Consider this general syllogism:
Issue X is complicated.
Perspective Y’s position on X is not complicated.
Therefore, Perspective Y is wrong about X.
It’s a solid argument, and one we can apply to endless pressing issues.
For instance:
Gender relations are complicated.
MeToo’s position on gender relations is not complicated.
Therefore, MeToo is wrong about gender relations.
Or:
Relations with Russia are complicated.
Russia hawks’ position on Russian relations is not complicated.
Therefore, Russia hawks are wrong about Russian relations.
Could people misuse this syllogism as an excuse to dismiss any view they don’t like? Sure. But it probably matters not, because there’s an infinite supply of such excuses.
Could people use this syllogism to swiftly dismiss views that aren’t worth their time? Once again, sure. And that’s a good thing, because we’re running short on time already.
READER COMMENTS
Philo
Aug 26 2020 at 9:02am
The world is complicated, and everything I believe—even the sum total of my beliefs—is relatively simple. That doesn’t mean my beliefs are false.
By the way, what counts as a “perspective”? Is each of my beliefs, or any conjunction thereof, including the sum total, a perspective?
Dan
Aug 26 2020 at 9:12am
As someone who used to live in San Francisco and was involved in YIMBY activism, this argument was used frustratingly often by NIMBYs: “The housing crisis is complicated and you can’t simplify it to econ 101, therefore just building more won’t help”. The NIMBYs, after criticizing YIMBYism for being econ 101, then never made an econ 102 argument.
The problem with this argument is that you can make yourself sound wise about anything by claiming that it’s complicated and simple solutions won’t work.
Jon Murphy
Aug 26 2020 at 9:37am
I’m not sure this is a solid argument. In fact, it seems quite vacuous. “Complicated” is a relative term. “Complicated” as compared to what? Are Russian relations more complicated than any other international relationships? Are the options proposed any less complicated than others? Are gender relations any more complicated than the myriad of other social interactions we have, and the rules of “MeToo” any more simple than the myriad of simple rules we have for dealing with social situations?
Furthermore, “complicated” is a subjective term. The phrase “let the market handle it” is dismissed as simplistic by its critics and described as complex by its proponents.
With respect, the syllogism seems like like sophistic glibness rather than a useful tool.
Salem
Aug 26 2020 at 9:55am
How about:
There’s a big difference between an issue being complicated, and a position being complicated. It’s certainly possible to wisely address a complex issue in a simple way, particularly if your solution only has to satisfy one party. For example, “don’t get involved in that messy fight” is normally good advice.
Rob Weir
Aug 26 2020 at 9:56am
The universe is complicated, full of cycles and epicycles, according to Ptolemaic astronomy.
Copernicus has a viewpoint that is not so complicated.
Ergo, Copernicus is wrong.
—————
I’m also reminded of what G.K. Chesterton said about madness:
“Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” (from Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”)
Thomas Hutcheson
Aug 26 2020 at 10:00am
Yes, but this formulation already presumes a dichotomy between the incorrect “not complicated” position and the corect “complicated” position. But without an exposition of the correct “complicated” position, how can we know just how or whether the”uncomplicated” position is incorrect.
Anything can de characterized as “complicated ” and any position as “uncomplicated.”
International trade is complicated.
Removing trade barriers is not complicated.
Removing trade barriers is wrong.
Rob Weir
Aug 26 2020 at 10:09am
You can also think of this in terms of Occam’s Razor. For any position you hold it is possible to create a “more complicated” version by adding some additional constraining detail. “I believe in Darwinian evolution” and then throw in “as guided by an almighty deity” to form a more complicated position.
Or, “I can fit the data with linear regression, with R^2 = 0.6” or the more complicated view, “I can fit the data with a 10th order curve, with R^2 = 0.8.”
So, two challenges there: Occam’s Razor and overfitting data.
Are the more complicated views really more likely to be true?
Jon Murphy
Aug 26 2020 at 10:18am
To your point, conspiracy theories are extremely complicated.
James
Aug 26 2020 at 10:33am
There are too many obvious counterexamples to this idea. Financial markets are complicated. Index funds are simple. Human biology is complicated. Avoiding obesity and tobacco is simple. Parenting is complicated. Waiting until marriage to have kids is simple.
