Cracking toxic logic

1. Presupposing fallacies (false arguments, implanted opinions) do not focus on the problem, and the problem itself does not hold
2. The scarecrow fallacy (kindergarten reading comprehension, packaging your argument as a weak and unweathered scarecrow) conforms to logic
3. Rash generalization (without sufficient evidence, using a small group of people to make generalizations to make general conclusions) is more rash and uses smaller examples
4. Recourse to ignorance-type fallacies (if you can’t prove a point, I will think it is wrong and fall into a self-proof trap) is transformed into asking the other party to falsify and produce evidence to disprove yourself; (There is a saying in logical reasoning that lack of evidence cannot be evidence of falsification; in the case of insufficient evidence, whoever proves it falls into the self-proof trap)
5. False dilemma; Sherlock Holmes said that when all possible options are excluded and only one is left, it is the truth, no matter how improbable it may seem; (False dilemmas use this logic to deliberately exclude all other options, leaving only two situations, no matter which one you choose is a pit) 1. Propose a new point of view; 2. According to their logic, also set a false dilemma against;
6. Appeal to subjective emotions. (Presupposing the false premise that “behavior with reasonable motives is reasonable”; it may not be reasonable, but it uses and incites people’s emotions (pity, hatred, etc.) to make you feel that although you are reasonable, it seems immoral). Go down the logic and kidnap back
7. Personal attacks (I don’t litter, you don’t have nothing to do vs cremation plant employees are also idle, why don’t you let them have something to do) I didn’t intend to be reasonable, in essence it was scolding the street; the way to deal with it is to fight back, focus on the person rather than the issue, change the topic, characteristics, background, appearance can be used as an argument to slander back, or simply block;
8. Indiscriminately ascribing cause and effect (false cause fallacy, later fallacy, correlation fallacy) You can also indiscriminately ascribe cause and effect, as above
9. The landslide fallacy (a long string of causal inferences that seem to be flawless, but in fact exaggerate the strength of causation in every link, deliberately claiming that probabilistic events that may result are inevitable events) is debunked by exposing the probability, or it slips and you slide

As a Leader in the industry

---

工作感悟

1. 老是想着解决问题, 却不去关注问题本身
2. 行动是需要勇气的, 而且往往耗费大量时间, 也需要我们拥有专注和耐心; 尤其在快消时代, 30 分钟的枯燥思考, 怎么抵得过 30 个欢快的短视频
3. 非必要不费力证明自己, 无利益不试图说服他人 (自证陷阱)
4. 忽略问题, 质疑论据
5. 动手去做, 重新寻找 收入来源 和 事业方向
6. 难过的话, 要笑着说

to be:
- 向下兼容: 平时友善, 涉及核心利益时展现实力
- 结果说话: 重视成果, 而非 想法 人脉 或 过程
- Influence Without Authority: 重视 高可见度 和 高影响力 的挑战
- sponsor: 寻找 指导 与 资源支持
- safe: 给下属提供一个安全和信任的反馈环境

破解有毒逻辑

1. 预设谬误 (虚假论据, 植入观点) 不关注问题, 问题本身就不成立
2. 稻草人谬误 (幼儿园阅读理解, 把你的论点包装成弱不经风的稻草人) 顺应逻辑
3. 轻率归纳 (没有充分证据的情况下, 用一小部分群体, 以偏概全做出一般性结论, 爹味十足) 更轻率, 用更小的样例
4. 诉诸无知型谬误 (一个观点你无法证实, 我就认为是错的, 被陷入自证陷阱) 转化为让对方证伪, 拿出推翻自己的证据; (逻辑推理中有一句谚语, 缺乏证据, 不能成为证伪的证据; 在证据不足的情况下, 谁证明谁就掉入了自证陷阱)
5. 虚假两难; 福尔摩斯说过, 当排除所有可能的选项后, 只剩一个时, 它就是真相, 不管它看起来有多么不可能; (虚假两难者利用了这种逻辑, 故意排除所有其他选项, 只保留两种情况, 不管你选哪个都是坑) 1. 提出新观点; 2. 根据他们的逻辑也设置虚假两难针对;
6. 诉诸主观情感 (预设 “动机合情的行为就是合理的” 的错误前提; 可能不占理, 但利用和煽动人的情绪 (怜悯, 仇恨等), 让你觉得虽然自己有理, 但好像不道德) 顺着逻辑往下说, 绑架回去
7. 人身攻击 (我不乱丢垃圾, 你不就没事干了 vs 火葬厂的职工也闲着, 你怎么不让他们也有事干呢) 本就没打算讲理, 实质上是骂街; 应对办法是回击, 对人不对事, 转移话题, 特征, 背景, 外貌都能拿作论据诋回去, 或干脆拉黑;
8. 乱赋因果 (假因谬误, 后此谬误, 相关性谬误) 你也可以乱赋因果, 同上
9. 滑坡谬误 (很长一串因果推论, 看似没有毛病, 实则在每个环节都夸大因果强度, 把可能导致的概率型事件, 故意说成是必然事件) 通过揭露概率进行拆穿, 或者它滑你也滑

---

(END)