search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Misleading Vividness

Description: A small number of dramatic and vivid events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence.

Logical Form:

Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (does not jibe with the majority of the statistical evidence).

Therefore, events of type X are likely to occur.

Example #1:

In Detroit, there is a 10-year-old living on the street selling drugs to stay alive.  In Los Angeles, a 19-year-old prostitute works the streets.  America’s youth is certainly in serious trouble.

Explanation: While the stories of the 10-year-old illegal pharmacist and the 19-year-old village bicycle are certainly disturbing, they are just two specific cases out of tens of millions -- a vast majority of youth live pretty regular lives, far from being considered in any “serious trouble”.  This is a form of appeal to emotion that causes us to hold irrational beliefs about a population due to a few select cases.  The example could have featured two other youths:

In Detroit, there is a 10-year-old who plays the piano as beautifully as Beethoven.  In Los Angeles, a 19-year-old genius is getting her PhD in nuclear physics.  America’s youth is certainly something of which we can be proud.

Example #2:

It was freezing today as it was yesterday.  My plants are now dead, and my birdbath turned to solid ice...and it is only October!  This global warming thing is a load of crap.

Explanation: Whether global warming is a “load of crap” or not, concluding that, by a couple of unusually cold days, is fallacious reasoning at its finest.

Exception: If the cases featured are typical of the population in general, then no fallacy is committed.

Tip: Don’t let your pessimism or optimism cloud your judgments on reality.

References:

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book