Today newspaper speaks to three marketers about whether and how to market in a recession. The marketers are Professor John Quelch (Harvard Business School), Mr Frank van den Driest and Ms Roxanne Aquino (both EffectBrands). We analyse their comments.
Source: Today, 28/4/9, p.B5
Headline: Don't be penny wise, pound foolish
Writer: Shermaine Wong
Quote1:
It is one of the biggest and one of the worst mistakes companies make during a recession. The blunder in point, according to three experts: Panicking and slashing marketing budgets to cut costs. ...
Comment1:
This sets the scene. We must resist the temptation to discount everything on the basis of "marketers will surely defend their turf". This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial), or appealing to the person's circumstances. Instead, we must consider their arguments on their own merits.
Quote2:
Mr van den Driest cautioned: "The returns on marketing spending take time to show. Gaining market share is as big a KPI as generating sales. If companies trim marketing budgets to cut costs, they'll suffer in the long term."
Comment2:
Here is the argument:
Premiss1: Either (spend on marketing) or (cut marketing spend) [suppressed]
Premiss2: If (spend on marketing), then (gain market share)
Premiss3: If (cut marketing spend), then (lose market share) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (spend on marketing)
This is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument, where we choose the most beneficial (or least harmful) of available options.
Quote3:
Mr van den Driest said companies should focus on their most important marketing projects instead of funding a bevy of them.
Comment3:
Given that not all projects can be funded (this is self-evident), the most important by definition should be retained. The problem here is that the word "important" is vague. We do not know what makes a project important. Further elaboration is needed.
Quote4:
Ms Aquino added: "Spend smart -- do fewer things well instead of trying to do many things simultaneously." ...
Comment4:
What if the "fewer things" are not the important things?
Quote5:
Mr van den Driest feels the recession might be a "blessing in disguise" as it forces marketers to return to basics to satisfy customers' needs. Mr van den Driest added: "Back to basics means solving customers' problems rather than just talking about your own brand."
Comment5:
Are "return to basics" and "satisfy customers' needs" elaborations of "important" in Quote3? If not, then which should companies focus on? Note that these are all assertions, not supported by any argument. It is up to the reader simply to agree or disagree with the assertions.
Quote6:
While marketers might be tempted to solely use new media like the Internet as it may be cheaper than TV or print, all three experts caution against abandoning traditional media completely. Prof Quelch maintains there needs to be a good mix between traditional and non-traditional forms of advertising.
Comment6:
The word "good" automatically implies adoption. This "true by definition" argument is called a petitio (pronounced "per-ti-shi-o"). It is not informative. Note the observation that using the Internet is cheap.
Quote7:
One advantage of advertising in print that the Internet cannot offer, according to Prof Quelch, is that advertisers can associate their product with the publication's strong brand image. Similarly, TV advertising will continue to appeal to luxury goods retailers, said Mr van den Driest, as the medium can "create that world of sensory emotions".
Comment7:
Again, there is an appeal to consequences:
1. If Internet, cheap.
2. If print, publication image.
3. If TV, emotions.
... and the relative costs.
Quote8:
Ms Aquino said: ... "Marketing is an investment and those who spend smartly with a medium term outlook will reap benefits."
Comment8:
Here is a conditional statement in the vein of the argument in Comment2:
If (spend on marketing), then (medium term benefits)
When combined with that argument, (spend on marketing) becomes clearly the option with the most beneficial consequences -- and hence should be chosen.
Summary & Conclusion:
We have a teleological argument in favour of continued marketing spending (Comments 2, 8), some idea of which projects to undertake (but no supporting argument) (Comments 3, 4, 5), and an idea of the benefits of respective media (Comments 6, 7).
END
Thursday 30 April 2009
Should we separate conjoined twins?
Singapore neurosurgeon Dr Keith Goh has undertaken several controversial operations to separate conjoined twins. In a recent interview, he made some philosophically interesting remarks.
Source: The Sunday Times, 26/4/9, p.35
Headline: Surgeon takes flak in his stride
Writer: Nur Dianah Suhaimi
Quote1:
He [Dr Goh] does not think he should walk away from a tough medical case out of fear. "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In life, we can't win 100 percent approval all the time. [a] But I always believe that we should give patients the benefit of the doubt and give them a thorough evaluation before saying no. [b] If these were my children, I would want them to be helped, not turned away without being given a chance [c]," he said.
Comment1:
[a] How much approval should we seek? Whose approval should we seek?
[b] Do patients lie? Is "evaluation" to verify patients' claims?
[c] Can we always generalise from a personal preference?
Quote2:
Having observed three pairs of conjoined twins, he is convinced their lives are far from normal. "It is a freakish life. People laugh at you, ridicule you. Plus it is so uncomfortable. Some of them become objects of fear in their society. Life like that is not life at all."
Comment2:
Do these conditions separately or jointly amount to "not life at all"? Is "not life at all" therefore deserving of possibly fatal surgery?
Quote3:
However, he stressed that in the end, the decision whether or not to go ahead with the surgery is not his to make alone. In the previous operations, while the ultimate decision lay with the patients and their parents, there were also many other doctors who had given the go-ahead.
Comment3:
Who should be involved in making the decision, and in what degrees?
Quote4:
He compared himself to Dr Christian Bernard, who pioneered heart transplants. Even though many of his patients died soon after their operations initially, he had persevered. Heart transplants have now become routine in medical practice. "In the course of medical history, many doctors have tried on different cases where the initial results have failed. But we must be brave and cannot give up," said Dr Goh.
