20 Things the Rich Do Every Day

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.

2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.

3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically four days a week. 23% of poor do this.

4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to work vs. 5% of poor people.

5. 81% of wealthy maintain a to-do list vs. 19% of poor.

6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read two or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% of poor.

7. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month vs. 3% of poor.

8. 80% of wealthy make Happy Birthday calls vs. 11% of poor.

9. 67% of wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% of poor.

10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs. 2% of poor.

11. 6% of wealthy say what’s on their mind vs. 69% of poor.

12. 79% of wealthy network five hours or more each month vs. 16% of poor.

13. 67% of wealthy watch one hour or less of TV every day vs. 23% of poor.

14. 6% of wealthy watch reality TV vs. 78% of poor.

15. 44% of wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of poor.

16. 74% of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% of poor.

17. 84% of wealthy believe good habits create opportunity luck vs. 4% of poor.

18. 76% of wealthy believe bad habits create detrimental luck vs. 9% of poor.

19. 86% of wealthy believe in lifelong educational self-improvement vs. 5% of poor.

20. 86% of wealthy love to read vs. 26% of poor.

37 Things You Should Stock but Probably Aren’t

UPDATED: 67 Items! Every survivalist message board and prepper blog tells you to stock the same things; weapons, water, food basics, etc. So, I went looking for a list of things that you should be stocking, but probably aren’t. Everything on the list will make your life many times easier after the SHTF, especially in a Bugging-In scenario.

1. Toothpaste and Toothbrushes
2. Gun Cleaning Supplies -cotton pads, Hoppe’s, Rem Oil, etc
3. Duct Tape
4. Cooking Oil
5. Shampoo
6. Deodorant
7. Laundry Detergent
8. Books or other reading for enjoyment materials
9. WD-40
10. Sewing Supplies
11. Bolts, Nails Screws
12. Games
13. Paper and Pencils
14. Spare Parts for any and all gear
15. Musical Instruments
16. Lantern Mantles
17. Hand Tools
18. Broken window fix/replacement/cover (plywood or plastic panes)
19. Bleach
20. Household Cleaning Supplies
21. Sponges
22. Towels and Wash clothes
23. Gold Bond or Baby Power
24. Baby Supplies – diapers etc
25. Aloe
26. Sunscreen
27. Bug Spray (wearing kind)
28. Bug Spray (killing kind)
29. Comfort Foods – for morale
30. Chains and Locks
31. Isoprophyl (rubbing) alcohol
32. Mouse Traps
33. Lamp Wicks – for Oil and Alcohol Lamps
34. Lice Shampoo
35. Salt
35. Liquor
37. Glasses – Prescription and OTC

UPDATED:

38. Alcohol Wipes
39. Eyedrops
40. Pet Food
41. Fertilizer
42. Coolers
43. Buckets
44. Clothes Pins
45. Childrens clothes in sizes larger than they wear
46. Superglue
47. Wash board
48. Spray paint in black, white, green, brown and black.
49. Zippers, buttons, snaps, knee patches, velcro
50. Patches for tents and tarps
51. Garbage bags
52. Lime
53. Charcoal/lighter fluid
54. Birth control
55. Vitamins
56. Razor blades
57. Saw blades
58. Garden tools
59. Spark plugs
60. Motor oil
61. Manuel Air/Tire pump
62. Bird seed to attract wild birds (food source)
63. Fire extinguishers
64. Wire
65. Q-tips
66. Cotton balls
67. Corn Starch
68. Thermal Wear

A Guide to Moral Decision Making

A. Recognizing the Moral Dimension

The first step is recognizing the decision as one that has moral importance. Important clues include conflicts between two or more values or ideals.

B. Who Are the Interested Parties? What are their relationships?

Carefully identify who has a stake in the decision. In this regard, be imaginative and sympathetic. Often there are more parties whose interests should be taken into consideration than is immediately obvious.
Look at the relationships between the parties. Look at their relationships with yourself and with each other, and with relevant institutions. Do those relationships bring special obligations or expectations?