Dismissing simple views on complicated subjects not save time either. When people dismiss some view that is not worth their time, they don’t actually save any time. They just reallocate that time toward other views that may or may not be any better.
Benjamin Pacini
Aug 26 2020 at 11:18am
This seems too simple.
*cue meta music*
It’s a great heuristic, and a terrible rule. It’s also important to remember that there’s a big difference between writing for full honesty and thoughtfulness, and writing for persuasion. Persuasive writing needs to be simpler. It should be informed, still, but it will necessarily be built to be straightforward and less nuanced.
“I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”
Nicholas Weininger
Aug 26 2020 at 12:15pm
Seems like you should really explain why it doesn’t follow that:
Immigration policy (and the effects thereof) is complicated.
Open borders advocates’ position is not complicated.
Therefore, the open borders position is wrong.
Denver
Aug 26 2020 at 2:44pm
This seems to go against a lot of what Bryan personally does in his own reasoning. It’s kind of surprising to see him write this.
For example:
Morality is complicated.
Bryan’s simple position: don’t articulate grand moral theories to explain morality.
Ergo, Bryan is wrong.
He could counter “Ah, but the reason I hold such a position is itself complex”.
To wich I would respond: “first, I doubt it, it’s quite likely you’ve just seen too many incorrect grand moral theories that you’ve become generally skeptical of them. Second, anyone could have the same response about their position, making this syllogism, at best, useless.”
KevinDC
Aug 26 2020 at 2:59pm
I don’t think this syllogism works for a number of reasons. One reason is because it assumes that complex social phenomenon require comparably complex policy prescriptions. But I think that’s just false.
A second and related reason is that a policy prescription can be very simple, but also be the result of complex analysis and argument. As just one example, Caplan endorsed the effectiveness of nominal GDP level targeting. One could respond by saying:
The macroeconomy is very complicated.
NGDPLT is not very complicated.
Therefore, NGDPLT is false.
KevinDC
Aug 26 2020 at 4:43pm
Ugh, I accidentally posted this comment prematurely. I posted a more complete version (albeit with some weird formatting errors) shortly after this. Would the editing gods of the comment section be so kind as to smite this from the record?
KevinDC
Aug 26 2020 at 3:06pm
I don’t think this syllogism works for a number of reasons. One reason is because it assumes that complex social phenomenon require comparably complex policy prescriptions. But I think that’s just false.
A second and related reason is that a policy prescription can be very simple, but also be the result of complex analysis and argument. As just one example, Caplan endorsed the effectiveness of nominal GDP level targeting. One could respond by saying:
But that clearly wouldn’t follow. Even if the policy of NGPDLT was simple, the analysis and argument leading up to it can be very intellectually rigorous. Similarly, international trade is very complex. Free trade is not very complicated. Therefore, free trade is wrong. Obviously, that doesn’t follow. Free trade may be simplistic as a policy, but that doesn’t mean its intellectual bona fides are lacking.
One could also use the syllogism against another of Bryan’s more controversial positions – his commitment to pacifism. For example:
Overall, I’m not very moved by the argument Bryan has made here – but maybe there’s a more expanded version I’d find more convincing.
David Henderson
Aug 26 2020 at 4:03pm
I think a number of commenters above have identified the problem with Bryan’s reasoning. (And I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I almost always find myself convinced by Bryan.)
Here’s how I would put it:
An issue can be complicated but a perspective on a complicated issue can be both simple and correct.
The pacifism counterexample that KevinDC gave above is a good one.
Jairaj Devadiga
Aug 26 2020 at 4:17pm
Bryan,
By this logic, your book on open borders should have been a complicated mathematical treatise rather than a fun comic book. Even your big word books contain simple arguments which are easy to understand.
You would also not criticise the unnecessarily complicated mathematics that economics students are forced to learn. Yet you’ve done exactly that in numerous posts here.
I must agree with everyone else here, that your argument is rather weak. Just because someone takes a simple position on a complex issue is no reason to dismiss their argument.
On the contrary, we need our positions to be simple precisely because the world is complicated.