Comment4:
Here we have an argument by analogy. Here's the analogue: Dr Bernard had initial failures, but persevered, and now heart transplants are routine. So also will be the case with conjoined twins.
Analogies work on similarity, and are derailed by serious dissimilarities. One such that I can think of is that hearts are straightforwardedly connected to the other body parts by arteries and veins; whereas conjoined twins are connected to each other in far more complex ways.
Also, surely medical history offers also many cases of procedures being abandoned after serious failures. The offered generality may not be general.
Quote5:
But he maintains that he is not too disturbed by what others may think. "At the end of the day, what matters most is that I have been true to my principles and am able to sleep well at night with my decisions."
Comment5:
If every individual lived true only to his or her principles, would society still be possible or viable?
END
Source: The Sunday Times, 26/4/9, p.35
Headline: Surgeon takes flak in his stride
Writer: Nur Dianah Suhaimi
Quote1:
He [Dr Goh] does not think he should walk away from a tough medical case out of fear. "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In life, we can't win 100 percent approval all the time. [a] But I always believe that we should give patients the benefit of the doubt and give them a thorough evaluation before saying no. [b] If these were my children, I would want them to be helped, not turned away without being given a chance [c]," he said.
Comment1:
[a] How much approval should we seek? Whose approval should we seek?
[b] Do patients lie? Is "evaluation" to verify patients' claims?
[c] Can we always generalise from a personal preference?
Quote2:
Having observed three pairs of conjoined twins, he is convinced their lives are far from normal. "It is a freakish life. People laugh at you, ridicule you. Plus it is so uncomfortable. Some of them become objects of fear in their society. Life like that is not life at all."
Comment2:
Do these conditions separately or jointly amount to "not life at all"? Is "not life at all" therefore deserving of possibly fatal surgery?
Quote3:
However, he stressed that in the end, the decision whether or not to go ahead with the surgery is not his to make alone. In the previous operations, while the ultimate decision lay with the patients and their parents, there were also many other doctors who had given the go-ahead.
Comment3:
Who should be involved in making the decision, and in what degrees?
Quote4:
He compared himself to Dr Christian Bernard, who pioneered heart transplants. Even though many of his patients died soon after their operations initially, he had persevered. Heart transplants have now become routine in medical practice. "In the course of medical history, many doctors have tried on different cases where the initial results have failed. But we must be brave and cannot give up," said Dr Goh.
Comment4:
Here we have an argument by analogy. Here's the analogue: Dr Bernard had initial failures, but persevered, and now heart transplants are routine. So also will be the case with conjoined twins.
Analogies work on similarity, and are derailed by serious dissimilarities. One such that I can think of is that hearts are straightforwardedly connected to the other body parts by arteries and veins; whereas conjoined twins are connected to each other in far more complex ways.
Also, surely medical history offers also many cases of procedures being abandoned after serious failures. The offered generality may not be general.
Quote5:
But he maintains that he is not too disturbed by what others may think. "At the end of the day, what matters most is that I have been true to my principles and am able to sleep well at night with my decisions."
Comment5:
If every individual lived true only to his or her principles, would society still be possible or viable?
END
What is the secret of success?
Today, 25/4/9, p.10
Failure + rebellion = success
By Esther Ng
Quote1:
Chief judge Tim Hunt treated those present with his rousing and humorous speech ... at the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF) Awards and A*STAR Talent Search (ATS). ... The 2001 Nobel Laureate for physiology or medicine had some unconventional views on success for budding scientists here. "It might be better to be a loser than a winner in the long run because it will make you try harder in the future," said Professor Hunt, on the difficulty of picking a winner because the quality of the competition was very high. ...
Comment1:
It strikes me as odd to say that it is better to be a loser in the long run. Also, in the long run, there is no more future. The sentence is poorly constructed, thus leading to this odd meaning. This is an instance of amphiboly, where poor sentence structure adversely affects meaning. A clearer construction is: "It might be better in the long run to be a loser now than a winner because it will make you try harder."
Quote2:
Being a successful scientist is also being a rebel at times, he added. ... "Singapore [is] very conformist. ... I just wonder whether that strand ... militates against real excellence in science, where you need to rebel against what other people think and be prepared to be an outcast and suffer failure for a while," he said. ...
Comment2:
The danger here is to read rebellion as a sufficient condition for success. Consider this sentence: "A real fire needs a plentiful supply of oxygen." It states a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Excellence must endure being outcast, but not all outcasts are excellent. That is the correct reading.
Quote3:
Nicholas Chen's work on micromagnetics and improving data storage earned him gold in the SSEF and first prize in the ATS. ... [He said:] "Like Professor Hunt, my heart sank when I learnt that I had to understand Schrodingers Equation. But I actually motivated myself to learn the math and the physics on my own because if you don't take the risk to enter a tiger's den to take its cubs, you won't know whether you'll succeed." His efforts have paid off -- he will be heading to the United States next month to represent Singapore in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.
Comment3:
The danger here is to read risk as a sufficient condition for success. Entering a tiger's den can also result in the brave soul becoming the tiger's dinner. This is the same argument that lies behind sales pitches for structured financial products: "Risk big, win big". Remember that "risk big" can also end in "lose big". Nicholas Chen's risk paid off; yours may not.
Failure + rebellion = success
By Esther Ng
Quote1:
Chief judge Tim Hunt treated those present with his rousing and humorous speech ... at the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF) Awards and A*STAR Talent Search (ATS). ... The 2001 Nobel Laureate for physiology or medicine had some unconventional views on success for budding scientists here. "It might be better to be a loser than a winner in the long run because it will make you try harder in the future," said Professor Hunt, on the difficulty of picking a winner because the quality of the competition was very high. ...
