Posts
(Note to new readers – Thanks for joining us. Since 9/26/2008, I have written a series of weekly newsletters regarding the model for critical discussions. Reading them will help you catch up on the basics).
The lessons learned in the last 3 months in this newsletter are most easily and appropriately applied first to ourselves. I cannot overstate the importance of taking every opportunity to examine my OWN claims, evidence, and inference before sharing them. Over time, this examination becomes a habit and is done very quickly (milliseconds) and to the great benefit of one’s credibility.
I stress here that you need to practice analyzing claims, issues, evidence, and inference in your own thoughts as a matter of course. The more you do, the easier it will be for you when you start using it to analyze the words of others. Twenty-five or so years ago, I practiced by reading books and analyzing the logic in them, much the same way that a grammar student might diagram sentences. I progressed very quickly when I began taking classes. Using the model that I have laid out over the last three months (a modification of a more complex structure called Toulmin’s model) will help you find gaps that you would not have seen before AND help you identify strong positions that you would have not been willing to support before. In other words, you will develop the skill to assess the position being presented by its merits and not solely its alignment with your own views. This is the purpose of Informal Logic – to help one develop a well-founded idea in the face of uncertainty. This is why it so improves our real day-to-day lives – because so little is certain.
At this point, almost all of the people I have taught say “This all sounds so easy, but the people I need to talk to won’t go for this! They are too (stubborn, mean, one-sided, difficult, smart, dumb, etc, etc, etc) to deal with in any kind of logic. What am I supposed to do when emotions come into play and someone gets angry?” I could go into a lengthy dissertation on the weakness of the above position, but I won’t (you should, though, just for practice).
Picture yourself faced with a difficult task – one for which you don’t have the skill. Maybe it is “to get from California to New York in 5 hours”. Could you do this on your own, without enlisting the skills of another adequately trained person? Probably not – unless you are a jet pilot.
Now, picture the person with whom it is “too difficult” to converse. The difficult task with which THEY are faced is to successfully get through a critical discussion with you and do so in a way that improves your relationship, rather than injure it. They can NOT get through this task without enlisting the skills of another adequately trained person. You are going to be that person – a “communication jet pilot”.
I know (from surveys conducted in 2008 with over 9,000 respondents) that 81% of people polled avoid having critical discussions because they fear they will end badly, with someone being angry. If you don’t hold these conversations, your choices are to:
- Accept the bad situations and their aftermath
OR
- Learn the skills required to master the conversations.
I know a lot of people that put off talking about the most important things in their lives (marriage issues, child issues, work issues) because they are afraid of what the other person might say or do. I also know that the more capable you are at having “relationship building” conversations around well-thought out content, the better your decisions will be in both the long and the short term. My belief is that you have already made the choice to improve your communication skills. You believe they can be learned and you are trying to learn them. I will do all that I can to teach you all that I know.
This brings us to the first nugget in this series about applying critical discussion and informal logic to business life.
In any conversation, there are always two things being exchanged: Content (the topic and supporting discussion) and Attitudes (everything else, including the baggage).
Think about the last few times that you got into a discussion which ended with you getting mad. Did you get mad about the content being exchanged (“If you say that man is the cause of global warming ONE MORE TIME I will never speak to you again!”) or because of the attitude being exchanged (“I can’t stand the way he acts! Like he knows EVERYTHING! He NEVER listens to what I say.”). My experience is that conversations end badly because we aren’t naturally skilled in dealing with attitudes (our own and others) when we speak about difficult things. We get distracted by things that don’t much matter AND we ignore things that are VERY important.
Just as we have spent the last few weeks dissecting and examining claims, issues, evidence, and inference we will spends the next few weeks examining attitudes in a conversation. How we interpret feelings and thoughts (our own and those of others) and act on that interpretation form the balance in the conversation. We will learn how to make that interpretation, to spot when things are getting out of balance, and how to bring them back into balance. To do this, we will dissect conversations to separate their components (content and attitude) and come to understand how to move forward together.
