Good sayings and good thinking

Many of us like bons mots and clever quotes. My parents had a huge book of quotes, and I read my favourites over and over again.

But unfortunately there’s a downside to this taste for eloquent quotes. Many of them are effectively false claims or invalid arguments. And the eloquence often makes us fail to see that. Especially when the originator is prestigious, and when we like the conclusion.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

(Misattributed to Gandhi)

We all know stories just like that. And we obviously find the message inspirational. That’s probably why the quote is so popular. But if we were to stop and think, we’d realise it’s not quite right. Most people who are ignored stay ignored. Most people who are laughed at don’t win. There’s a survivorship bias: we don’t observe the stories of all of those who tried and failed.

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

Clever. But is it right? It’s true that we can’t give everyone what they deserve. But it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t give people what they deserve when we can. Gandalf’s conclusion can still be right, of course, but the argument is invalid.

Even heroes of rationality produce dubious quotes. Bertrand Russell is one example. Here is a popular quote of his that’s similar to the “Gandhi quote” above.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

It suffers from the same problems.

Russell again:

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.

At first glance, it may sound quite right. We might think it’s an admirable expression of humility and open-mindedness. But if we think for a second about Russell’s argument, we realise it doesn’t work. Russell himself was willing to go to prison over his pacifist beliefs, even though he, as per the quote, must have thought that they might be wrong. So uncertainty doesn’t rule out making great sacrifices for your beliefs. Of course, death is a much greater sacrifice than a six-month prison sentence. But that just means that you need more certainty, and greater stakes, to make that sacrifice. It doesn’t mean that you need complete certainty.

A possible response is that I’m interpreting these quotes too literally, and that they don’t mean what they say. Russell’s dictum about eccentric ideas should, for instance, merely be taken as a reminder that fashions change.

But that seems to me like a motte and bailey. I think many readers interpret these quotes literally. (Or maybe they have both interpretations in mind at once - Ben Garfinkel has interesting ideas of how that happens.) So denying the literal interpretation when criticised is to retreat from the bailey to the motte.

These quotes sound so clever and to the point that we forget to scrutinise them. It’s a bit like an aha or eureka moment - a sudden feeling of insight. Recent research suggests that such feelings can cloud our judgement and make us accept false conclusions.

A possible solution could be to try your best to always explicitly evaluate arguments and claims, even if they are eloquent and to the point, and even if they were made by people like Bertrand Russell. In another paper, participants were biased in favour of claims that rhyme, but became less so when they were told to focus on their content, and disregard their poetic qualities.* Similarly, remembering to focus on what famous quotes actually say may make us less likely to be fooled by them. Keep your eye on the ball.

* As always, bear in mind that these studies may not replicate and generalise - they need to be complemented by common sense.