Comment1:
It strikes me as odd to say that it is better to be a loser in the long run. Also, in the long run, there is no more future. The sentence is poorly constructed, thus leading to this odd meaning. This is an instance of amphiboly, where poor sentence structure adversely affects meaning. A clearer construction is: "It might be better in the long run to be a loser now than a winner because it will make you try harder."
Quote2:
Being a successful scientist is also being a rebel at times, he added. ... "Singapore [is] very conformist. ... I just wonder whether that strand ... militates against real excellence in science, where you need to rebel against what other people think and be prepared to be an outcast and suffer failure for a while," he said. ...
Comment2:
The danger here is to read rebellion as a sufficient condition for success. Consider this sentence: "A real fire needs a plentiful supply of oxygen." It states a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Excellence must endure being outcast, but not all outcasts are excellent. That is the correct reading.
Quote3:
Nicholas Chen's work on micromagnetics and improving data storage earned him gold in the SSEF and first prize in the ATS. ... [He said:] "Like Professor Hunt, my heart sank when I learnt that I had to understand Schrodingers Equation. But I actually motivated myself to learn the math and the physics on my own because if you don't take the risk to enter a tiger's den to take its cubs, you won't know whether you'll succeed." His efforts have paid off -- he will be heading to the United States next month to represent Singapore in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.
Comment3:
The danger here is to read risk as a sufficient condition for success. Entering a tiger's den can also result in the brave soul becoming the tiger's dinner. This is the same argument that lies behind sales pitches for structured financial products: "Risk big, win big". Remember that "risk big" can also end in "lose big". Nicholas Chen's risk paid off; yours may not.
What caused the economic crisis?
The Straits Times, 25/4/9, p.A24
The treason of the economists
By Robert Skidelsky
Quote1:
All epoch defining events are the result of conjunctures -- the correlation of normally unconnected events that jolt humanity out of a rut.
Comment1:
The author states a general rule.
Quote2:
The prosperity of the first age of globalisation before 1914, for example, resulted from a successful constellation of developments: falling transport and communication costs [etc]. ... By contrast, the poisonous international politics of the interwar years combined with global economic imbalances to create the Great Depression and World War II.
Comment2:
These are two examples of the general rule. Note that examples are not proof. Examples are offered only to illustrate.
Quote3:
Now consider the recent financial innovations. On the back of the new computer and telecommunications technology, a giant market for derivative instruments was built. ... What made the spread of derivatives possible was the ease with which the volume of debt for a given set of assets could be expanded. This scalability was magnified by the use of credit default swaps (CDSs). ... But financial intermediation would never have brought disaster ... save for the global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits, financed to a large extent by Chinese savings. ... The financial crisis of 2008 was the start of a highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging.
Comment3:
The author applies the general rule to the current financial crisis. He identifies the crucial events as: "new computer and telecommunications technology", "giant market for derivative instruments", ease of debt expansion, "credit default swaps", "global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits", and "Chinese savings". What is happening now is the "highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging".
Quote4:
This [conjuncture] interpretation of the origins of the present slump is disputed by the "money glut" school. In their view, there was one cause, and one cause only of the crisis: the excessive credit creation that took place under Mr Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve.
Comment4:
The manner of this dispute is to offer an alternative and contradictory (meaning: impossible for both to be true) theory. The contradiction is located in the conjunctive theory requiring several causal events, and the money glut theory requiring only one cause.
Quote5:
This line of reasoning assumes that markets are perfectly efficient. If they go wrong, it must be because of mistakes in policy.
Comment5:
This is intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school, but serves only to elaborate the view -- because the author offers nothing to say markets are not perfectly efficient.
Quote6:
This view is also self-contradictory: If market participants are perfectly rational and perfectly informed, they would not have been fooled by a policy of making money cheaper than it really was. ...
Comment6:
This is also intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school. The "money glut" school says market participants would not be fooled by cheap money, and also that the only cause of the crisis is excessive credit creation [that is, they were fooled: Quote4]. These are contradictory claims. If a theory leads to contradictory positions, the theory must be wrong. Hence, the "money glut" view is wrong. The rebuttal succeeds. Note that this rebuttal of the money glut view does not prove the conjuncture view is correct. It is logically possible for both to be wrong.
Quote7:
This suggests a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis: The dominance of the Chicago school of economics, with its belief in the self-regulating properties of unfettered markets. This belief justified, or rationalised, the deregulation of financial markets in the name of the "efficient market hypothesis". ... Most of today's ... economists ... continue to work in the idological vicinity of Chicago. Their assumptions should be ruthlessly exposed, for they have close to destroying our world.
Comment7:
I am baffled by this end to the article. The "money glut" view has been rebutted. Hence, the "money glut" view is not the explanation for the economic crisis. Consequently, it does not seem reasonable to say that "a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis [is] the dominance of the Chicago school of economics".
END
The treason of the economists
By Robert Skidelsky
Quote1:
All epoch defining events are the result of conjunctures -- the correlation of normally unconnected events that jolt humanity out of a rut.
Comment1:
The author states a general rule.
Quote2:
The prosperity of the first age of globalisation before 1914, for example, resulted from a successful constellation of developments: falling transport and communication costs [etc]. ... By contrast, the poisonous international politics of the interwar years combined with global economic imbalances to create the Great Depression and World War II.
Comment2:
These are two examples of the general rule. Note that examples are not proof. Examples are offered only to illustrate.
