Source
r/logic•
JerrySun

Had a huge argument about the interpretation of "I cannot become an alcoholic because I have Asian alcohol syndrome."

"I have Asian flush, so I cannot ever become an alcoholic."

Some people interpreted this to mean that I meant that "all people with Asian flush cannot become alcoholics." I have a gut reaction that this is one of the basic logical fallacies, and that while I could have avoided the confusion by being more clear, it was still incorrect for others to assume that that's what my statement meant.

Posted Jan 8, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

119
Whipet•

This isn't a basic rhetorical fallacy, and it wasn't "incorrect" for them to interpret your statement in that way.

In normal contexts, "I have Asian flush, so I cannot ever become an alcoholic" describes a causal relationship—it says that having Asian flush makes it the case that you cannot become an alcoholic. Without any reason to think that this causal relationship holds because there's something special about you (that you would expect your audience to know), it conversationally implies that anyone having Asian flush makes it the case that they cannot be an alcoholic.

"I have Asian flush, and that makes it the case that I cannot ever become an alcoholic" doesn't logically imply "For all X, if X has Asian flush, that makes it the case that X cannot ever become an alcoholic"—the first could be true and the second false. But in the context of a conversation, someone saying the first without stipulating any special factors is a reason to think they believe the second. But they might not. Maybe they think that, because having Asian flush prevents them from being an alcoholic because ex. they have a particularly strong aversion to feeling hung over.

6
JerrySunOP•

Thanks. I feel like I have never had this kind of confusion come up talking with my close friends, so it annoyed me that someone accused me of saying "all X cannot ever become an alcoholic". Now I am trying to wrap my mind around whether or not it's my fault, and if I should try to avoid this in the future. I don't feel like I've mistaken other people's statements this way.

If someone told me "I can't go on vacation because I have cancer", I wouldn't assume they are saying that all people with cancer couldn't go on vacation. I would assume there are other steps in between to connect those two things logically. Is this example somehow different from what I said? Or is that a conversationally irresponsible statement as well?

Am I wrong to feel like I was misinterpreted, or was it my fault for causing the confusion even though it wasn't technically illogical?

Here is the original thread.

Edit: One of my assumptions was that everyone already knows there are people who have Asian flush who are still alcoholics. But my perspective is different because I am Asian and I have it, so maybe I'm more likely to know about this.

3
Whipet•

You were misinterpreted, but I think it was a reasonable misinterpretation.

I think there's a lot of variation between whether you get the implication based on the subject matter of the sentence. I agree that you don't get it with "I have cancer, so I can't go on vacation." I think you do get it with, ex., "I have gene X, so I cannot ever have children." and also "I have asian flush, so I cannot ever become an alcoholic." I think part of the difference is the "cannot ever," and part is the kind of relationship we expect between a condition and a vacation is much more personal than the relationship we expect between a condition and a physical limitation, etc.

Edit: One of my assumptions was that everyone already knows there are people who have Asian flush who are still alcoholics. But my perspective is different because I am Asian and I have it, so maybe I'm more likely to know about this.

I think this is definitely true.

eta: It might help to note that there's something strange about a sentence like 'I was in a car accident, so I cannot walk.' There's something about the 'so' that makes us expect what follows to be fully explained by the fact that there was an accident. It's not, though, since many people have car accidents and can still walk. Interestingly, you don't get the same strangeness with 'I cannot walk because I had a car accident'. 'So' seems kind of special.

3
blueberry_crepe•

You are wrong from a logical standpoint. There may be non-logical reasons to make this assumption in your cancer example, but logically you should assume that you meant all people with cancer can't go on vacation.

Your opposition to this interpretation is some implicit-emotive understanding, which although socially valid, is not "logical."

You are exhibiting a common misconception that logic must corresponds to reality. It doesn't. Think about your statement and all the information given; think about the components mathematically/symbolically. What aspect would inform others of the intermediate assumptions? Nothing. Don't make the mistake of seeing what is true in reality or what feels right to you to determine logic.

-1
JerrySunOP•

When you talk about logic are you referring to a specific discipline? I think I'm confused. Like as you said it's something that doesn't correspond to what I would think of as being "logical" in real life?

Is the socially valid part just because the ambiguity is embedded into the word "because" in regular conversations? Sorry, too many questions.

1
blueberry_crepe•

Let me use an example

P1: All four-legged animals are cats

P2: Dogs have four-legs

C: Dogs are cats

This syllogism is logical, but it does not reflect real life. Obviously in real life, dogs are not cat.

So let's look at your statement. What in your statement leads to your conclusion? Imagine you are an alien who is perfectly logical, but with no understanding of human norms. How would this alien arrive at your conclusion that not all people with Asian flush can't be alcoholic?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Whipet•

There may be non-logical reasons to make this assumption in your cancer example, but logically you should assume that you meant all people with cancer can't go on vacation.