Some readers will remember the articles I posted in July and August regarding creating safety, being authentic, maintaining openness to ideas, using collaboration vs. advocacy to improve decisions, etc. These are the key to understanding the attitude components of a conversation and we will revisit them in a new light. We will learn how to recognize them and create them, just as we learned to analyze claims and create issues.
So, remember to practice analyzing YOUR OWN claims, issues, evidence, and inference as you go about your day and in your reading. Also, begin listening to conversations with the idea of identifying the differences in the ways that we exchange Content and the ways we exchange Attitudes.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Inference - #5 (Narrative) and #6 (Form)
This is the LAST INSTALLMENT on inference, which finishes the introduction to the basic elements of critical discussion. Next up - how to hold critical discussions (and other delicate conversations) and NOT having it end with hurt feelings.
Let’s recap once more what we have learned in the weekly installments for September 26 to present:
1 – How to identify the main topic of the discussion (the resolution)
2 – How to identify the 4 types of Claims used to support the resolution (fact, definition, quality, policy)
3 – How to develop questions (issues) to request evidence to support claims
4 – How to identify the 3 types of Evidence used to support a claim (Objective, Social, and Credibility)
5 – How to identify the 6 different Inferences used to connect the evidence to the claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, and Form)
That is a lot of information and I congratulate all of you that have steadily read and learned from the information offered. As you learn to put these concepts together, you will find yourself quickly gaining ground in getting to the core of controversies in which you are involved. Let’s go over the last two inferences – Narrative and Form, starting with Narrative.
The inference from Narrative is the inference in which I connect my evidence to the claim by telling a narrative (story) that is intended to describe how a situation will play out. The warrant for an inference from narrative is that “if real life unfolds in the same way the story does, we can expect the same result”. Fables are generally written this way, with a final conclusion called a moral.
We’ve all heard the fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper, in which the grasshopper plays all day and stores no food while the industrious ant builds a nest and creates a store of food. The grasshopper makes fun of the ant, because the ant never has any fun and seems to waste his life while the grasshopper parties every day. When hard times come, though, the grasshopper is in big trouble but the ant is in good shape because of his hard work and dedication.
So this is even more abstract than an analogy. We are not assigning roles of saying “you are like the ant and I am like the grasshopper” and thus drawing literal comparisons. We are making a broader comment about forgoing instant gratification in favor of security; of accepting personal responsibility for one’s future. More directly, we are saying “if you fail to plan for the future, you are likely to have problems when the unexpected strikes”.
Let’s say my child received a bad grade on a test and I asked them if they felt they had studied for it. The child says they hadn’t; they had chosen to watch a movie instead. I might make a claim of quality that it is better to study and secure a good future than to enjoy a movie and get a bad grade. I would offer as evidence the bad grade and the confession about the movie. Rather than say the bad grade was CAUSED by watching the movie, I might use the NARRATIVE of the Ant and the Grasshopper. Why? Because I really am not sure that the movie caused the bad grade. I know there are tests that you can study for intensely and still fail. That would defeat a causal inference. The narrative, though, would say “this kind of behavior has been associated with these results, and the outcome can be devastating”.
So why have children believed this fable for so long (since ancient Rome)? Why do we readily accept its’ moral and make it one of our core values? Because it passes the tests for a good narrative! Whenever you plan to use a narrative (or hear one) you should base its value on these four tests:
1 – Is the narrative believable – plausible? Do we believe that ants are industrious and grasshoppers are not? Do we believe that failure to plan for the future can end up badly?
2 – Is the narrative coherent? Does one thing lead to the next in an expected way? Is it consistent?
3 – Are the characters consistent in their behavior? Is the ant sometimes lazy and sometimes not?
4 – Does the narrative resonate with us? Does is it seem that we could see this play out, or that it would never really happen? Does it “just seem true” at a basic level? Can you relate?
The Inference from Form is a thorny one. It is used all the time, and is rarely questioned. It is based on the (false) idea that statements that are expressed like formal logic (mathematical logic) are automatically useful in informal logic (topics cast in language rather than numbers). Almost all business discussions are best analyzed with informal logic, due to their uncertain nature.
In formal logic, there is a form called Disjunctive Logic that says “either a or b”. Then we analyze the truth of “a” and make a decision about “b”. As an example “2+2 is either equal to 6 or it is equal to 4; it is not equal to 6; therefore it is equal to 4.” If the premise is correct (2+2 is either equal to 6 or 4) and the analysis is correct (it is not equal to 6) then the conclusion (therefore it is equal to 4) MUST be correct. That is the glory of formal logic – the answers are CERTAIN to be correct IF the premises are true and the FORM is correct.
But look at this inference from Form “either we will watch a movie tonight or we will read; we will not watch a movie tonight, therefore we will read”. In the case of 2+2 above, the choices were mutually exclusive – both couldn’t be correct. But we COULD watch a movie, or read, or do both, or do something else entirely. There is no reason to think that the two choices given were the only two or that we had to do either one. So if I say “tonight we can either watch a movie or read, and I don’t want to watch a movie”, you might think “then I guess we have to read” but would that be true? Of course not.
Another formal logic form is Conditional (if-then) like “if 3 is greater than 2, then 2 is not greater than 3” is always right because it is deductive. What if we make a non-mathematical argument in that same way? “If companies ship late, then they lose customers”; is that true? Really? It is expressed using the conditional form, but it isn’t always true. I buy books from Amazon all the time – there are very few times that I care even within a week when it gets to me.
We will explore more later. Let me wish you all a happy holiday. Next we will explore how to get through these discussions while preserving (and hopefully improving) our relationships.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Let’s recap once more what we have learned in the weekly installments for September 26 to present:
1 – How to identify the main topic of the discussion (the resolution)
2 – How to identify the 4 types of Claims used to support the resolution (fact, definition, quality, policy)
3 – How to develop questions (issues) to request evidence to support claims
4 – How to identify the 3 types of Evidence used to support a claim (Objective, Social, and Credibility)
5 – How to identify the 6 different Inferences used to connect the evidence to the claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, and Form)
That is a lot of information and I congratulate all of you that have steadily read and learned from the information offered. As you learn to put these concepts together, you will find yourself quickly gaining ground in getting to the core of controversies in which you are involved. Let’s go over the last two inferences – Narrative and Form, starting with Narrative.
The inference from Narrative is the inference in which I connect my evidence to the claim by telling a narrative (story) that is intended to describe how a situation will play out. The warrant for an inference from narrative is that “if real life unfolds in the same way the story does, we can expect the same result”. Fables are generally written this way, with a final conclusion called a moral.
We’ve all heard the fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper, in which the grasshopper plays all day and stores no food while the industrious ant builds a nest and creates a store of food. The grasshopper makes fun of the ant, because the ant never has any fun and seems to waste his life while the grasshopper parties every day. When hard times come, though, the grasshopper is in big trouble but the ant is in good shape because of his hard work and dedication.
So this is even more abstract than an analogy. We are not assigning roles of saying “you are like the ant and I am like the grasshopper” and thus drawing literal comparisons. We are making a broader comment about forgoing instant gratification in favor of security; of accepting personal responsibility for one’s future. More directly, we are saying “if you fail to plan for the future, you are likely to have problems when the unexpected strikes”.
Let’s say my child received a bad grade on a test and I asked them if they felt they had studied for it. The child says they hadn’t; they had chosen to watch a movie instead. I might make a claim of quality that it is better to study and secure a good future than to enjoy a movie and get a bad grade. I would offer as evidence the bad grade and the confession about the movie. Rather than say the bad grade was CAUSED by watching the movie, I might use the NARRATIVE of the Ant and the Grasshopper. Why? Because I really am not sure that the movie caused the bad grade. I know there are tests that you can study for intensely and still fail. That would defeat a causal inference. The narrative, though, would say “this kind of behavior has been associated with these results, and the outcome can be devastating”.
So why have children believed this fable for so long (since ancient Rome)? Why do we readily accept its’ moral and make it one of our core values? Because it passes the tests for a good narrative! Whenever you plan to use a narrative (or hear one) you should base its value on these four tests:
1 – Is the narrative believable – plausible? Do we believe that ants are industrious and grasshoppers are not? Do we believe that failure to plan for the future can end up badly?
2 – Is the narrative coherent? Does one thing lead to the next in an expected way? Is it consistent?
3 – Are the characters consistent in their behavior? Is the ant sometimes lazy and sometimes not?
4 – Does the narrative resonate with us? Does is it seem that we could see this play out, or that it would never really happen? Does it “just seem true” at a basic level? Can you relate?
The Inference from Form is a thorny one. It is used all the time, and is rarely questioned. It is based on the (false) idea that statements that are expressed like formal logic (mathematical logic) are automatically useful in informal logic (topics cast in language rather than numbers). Almost all business discussions are best analyzed with informal logic, due to their uncertain nature.
In formal logic, there is a form called Disjunctive Logic that says “either a or b”. Then we analyze the truth of “a” and make a decision about “b”. As an example “2+2 is either equal to 6 or it is equal to 4; it is not equal to 6; therefore it is equal to 4.” If the premise is correct (2+2 is either equal to 6 or 4) and the analysis is correct (it is not equal to 6) then the conclusion (therefore it is equal to 4) MUST be correct. That is the glory of formal logic – the answers are CERTAIN to be correct IF the premises are true and the FORM is correct.
But look at this inference from Form “either we will watch a movie tonight or we will read; we will not watch a movie tonight, therefore we will read”. In the case of 2+2 above, the choices were mutually exclusive – both couldn’t be correct. But we COULD watch a movie, or read, or do both, or do something else entirely. There is no reason to think that the two choices given were the only two or that we had to do either one. So if I say “tonight we can either watch a movie or read, and I don’t want to watch a movie”, you might think “then I guess we have to read” but would that be true? Of course not.
Another formal logic form is Conditional (if-then) like “if 3 is greater than 2, then 2 is not greater than 3” is always right because it is deductive. What if we make a non-mathematical argument in that same way? “If companies ship late, then they lose customers”; is that true? Really? It is expressed using the conditional form, but it isn’t always true. I buy books from Amazon all the time – there are very few times that I care even within a week when it gets to me.
We will explore more later. Let me wish you all a happy holiday. Next we will explore how to get through these discussions while preserving (and hopefully improving) our relationships.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Inference #4 – Analogies
Analogy is a pattern of inference that uses a familiar relationship as a basis of comparison to a relationship that is not as well understood. They are used frequently and can be very powerful, but it is important to remember that they rely on the degree of similarity between the two relationships (familiar vs. unfamiliar) that under examination.
There are two kinds of analogies that we will discuss: literal and figurative. A literal analogy is one in which we make a direct comparison between two things, and a figurative analogy is where we compare the relationship between two things to the relationship between two OTHER things to describe how one relationship is like another. I will explain both in the following, and I am sure that you probably use both kinds everyday already. The purpose of this message is to help you analyze their use as inferences, and help you better analyze them whether you are using one or you are talking to someone that is.
A “holiday appropriate” example of literal analogy would be used for gift buying. For instance, your friend’s son is on your shopping list and you are having a difficult time buying for him. You reason that you are not very familiar with your friend’s son, but know your friend fairly well. Your friend then is the “familiar relationship” in this analogy. You have never met your friend’s son, but you have heard your friend speak of him and know that they share a physical resemblance as well as some similar interests. Your relationship with the son is, therefore, the “less-familiar relationship”.
Your wife asks you what you got your friend’s son and you tell her – a set of screwdrivers.
She says “Why did you pick screwdrivers?”
You say “Because I thought he would appreciate them and get good use out of them.”
She says “Why do you think so?”
You say “He is a lot like his dad; same height, same weight, same eyes. And the father said they share many of the same interests like fishing and football. His dad is always busy fixing things and uses screwdrivers a lot. The son probably likes fixing things too, and could use the screwdrivers.”
The inference here is one of analogy – literal analogy. Dad likes fixing things, and the son is a lot like dad. Therefore, the son likes fixing things too.
I think we can begin to see where analogy can go wrong. The son may be very much like the dad in many respects, but may not share his love for fixing things. The fact that two things are alike in SOME respects doesn’t mean they are alike in ALL respects, nor does it mean they are alike in the respect that is under examination.
I am not sure that I can make the leap that the son likes fixing things just because the son shares SOME of the father’s interests, and the father likes fixing things. I would need more. Since the father said they share an interest in fishing, maybe I would try that. Why? Because that is an inference of EXAMPLE (fishing is an EXAMPLE of things that the son liked to do, based on a credible source – his father). The stronger inference is a better indicator.
The test for a good analogy (literal or figurative) is whether the essential similarities outweigh the essential differences in the characteristic under consideration. An analogy that fails the test is referred to as a “false analogy”.
A figurative analogy is on in which we are not so concerned about the things we are comparing, but the relationships between them.
For example, we have a friend that LOVES the Beatles and has every CD by them EXCEPT for one. We don’t know which one they don’t have and can’t find out before the holidays, so we decide to buy the ENTIRE COLLECTION of Beatles CD’s to make sure we get the one that our friend is missing. We tell our wife of our plan and she says “That’s like trying to kill a mosquito with a machine gun!”
Now, she is not comparing our friend to a mosquito or a CD to a mosquito or our friend to a machine gun or anything like that. She is comparing the relationship between needing one CD and buying the whole collection with the relationship between being troubled by a small thing and taking unnecessarily drastic measures to correct the trouble.
Notice that in the literal analogy, the things being compared (the father and son) are the same kinds of things (both are comparable people). In a literal analogy, the farther things get from being comparable, the more difficult it is to make analogous observations. “You are a man; Julius Caesar was a man. He liked his chariot. Therefore, you would like a chariot” is pretty far-fetched because you and Julius Caesar are not very similar as men. If the comparison was to be made between men, I would pick several others that were more comparable (your neighbor, brother, co-worker) and make it again. If it I didn’t seem to stand, I would reject it.
A great deal of advertising is based on the premise that, if advertisers find an actor with whom you identify, and can show that actor enjoying or benefitting from the use of the advertised product, that you will draw the analogy yourself and decide “The actor is like me; I am like me; The actor enjoys the that soda; Therefore, so will I”.
Next week, we will cover the last two analogies and recap the last three months worth of newsletters into a coherent lesson. You will all be brilliant in a week!
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
There are two kinds of analogies that we will discuss: literal and figurative. A literal analogy is one in which we make a direct comparison between two things, and a figurative analogy is where we compare the relationship between two things to the relationship between two OTHER things to describe how one relationship is like another. I will explain both in the following, and I am sure that you probably use both kinds everyday already. The purpose of this message is to help you analyze their use as inferences, and help you better analyze them whether you are using one or you are talking to someone that is.
A “holiday appropriate” example of literal analogy would be used for gift buying. For instance, your friend’s son is on your shopping list and you are having a difficult time buying for him. You reason that you are not very familiar with your friend’s son, but know your friend fairly well. Your friend then is the “familiar relationship” in this analogy. You have never met your friend’s son, but you have heard your friend speak of him and know that they share a physical resemblance as well as some similar interests. Your relationship with the son is, therefore, the “less-familiar relationship”.
Your wife asks you what you got your friend’s son and you tell her – a set of screwdrivers.
She says “Why did you pick screwdrivers?”
You say “Because I thought he would appreciate them and get good use out of them.”
She says “Why do you think so?”
You say “He is a lot like his dad; same height, same weight, same eyes. And the father said they share many of the same interests like fishing and football. His dad is always busy fixing things and uses screwdrivers a lot. The son probably likes fixing things too, and could use the screwdrivers.”
The inference here is one of analogy – literal analogy. Dad likes fixing things, and the son is a lot like dad. Therefore, the son likes fixing things too.
I think we can begin to see where analogy can go wrong. The son may be very much like the dad in many respects, but may not share his love for fixing things. The fact that two things are alike in SOME respects doesn’t mean they are alike in ALL respects, nor does it mean they are alike in the respect that is under examination.
I am not sure that I can make the leap that the son likes fixing things just because the son shares SOME of the father’s interests, and the father likes fixing things. I would need more. Since the father said they share an interest in fishing, maybe I would try that. Why? Because that is an inference of EXAMPLE (fishing is an EXAMPLE of things that the son liked to do, based on a credible source – his father). The stronger inference is a better indicator.
The test for a good analogy (literal or figurative) is whether the essential similarities outweigh the essential differences in the characteristic under consideration. An analogy that fails the test is referred to as a “false analogy”.
A figurative analogy is on in which we are not so concerned about the things we are comparing, but the relationships between them.
For example, we have a friend that LOVES the Beatles and has every CD by them EXCEPT for one. We don’t know which one they don’t have and can’t find out before the holidays, so we decide to buy the ENTIRE COLLECTION of Beatles CD’s to make sure we get the one that our friend is missing. We tell our wife of our plan and she says “That’s like trying to kill a mosquito with a machine gun!”
Now, she is not comparing our friend to a mosquito or a CD to a mosquito or our friend to a machine gun or anything like that. She is comparing the relationship between needing one CD and buying the whole collection with the relationship between being troubled by a small thing and taking unnecessarily drastic measures to correct the trouble.
Notice that in the literal analogy, the things being compared (the father and son) are the same kinds of things (both are comparable people). In a literal analogy, the farther things get from being comparable, the more difficult it is to make analogous observations. “You are a man; Julius Caesar was a man. He liked his chariot. Therefore, you would like a chariot” is pretty far-fetched because you and Julius Caesar are not very similar as men. If the comparison was to be made between men, I would pick several others that were more comparable (your neighbor, brother, co-worker) and make it again. If it I didn’t seem to stand, I would reject it.
A great deal of advertising is based on the premise that, if advertisers find an actor with whom you identify, and can show that actor enjoying or benefitting from the use of the advertised product, that you will draw the analogy yourself and decide “The actor is like me; I am like me; The actor enjoys the that soda; Therefore, so will I”.
Next week, we will cover the last two analogies and recap the last three months worth of newsletters into a coherent lesson. You will all be brilliant in a week!
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Inference #3 – Sign
We’ve covered a lot of ground since the Critical Discussions topic started on 9/26. You can go through the contents of this blog since then to refresh yourself. We have talked about:
- Developing a concise understanding of the controversy (resolution)
- Ways to formulate questions about the controversy (issues)
- The four kinds of Claims (Fact, Definition, Quality, Policy)
- The three kinds of Evidence used to support claims (Credibility, Social Consensus, and Objective)
- The six kinds of Inference to connect Evidence to Claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, Form)
Please review the info posted since 9/26/2008. Also, I posted a pictorial of this model here for you to view. It may help explain the relationships
After we get through the next three inferences, we will be moving into some “How To” in more advanced territory. Namely, HOW to raise issues so that the discussions progress smoothly, even in tricky situations or with touchy topics; HOW to keep a discussion tracking, even when it is emotional; and HOW to remain collaborative, even when the other parties want to compete.
This week, we will talk in detail about the third strongest type of inference – Sign.
Recall that last week I wrote about Inference from Cause, in which a predictable relationship between two variables is asserted AND the relationship is described as one variable CAUSING a change in the other.
Inference from Sign is not as strong in that there is no intention to EXPLAIN the relationships - just to declare that the relationship exists. In other words, Inference from Sign occurs when the link between evidence and claim asserts a predictable relationship between variables WITHOUT accounting for it. This is also called a correlation; an observation is made that when one thing changes (students studying, for instance) and some other thing happens (getting good grades). Do we KNOW that studying causes good grades? If a student didn’t study would they still get good grades? A percentage of them would, and the strength of the correlation would be affected by other mitigating variables (what subject, the student’s familiarity with the subject, the success of the teacher in delivering the information WITHOUT study, etc.). We may not be able to show that students that study will necessarily get good grades because studying by itself is a CAUSE of good grades, but we CAN show that students that study get good grades. So an inference from sign says that “I can show that when one thing occurs, then another thing predictably happens, and that is enough to substantiate my claim”. Here is an example:
Tom – “I think I can prove to you that my marketing idea will work.”
Bob – “How are you going to prove it?”
Tom – “I hired an expert to look it over and she says it's great.”
Bob – “What makes her an expert?”
Tom – “She has a college degree.”
Tom’s claim – This marketing idea will work
Tom’s evidence – Expert opinion
Tom’s inference – A college degree is a sign of expertise
Let’s say that we agree that a college degree is a sign of expertise. Is that enough to uphold the claim? Not for me. Can you think of a few questions that Bob might add?
By this time, you should be thinking of the right questions to ask. When you use these methods, you should be anticipating the questions you may ask others and the questions you might be asked.
How about these questions:
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been right?
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been wrong?
- Are there other experts that agree with her?
- Are there other experts that disagree with her?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a positive opinion?
- Does she stand to lose from rendering a negative opinion?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a negative opinion?
These are all good questions. They ask about the credibility of the source and her bias (does she have a long history of being right?; are there other equivalent experts and will they back up her opinion or shoot it down; is she biased- saying what you want to hear to get paid? or is she doing the opposite and risking telling you what you don’t want to hear (thereby increasing her credibility)?
The questions are NOT aimed at the validity of the inference itself, though. To question an inference, you must question the INFERENCE. Questions about the inference ONLY ask "Has the evidence been properly linked to the claim?"
Questions aimed at the INFERENCE (a college degree is a sign of expertise) would be these:
- Do people without college degrees have sufficient expertise to render expert opinions? (If people without college degrees can render this kind of opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)
- Do people with college degrees generally have sufficient expertise to be able to render meaningful opinions about this kind of marketing question? (If people with college degrees usually do not have sufficient expertise to render a meaningful opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)
The first set of questions is about the source's CREDIBILITY and BIAS. You could ask all of them whether or not she has a degree.
If we question the inference and the result is that “Usually, a college degree is sufficient indication of expertise to render opinions in a matter like this”, THEN you can ask about credibility and bias. If not, why bother? That would be the time to find out if there is any other inference that she could provide - like maybe some Letters of Reference (another Inference from Sign) or maybe some samples of other marketing opinions she has rendered (inference of example - much stronger)?
If you accepted the college degree as a sign of expertise, there are two more questions that you would ask in this case (and in any case when the inference from sign is describing a sign of expertise):
- Is the degree of a sufficient level and in a relevant subject to render the opinion? (An associate’s degree in zoology is probably not sufficient for marketing opinions)
and
- Is the degree from a reputable college?
Also remember that this is not an Inference from Cause. No one is claiming that a college degree CAUSES you to be capable – it is just describing a correlation between college degrees and capability.
As with Cause, there are numerous mathematical methods used to show statistical correlation. Please search the internet for “statistical correlation” to see if those are what you need.
The classic tests for Inference from Sign are:
- Does the sign usually appear with the thing signified (ex: college degree and expertise)?
- Does the sign frequently appear without the thing signified (ex: college degree and incompetence)?
- Are there countersigns (absence of college degree and expertise)?
- Could the correlation be a coincidence?
- Is it really a causal relationship?
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
- Developing a concise understanding of the controversy (resolution)
- Ways to formulate questions about the controversy (issues)
- The four kinds of Claims (Fact, Definition, Quality, Policy)
- The three kinds of Evidence used to support claims (Credibility, Social Consensus, and Objective)
- The six kinds of Inference to connect Evidence to Claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, Form)
Please review the info posted since 9/26/2008. Also, I posted a pictorial of this model here for you to view. It may help explain the relationships
After we get through the next three inferences, we will be moving into some “How To” in more advanced territory. Namely, HOW to raise issues so that the discussions progress smoothly, even in tricky situations or with touchy topics; HOW to keep a discussion tracking, even when it is emotional; and HOW to remain collaborative, even when the other parties want to compete.
This week, we will talk in detail about the third strongest type of inference – Sign.
Recall that last week I wrote about Inference from Cause, in which a predictable relationship between two variables is asserted AND the relationship is described as one variable CAUSING a change in the other.
Inference from Sign is not as strong in that there is no intention to EXPLAIN the relationships - just to declare that the relationship exists. In other words, Inference from Sign occurs when the link between evidence and claim asserts a predictable relationship between variables WITHOUT accounting for it. This is also called a correlation; an observation is made that when one thing changes (students studying, for instance) and some other thing happens (getting good grades). Do we KNOW that studying causes good grades? If a student didn’t study would they still get good grades? A percentage of them would, and the strength of the correlation would be affected by other mitigating variables (what subject, the student’s familiarity with the subject, the success of the teacher in delivering the information WITHOUT study, etc.). We may not be able to show that students that study will necessarily get good grades because studying by itself is a CAUSE of good grades, but we CAN show that students that study get good grades. So an inference from sign says that “I can show that when one thing occurs, then another thing predictably happens, and that is enough to substantiate my claim”. Here is an example:
Tom – “I think I can prove to you that my marketing idea will work.”
Bob – “How are you going to prove it?”
Tom – “I hired an expert to look it over and she says it's great.”
Bob – “What makes her an expert?”
Tom – “She has a college degree.”
Tom’s claim – This marketing idea will work
Tom’s evidence – Expert opinion
Tom’s inference – A college degree is a sign of expertise
Let’s say that we agree that a college degree is a sign of expertise. Is that enough to uphold the claim? Not for me. Can you think of a few questions that Bob might add?
By this time, you should be thinking of the right questions to ask. When you use these methods, you should be anticipating the questions you may ask others and the questions you might be asked.
How about these questions:
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been right?
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been wrong?
- Are there other experts that agree with her?
- Are there other experts that disagree with her?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a positive opinion?
- Does she stand to lose from rendering a negative opinion?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a negative opinion?
These are all good questions. They ask about the credibility of the source and her bias (does she have a long history of being right?; are there other equivalent experts and will they back up her opinion or shoot it down; is she biased- saying what you want to hear to get paid? or is she doing the opposite and risking telling you what you don’t want to hear (thereby increasing her credibility)?
The questions are NOT aimed at the validity of the inference itself, though. To question an inference, you must question the INFERENCE. Questions about the inference ONLY ask "Has the evidence been properly linked to the claim?"
Questions aimed at the INFERENCE (a college degree is a sign of expertise) would be these:
- Do people without college degrees have sufficient expertise to render expert opinions? (If people without college degrees can render this kind of opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)
- Do people with college degrees generally have sufficient expertise to be able to render meaningful opinions about this kind of marketing question? (If people with college degrees usually do not have sufficient expertise to render a meaningful opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)
The first set of questions is about the source's CREDIBILITY and BIAS. You could ask all of them whether or not she has a degree.
If we question the inference and the result is that “Usually, a college degree is sufficient indication of expertise to render opinions in a matter like this”, THEN you can ask about credibility and bias. If not, why bother? That would be the time to find out if there is any other inference that she could provide - like maybe some Letters of Reference (another Inference from Sign) or maybe some samples of other marketing opinions she has rendered (inference of example - much stronger)?
If you accepted the college degree as a sign of expertise, there are two more questions that you would ask in this case (and in any case when the inference from sign is describing a sign of expertise):
- Is the degree of a sufficient level and in a relevant subject to render the opinion? (An associate’s degree in zoology is probably not sufficient for marketing opinions)
and
- Is the degree from a reputable college?
Also remember that this is not an Inference from Cause. No one is claiming that a college degree CAUSES you to be capable – it is just describing a correlation between college degrees and capability.
As with Cause, there are numerous mathematical methods used to show statistical correlation. Please search the internet for “statistical correlation” to see if those are what you need.
The classic tests for Inference from Sign are:
- Does the sign usually appear with the thing signified (ex: college degree and expertise)?
- Does the sign frequently appear without the thing signified (ex: college degree and incompetence)?
- Are there countersigns (absence of college degree and expertise)?
- Could the correlation be a coincidence?
- Is it really a causal relationship?
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)