Mark Z
Aug 26 2020 at 8:19pm
Similar to what others have said, it is entirely possible for a lot of complex, sophisticated reasoning to lead to a simple conclusion. I think what you might have said instead is: a very complex problem or phenomenon probably can’t be easily untangled. It may take hundreds or thousand of pages and complicated arguments to correctly explain something or show what the optimal policy is, but this doesn’t mean the explanation or policy won’t be fairly simple. I think this is true even in the natural sciences. ‘Complicating factors’ make reaching the right conclusion more difficult but don’t necessarily make the conclusion more complicated.
You’re getting at an argument against simple models of things. I would say rather complexity of an issue warns against belief that one’s model – simple or otherwise – is self-evident or easily shown to be true.
David
Aug 27 2020 at 12:29am
I think there is a real sense in which “the problem is harder than your approach can handle” is a real thing, and one I often use to ignore people. I’m not sure how to cash out hardness or the capacity of approaches to handle hardness, though.
Abe
Aug 27 2020 at 12:52pm
To pile on:
The natural numbers are complicated.
The Peano axioms, a supposed axiomatic description of the natural numbers, are simple.
Therefore, the Peano axioms are wrong.
Jo
Aug 27 2020 at 3:10pm
This is why I am not a fan of the analytic tradition, it retreats from the chaos of the world into a space that’s shallow and boring. For example, I’m not exactly sure what concept of ‘time’ we’re running short on. Believe it or not, there exists different cultural notions of time. Plus, Americans really know how to stress each other out. Even the origin of the word ‘deadline’ is brutal, it’s like we’re all prisoners of war at Andersonville. It’s as if there is no time for figurative language, only immediate responses that are quite literal. Common sense is moronic and pure logic is idiotic. My point is there is no relationship between X & Y, just a man’s imagination and a surplus of misunderstandings.
AMT
Aug 27 2020 at 4:38pm
Global warming is complicated.
Therefore, the simple solution of a carbon tax couldn’t work.
…
So, yes, they syllogism is an extremely terrible argument.
Thomas Hutcheson
Aug 29 2020 at 8:53am
Although I, like many others criticized, Kaplan’s syllogism, having seen so many others criticizing it too, one even with the same example I used, the contrarian in me is moved to try to find the good sense in what Kaplan meant.
Probably the sense is something like this. 1) A complicated phenomenon exists that has some arguably unfortunate consequences (the housing market and evictions during a recession). 2) A failure to understand the complications can lead to a proposed simple solution to deal with the unfortunate consequence (ban evictions). 3) Understanding the complexity of the phenomenon shows the “simple” solution will be more harm than good. It is possibly just an attempt to exposit the “unintended consequences” argument against policy interventions and “do something”-ism.
In that case the better criticism of Kaplan is that the correct conclusion of his syllogism (dismiss the “ban evictions” proposal) stops short of arguing for a better solution to the unfortunate consequence. This might be to do nothing or might be something quite complicated (create a system of unemployment insurance that allows people to keep paying rent during recessions). Politically, the “simple” dismissal is not helpful in dissuading anyone attracted to the “simple” solution and can even be counterproductive as it may be interpreted as denying the unfortunate consequence of the complicated phenomenon under examination.
Jose Pablo
Aug 29 2020 at 7:10pm
It was Alejandro Magno who uses a wonderful approach 2,300 years ago, showing this syllogism is actually wrong.
So many Gordian Knot type of problems can be solved nowadays using an extremely simple, action oriented approach! … and the number of this kind of “complex-yet-easy-to-solve” problems keep growing by the day.
Jose Pablo
Aug 30 2020 at 9:55am
The syllogism has a problem with its major premise: “Issue X is complicated”. This is a “fact” that cannot be “observed”, only derived, erroneously, from a number of observations.
What can be observed for real is: “X number of people’s perspective on issue X is complicated” from that you cannot conclude “Issue X is complicated” since you only need one person´s perspective on the issue to be simple and accurate to prove the initial conclusion wrong.
So, more properly enunciated, the premises of the syllogism go something like:
X number of people’s perspective on issue X is complicated
Perspective Y’s position on X is not complicated.
Then it is clear that nothing can be concluded from this premises. The size of X gives some “weight” to the possibility of Y actually being wrong about X. But no matter how big X, just one particular insightful Y can probe all the X wrong on the complexity of the topic. And, in fact, is a wonderful feeling when it happens.
Comments are closed.