The Pitfalls of Argument by Analogy

 

            Since Vaccine A has been found to be 95% effective on Singaporeans, it should also be 95% effective on Filipinos since we belong to the same group of Asian races.  This conclusion is almost always heard in the media today to assure the people of the safety and efficacy of the much-awaited COVID-19 vaccine.  On the surface, it does make sense because Singaporeans and Filipinos belong to the Asian race.  However, it does not delve into the other important factors that have to be considered in discussions of public health safety – the medical histories of the adults, their comorbidities, among others.  This simplistic approach to reasoning may have negit iative consequences to the population if accepted as a generalization.  One though, has to admit to its strategic simplicity.

            People in power – government officials, business leaders – when faced with an unfamiliar problem, often think back to some similar situation they have seen or heard about, draw lessons from it, and apply those lessons to the current problems.

            Admittedly, analogies can be powerful and insightful.  However, it is also extremely easy to reason poorly.  Dangers can happen when people in power draw an analogy based on superficial similarities and not on deep causal traits. It is not uncommon to use analogical reasoning in making important business decisions.  For example, in terms of production, the auto and computer production may look alike since they involve assembling a wide variety of parts from a set of fairly standardized components.  However, in the computer industry, prices of inputs decline by around 1% a week, playing a crucial role in the production of computers that may not apply to auto production.

            Focusing on superficial similarities is dangerous.  When people in business encounter new problems whose solutions are largely unknown, it would be difficult to distinguish between the problems deep structural features and its superficial characteristics.  When the Internet was introduced, the market players adopted existing analogies thinking that the Internet would follow the same template as previous industries.  Now we know that did not happen.  The Internet effectively evolved to its present form by eschewing the traditional templates.  That we know because of hindsight.  Many business people failed to appreciate the vast potential of the net.  Those who thought out-of-the-box succeeded immensely. Those who followed the traditional template failed eventually.

            Analogical reasoning is the default way that most people would approach solving problems.  It can be an effective strategy, however, people have to remember that delving only on the superficial factors can be dangerous and that a deeper analysis of the facts and factors have to be done, so as to come out with an effective and possibly, evolving strategy.

            According to Psychology Today, people make around 35,000 decisions per day and some of these decisions per day and some of these decisions may have costly consequences in the future.  That is why first principles thinking is worthwhile.  The current COVID-19 pandemic has made each one of us confront in making decisions that we don’t usually make and are unsure of achieving success.  To use first principles thinking, it is important to identify the problem first, break it down into basic scientific truths and formulate reasons that yield new avenues of thought.  The key is to get to the root of the issue and be open to new approaches in solving it.  The first principles of thinking help you transform the problem into an objective statement that concretely addresses what needs to be improved.  When the objection is clear, it is important to identify the obstacles in the way.  First principles thinking also involves asking ‘Socratic questions’ that challenge previously held beliefs.  The technique is to pose these questions to each obstacle to break them down.  One then decides on each obstacle on what decision to make.  Asking ‘how’ questions can lead to innovate ideas in dealing with ach obstacle.  Define these ideas, then assess the potential of each idea using a series of evaluation criteria.  One will most likely come up with several solutions and implement those that are most cost-effective.  By applying first principles thinking to decision-making and problem solving, one becomes more intuitive and can yield great ideas.

            Coming from personal experience, I really now have to lose weight for health reasons, seeing how being overweight, compounded with comorbidities like diabetes and hypertension has led to the premature deaths of some of my loved ones.  Their deaths have really jolted me to achieve weight loss but with my busy schedule, I just could not find the time to work out.

            What do I really need to reach my weight loss goal? I need to exercise at least for an hour five days a week.  But the reality is, my work schedule plus family commitments make finding that hour very difficult.  Can I still lose weight exercising less frequently? A more feasible and doable solution is to try 30-minute workouts – 4 days a week – making them high intensity full body workouts.  Scientific research has proven that this type of workout can speed up fat loss in less time.  That, plus a sensible balanced diet lessening sweets and red meat.

 

References:

Gavetti, G. & Rivkin, J. (2005). How Strategists Really Think: Tapping the Power of Analogy. Harvard Business Review. April 2005.

Kakkar, N. (2019). A Framework for First Principles Thinking. Available at <www.neilkakkar.com>. Accessed [02.14.21]

Oshin, M. (2017). Elon Musk’s “3-Step” First Principles Thinking: How to Think and Solve Difficult Problems Like a Genius. Available at <www.mission.org>. Accessed [02.14.21]