Your analysis may not be correct. Logical reasoning has many traps.

[[149777]]

People like to use a single chain of logical reasoning to explain a result, because the human brain is too stupid, and the simpler the information, the easier it is to understand. But in fact, the real world is not as rigorous and simple as the mathematical world. There are usually many reasons that lead to a phenomenon or result, and some cannot be deduced by simple logical reasoning. This leads to many traps in logical reasoning in reality, and seemingly reasonable reasoning is actually not valid at all.

Conjecture

One type of logical trap is to draw conclusions based on one's own imagination. The reasons have nothing to do with the conclusions, but because the real world is vague, it often sounds reasonable to people. Without further investigation, you will not know that it is nonsense. Luoji Siwei often does this. Let me give you a small example. One day, Luo Pang asked why almost only humans have whites of the eyes? Because animals need to hide their eyes, they cannot have whites of the eyes, and the most important need of humans is the assistance of others. The whites of the eyes help others understand their emotions, which is conducive to social interaction, so the whites of the eyes are developed. It sounds reasonable, but it is not the case when you think about it carefully. Many people use evolution to explain some people's characteristics and ignore its conditions, that is, the characteristics must have a greater improvement in survival rate in order to achieve survival of the fittest. Does the white of the eyes meet this condition? Imagine a tribe where everyone has no whites of the eyes. Suddenly, a person with whites of the eyes mutates and then the person with whites of the eyes will be very popular. Everyone only reproduces with him to pass on genes, and those without whites of the eyes will be eliminated? It doesn't make sense at all. If the process of the appearance of whites of the eyes is not a sudden change, but a gradual fading and fading, then it has nothing to do with the whites of the eyes helping with social interaction. It does not determine the survival rate at all. What's more, Husky also has whites of the eyes, so this is just nonsense.

Let's talk about the theory of evolution. There are some signs that the theory of evolution has been abused. According to this way of thinking, it is easy to use the "theory of evolution" to infer conclusions that are inconsistent with reality: As a primitive man, with a high infant mortality rate, how can you choose a girlfriend to increase the survival rate of your offspring and give your genes a competitive advantage? Of course, you should choose a strong woman, who can better protect the fetus during pregnancy, and the child born will have a high chance of being strong and have a high survival rate. In addition, primitive people have no guarantee of food and clothing, and girlfriends must be a little fat, and a little fat can resist sudden food shortages. In this way, after generations of elimination, the survival rate of male offspring who like strong and fat women is high, and the genes of males who don't like fat and strong women are gradually eliminated. Therefore, according to the inference, most men now should prefer strong and fat women. This kind of conjecture is quite interesting when it is used as a joke in daily life, but you should be careful when you use it as an argument to convince others.

Fabricating reality

The second is to deduce the conclusions you want, ignoring reality or fabricating part of reality. For example, when Zhou Hongyi was promoting his theory of micro-innovation, he often gave an example, that is, how did the iPhone come about? It did not appear with a snap, but was a process of gradual micro-innovation. First, a small iPod that can only listen to music was made, and then a screen was added to the iPod to become an iPod touch. Then, a call function was added to it, and then it became an iPhone. Here, one micro-innovation is made step by step, and many micro-innovations come together to form an iPhone. It makes sense, but is it true? The reality is that the iPod Touch was a product that appeared 8 months after the launch of the iPhone. It is a streamlined version of the iPhone. In addition, the iPhone system is a streamlined version of the Mac system, and has nothing to do with the iPod. When making this logical reasoning, these realities were completely ignored, and the reality of "the iPhone was transformed from the iPod step by step" was fabricated. Lao Zhou took it for granted and pieced together arguments to reason about his own arguments and fabricated reality at will, making it sound very logical. This is easy to convince people who do not understand the facts and only consider whether the logic is valid. In fact, it is another form of nonsense.

Generalizing

The third type is that all the arguments and conclusions are facts, but a limited number of reasons are picked out from the many reasons that lead to the results, and it is concluded that these reasons are the cause of the results, that is, generalizing from a single example. A typical application is success studies. There are many reasons for success, but only a few points such as diligence/high emotional intelligence/courage are picked out to deduce that a person will definitely succeed. There are also some health articles, such as XX lived to be 90 years old because she practiced Tai Chi every day. Like some social views, the United States is good because of democracy. Generalizing from a single example is the most widely used, because what is said is reality, and there is a certain relationship, and the reasoning makes sense. The human brain is more inclined to believe in simple logic, and often cannot handle the complex real world, so generalizing from a single example is very popular, which also provides a lot of room for many debates.