the rationality of the fear is a matter of statistics, unless a person has relevant data for their specific situation. For example, if I jump into shark infested waters with bleeding cuts, then my odds of being attacked by a shark are rather different than the general statistical data. As another example, a person who happens to associate with women who are scheming, unethical liars would have greater odds of being falsely accused of assault.

While, as discussed in the previous essay, it is challenging to have extremely accurate data about false accusations, the best available data shows that between 2% and 10% of accusations are shown to be false. The FBI claims that 8% of rape accusations are found to be false.  In contrast, unreported cases of assault (which, one must admit, are hard to quantify precisely) are much higher than the number of false accusations. The best evidence suggests that only 35% of sexual assaults are reported. As such, a man who assaults is statistically unlikely to be reported and the odds of a false accusation are extremely low.

But, one might point out, false accusations do happen. This is true, but the data shows that the typical false allegation is made by a teenage girl trying to get out of trouble. So, the notion that women use false accusations to destroy men does not have much of a foundation. This is not to say that such a scenario is impossible: it could happen. Going back to my fear of flying, the fear is not irrational because a crash could never happen. Rather, it is irrational because the fear is far out of proportion to the likelihood of the crash happening. So, the terror we men feel about being falsely accused of sexual assault is like my fear of flying: it is not a fear of the impossible, but a fear of the extremely unlikely.

There are, however, people who do have a reasonable fear of being wrongfully accused and convicted. These are, of course, black people (and other minorities). Many of those who are very vocal about their fear of men being falsely accused of sexual assault have little or no concern about the wrongful accusation and conviction of minorities and express faith in the system in this regard. This is, of course, an inconsistent view: if false accusations leading to harm are truly awful and something to worry about, then the false accusation of minorities should also be regarded this way. One might suspect that the worry does not stem from a passion for justice, but fear of accountability. Then again, it might also be a clever political use of scare tactics.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Anger & Fear

by Leave a Comment

Figure 20 from Charles Darwin's The Expression...
Image via Wikipedia

It is rather common for politicians and pundits to make appeals to anger and fear in the hopes of getting people to accept claims. While these appeals are often effective, they are most often based on fallacies:  the appeal to fear and appeal to anger. The fallacies are as follows:

The appeal to fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:

  1. Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
  2. Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

Naturally, there are cases in which something can provide a legitimate reason to accept a claim while also generating fear. For example, if you are told that you should back away slowly because you are near a deadly snake, then you would probably be worried-but you would also have a good reason to believe that you should back away.

The appeal to anger (also known as an appeal to spite) is a fallacy in which something that generates a feeling of anger  is substituted for evidence when an “argument” is made against a claim. This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

  1. Claim X is presented with the intent of generating anger (or spite)
  2. Therefore claim C is false (or true)

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because a feeling of anger does not count as evidence for or against a claim. This is quite clear in the following case: “Bill claims that the earth revolves around the sun. But remember that dirty trick he pulled on you last week. Now, doesn’t my claim that the sun revolves around the earth make sense to you?”

Of course, there are cases in which a claim that evokes a feeling of anger can serve as legitimate evidence.  For example, if you know that someone has stolen from your club, then you would be angry but also have a good reason to believe that the person should not be elected treasurer. However, it should be noted that the actual feelings of anger or spite are not evidence.

When people fall for these fallacies, they typically do so because they assume that if they feel afraid or angry, then they must be justified in feeling anger or fear. While it is true that the person does feel the way he does, the fact that a person is angry or afraid does not prove that his feeling of anger or fear is warranted. That is, he may be angry or afraid and not have a legitimate reason to feel the way he does.

People can, obviously enough, be angry or afraid for no good reason or feel anger or fear far out of proportion to the situation. For example, someone who is accidentally cut off in traffic might become enraged enough to pull a gun and start blazing away. While the person is truly angry, her response would be disproportional to the provocation.

When someone is being swayed by an appeal to her anger or her fear, she should ask two questions: 1) Have I been given a legitimate reason to be angry or afraid?  and 2) is my anger or fear proportional to the situation? If the answer to either question is “no”, then the person should work hard to reign in her feelings.

