There is this thing we often think we’re doing (deductive reasoning) when in fact we’re not. We’re inducing. I see it as a massive problem in why many people can’t seem to figure out their health and fitness. Deduction is clear and may move us toward conclusiveness. Induction is a fallacy.
People usually mix up validity and soundness when engaging with an argument (I covered this two days ago). And that’s if they ever actually get to an argument. Most of the time they don’t. They present an opinion, albeit an ostensibly expert or legitimate one (I covered this yesterday). On the rare occasion that people arrive at actual arguments, they predominantly conflate trend with mechanisms (I’ll cover this in “Correlation Is Not Causation: Trend Is Not Even Close to Mechanism” tomorrow). Closely related to that rational error is another fallacy: the inductive fallacy. Induction is tempting. As we gather more information, it becomes more tempting. As such, high level experts can be MORE prone to committing this logical error. But there is no point where induction becomes deduction. It is a fool’s hope of taking probability and demanding from probability the characteristic of guarantee. Example of induction: - The sun has risen every day this week. - Therefore, it will rise tomorrow. The conclusion is true, but NOT because of the flimsy premise, NOT because of probability. There are defined physical laws which make the sunrise what it is, gravitational pull, inertia, rotation of the earth, and so on. Example of expert induction: - The sun has risen every day of our peer-reviewed study. - Therefore, it will rise tomorrow. The conclusion is true, but NOT because of the rigor of the study cited in the premise. The premise has no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion at all. The seductiveness of induction is its ability to be right, even though it’s for all the wrong reasons. With humans, this is especially pernicious, because we are subject to suggestibility and self-fulfilling prophecy. Example: - I’ve always been fat. - Therefore, I will always be fat. This is an induction fallacy. It’s blind to mechanism. It’s presented no deductive argument. It’s an opinion wrapped in the appearance of argument. But its conclusion is highly probable, mostly because we fall prey to both familiarity and disempowerment. Some other common inductive fallacies I encounter: - My nutrition never gave me bad health before. - Therefore, my current health issue is unrelated to nutrition. - My lack of strength training never gave me orthopedic problems before. - Therefore, my current orthopedic problems aren’t due to lack of strengthening. - I can’t do that anymore. - It’s hopeless. A whole lot of inductive fallacy, opinion and lack of mechanism gets presented as if it carried some sort of value. With the passage of time, we accumulate damage and set in motion changes. People are keen to focus on that passage of time as the type of data-gathering our sunrise scientists performed. They caught a trend and missed the cause. They end up with a premise which is faulty, flimsy, and/or not at all applicable to the conclusion. A deductive argument will have a premise with which we can all wrestle. One person’s individual expertise doesn’t really pertain. Once we settle on an agreed-upon set of premises, if valid, we all arrive at the conclusion. If sound, we are all right. Induction does a lot of illusionist-like hand-waving. It can be sophisticated and considerably lengthier than the examples I gave. Any of the non-empirical sciences fall into this trap. That is, if we can’t test it in the now, we don’t have a known mechanism at play, we have an inductive component in the premises even in a seemingly deductive argument. Induction is not deduction.
0 Comments
Trying to figure out what advice to follow in fitness is tricky. Conflicting opinions abound. And attempting to weigh them against one another is an infinite effort. So don’t. Find the argument. Forget the opinion.
This is a really sticky area for all of us. I see people make this mistake on both sides of a debate on just about anything. And your intellect and education does not shield you from this mistake. Part of the problem is that even really good experts forget that opinion is not argument. An argument stands alone. And it must be taken on its own terms. Opinion can be weighed based on the expertise and motivations of the one saying it. Argument does not rely on anything but it’s own soundness and validity (which I covered yesterday). To help illustrate, imagine the following: The Director of NASA with 40 years of experience in the field and numerous peer-reviewed published papers says, “based on my experience, I must conclude the earth is flat.” Your crazy neighbor with an IQ of 80 and history of mental illness says, “if a model’s explanations and predictions are confirmed by repeated and independent observation, it is practical and provisionally true - the spherical model of the earth and Copernican principle make explanations and predictions which are confirmed by repeated and independent observation; therefore, they are practical and provisionally true.” The expertise of the first and his motivations play into how we should weigh his opinion. He did not present an argument. There is an implied one we often insert, something along the lines of “if one person’s expertise is high enough, his conclusions are true; my expertise is high enough, therefore, my conclusion is true - and here it is!” This is a question-begging fallacy, of course, and an extremely common one. The implied argument is valid, but unsound. We mistakenly take that implied validity to equate with truth. But the premises are both question-begging and so obviously untrue. There is no level of expertise anyone can achieve which puts her opinions beyond question. Regardless, the expert did not present us with an argument. In the second example, we have an argument. The person presenting the argument is immaterial to the force of the argument. Its logic is valid. That’s beyond question. If we accept the premises, it is sound. We could disagree over any one part of the premises, and revise until we find a commonly-agreed-upon wording. At that point, all who agree on the premises will end with the same conclusion. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the expertise or field-specific experience of the presenter. We always hope that field-specific experience will help experts to present better arguments, but there is no guarantee. They could just as easily present increasingly strong-worded opinions, confusing themselves and listeners. Look for arguments, not opinions. Evaluate arguments on their own terms. #Variation on #exercise is #fun. #Challengeyourself to #balance atop 4 #medicine#balls. It’s a solid overall effort for #focus, #core, and #pushups.
