Does This Fallacy Have A Name?

As I have been go­ing about my ra­tio­nal­ist train­ing, I have no­ticed a fal­lacy which I can’t find the name of. My aim is to de­scribe it to all you smart peo­ple who know more than I do in hopes that some­one can give me the proper name for it. If, in­deed, I have found some­thing that con­sti­tutes as a new fal­lacy, I’m happy to name it, but I wanted to make sure it re­ally truly doesn’t already ex­ist.

Here’s how it goes:

  • You be­lieve A to be true

  • You are in any of the fol­low­ing situ­a­tions:

a. “I can­not ask any­one their opinion on A.”

b. “I don’t have some­thing I need in or­der to ask other’s their opinion on A” (ex­am­ples of things you might need: time, courage, a clip­board, an in­ter­galac­tic space­ship etc.)

c. “I haven’t pro­moted this to con­scious at­ten­tion or ques­tioned the val­idity of my opinion on A and there­fore haven’t even thought to ask any­one their opinion on A”

  • You don’t ask oth­ers their opinion on A

  • You as­sume A to be true based on your one data point

Some ex­am­ples of this fal­lacy in ac­tion:

The Fermi Para­dox (a/​b)

Synes­thetic peo­ple as­sum­ing ev­ery­one else is synes­thetic too (c)

Agen­der peo­ple as­sum­ing ev­ery­one else has as lit­tle re­gard for the value of gen­der as they do (b/​c)

Lots more ex­am­ples can be found in the LW post “Other Peo­ple are Oc­ca­sion­ally Rather Weird” and “Be­ing Wrong About Your Own Sub­jec­tive Ex­pe­rience” as well as the Slate Star Codex post: “What Univer­sal Hu­man Ex­pe­riences are you Miss­ing Without Real­is­ing it?”

In my search for what this fal­lacy might be called, the clos­est I’ve got­ten to is Ex­ten­sion Ne­glect, in which one ig­nores the size of a set. Please let me know in the com­ments if my fal­lacy is in­deed part of Ex­ten­sion Ne­glect, if it has an­other name I don’t know, or if you have a sug­ges­tion for what it should be named (as­sum­ing it doesn’t already have a match). Thanks!

No nominations.
No reviews.