Unfortunately, fear and anger have an unpleasant tendency to impair a person’s reason. As such, a person who is angry or afraid will tend to not think critically about his fear or anger. This is what politicians and pundits count on and it is generally safe for them to put their faith in these methods. For example, much of the bailout plan was pushed through with the aid of appeals to fear. As another example, appeals to fear are common ploys used by folks opposed to the health care reform being proposed by the Obama administration.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Flying

by Leave a Comment

I recently bought plane tickets, thus setting off my usual dread of flying. I dread flying for two main reasons. First, I am terrified of heights. Second, American airlines are, to use the technical phrase, “sucking bad” this year.

The fear of heights thing is, of course, my problem. This fear brings great shame along with it because my great grandfather was a Mohawk and Mohawks have a reputation for being unafraid of heights. In fact, they are famous for working the high steel in construction. My father also doesn’t do well with flying and he is, of course, even more Mohawk than I.

Fear is, of course, a difficult thing. When it comes to such feelings, people feel what they feel (obviously). However, as Aristotle argued in his Nicomachean Ethics, we can consciously modify how we feel by conditioning. Or rather, to be more accurate, we can shape how we deal with how we feel. I’ve never been able to shake my fear of heights. Even buying tickets for a flight brings sweat up on my palms-that is how extreme and pathetic the fear is. However, when I fly I show absolutely no sign of concern and have, on occassion, helped other passengers deal with their fear. The fear doesn’t go away, buy I can control how I respond to it. To use an analogy, it is like being stuck on a plane with a screaming child. There is nothing you can really do to stop the child from screaming. But, you can control how you react to that. In the case of the fear, it is like having something screaming away on the inside. I’ve found that I can simply ignore it and thus prevent it from having any impact on my conscious actions. Naturally enough, this inclines me to accept Aristotle’s theory. I am also inclined to accept some of the classic views of the will-that a person is free and the master of her own mind. Naturally, there are forces that push against the will, but it seems a critical part of our being people and not just things. But, I could be wrong about this. In any case, even though I am terrified of heights, I have no problem functioning just fine while running about on top of tall objects or being on planes. I actually enjoy climbing and suspect that the fear merely adds to it.

The airlines sucking badly is, of course, mostly their problem. While some airlines enjoy sterling reputations, most of them are outside of the United States and, of course, none of them operate out of Tallahassee, Florida. I don’t fly that often, but almost ever time I’ve flown since the 1990s I’ve run into some kind of problem ranging from lost luggage to lengthy flight delays. Luckily, the longest I’ve been stranded in an airport has been about 7 hours, which is actually fairly minor these days.

Since there are some very good airlines, the main problem lies with the way the poor airlines are managed. After all, the airlines have to deal with the same basic problems so those that do it better must be better run. Or perhaps they are just lucky. Naturally, since the American airlines have to rely on the state for air traffic control and have to deal with Homeland Security, the state has a clear hand in making most American airlines suck.

Passengers also have a role in this as well. Making things go well requires money and it is hardly shocking that airlines that focus on providing more high end services (and higher end prices) tend to do better. The same is true in almost all industries. Compare, for example, your experience at a 5 star restaurant with that at McDonalds. Passengers tend to focus most on price and this means that airlines have to offer lower prices, which limits their resources. Also, when passengers pick cheap airlines, they will tend to have that McDonalds sort of experience.

Like many, these days I’ve lowered my airline expectations. I really just expect to  1) get to Maine from Florida in less than 12 hours and 2) survive the flight.

The Danger of Terrorism

by 2 Comments

I must admit that I miss Rudy Giuliani’s run for President. Without his constant reminders, I often forget that there are terrorists who want to kill me and, presumably, my pets as well.

Obviously, the threat of terrorism is real-people are killed by terrorists. However, there is an important question that often goes unanswered: how much of a threat do terrorists present?

In terms of the numbers, terrorists cannot hope to even match automobiles in raw killing power. After all, about 43,000 Americans die each year in automobile related events (many of which involve alcohol as well). In terms of injuries, terrorists also fall behind toilets (in 1996 43,687 people were injured by toilets), pruning (36,000 in 1996), and even buckets (10,000 injured in 1996). They are, however, well ahead of sharks (about 11 attacks per year in the US). Terrorists also cannot hope to compete with natural dangers such as extreme weather and illness.

