I’m so tired of hearing people use faulty logic to support an argument. Take the following statements...
“ ‘Hard’ drug users almost always started with marijuana.”
“Nearly all mass shooters regularly played violent video games.”
These statements may be accurate, but we need to be very careful about the conclusions we infer from them. The typical reaction to the first statement is to deduce that marijuana is the “gateway drug,” leading people to use harsher narcotics. Similarly, the reaction to the second statement may be to assume that violent video games encourage shooters to their ultimate decisions.
The problem with these deductions is that they are based on faulty logic. Just because two factors share a relationship does not mean that one causes the other. Try this: “Most teenagers who wear black clothes are depressed.” Would we petition stores to ban black clothing because a teenager wearing it might become depressed? Of course not. We recognize that there is a high correlation between depressed teenagers and black clothing because the type of teenager who suffers from depression is the type of teenager who would wear black clothing.
The same logic applies to the first two statements. The type of person to use “hard” drugs is the type of person who would have used marijuana first. And the type of person who would commit mass shootings is the type of person who would play violent video games.
In order for the original statements to indicate causality, we need to answer the questions...
“What percent of marijuana users go on to use ‘hard’ drugs?”
“What percent of people who play violent video games go on to commit mass shootings?”
And “Are these percentages statistically significant?”
These follow up questions make it a lot more difficult to support a preconceived agenda. We all need to call out faulty logic when we hear it.
“ ‘Hard’ drug users almost always started with marijuana.”
“Nearly all mass shooters regularly played violent video games.”
These statements may be accurate, but we need to be very careful about the conclusions we infer from them. The typical reaction to the first statement is to deduce that marijuana is the “gateway drug,” leading people to use harsher narcotics. Similarly, the reaction to the second statement may be to assume that violent video games encourage shooters to their ultimate decisions.
The problem with these deductions is that they are based on faulty logic. Just because two factors share a relationship does not mean that one causes the other. Try this: “Most teenagers who wear black clothes are depressed.” Would we petition stores to ban black clothing because a teenager wearing it might become depressed? Of course not. We recognize that there is a high correlation between depressed teenagers and black clothing because the type of teenager who suffers from depression is the type of teenager who would wear black clothing.
The same logic applies to the first two statements. The type of person to use “hard” drugs is the type of person who would have used marijuana first. And the type of person who would commit mass shootings is the type of person who would play violent video games.
In order for the original statements to indicate causality, we need to answer the questions...
“What percent of marijuana users go on to use ‘hard’ drugs?”
“What percent of people who play violent video games go on to commit mass shootings?”
And “Are these percentages statistically significant?”
These follow up questions make it a lot more difficult to support a preconceived agenda. We all need to call out faulty logic when we hear it.