What is the name of this logical fallacy

November 4, 2020 11:00 AM

"If a system is working in my favor, then the system works. If the same system (under the same conditions as the original) is not working in my favor, then the system must be flawed.
posted by FireStyle to Writing & Language (22 answers total)

"Self-serving bias is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors."
posted by theodolite at 11:10 AM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]

So if you know it works for you and think that it would work for others if they behaved correctly, then yes, self-serving bias.

If you consider your own experience and assume that others must be having the same experience, then faulty generalization.

If you base your judgment only on how the system affects you while knowing that it may have the opposite effect on others, that's a moral flaw, not a cognitive one.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:26 AM on November 4, 2020 [12 favorites]

In addition to faulty generalization, I think it can also be described as a misuse of anecdotal evidence. From Wikipedia:
Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.
posted by kidbritish at 11:29 AM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]

"Nobody said life is fair" was what my mother told me when I felt victimized by reality as a small child.
posted by Glomar response at 11:33 AM on November 4, 2020

Response by poster: I'm not quite sure that's it, though self-serving bias is close. At the risk of being political (I DO NOT want this to be a politics rant) here is the scenario I'm thinking of.

All 50 states are working to ensure a proper vote count (granted they all have different rules for it.). In this example, Trump is OK with letting the count continue in Nevada because it would be in his favor to count more votes in a state he is not winning. However, he wants to stop the counting of votes in a state like Pennsylvania because he has the lead.

So self-serving bias I don't think applies because both factors are external - he's fine with the way things work when it favors him, but criticizes the same system (counting votes in this example) if the result are not in his favor. I think there is a more specific name for that.

And again - please, no fighting. the world is on edge as is!
posted by FireStyle at 11:49 AM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]

this is fun and good, it might be useful.

to play with the idea of thresholds... let's say we're talking about LE. imagine you've only ever been stopped or written a citation. that could be seen as 'working'. if you get arrested, you're past a threshold. the system changes. it's not working. if you go to holding, you're past another threshold, and that's not working in a whole new way, and so on.

perhaps you've only seen one 'working' aspect of the system, and all the others are fubar.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:55 AM on November 4, 2020

That is not a logical fallacy; it's an example of hypocrisy. I suppose you could stretch the concept of "motivated reasoning" to cover this case: finding reasons to accept a position that is in line with your beliefs.
posted by brianogilvie at 12:06 PM on November 4, 2020 [26 favorites]

It reads like the speaker has decided the objective of the system is to deliver a good result for them. For example, "count all the votes for me" versus "count all the votes." As described, this is not the objective of the system.

This seems more fundamental than a fallacy and I'm not sure what to call it. Unstated assumptions are certainly involved.
posted by esoterrica at 12:08 PM on November 4, 2020 [3 favorites]

Maybe this is a species of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

A: "The only legitimate outcome is X."
B: "But outcome Y appears imminent."
A: "But the only legitimate outcome is X."

The speaker is able to move the goalposts to exclude any undesired outcome.
posted by jquinby at 12:36 PM on November 4, 2020 [3 favorites]

Or rephrased according to your question:

A:"The system is working because I appear to be benefitting"
B: "You are no longer benefiting."
A: "Clearly the system is no longer working."
posted by jquinby at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]

The way you've phrased this, it looks like you're asking what fallacy Trump could be using to convince himself that his approach is correct.

But that question makes a fundamental assumption: that Trump is a person who cares about logical soundness and must convince himself that his arguments are logically sound or consistent. Without that assumption (which I'd argue is borne out by exactly zero of his actions ever), you're asking about someone who doesn't care about whether a system actually is flawed or not in the sense of flaws of general justice, legality, or impartiality. Instead he defines a perfect system or action as one that produces maximum benefit to him personally, and a flawed system or action as one that can or does hurt him. There's no logical argument there to contain a fallacy. There's just a definition. Given that definition, his actions follow logically.

I'd argue that Trump is not even concerned with systems at all - only with individual actions. In this specific case, Trump isn't concerned with whether the voting system is actually fair. Trump is concerned with whether a given action of his can manipulate the outcome such that he wins. That is his only criterion.

If you're asking what logical fallacy might get a theoretical follower who does care about logical soundness to swallow Trump's claims, that's another story. In general I think the approach is just not to look too deeply at Trump's claims and decide that "he must have a good reason based on evidence I'm not aware of".
posted by trig at 2:10 PM on November 4, 2020 [13 favorites]

Cognitive dissonance? Along these lines: “If it’s a fair election, I am going to win. I am not winning X state, and it’s not possible that I am losing. Therefore X state is corrupt.”
posted by bluedaisy at 3:21 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]

I would add a vote to self-serving bias.

I can also see maybe an element of Confirmation Bias. Per wikipedia, definition is: Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

I.e., I believe that I am the true winner, so Nevada can be, but I need to intervene in Pennsylvania.
posted by ellerhodes at 5:26 PM on November 4, 2020

I agree with esoterrica and trig, this seems like solipsism/narcissism to me, where working/flawed is assessed solely in terms of personal benefit.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:39 AM on November 5, 2020

As far as the classical logical fallacies go, this looks like plain old begging the question to me.

* "If the system was working properly I would be winning."
* "I am not winning."
* "Therefore the system is broken."

The first statement is the unfounded assumption.
posted by Lorc at 12:44 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]

Based on just the summary it sounds like selfishness and double-standard -- not really logical fallacies but nevertheless fallacious and harmful ways of approaching problems. The underlying message seems to be that the personal benefit of the speaker is the sole criterion for making value judgements.
posted by runcifex at 4:20 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]

I agree that it's just hypocrisy. Not all lapses in logic are logical fallacies, logical fallacies are more geared toward arguments that are trying to be set up using a precise philosophical method. Trump is not using any sort of philosophy or argument. Logic here really has 2 definitions, one in the traditional sense of how our world and language can be set up to prove existence, and the other is just "things that make sense", latter of which is where trump is (not).
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:16 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]

Motivated perception or reasoning.

In short: We interpret (the same) evidence in line with our motivations.
posted by Halo in reverse at 11:42 AM on November 5, 2020

I don't think it’s s logical fallacy either- he’s trying to have his cake and eat it, trying to have things both ways, trying to suit himself.
posted by tinkletown at 2:25 PM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]

Yeah, sort of as a meta-level point, not every way of being wrong, arguing fallaciously, or being a jerk has been given a name. It's not even that the named ones are more important or more real than the unnamed ones. It's just, sort of as a matter of historical coincidence, some were given names that caught on in a big way and some weren't.
posted by nebulawindphone at 3:04 PM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]

Erm, you are assuming that we agree on the function of the system and that the function is not to serve the speaker. If serving me is the function of the system then indeed it is broken when it doesn't serve me.

This kind of hidden premise (about system function) is potentially a form of question begging.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:02 PM on November 5, 2020

Response by poster: Thanks for all of these thoughtful responses! So reading all of these, I think hypocrisy probably makes the most sense, with hints of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

And since I recently started learning more about logical fallacies, my line of questioning may have fallen under the category, Law of the Instrument - "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" LOL.
posted by FireStyle at 8:45 AM on November 10, 2020 [1 favorite]