Quote3:
Now consider the recent financial innovations. On the back of the new computer and telecommunications technology, a giant market for derivative instruments was built. ... What made the spread of derivatives possible was the ease with which the volume of debt for a given set of assets could be expanded. This scalability was magnified by the use of credit default swaps (CDSs). ... But financial intermediation would never have brought disaster ... save for the global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits, financed to a large extent by Chinese savings. ... The financial crisis of 2008 was the start of a highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging.
Comment3:
The author applies the general rule to the current financial crisis. He identifies the crucial events as: "new computer and telecommunications technology", "giant market for derivative instruments", ease of debt expansion, "credit default swaps", "global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits", and "Chinese savings". What is happening now is the "highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging".
Quote4:
This [conjuncture] interpretation of the origins of the present slump is disputed by the "money glut" school. In their view, there was one cause, and one cause only of the crisis: the excessive credit creation that took place under Mr Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve.
Comment4:
The manner of this dispute is to offer an alternative and contradictory (meaning: impossible for both to be true) theory. The contradiction is located in the conjunctive theory requiring several causal events, and the money glut theory requiring only one cause.
Quote5:
This line of reasoning assumes that markets are perfectly efficient. If they go wrong, it must be because of mistakes in policy.
Comment5:
This is intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school, but serves only to elaborate the view -- because the author offers nothing to say markets are not perfectly efficient.
Quote6:
This view is also self-contradictory: If market participants are perfectly rational and perfectly informed, they would not have been fooled by a policy of making money cheaper than it really was. ...
Comment6:
This is also intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school. The "money glut" school says market participants would not be fooled by cheap money, and also that the only cause of the crisis is excessive credit creation [that is, they were fooled: Quote4]. These are contradictory claims. If a theory leads to contradictory positions, the theory must be wrong. Hence, the "money glut" view is wrong. The rebuttal succeeds. Note that this rebuttal of the money glut view does not prove the conjuncture view is correct. It is logically possible for both to be wrong.
Quote7:
This suggests a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis: The dominance of the Chicago school of economics, with its belief in the self-regulating properties of unfettered markets. This belief justified, or rationalised, the deregulation of financial markets in the name of the "efficient market hypothesis". ... Most of today's ... economists ... continue to work in the idological vicinity of Chicago. Their assumptions should be ruthlessly exposed, for they have close to destroying our world.
Comment7:
I am baffled by this end to the article. The "money glut" view has been rebutted. Hence, the "money glut" view is not the explanation for the economic crisis. Consequently, it does not seem reasonable to say that "a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis [is] the dominance of the Chicago school of economics".
END
Thursday 23 April 2009
Practical Guide to Clear Thought Ep.13
How do we evaluate a deductive argument?
For a deductive argument, the criteria are truth, validity and soundness.
What is truth?
A statement is true when its claim corresponds to reality. For example, the statement "snow is white" is true because in reality snow is indeed white. However, the statement "the moon is made of green cheese" is false because in reality the moon is not made of green cheese. Note that truth and falsity apply only to statements (as opposed to arguments).
What is validity?
A deductive argument is valid when its premisses entail (lead to) its conclusion, that is, when it is not possible for its premisses to be true and its conclusion false. For example: "All heavenly bodies made of green cheese are bright. The moon is a heavenly body made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is bright." Two things must be noted here. First, this criterion does not require the premisses to be true; it is enough that they would lead to the conclusion if they were true. Second, validity applies only to arguments, as opposed to statements. (Note that the word for a handicapped person is also spelt "invalid". The pronunciation, however, is different. The word for a handicapped person is pronounced "IN-ver-lid", while the word for a deductive argument where the premisses do not lead to the conclusion is pronounced "in-VAIR-lid".)
Does this mean we cannot say a statement is valid?
The word "valid" is commonly used as meaning "true" (as in "it's valid to say the moon is a heavenly body"), but this is technically wrong. "True" and "false" apply to statements. "Valid" and "invalid" apply to arguments.
Next: What is soundness?
Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see Profile in left margin).
For a deductive argument, the criteria are truth, validity and soundness.
What is truth?
A statement is true when its claim corresponds to reality. For example, the statement "snow is white" is true because in reality snow is indeed white. However, the statement "the moon is made of green cheese" is false because in reality the moon is not made of green cheese. Note that truth and falsity apply only to statements (as opposed to arguments).
What is validity?
A deductive argument is valid when its premisses entail (lead to) its conclusion, that is, when it is not possible for its premisses to be true and its conclusion false. For example: "All heavenly bodies made of green cheese are bright. The moon is a heavenly body made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is bright." Two things must be noted here. First, this criterion does not require the premisses to be true; it is enough that they would lead to the conclusion if they were true. Second, validity applies only to arguments, as opposed to statements. (Note that the word for a handicapped person is also spelt "invalid". The pronunciation, however, is different. The word for a handicapped person is pronounced "IN-ver-lid", while the word for a deductive argument where the premisses do not lead to the conclusion is pronounced "in-VAIR-lid".)
Does this mean we cannot say a statement is valid?
The word "valid" is commonly used as meaning "true" (as in "it's valid to say the moon is a heavenly body"), but this is technically wrong. "True" and "false" apply to statements. "Valid" and "invalid" apply to arguments.
Next: What is soundness?
Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see Profile in left margin).
Is it time to suck up to the boss?
Source: The Straits Times, 15/4/9, p.A17
Headline: Hard times = time to suck up to boss
Quote1:
NEW YORK: Experts say ingratiating behaviour is bound to be on the rise in the workplace as workers fret about keeping their jobs in tough economic times. ...
Comment1:
The phenomenon is noted: sucking up. One reason is offered: worry about keeping their jobs.