Usually, this stuff is a little showy and questionable for its inherent benefit for my taste. But without the fun of engagement, what are we even doing? No matter how hard I tried to get #lean, I could never do it by cutting weight. Naturally, I had a propensity to be #skinny#fat. #Dieting and #running 60 miles per week with my 20 year old hormones never resulted in #abs. Skinny, yes. Leanness, no. Why? Because I wasn’t naturally lean. If you aren’t, you will never get there by simply trying to get lighter.
After I gained over 80lbs of #muscle, it wasn’t just easy to get lean. It became difficult to gain #bodyfat. People are obsessed with the question, “how do I lose weight?” But #weightloss is the wrong question. How do we make it hard to gain fat? The stronger you get and/or the more muscle you gain, THE HARDER IT IS TO GAIN FAT. Once it’s hard to gain fat, the path to achieving AND maintaining leanness is clear. Ask 10 non-ectomorphs who have BECOME lean. I’m not talking about some amphetamine-using #IG “#influencer” who just scammed #500k #followers out #millions of #dollars. I’m not talking about some lifelong ectomorph. Find 10 people who were naturally pudgy or skinny-fat doughy from childhood into adulthood. I guarantee you won’t find a single respondent whose turning point came about without a muscle-building practice. Of course eating matters. But the decision to discontinue strength and muscle building will result in an increasingly fatter body comp year after year, not to mention the correlation between weakness and deterioration of health. You’ll find that without muscle-building efforts, even if you do lose some pounds, they mostly aren’t body fat, and they won’t stay off. Maybe. If you observe the longest lived people on earth (supercentenarian studies and the Blue Zones) with no heart disease or cancer, they tend to have some alcohol intake.
The Lancet published damning findings in 2016 showing that ANY intake of alcohol carried risk. And most teetotaler coaches preach to their clients for total abstinence while they themselves are on the verge on substance-abuse. I, on the other hand, take a more balanced approach. Personally, I drink almost zero alcoholic drinks per year, yet recognize it can be used (to be clear, not ABused) for conservative stress management. I’ve done the calculations for clients before in order for them to fit in 9 alcoholic drinks per week while they still get leaner. So, I know that it can be dosed in such a way so as not to impede progress. Granted, this was done with control and foresight. Does this mean to start mixing it in your protein shakes? I've seen it done. When you gotta hit macros, you gotta hit macros. If, however, you RELY on alcohol and shudder at the thought of reducing intake, then you may have a problem. One of the layers in helping people with health and fitness is to help with critical thinking and sometimes formal logic. We all constantly make mistakes of equating opinions with arguments, induction with deduction, and then equating validity with soundness. Soon, everyone is talking past one another, including your own internal dialogue disagreeing inside your own head. That’s a lot of distinction to keep in mind. So for today, just consider validity and soundness.
Whether you are vexed at your own inability to listen to yourself or you’re frustrated that other people just won’t see things your way, you can experience some peace by discovering just where exactly the roads diverge. It could be that both sides are mistaking opinion (even expert opinion) for argument, induction for deduction, statistical trend for known mechanism, and validity for soundness. They are all distinct. But our minds tend to blur the lines. One day, perhaps I can turn this into my doctoral thesis on the psychology of wellness, in which I’ll detail every part. For now, let’s just consider validity and soundness. Consider first a valid but unsound deductive argument: 1.) Premises - Only people who eat too much dietary cholesterol will get heart disease. - You are a person who eats too much dietary cholesterol. Conclusion - therefore, you will get heart disease. The argument is valid, but unsound. What makes it valid is the construction. The construction is such that as long as the premises are true, the conclusion can’t be untrue. However, that isn’t soundness. An argument is sound only when its premises are true. Oftentimes, we begin with an untrue or at least contentious premise, and present a completely valid argument. People don’t accept the truth value of the conclusion, not because the argument is invalid or because they’re ignorant, stupid or evil, but because WE didn’t begin with an accepted premise. Consider now a sound, but invalid argument: 2.) Premises - All people with heart disease tend to have had elevated VLDL. - You have had elevated VLDL. Conclusion - therefore, you have heart disease. Sound; but invalid. Both premises are true. But the conclusion can be false. We only established that people with heart disease tended to once have had VLDL. We did not establish that all people who once had elevated VLDL have heart disease. In fact, this very common mistake is a logical fallacy with a name: affirming the consequent. We took the starting premise (if A, then B), affirmed the consequent (B) in order to conclude with the antecedent (A). Take a moment to reread this. You’ll likely find that the vast majority of super smart arguments are well-intentioned, well-informed, well-thought-out, but both unsound and invalid. That’s to say nothing of the common conflation of opinion with argument, induction with deduction, and statistical trend with known mechanism. There’s a quote by Mr. Rogers where he challenges the idea that play is separate from learning. Fundamentally, playing is learning, he argued cogently.