C. What Values or Principles are Involved?

Think through the shared values that are at stake in making this decision. Is there a question of trust? Is personal autonomy a consideration? Is there a question of fairness? Is anyone to be harmed or helped?

D. Sketch out options -- not just actions, but courses of action

Think imaginatively about the courses of option available to you. Rarely are you faced with a simply either/or, go-or-no-go decision. More often, you will need to design the various alternatives. Think of those alternatives in terms of courses of action extended through time.

E. Weigh the Benefits and the Burdens

Benefits -- broadly defined -- might include such things as the production of goods (physical, emotional, financial, social, etc.) for various parties, the satisfaction of preferences, and acting in accordance with various relevant values (such as fairness).
Burdens might include causing physical or emotional pain to various parties, imposing financial costs, and ignoring relevant values.

F. Look for Analogous Cases

Can you think of other similar decisions? What course of action was taken? Was it a good decision? How is the present case like that one? How is it different?

G. Discuss with Relevant Others

The merits of discussion should not be underestimated. Time permitting, discuss your decision with as many persons as have a stake in it. Gather opinions, and ask for the reasons behind those opinions. Remember that your ability to discuss others may be limited by expectations and rules about confidentiality.

H. Does this Decision Accord with Legal and Organizational Rules?

Some decisions are appropriately made based on legal considerations. If one option is illegal, we should at least think very seriously before taking that option.
Decisions may also be affected by rules set by organizations of which we are members. For example, most professional organizations have Codes of Ethics which are intended to guide individual decision making. Institutions (hospitals, banks, corporations) may also have policies which limit the options available to us.
Sometimes there are bad laws, or bad rules, and sometimes those should be broken. But usually it is ethically important to pay attention to laws & rules.

I. Am I Comfortable with this Decision?

Sometimes your 'gut reaction' will tell you if you've missed something.
Questions to be asked in this regard might include:
1) If I carry out this decision, would I be comfortable telling my family about it? My clergyman? My mentors?
2) Would I want children to take my behaviour as an example?
3) Is this decision one which a wise, informed, virtuous person would make?
4) Can I live with this decision?

2 keys to inventing a good prophecy

Be it astrology, horoscopes, or a fortune cookie, there are always ways to make people believe what you want them to believe. Chances are they already believe it, and are just looking for your validation:

1.) Make all the attributes you are going to say, positive. People want to identify with positive traits and never negative ones. Key phrases like “open minded” and “have great potential” are things that people always like to hear attributed to themselves.

2.) Keep it vague. Believers are desperate people who will want to attach themselves to anything that makes them feel special, and the best way is to keep it vague, let the believers do the hard work, the interpretations.

Ethics vs Morals

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source. e.g. their profession. On the other hand, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

	Ethics	Morals
What is it?:	The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are according to the rules.	Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.It defines how things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles.
Source:	Social system/External	Individual/Internal
Why we do it?:	Because society says it is the right thing to do.	Because we believe in something being right or wrong.
What if we don't do it?:	We will face peer/societal disapproval, or even be fired from our job.	Doing something against one's morals and principles can have different effects on different people, they may feel uncomfortable, remorse, depressed etc.
Flexibility:	Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary between contexts.	Usually consistent, although can change if an individual’s beliefs change.

Reactivity-Proactivity:

Reactive actions form a response from internal capability to some current or past external context. Proactive actions form a response from internal capability to some anticipated future external context. (By comparison, a passive state is product of internal capability without any consideration of external context - it's just something you're doing anyway.)

Generally, it's better to be proactive when you can: making concerted efforts to understand, adapt and influence your context so that you can achieve your goals.

However, there will be situations in which outside context problems will occur, too. The universe is a chaotic place, and if your challenges are complex then you will inevitably have to react to something unanticipated. (This is especially true when you have low influence relative to other entities or forces that can help or harm your chances of achieving your goals.)