Quote2:
"They really want to make sure people are noticing what they are doing," said Mr Max Caldwell, an expert in workforce effectiveness at Towers Perrin management consultants. ... Said organisational behaviour professor Jennifer Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley: "It's what we do when we feel ourselves vulnerable or susceptible to the decisions of others." ...
Comment2:
These elaborate the same point. All are aimed at explaining the behaviour -- but do not amount to justifying it.
Quote3:
"It can be bad for business, keeping the yea-sayers around," [says Prof Chatman.]
Comment3:
This is one possible harmful consequence of sucking up.
Quote4:
But according to some researchers, sucking up works. Challenging a chief executive less, complimenting him more and doing him a personal favour increased the likelihood of being appointed to a corporate board by 64 percent, a University of Texas study found.
Comment4:
Another consequence is identified: board appointment. In this context, we can probably extend the benefit to cover job protection. Note that the harmful consequence in Comment3 accrues to the business, and that the beneficial consequence here accrues to the individual.
Quote5:
It's nothing to be ashamed of, said Ms Frances Cole Jones, a professional coach and author of How To Wow. ... "In times like these, the smart thing to do is to 'suck up' - or, perhaps, 're-commit," she added. ...
Comment5:
The phrase "nothing to be ashamed of" indicates the first evaluation in this discussion. It is a denial -- not shameful. It denies an objection to sucking up; it does not support sucking up. Note that there is no elaboration of why it is not shameful.
Quote6:
But there are others like Mr bill Hanover, author of No Sucking Up, who rule out ingratiating behaviour altogether. "If you value self-respect, the respect of your peers and leaders, then sucking up or faking your way to a promotion will leave you ashamed and wanting," he wrote. -- Reuters.
Comment6:
Here are more harmful consequences: shame and want. Note that there is no explicit elaboration of why one will feel shame. The mention of respect from self, peers and leaders only hints at a link, but does not make it explicit.
This directly contradicts Quote5's "nothing to be ashamed of". Further argument on both sides is required, but not provided.
Comment7:
Here are the undisputed consequences of sucking up:
1. can be bad for business [harm to business]
2. provides job protection [benefit to workers]
The correct decision hangs on: Whose interest should the worker serve (since it is the worker who has to decide whether to suck up or not)?
END
Headline: Hard times = time to suck up to boss
Quote1:
NEW YORK: Experts say ingratiating behaviour is bound to be on the rise in the workplace as workers fret about keeping their jobs in tough economic times. ...
Comment1:
The phenomenon is noted: sucking up. One reason is offered: worry about keeping their jobs.
Quote2:
"They really want to make sure people are noticing what they are doing," said Mr Max Caldwell, an expert in workforce effectiveness at Towers Perrin management consultants. ... Said organisational behaviour professor Jennifer Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley: "It's what we do when we feel ourselves vulnerable or susceptible to the decisions of others." ...
Comment2:
These elaborate the same point. All are aimed at explaining the behaviour -- but do not amount to justifying it.
Quote3:
"It can be bad for business, keeping the yea-sayers around," [says Prof Chatman.]
Comment3:
This is one possible harmful consequence of sucking up.
Quote4:
But according to some researchers, sucking up works. Challenging a chief executive less, complimenting him more and doing him a personal favour increased the likelihood of being appointed to a corporate board by 64 percent, a University of Texas study found.
Comment4:
Another consequence is identified: board appointment. In this context, we can probably extend the benefit to cover job protection. Note that the harmful consequence in Comment3 accrues to the business, and that the beneficial consequence here accrues to the individual.
Quote5:
It's nothing to be ashamed of, said Ms Frances Cole Jones, a professional coach and author of How To Wow. ... "In times like these, the smart thing to do is to 'suck up' - or, perhaps, 're-commit," she added. ...
Comment5:
The phrase "nothing to be ashamed of" indicates the first evaluation in this discussion. It is a denial -- not shameful. It denies an objection to sucking up; it does not support sucking up. Note that there is no elaboration of why it is not shameful.
Quote6:
But there are others like Mr bill Hanover, author of No Sucking Up, who rule out ingratiating behaviour altogether. "If you value self-respect, the respect of your peers and leaders, then sucking up or faking your way to a promotion will leave you ashamed and wanting," he wrote. -- Reuters.
Comment6:
Here are more harmful consequences: shame and want. Note that there is no explicit elaboration of why one will feel shame. The mention of respect from self, peers and leaders only hints at a link, but does not make it explicit.
This directly contradicts Quote5's "nothing to be ashamed of". Further argument on both sides is required, but not provided.
Comment7:
Here are the undisputed consequences of sucking up:
1. can be bad for business [harm to business]
2. provides job protection [benefit to workers]
The correct decision hangs on: Whose interest should the worker serve (since it is the worker who has to decide whether to suck up or not)?
END
Tuesday 14 April 2009
Morality vs Philosophy
How do we make moral decisions: rationally or emotionally?
Source: The Straits Times, 10/4/9, p.A29
Headline: The end of philosophy
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1:
Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy ... is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.
Comment1:
This sets out Socrates' position: Moral thinking is a matter of reason. Let us capture this as (moral reason).
Quote2:
One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, Human, is that "it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behaviour, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found". ...
Comment2:
Here's an objection. It takes the form of a Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P):
Premiss1: If (moral reason), then (correlation)
Premiss2: Not-(correlation)
Conclusions: Hence, not-(moral reason) [suppressed]
The argument is valid, meaning the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss1 is necessarily true. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. The argument is sound. We must accept it. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason.
Quote3:
Moral judgements are ... rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion processing parts of the brain.
