How We Make Ourselves More Accurate by Limiting Our Scope
People often express emotions through absolute statements (e.g., 'always', 'never', 'all') that are emotionally charged but logically inaccurate. More precise language with a limited scope improves accuracy and makes communication more productive.
THE IDEA
How We Make Ourselves More Accurate by Limiting Our Scope
In the lovely stop motion film Chicken Run, the smooth-talking American rooster Rocky does a deal with the sly salesmen rats saying he will pay them “all the eggs he lays that month”. The rats are sly but not very knowledgeable about chickens, so they don’t realise that roosters don’t lay eggs, and that the total number of eggs Rocky lays that month is therefore going to be zero. Rocky is being entirely truthful in telling them that he will give them “all” those eggs, because “all” happens to be zero. Ginger, the heroic leader of the hens, is outraged and thinks Rocky has been dishonest. Rocky has certainly misled the rats but has not been strictly dishonest in terms of logic; he has just been dishonest in terms of suggestion or emotion.
A reverse emotional–logical situation occurs when someone has an emotional outburst and wails “Men are sexist pigs!”. Do they mean all men are sexist pigs? That seems rather extreme. Do they mean most men are sexist pigs? Still a bit melodramatic. Perhaps we can agree that some men are sexist pigs? This is now a true statement but it’s become rather tame – no wonder the wailer preferred the dramatic outburst.
Probably, in practice, they mean “I have encountered enough men who were sexist pigs today that I am fed up with it.” This takes longer to say but is more precise. It also sounds a bit pedantic, but perhaps it is actually illuminating: it expresses the fact that actually what’s going on is your emotional response of being fed up. However, to express that fed-up-ness it may be tempting to say “All men are sexist pigs!” but this might provoke someone to argue that not every man is a sexist pig, say, perhaps, Justin Trudeau. In this case you’ve expressed true emotions but with inaccurate logic, and in doing so you’ve tempted certain types of people to argue with your logic instead of soothe your emotions.
A toxic form of this kind of outburst is when someone accuses their partner of something like “You never do the washing up!” or “You always leave a mess in the kitchen!” The logical refutations of these statements are rather simple to prove:
- Statement: You never do the washing up! Negation: I did the washing up one time.
- Statement: You always leave a mess in the kitchen. Negation: There was one time I did not leave a mess in the kitchen.
Of course, the sweeping statement isn’t meant literally. More precisely, it probably means something like “I feel like you do vastly less than your fair share of the washing up, so little that it feels negligible, so I’m very frustrated and feel overworked and underappreciated.” Or “I feel like you leave a mess in the kitchen so often that cleaning it up becomes a big burden on me and I am tired of it.”
It would probably be not just more accurate but also more productive to say those things instead of the exasperated sweeping statements.
When to use it
In a relationship dispute, instead of saying 'You never listen!', say 'I feel unheard when you check your phone during our conversations.'
In a political debate, avoid saying 'All politicians are corrupt' and instead cite specific examples with evidence.
In a workplace feedback session, use specific instances rather than 'You always miss deadlines' to make the feedback constructive.
On social media, be aware of how sweeping statements can polarize discussions and instead use nuanced language.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Chicken Run Promise
In the film Chicken Run, Rocky the rooster promises the rats 'all the eggs he lays that month'. Since roosters don't lay eggs, 'all' equals zero. He is truthful in a strict logical sense but misleading through suggestion and emotion.
Gender Stereotype Outburst
Someone exclaims 'Men are sexist pigs!' to express frustration after a bad experience. The literal statement is false or exaggerated, but the underlying emotion is real. The listener might argue with the logic instead of addressing the feelings.
Domestic Accusations
In a relationship, statements like 'You never do the washing up!' or 'You always leave a mess!' are logically false (one counterexample disproves them). They actually express feelings of unfairness and overwork, and are more productively phrased as precise, emotion-focused statements.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a time when you used an absolute statement like 'always' or 'never'. What was the underlying emotion you were trying to express?
How might you rephrase a sweeping generalization to be more accurate while still conveying your feelings?
In a heated argument, what strategies can you employ to avoid making overgeneralizations that derail the conversation?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)