This is where initiative comes in. If you want to get something achieved, then you need to be able to take the initiative to get it done. Strong proactive capacity can help you to perceive and anticipate risks, plan contingencies for them, and build initiative. Strong reactive capacity can help you to re-evaluate your position and quickly create new plans to maintain or regain initiative.

37 Conversation Rules for Gentlemen from 1875

Editor’s note: The excerpt below comes from a book published in 1875: A Gentleman’s Guide to Etiquette by Cecil B. Hartley. Hartley’s rules may be over 100 years old, but they’re just as true today as they ever were. There are some real gems here — some of which truly gave me a chuckle.

1. Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dexterously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry…Many there are who, giving their opinion, not as an opinion but as a law, will defend their position by such phrases, as: “Well, if I were president, or governor, I would,” — and while by the warmth of their argument they prove that they are utterly unable to govern their own temper, they will endeavor to persuade you that they are perfectly competent to take charge of the government of the nation.

2. Retain, if you will, a fixed political opinion, yet do not parade it upon all occasions, and, above all, do not endeavor to force others to agree with you. Listen calmly to their ideas upon the same subjects, and if you cannot agree, differ politely, and while your opponent may set you down as a bad politician, let him be obliged to admit that you are a gentleman.

3. Never interrupt anyone who is speaking; it is quite rude to officiously supply a name or date about which another hesitates, unless you are asked to do so. Another gross breach of etiquette is to anticipate the point of a story which another person is reciting, or to take it from his lips to finish it in your own language. Some persons plead as an excuse for this breach of etiquette, that the reciter was spoiling a good story by a bad manner, but this does not mend the matter. It is surely rude to give a man to understand that you do not consider him capable of finishing an anecdote that he has commenced.

4. It is ill-bred to put on an air of weariness during a long speech from another person, and quite as rude to look at a watch, read a letter, flirt the leaves of a book, or in any other action show that you are tired of the speaker or his subject.

5. In a general conversation, never speak when another person is speaking, and never try by raising your own voice to drown that of another. Never assume an air of haughtiness, or speak in a dictatorial manner; let your conversation be always amiable and frank, free from every affectation.

6. Never, unless you are requested to do so, speak of your own business or profession in society; to confine your conversation entirely to the subject or pursuit which is your own specialty is low-bred and vulgar. Make the subject for conversation suit the company in which you are placed. Joyous, light conversation will be at times as much out of place as a sermon would be at a dancing party. Let your conversation be grave or gay as suits the time or place.

7. In a dispute, if you cannot reconcile the parties, withdraw from them. You will surely make one enemy, perhaps two, by taking either side, in an argument when the speakers have lost their temper.

8. Never, during a general conversation, endeavor to concentrate the attention wholly upon yourself. It is quite as rude to enter into conversation with one of a group, and endeavor to draw him out of the circle of general conversation to talk with you alone.

9. A man of real intelligence and cultivated mind is generally modest. He may feel when in everyday society, that in intellectual acquirements he is above those around him; but he will not seek to make his companions feel their inferiority, nor try to display this advantage over them. He will discuss with frank simplicity the topics started by others, and endeavor to avoid starting such as they will not feel inclined to discuss. All that he says will be marked by politeness and deference to the feelings and opinions of others.

10. It is as great an accomplishment to listen with an air of interest and attention, as it is to speak well. To be a good listener is as indispensable as to be a good talker, and it is in the character of listener that you can most readily detect the man who is accustomed to good society.

11. Never listen to the conversation of two persons who have thus withdrawn from a group. If they are so near you that you cannot avoid hearing them, you may, with perfect propriety, change your seat.

12. Make your own share in conversation as modest and brief as is consistent with the subject under consideration, and avoid long speeches and tedious stories. If, however, another, particularly an old man, tells a long story, or one that is not new to you, listen respectfully until he has finished, before you speak again.