Comment3:
This is the alternative position, which we shall capture as (moral emotion). What is the argument for this position?
Quote4:
Most of us make snap moral judgements about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can't explain to ourselves why something feels wrong. In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. ...
Comment4:
The argument offered is a common and typical experience all of us have had. Therefore, this common and typical experience is the way it is: (moral emotion). This appeal to a common and typical experience is often used in philosophy -- and is usually accepted.
Quote5:
The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there's an increasing appreciation that evolution isn't just about competition. It's also about cooperation within groups. ... The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasises the social nature of moral intuition. ... The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. ... The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. ...
Comment5:
This pushes the enquiry one step back: Whence (moral emotions)? The three "nice things" describes the flavour of this view. The fact of (moral emotions) is not challenged.
Quote6:
The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people.
Comment6:
This pushes the enquiry one step forward: So what? So it challenges the "bookish way" of philosophy -- which is a reference to the primacy of reason usually adopted by philosophy and philosophers. Again, the fact of (moral emotion) is not challenged.
Comment7:
So we return to the arguments found in Comment2 and Comment4. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason. What we practise is (moral emotion).
The writer does not pose the obvious objection: But we do not all have the same moral emotions -- as seen in the controversies that rage over issues like abortion, euthanasia, corporate responsibility etc. How then are we to decide what is the moral thing to do? Surely the resort must be to reason and deliberation -- the Socratic approach.
How does this square with Quote1?
We need to make the is vs ought distinction. It is the case that we practise (moral emotion). It ought to be the case that we practise (moral reason).
END
Source: The Straits Times, 10/4/9, p.A29
Headline: The end of philosophy
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1:
Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy ... is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.
Comment1:
This sets out Socrates' position: Moral thinking is a matter of reason. Let us capture this as (moral reason).
Quote2:
One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, Human, is that "it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behaviour, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found". ...
Comment2:
Here's an objection. It takes the form of a Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P):
Premiss1: If (moral reason), then (correlation)
Premiss2: Not-(correlation)
Conclusions: Hence, not-(moral reason) [suppressed]
The argument is valid, meaning the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss1 is necessarily true. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. The argument is sound. We must accept it. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason.
Quote3:
Moral judgements are ... rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion processing parts of the brain.
Comment3:
This is the alternative position, which we shall capture as (moral emotion). What is the argument for this position?
Quote4:
Most of us make snap moral judgements about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can't explain to ourselves why something feels wrong. In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. ...
Comment4:
The argument offered is a common and typical experience all of us have had. Therefore, this common and typical experience is the way it is: (moral emotion). This appeal to a common and typical experience is often used in philosophy -- and is usually accepted.
Quote5:
The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there's an increasing appreciation that evolution isn't just about competition. It's also about cooperation within groups. ... The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasises the social nature of moral intuition. ... The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. ... The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. ...
Comment5:
This pushes the enquiry one step back: Whence (moral emotions)? The three "nice things" describes the flavour of this view. The fact of (moral emotions) is not challenged.
Quote6:
The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people.
Comment6:
This pushes the enquiry one step forward: So what? So it challenges the "bookish way" of philosophy -- which is a reference to the primacy of reason usually adopted by philosophy and philosophers. Again, the fact of (moral emotion) is not challenged.
Comment7:
So we return to the arguments found in Comment2 and Comment4. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason. What we practise is (moral emotion).
The writer does not pose the obvious objection: But we do not all have the same moral emotions -- as seen in the controversies that rage over issues like abortion, euthanasia, corporate responsibility etc. How then are we to decide what is the moral thing to do? Surely the resort must be to reason and deliberation -- the Socratic approach.
How does this square with Quote1?
We need to make the is vs ought distinction. It is the case that we practise (moral emotion). It ought to be the case that we practise (moral reason).
END
Wednesday 8 April 2009
Practical Guide to Clear Thought Ep.12
How is an argument horizontally developed into a case?
An argument is horizontally developed into a case when we seek further proof of the conclusion. New premisses must then be provided, to form new arguments with the same conclusion. This collection of several arguments leading to the same conclusion makes up a case. Notice that the basic anatomy of premisses and conclusion is maintained.
If the basic anatomy is maintained, are arguments similarly evaluated?
Yes, with one distinction. How we evaluate an argument depends on whether it is a deductive argument or an inductive argument.
What is a deductive argument?
A deductive argument is when we argue from the general (all cases) to the particular (one or a few cases). Here's an example: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal."
What is an inductive argument?
An inductive argument is when we argue from the particular (one or a few cases) to the general (all cases). For example: "Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are mortal."
Next: How do we evaluate a deductive argument?
Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see profile on left).
An argument is horizontally developed into a case when we seek further proof of the conclusion. New premisses must then be provided, to form new arguments with the same conclusion. This collection of several arguments leading to the same conclusion makes up a case. Notice that the basic anatomy of premisses and conclusion is maintained.
If the basic anatomy is maintained, are arguments similarly evaluated?
Yes, with one distinction. How we evaluate an argument depends on whether it is a deductive argument or an inductive argument.
What is a deductive argument?
A deductive argument is when we argue from the general (all cases) to the particular (one or a few cases). Here's an example: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal."
What is an inductive argument?
An inductive argument is when we argue from the particular (one or a few cases) to the general (all cases). For example: "Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are mortal."
Next: How do we evaluate a deductive argument?
Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see profile on left).
What caused surge in births?
Georgia experiences a surge in births after church partriarch's promise. Was the promise the cause? Or was it economics?
Source: The Straits Times, 27/3/9, p.A23
Headline: Church leader sparks baby boom in Georgia
Quote1:
TBILISI: Georgia's birth rate has increased sharply over the past year, a development many attribute to the influential head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, BBC has reported. ... After Partriarch Ilia II promised at the end of 2007 to personally baptise any child born to parents of more than two children, the number of babies born jumped by nearly 20 percent last year.
Comment1:
The observation is:
At time t1: Partriarch makes promise
At time t2: Births increase
Cause must precede effect, and effect must follow cause. This does not mean that any event at time t1, and any event at time t2 are related as cause and effect. To argue this way is to commit the fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Latin for: after this therefore because this.
Quote2:
Mrs Pati Bluashvili, who with her husband Giorgi just had a fourth child, a boy named Giviko, said: "When he announced that he would baptise any child born to parents with at least two children already, we could not resist the opportunity to have another baby. To have a child baptised by the Partriarch is so very special."
Comment2:
To show causation, a mechanism must be identified. In this case:
If (baby), then (Partriarch baptism)
The mechanism is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument. The benefit of (Partriarch baptism) overwhelm all possible consequential harms, hence leading to the conclusion (decision) to have a baby. But this is just one couple. Is this couple's thinking typical of all Georgian couples?
Quote3:
Mr Giorgi Vashadze, the head of Georgia's civil registry, said the Partriarch's incentive probably did play a part in the jump from 48,000 babies born in 2007 to 57,000 last year, but the rise in average household incomes was undoubtedly a significant factor as well. "Who is now creating families? People who five years ago were out of work," he told BBC. "Previously, they had no income. They could not get married. Today, they are working. They have salaries. ... So I think this is a major factor."
Comment3:
Another explanation is proposed: higher incomes, which make a baby affordable. So:
If (baby), then (affordable)
(Affordable) is proposed as the major benefit resulting in the decision to have a baby.
Quote4:
"Faith is getting stronger," Church spokesman Irakli Kadagishvili told BBC. "(The Partriarch's incentive) was the only stimulus most parents needed if they were already thinking about having more children."
Comment4:
The (Patriarch baptism) thesis is generalised as a "tipping point" factor. Can this account for an increase of 9,000 births? Note that the (affordable) factor is not rebutted.
Source: The Straits Times, 27/3/9, p.A23
Headline: Church leader sparks baby boom in Georgia
Quote1:
TBILISI: Georgia's birth rate has increased sharply over the past year, a development many attribute to the influential head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, BBC has reported. ... After Partriarch Ilia II promised at the end of 2007 to personally baptise any child born to parents of more than two children, the number of babies born jumped by nearly 20 percent last year.
Comment1:
The observation is:
At time t1: Partriarch makes promise
At time t2: Births increase
Cause must precede effect, and effect must follow cause. This does not mean that any event at time t1, and any event at time t2 are related as cause and effect. To argue this way is to commit the fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Latin for: after this therefore because this.
Quote2:
Mrs Pati Bluashvili, who with her husband Giorgi just had a fourth child, a boy named Giviko, said: "When he announced that he would baptise any child born to parents with at least two children already, we could not resist the opportunity to have another baby. To have a child baptised by the Partriarch is so very special."
Comment2:
To show causation, a mechanism must be identified. In this case:
If (baby), then (Partriarch baptism)
The mechanism is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument. The benefit of (Partriarch baptism) overwhelm all possible consequential harms, hence leading to the conclusion (decision) to have a baby. But this is just one couple. Is this couple's thinking typical of all Georgian couples?
Quote3:
Mr Giorgi Vashadze, the head of Georgia's civil registry, said the Partriarch's incentive probably did play a part in the jump from 48,000 babies born in 2007 to 57,000 last year, but the rise in average household incomes was undoubtedly a significant factor as well. "Who is now creating families? People who five years ago were out of work," he told BBC. "Previously, they had no income. They could not get married. Today, they are working. They have salaries. ... So I think this is a major factor."
Comment3:
Another explanation is proposed: higher incomes, which make a baby affordable. So:
If (baby), then (affordable)
(Affordable) is proposed as the major benefit resulting in the decision to have a baby.
Quote4:
"Faith is getting stronger," Church spokesman Irakli Kadagishvili told BBC. "(The Partriarch's incentive) was the only stimulus most parents needed if they were already thinking about having more children."
Comment4:
The (Patriarch baptism) thesis is generalised as a "tipping point" factor. Can this account for an increase of 9,000 births? Note that the (affordable) factor is not rebutted.
How to be a leader
An experienced political pollster discusses the traits of successful leadership.
Source: The Straits Times, 26/3/9, p.A23
Headline: A primer on leadership
Writer: Thomas L. Friedman
Quote1:
Stan Greenberg, one of America's most experienced pollsters, sums up the key lesson he learned polling for Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Ehud Barak and Tony Blair: "Bold leaders in tumultuous times always have at least one crash." ... What distinguishes the best leaders, he says, is that they learn from their crashes, adjust, persist and succeed.
Comment1:
To say that the best leaders succeed is a truism -- it is true by definition. It is not informative. What is of interest is what did these people learn from their crashes that helped them succeed as leaders.
Quote2:
One of his most vivid memories was trying to judge how voters would react to Mr Clinton breaking his oft-stated promise to cut middle class taxes, right after his 1992 election. They held focus groups in New Jersey. ... "They didn't care about his specific promises," said Mr Greenberg. "They wanted the new president to act in the long term economic interests of the country. They wanted to make sure everyone was part of the solution. ... Lesson: "Don't be too literal about campaign promises," said Mr Greenberg. "There is a lot of scope for governing, if the people think you're acting in the country's long term interests, and that you're working for them."
Comment2:
The conclusion (lesson) is a generalisation. The reason is focus groups in New Jersey. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote3:
Labour had been out of power for 18 years. It got back in thanks to Mr Blair's ability to assure voters they could trust Labour to be fiscally prudent and, simultaneously, to upgrade Britain's decrepit government hospitals and schools. ... Three years into his term, the lack of new investment became obvious. ... Mr Blair crashed on the issue of trust. ... Lesson: Be honest with the public early on when facing huge challenges. They will let you off the hook on a literal campaign promise -- if you level with them early about the difficulties and how long it will take to see progress.
Comment3:
Story No. 2; generalised lesson No. 2. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote4:
Mr Ehud Barak became Israel's premier in 1999, and a pillar of his campaign was that Jerusalem must remain Israel's eternal, undivided capital. Yet, at Camp David with President Clinton in 2000, Mr Barak offered the Palestinians a division of Jerusalem. What was most striking, said Mr Greenberg, was how readily the Israeli public accepted that shift. ... Lesson: "Nothing," said Mr Greenberg, "is off the table for a leader who wants to make a bold move" in the fundamental interest of the country.
Comment4:
Story No. 3; generalised lesson No. 3. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote5:
Finally, Mr Nelson Mandela. Four years after he became South Africa's president in 1994, "people were demoralised about the lack of change and felt that the African National Congress (ANC) had betrayed its promise," said Mr Greenberg. ... That was hard for liberation movement leaders to swallow, but the humble citizens wanted their now remote leaders to acknowledge their plight. Lesson: Mr Mandela was humble enough to say that we haven't brought enough change -- that even he was disappointed -- without threatening ANC's claim to govern. -- NYT.
Comment5:
Story No. 4; generalised lesson No. 4.
Human behaviour is notoriously fickle. We should not take four instances, and from those generalise over time and place. It would commit the fallacy Hasty Generalisation.
Even if many instances show the same feature, there is still another, greater, fallacy being committed. Every cancer patient drinks water. Is water then the cause of cancer? By the above logic, yes. Yet we know it is not -- because we know lots of water drinkers who do not have cancer. We need to also survey people with these alleged leadership traits -- to see if they become successful leaders.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 26/3/9, p.A23
Headline: A primer on leadership
Writer: Thomas L. Friedman
Quote1:
Stan Greenberg, one of America's most experienced pollsters, sums up the key lesson he learned polling for Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Ehud Barak and Tony Blair: "Bold leaders in tumultuous times always have at least one crash." ... What distinguishes the best leaders, he says, is that they learn from their crashes, adjust, persist and succeed.
Comment1:
To say that the best leaders succeed is a truism -- it is true by definition. It is not informative. What is of interest is what did these people learn from their crashes that helped them succeed as leaders.
Quote2:
One of his most vivid memories was trying to judge how voters would react to Mr Clinton breaking his oft-stated promise to cut middle class taxes, right after his 1992 election. They held focus groups in New Jersey. ... "They didn't care about his specific promises," said Mr Greenberg. "They wanted the new president to act in the long term economic interests of the country. They wanted to make sure everyone was part of the solution. ... Lesson: "Don't be too literal about campaign promises," said Mr Greenberg. "There is a lot of scope for governing, if the people think you're acting in the country's long term interests, and that you're working for them."
Comment2:
The conclusion (lesson) is a generalisation. The reason is focus groups in New Jersey. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote3:
Labour had been out of power for 18 years. It got back in thanks to Mr Blair's ability to assure voters they could trust Labour to be fiscally prudent and, simultaneously, to upgrade Britain's decrepit government hospitals and schools. ... Three years into his term, the lack of new investment became obvious. ... Mr Blair crashed on the issue of trust. ... Lesson: Be honest with the public early on when facing huge challenges. They will let you off the hook on a literal campaign promise -- if you level with them early about the difficulties and how long it will take to see progress.
Comment3:
Story No. 2; generalised lesson No. 2. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote4:
Mr Ehud Barak became Israel's premier in 1999, and a pillar of his campaign was that Jerusalem must remain Israel's eternal, undivided capital. Yet, at Camp David with President Clinton in 2000, Mr Barak offered the Palestinians a division of Jerusalem. What was most striking, said Mr Greenberg, was how readily the Israeli public accepted that shift. ... Lesson: "Nothing," said Mr Greenberg, "is off the table for a leader who wants to make a bold move" in the fundamental interest of the country.
Comment4:
Story No. 3; generalised lesson No. 3. Is this sufficient grounds?
Quote5:
Finally, Mr Nelson Mandela. Four years after he became South Africa's president in 1994, "people were demoralised about the lack of change and felt that the African National Congress (ANC) had betrayed its promise," said Mr Greenberg. ... That was hard for liberation movement leaders to swallow, but the humble citizens wanted their now remote leaders to acknowledge their plight. Lesson: Mr Mandela was humble enough to say that we haven't brought enough change -- that even he was disappointed -- without threatening ANC's claim to govern. -- NYT.
Comment5:
Story No. 4; generalised lesson No. 4.
Human behaviour is notoriously fickle. We should not take four instances, and from those generalise over time and place. It would commit the fallacy Hasty Generalisation.
Even if many instances show the same feature, there is still another, greater, fallacy being committed. Every cancer patient drinks water. Is water then the cause of cancer? By the above logic, yes. Yet we know it is not -- because we know lots of water drinkers who do not have cancer. We need to also survey people with these alleged leadership traits -- to see if they become successful leaders.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)