A case for thinking logically

I have been asked this question often enough — How do I start thinking logically?

Crossword puzzles, sudoku, chess etc, don’t help in developing logical thinking. Logical thinking helps in solving puzzles, sudoku or playing chess.

It’s true that all these games are centered around some or the other part of logic. Let’s take Sudoku as an example. Sudoku is solved by employing a process of elimination. In a very specific set of numbers. So, even if they help you in learning elimination, it is extremely limited.

It would be far more useful to study Logic as a subject to develop it. If you can, do study it. There are excellent resources online. I am not giving you an answer based on those resources.

This post is what I have learnt and observed –

1. Remove yourself / Objectivity-

The only way you can be logical in a situation is if you learn to be objective about it. That will happen if you remove yourself from the situation. This is easier said than done. You can learn to develop it by developing perspectives. You can do that by being open to be proved wrong. By not sticking to beliefs too strongly. By constantly introspecting. By embracing skepticism and accepting our limitations as humans. We can be wrong. Its ok.

2. By using techniques like Swot Analysis or the IRAC rule –

Most lawyers are well aware of the two and we are used to employing them in framing arguments.

Swot matrix is an analysis of Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. There are many versions of this and you can easily read more online. The essence is, while analyzing any proposition you jot down its strengths, weakness and other aspects. You take decision based on this analysis.

IRAC rule is where you apply reasons to come to a conclusion. There is the other version too, called FIRAC.

You first take facts into consideration. Of any situation. Then you identify the issue. The issue being point of dispute, or conundrum. Then you identify the corresponding rule that is nearest. You apply the rule. Based on its application, you come to a conclusion.

While this rule helps the most in law, I think it can be extended to develop and utilize logic in other contexts too.

Let’s take an example. You want to prove that the proposition that ‘the right to vote’ should be extended to only those who are literate.

Your facts could be anything. Maybe a survey you want to conduct. The background of your question.

Your issue is, whether this right should be extended to the illiterate population or not.

Now identify a corresponding rule. (In law, this means figuring out the relevant legal provision). Let’s say you find out that the current rule is that you are eligible to vote regardless of your literacy.

Now comes the application. You apply the rule to the issue but you want a different conclusion. Here comes the evidence or scope for argument part. So you look for evidence to back your claim that only literate people should be allowed to vote. So, you dig up research on whether in other countries any such rule is there or not. You study the analytics of voting patterns between the literate and the illiterate.

The more evidence you have, the more believable the conclusion.

3. Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the internal strife each person has between two opposing notions. The theory says that nobody likes it and that people do all they can to attain a state of internal congruence.

Cognitive dissonance is extremely common and we are engaging in a lot of the methods without realizing it.

Well, ever failed a test and decided the course was not worth it?

Ever took a decision and reinforced the belief that the decision taken was the right one all along?
This happens every time you take a decision! Except when the reality is too strong to ignore. In which case, Cognitive dissonance once again is at work, only the other way round!

Every did something you didn’t like doing for a higher goal?
If you did, there is a huge chance that you are going to exaggerate the desirability of the goal!

Ever made an irrevocable choice?
You are going to be happy with it! Because Cognitive dissonance theory will not allow you feel regret for too long! Studies suggest that bettors at a racetrack are more confident in their chosen horse just after placing the bet because they cannot change it!!

Confirmation bias is yet another example of Cognitive Dissonance theory. There are many kinds of such dissonances.

One can only be logical if one is constantly aware of the dissonance. This can only happen through practising mindfulness techniques and introspection.

Lastly, I want to stress on an extremely important point. End of the day, logic lies in the eye of the logician. Confirmation bias is far more strong than we would like to admit. So, skepticism pays the most.

And more that anything, there is always subjectivity and things which cannot be understood by logic. Logic demands that we accept them too.

A lot of decisions have been taken intuitively without Swot analysis and people have earned billions. So, acknowledging the limitation of logic is just as essential as applying it.