What why

What is this "logic" you are talking about

1
derr403•

I'm going to approach this first from as pure a logical form as I can think of, and then from a colloquial standpoint as others have before.

First, if we consider this statement in First Order Logic (i.e. predicate logic, and herein referred to as "FOL"), with the interpretations as follows:

m: I (as in myself) (or JerrySun, if you prefer), f(x): "x has Asian flush", a(x): "x can be an alcoholic"

Then the statement becomes: f(m) -> ~a(m) (let's call this formula "phi") The formula in question, (forall)x. (f(x) -> ~ a(x)) is not entailed in FOL from phi. Thus, purely logically, the other people's interpretation is invalid.

Now, from a colloquial sense, the sentence DOES imply that ALL people with Asian flush cannot become an alcoholic. This is because people aren't purely logical, which is actually good (if you watch, or have watched, some sci-fi, you'll know why). Thus, most people rely on colloquial interpretations.

So, in summary, logically the interpretation is invalid, but colloquially the interpretation is valid.

3
JerrySunOP•

Thank you. This has been quite interesting and has helped me introspect. I realized I sometimes make these statements for comedic effect, although I can't remember if I did it that time. Like maybe I'll say "I can't go outside because my headphones are broken." With the Asian flush thing, there must be an element of culture. All of my friends who are non-Asian tend to have many Asian friends or acquaintances and I think it's common knowledge between us what Asian flush is really like, so in real life I do not think I would get this reaction.

1
blueberry_crepe•

You probably saw my response before. I retract. I think u/derr403 is right.

Also, just as a point of information, you CAN become an alcoholic with Asian Flush. I say this so you won't go around as a superman, thinking you're immune, then one day waking up an alcoholic. Some people start off feeling really uncomfortable drinking, thinking "no way in hell will I ever enjoy alcohol." But it can happen over time as you build tolerance. Granted there is a lower risk, but the risk is still there.

1
JerrySunOP•

I thought I would build a tolerance but it seems to not have gotten better despite how much wine I consume sometimes with dinner. Familial pressure. It seems to have gotten worse if anything, in that alcohol starts to taste more weird to me over time.

1
blueberry_crepe•

Well we humans are prone to biases in perceptions. Trust the science, not your personal feelings on it.

1
DeepSpawn•

What were you intending it to mean? If Asian flush is a sufficient reason for you to never be an alcoholic, ceteris paribus, it is a sufficient reason for anyone to not be an alcoholic. So it seems like all people with Asian flush cannot be alcoholics is an implication of what you said.

1
JerrySunOP•

My intention was to say that I have Asian flush, which as far as I can tell is the only factor in me not being able to become an alcoholic. I am at a loss for technical terms to describe my reasoning, but I felt that what I said did not imply that all people with Asian flush cannot become alcoholics. The part that I didn't feel like I need to state was that Asian flush is different for people in how much it deters alcoholism. For me it does seem impossible.

2
ivosaurus•

but I felt that what I said did not imply that all people with Asian flush cannot become alcoholics.

Sorry, but it pretty much does without any further context. This is because people often, when making positive generalisations, will include themselves in the generalised group (whaddayaknow). The opposite is true for negative generalisations. They will use themselves as an example [non-]member of the group they're hypothesizing. And your statement is a textbook example of such a generalisation.

Congrats, you found a construction of the English language where multiple interpretations are conversationally valid and further clarification is needed :) Yay English.

In order to specify that the magnitude of reaction experienced is critical to the intolerance, you could instead state "My asian flush comes on so bad I don't think I could ever become an alcoholic". But that would require for-thought presuming that such an altercation from your original sentence was going to come up in the first place... so I don't blame ya.

1
TMaster•

which as far as I can tell is the only factor in me not being able to become an alcoholic.

If that one reason is sufficient for you, it is sufficient for others. Otherwise, other hidden reasons are relevant, but you have not identified them. You would also need to rephrase what you said to reflect these hidden factors. (E.g. "I have Asian flush, which for me means I cannot ever become an alcoholic." - this implies there are other aspects to the story. Without it, the sentence does imply a sufficient causal relationship as Whipet said).

1
ThaGuySP•

You would have to assume that second premise for the conclusion to follow, no? Which is not a sound deductive argument...having alcohol flush makes you less likely to become an alcoholic, but it doesn't make it impossible.

1
JerrySunOP•

This was one of the branches of our argument: whether or not it is truly impossible for me to become an alcoholic. I sincerely tried to imagine it. Although I am not completely sure, the reactions I get from alcohol are pretty intense, and I had concluded that it must vary between different people, but I really doubt I could ever develop a compulsive habit. It doesn't seem to have improved since the first time I started drinking. In fact it seems like I've developed a taste aversion, and I naturally avoid it more. I have nothing against alcohol. Would it only have been correct to specify that it was because I have "severe" Asian flush?

1