Given the numbers, it would seem that terrorists are but a minor threat. Yes, even a single death is significant-but if we applied that sort of justification across the board we would also need have massive wars on everything that harms people-things ranging from swimming pools to fatty foods.

Obviously, the war on terror is not motivated primarily by the desire to protect people-we could save more lives by having wars on things that kill far more people (like a lack of health insurance). The main motivations are the usual things. A war on terror allows money to be funneled to the allies and friends of the politicians, it allows the government to justify numerous evil misdeeds (spying, torture, violating rights and so on), and it allows the government to shore up its power by generating fear.

It might be countered that although terrorists do not kill that many people each year, they would if they could. Plus, it is just a matter of time before they get WMDs and go on to kills vast numbers of people.

In reply, it certainly seems that terrorists could kill more people if there was, in fact, a terrorist threat that actually matches the hype put forth by the Republicans.

First, the American borders are a sieve. As the Republicans constantly warn us, illegal immigrants are swarming across the borders. If average folks from Mexico can cross the border and get into the United States with little difficulty, so could terrorists. Yet, there have been no attacks.

Second, America is extremely vulnerable and our defenses are rather ill-prepared. Right now, we have gang problems, problems with crime, vulnerable infrastructure and so on. If people can go on shooting sprees, if gangs can run parts of America cities, and if traffic accidents can tie things up for days, then terrorists should have an easy time of it here. Yet, they don’t seem to be doing anything.

Based on the evidence, it seems that the terrorist threat is vastly overstated. Yes, terrorism is a serious matter-but it is not a threat of the magnitude that some Republicans claim. It certainly does not justify the expenditure of billions of dollars, the systematic violation of rights, and the use of evil deeds like torture.

That said, we should be on guard on against terrorists-but to the degree that they pose a threat. Our priorities should be based on the degree of danger and there are far more serious dangers than the bugbear of terrorism.

Fear of Flying

by 2 Comments

I am terrified of heights. So much so, in fact, that even the thought of flying results in a lingering dread that haunts me-albeit in a very small way (like a ghost of a gnat).This fear of heights also applies to things like mountains and buildings.

When I’ve been in skyscrapers, I always felt rather uncomfortable-as if, at any moment, the floors would vanish beneath me and I would be given a rather quick trip to the basement.

I have no idea why I have this fear-I’ve never had a really bad fall and I’ve never been in a plane crash. Often it seems that fears are just there. Since most people do get afraid when actually falling, perhaps it is just some over active set of neurons that get rather fired up about this matter.

Naturally, some people find this fear rather amusing and like to see how I’ll react to such situations. The very best of the lot was done by my ex-wife (this is not, I assure you, why she is my ex). We were visiting a park in Maine and she wanted to visit the top of the mountain. So, we were driving up the mountain road and, as always, I fell asleep in the car. Seeing this, she pulled right up the guard rail and awoke me by pushing my face into the window-so it seemed that I was about to fall off the side of the mountain. I’m reasonably sure that only years of running kept my heart from failing. But, it was pretty funny.

Since I know I have this fear, I make it a point to always sit by the window on flights and stare out the window during take offs and landings. I also clean the gutters of my house and climb things when the opportunity presents itself. This is because I believe that my actions are under my control and not under the control of my irrational fear. So, I do what I need to do and simply endure that senseless feeling of terror.

I find this very interesting in terms of what it indicates about the mind. Specifically, it raises intriguing questions about choice and the interaction between the rational and the irrational aspects of the mind. Of course, I like to believe that my will is such that it can act freely in the face of such things as fear. This is something of a classic view of the mind and the freedom of the will.

However, the current view of the mind tends towards a materialist view and the idea that the mind is merely the functions of the nervous system. If this is true, then this so called will is merely one set of functions taking precedence over another set of functions. Regardless, I still fear to fly…but do it anyway. No, I don’t drink when I’m flying. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: