In one of my
book’s chapters, I have a section in which I state that a great many of the
issues with people’s faulty reasoning, arguments and views are due to the
problem of over-simplistic thinking. In fact, if a proposition is defective,
you can be fairly sure that over-simplicity is involved somewhere. And just as
we know the well-worn truism that it takes more effort to correct a falsehood
than state one, the concomitant truth is that the amount of effort needed to
redress an overly-simplistic proposition is vastly greater than the effort
required to produce it. To correct an over-simplified
view, one must reintroduce the complexities, provide detailed explanations, and
often counteract the appeal of the simpler narrative – and that’s to say
nothing of the investigation of cognitive biases and defectiveness involved in
producing the errors.
Consequently, then, a most reliable syllogism is this:
Topic X is complex
A’s position on X is over-simplistic
Therefore, A’s position on X is inadequate and likely to be strewn with error.
Here are a couple of easy examples:
Prices are complex
A’s position on price fixing is overly-simplistic
Therefore, A’s position on price fixing is inadequate and likely to be strewn with error.
And....
Climate change is complex
Therefore, A’s position on climate change is inadequate and likely to be strewn with error.
Here I’m drawing the distinction between being simplistic and over-simplistic. Being simplistic is frequently fine; being over-simplistic is frequently not. The challenge, then, is to try to determine when something simplistic (and is presentable in a succinct argument) becomes over-simplistic and compromises the accuracy, nuance, or essential complexity of the subject. An argument can present the main points clearly, but omit some details for the sake of parsimony (simplistic), whereas an argument that omits essential information or key variables, and significantly undermines the understanding of the issue, is likely to be over-simplistic. An argument that relies on some generalisations for brevity, but where they are generally reasonable and broadly applicable is fine (simplistic), but if it includes unfounded assumptions or cunningly neglects to factor in the true diversity and complexity of the subject matter, then it is over-simplistic.
Consider these two examples:
Free trade is complex
Economists’ position on X is simplistic
Therefore, economists’ position on free trade is inadequate and likely to be strewn with error
And…
Biological evolution is complex
Biologists’ position on biological evolution is simplistic
Therefore, biologists’ position on biological evolution is inadequate and likely to be strewn with error
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong the two sets of premises here, as long as they are simple but not overly-simple. Relative to the collective complexity of free trade and biological evolution, even those who speak best on these subjects do so by shaving off a lot of complexity in order to make succinct but accurate statements about these subjects. So, it isn’t always the case that using simplistic language is a synonym for being in error. It’s certainly possible to write saliently about a complex subject in a simple way – that’s what most good writers do. Economists and biologists who write simply and accessibly are usually not writing this way because they do not understand the complexities: it’s usually to help the reader understand complex subjects in a rudimentary, manageable way. This isn’t true of groups like socialists and climate change alarmists – they frequently over-simplify complex matters because it helps them to justify their actions and gather support for their cause.
It’s fine to write simplistically to make key points or to present short writing pieces, but over-simplistic statements are problematic when the reduction of complexity leads to a loss of essential truth, failure to factor in the full gravitas of the subject, and other inadequacies that undermines your position. And here’s a particularly incisive truth to close with, I think. If you have a viewpoint, and it is overly-simplistic and inadequate, it’s not as though you won’t be aware of it – you will know deep down that you are being disingenuous, and that what you are saying does not do proper justice to the complexity of the considerations that need to be included. If you’re in that camp in any of your views, you’re going to be suppressing emotions that make you feel ashamed and disappointed – and deep down, you’re not going to be feeling good about yourself, and nor are the people supporting you.
Over-simplicity, coupled with a perverse agenda, is the cause of many false, toxic, and damaging belief systems in the world. But I think that’s because over-simplicity is one of the most effective tools for perverting the agenda, attracting followers, and dismissing outside scrutiny - especially if one can attempt to lay claim to moral superiority in doing so.
