Learning #1: Beware the nominal fallacy
The nominal fallacy is the assumption that naming something is equivalent to explaining it (1).
To illustrate this, imagine a client whose symptoms meet the criteria for a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. A psychologist might mistakenly say, “He stays in bed all day because he has Major Depressive Disorder," as if the diagnosis itself explains his behaviour. In reality, the diagnosis is a label that describes a set of symptoms, but it doesn't explain the underlying cause(s) of the symptoms.
Or imagine a child who might otherwise be described as ‘hyperactive.’ A teacher might conclude that “he doesn’t sit still because he is hyperactive.” The term ‘hyperactive’ labels a pattern of behaviour but does not explain why the child exhibits said behaviour.
Learning #2: Trump’s assassination attempt (probably) wasn’t an inside job
Two rules of thumb to help you navigate the world:
- Occam’s Razor: When deciding between two ideas to explain the same phenomenon, prefer the simplest idea. (2)
- Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (3)
Sure, Trump’s assassination attempt could have been an inside job... but it probably was just the result of gross incompetence.
