I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate.

Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The cognitive biases are especially tricky, and it seems the more we learn about neuroscience the more reasons we have to distrust our own thinking!

[1] https://thethinkingshop.org/

These are nice but I find the message "thou shalt not suffer cognitive biases" a bit off base - as you very well will suffer from them. It's like saying "you shalt not think of a white monkey" - and you will. The goal should be not to make people feel bad for failing yet again to be free of biases - the goal is to learn to detect them and work around them. You cannot make people fly by flapping their hands - but you can build tools that let people fly while they are sitting comfortably in their chairs. There should also be tools and processes built that allow even biased people to arrive to a correct conclusion, without demanding the impossible from them.

> Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself.

Hi unknown friend!

There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there...

twenty four

Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies?

Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.

Learn them one at a time, in such a way as you start seeing the pattern. Human brains are great pattern recognition machines, which is also where the errors come in. That’s okay: you want both zones to fire, so the cognitive dissonance forces you to consciously think about a potential fallacy.

You don't have to do this. Instead of memorizing fallicies, you can approximate the quality of nearly all arguments to two theory-of-truth claims:

1. The premises are themselves valid: you buy that they are truthful. 2. The argument's logic coheres: when added to your existing beliefs there is no contradiction.

Fallicies manifest through violations of these claims. But you don't have to know the name of that violation to raise a complaint: you can derive it on the spot. Discussing these fallicies mostly acts as a practice tool, and provides a useful bit of jargon if you are writing philosophy and need to convey the idea quickly. But most arguments in online spaces are dismissed with: "the premise is invalid" or "the reasoning is incoherent."

Find good examples that are easy to understand and absurd enough to stick in your head. For example (ha) the fallacy of composition Wikipedia page has a good one[0]:

> "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."

The fallacy of division page[1] also has a good one:

> 1. The second grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream

> 2. Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson elementary

> 3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

You can also categorise large numbers of common fallacies, for instance fallacies of relevance, and then - which is the larger point about fallacies - you don't need to know which exact fallacy someone has committed (they don't care, for one) but you know it's fallacious because what their argument relies upon is irrelevant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Edit: formatting

There's more like over 200 logical fallacies.

A good starting point is https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B...

You don't keep them in mind. You build processes and algorithms and habits to avoid them. When you learn to ride a bike or play baseball, you don't learn the laws of physics that govern the flight of the ball or the ride on the bike in detail - though basic awareness of gravity and such surely helps. You learn the process that gets you to the goal. Unfortunately, we're way behind on such processes, compared to baseball.

You don't need to know them all for them to be useful (this falls into what the poster calls the "black and white" fallacy.

Note that I took care to point out that I didn’t believe it was not useful but had trouble with applying them personally. I am not asserting that they’re not useful.

> How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one?

Even if you could spot "good" arguments that really isn't enough without knowing that it's also made in good faith. If the person making an argument doesn't actually believe what they're saying, is arguing with a particular outcome, or is arguing with an ulterior motive like flame-bait then you also shouldn't bother engaging them even if it's well-formed.

I would take a bad argument made in good faith every time over the reverse. People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

How would you know whether someone is making a good faith argument? Without some outward signifier like a cartoon character for an online avatar, which even then wouldn't provide any measure of certainty, it would require mind reading.

> People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

If you want to get along in some kind of shallow fashion then the former are better, if you want to find truth or open your mind to possibilities then the latter will outstrip the former by a long way. Both are needed in life but to dismiss either as stupid or bad intentioned seems a stretch.

If an argument is bad faith but right, doesn't that still make it right?

Perhaps what you object to is being dragged into some messy going-in-circles argument. Those are frustrating but they happen because the good-faith participant tolerates some of the logical fallacies and false information presented by the bad-faith one.

People have a powerful force driving them to argue for the thing they believe in so it makes sense to tap into that force to generate high quality arguments. If everyone was kind of passive and willing to accept whatever seems obviously right, we wouldn't push any boundaries. Being kind of passive can happen if you're not emotionally invested in your argument.

I found the position of preferring a poorly formed, good faith argument weird at first but I've come to like it, given we are talking about material world, practical problems (of any scale).

Ultimately, most of our arguments are about solving problems (or pursuing opportunities). Most problems worth arguing at length require collaboration to solve.

I would rather discuss problems and their solutions, and hash out disagreements, with someone who is likely to be a true partner in the implementation of the solution.

Bad faith vs good faith can then be inferred by track records or commitments, same as you would for anything else.

One would assume that such a skill should be a requirement to be a part of the profession of journalism. Presupposing, of course, that the goal of journalism is to inform. Don't hire people who aren't qualified.