Likewise, playing is training. There’s a level of seriousness which people begin to put in place for training in order to displace play/fun. What would be the point? For youths especially, but all of us in general, we could coldly and emotionlessly sit there in front of a pulldown machine logging it in our workout journals. OR we could be playing ninja, climbing ropes to sneak into an imaginary world of play. Part of the way that organized athletics and the fitness industry have failed the every man is by turning human movement into some sort of over-serious, unimaginative assembly line. Beyond the fundamentals of proper execution in structural lifts, the whole pursuit ought to be a stream-of-consciousness-like expression, not a “am I following Shape Magazine’s ab toner program?” cookie cutter checking-of-boxes. Play. Make it fun. That IS training.
“I don’t get it,” she’d say. “I’m doing everything right.” A consult with whom I met was making these common remarks. Add to them a list which we all know well: I’m active, eating healthy, exercising, etc. Whenever I ask for precision, “what’s your thyroid free T3 levels?”, people will shrug. What’s your estrogen balance lab reading? What’s your vitamin D level EXACTLY? What’s your macro intake? What’s your verified personal zones and the time you spend in each? These questions are finite and precise. They have precise answers. With precision, we can predict exactly what will happen with composition. Without them... nobody knows. “I feel I eat a good amount of protein,” sounds like a reasonable sentiment; except, when you’re troubleshooting, you must leave no stone unturned. You must consider every possible variable, and with PRECISION. A lab value isn’t “good” or “healthy” or “normal”. Those aren’t scientific terms. If you want to understand what the heck is going on when things don’t seem to make sense, then sweeping imprecise terms aren’t going to help. The very items which someone is loathe to analyze are likely among the top offenders producing the stagnancy you lament. If you’re unwilling to explore the precision, then don’t cast the blame anywhere but in the unwillingness to be precise. Part of the aversion I understand. No one wants to count every piece of food. And you don’t have to. Really. During troubleshooting, it is A way to discover. Others are to pull real blood work. If you neglect to, then don’t fall back into the calorie myths and other malarkey which has been incapable of helping you before. Test. Quantify. Be precise. Or... we don’t know. This is often how I start a coaching session. Or it’s an interjection after we’ve begun and the distinct theme arising is singing the blues. And I love the blues.
Flip it around, for this exact moment, and people in the developed world usually come up empty-handed. That is, what RIGHT NOW is actively happening to you that is so bad? Usually people come up with a “state.” There’s nothing happening this moment. Your greatest enemies sleep at some point. Your biggest obstacles, if contingent on a human system, isn’t actively at play while in your own mind, unless you let them. But you’re allowing a long narrative to govern your emotional state and consequently behaviors. I get it. I’ve been down. I’ve been physically debilitated, in the ER with a child who appears to be on the cusp of death every week for 4 years, losing loved ones, systemic societal problems playing in my mind, you name it. What’s happening to me OBJECTIVELY in this moment? Well... good stuff if I let my brain dwell on it. There is a serious power to storytelling. We revere storytellers, whether it’s a book, a show, a movie, a news anchor, a favorite station, a radio personality. But no one gets the air time that your internal dialogue does. Your internal dialogue has a monopoly. So... just maybe... change the channel. In college, I had a great instructor named Rabbi Joseph Shoenberger. One day he talked about how among his religious peers there was a distinct skepticism about the value of lengthy alone time. If it was known that a member of the local synagogue or congregation was emotionally moving too inwardly, other members would err on the side of pestering their neighbor. “People become too skilled at negative self-talk,” he said. He continued: So skilled that they will avoid the very settings which they know will counter it. So skilled that they will insist there’s nothing good happening to them even while you are there, reaching out, showing that people love and care for them. But. we. won’t. let them. The final remark fell like a hammer. It has stuck with me to this day. There are people who would gladly uplift you. And you know it. And they would do it right now, if you let them, if you momentarily paused your storytelling. So. Tell me three positive things. There are productive or unproductive behaviors, given someone’s aim. Thinking of “good” or “bad” itself is counterproductive.
About 10 years go I began to notice that fitness tracking tech was becoming what gym memberships often are: a totem of “good”. That is, 90% of members don’t use their memberships. Among those who do, 90% don’t abide by a strategy or model of progression. The business plans for large health and fitness facilities actually count on this, by the way. Just having the membership satisfies the false paradigm of “good” or “bad.” In the same way, wearing a device is a symbol of exerting oneself. We see it as “good.” But data collection is either analyzed and synthesized into a productive way forward or not. There’s no “good” or “bad” here. You are a valuable human being regardless. When we aren’t executing productive behaviors, that isn’t bad. We aren’t bad. That shouldn’t even be an implicit message on the periphery. You are awesome no matter what. Instead, merely figure out a productive progression. With each experiment, we simply gather more data. You didn’t fail or succeed. You completed a data gathering. Now assess. Now craft a different experiment. When we try different tactics with health and fitness, we need not get wrapped up in “good” and “bad.” In fact, DON’T. Who you are already is valuable and what you do already is commendable. |
Elev8 Wellness
|