13. Speak of yourself but little. Your friends will find out your virtues without forcing you to tell them, and you may feel confident that it is equally unnecessary to expose your faults yourself.

14. If you submit to flattery, you must also submit to the imputation of folly and self-conceit.

15. In speaking of your friends, do not compare them, one with another. Speak of the merits of each one, but do not try to heighten the virtues of one by contrasting them with the vices of another.

16. Avoid, in conversation all subjects which can injure the absent. A gentleman will never calumniate or listen to calumny.

17. The wittiest man becomes tedious and ill-bred when he endeavors to engross entirely the attention of the company in which he should take a more modest part.

18. Avoid set phrases, and use quotations but rarely. They sometimes make a very piquant addition to conversation, but when they become a constant habit, they are exceedingly tedious, and in bad taste.

19. Avoid pedantry; it is a mark, not of intelligence, but stupidity.

20. Speak your own language correctly; at the same time do not be too great a stickler for formal correctness of phrases.

21. Never notice it if others make mistakes in language. To notice by word or look such errors in those around you is excessively ill-bred.

22. If you are a professional or scientific man, avoid the use of technical terms. They are in bad taste, because many will not understand them. If, however, you unconsciously use such a term or phrase, do not then commit the still greater error of explaining its meaning. No one will thank you for thus implying their ignorance.

23. In conversing with a foreigner who speaks imperfect English, listen with strict attention, yet do not supply a word, or phrase, if he hesitates. Above all, do not by a word or gesture show impatience if he makes pauses or blunders. If you understand his language, say so when you first speak to him; this is not making a display of your own knowledge, but is a kindness, as a foreigner will be pleased to hear and speak his own language when in a strange country.

24. Be careful in society never to play the part of buffoon, for you will soon become known as the “funny” man of the party, and no character is so perilous to your dignity as a gentleman. You lay yourself open to both censure and bad ridicule, and you may feel sure that, for every person who laughs with you, two are laughing at you, and for one who admires you, two will watch your antics with secret contempt.

25. Avoid boasting. To speak of your money, connections, or the luxuries at your command is in very bad taste. It is quite as ill-bred to boast of your intimacy with distinguished people. If their names occur naturally in the course of conversation, it is very well; but to be constantly quoting, “my friend, Gov. C,” or, “my intimate friend, the president,” is pompous and in bad taste.

26. While refusing the part of jester yourself, do not, by stiff manners, or cold, contemptuous looks, endeavor to check the innocent mirth of others. It is in excessively bad taste to drag in a grave subject of conversation when pleasant, bantering talk is going on around you. Join in pleasantly and forget your graver thoughts for the time, and you will win more popularity than if you chill the merry circle or turn their innocent gayety to grave discussions.

27. When thrown into the society of literary people, do not question them about their works. To speak in terms of admiration of any work to the author is in bad taste; but you may give pleasure, if, by a quotation from their writings, or a happy reference to them, you prove that you have read and appreciated them.

28. It is extremely rude and pedantic, when engaged in general conversation, to make quotations in a foreign language.

29. To use phrases which admit of a double meaning, is ungentlemanly.

30. If you find you are becoming angry in a conversation, either turn to another subject or keep silence. You may utter, in the heat of passion, words which you would never use in a calmer moment, and which you would bitterly repent when they were once said.

31. “Never talk of ropes to a man whose father was hanged” is a vulgar but popular proverb. Avoid carefully subjects which may be construed into personalities, and keep a strict reserve upon family matters. Avoid, if you can, seeing the skeleton in your friend’s closet, but if it is paraded for your special benefit, regard it as a sacred confidence, and never betray your knowledge to a third party.

32. If you have traveled, although you will endeavor to improve your mind in such travel, do not be constantly speaking of your journeyings. Nothing is more tiresome than a man who commences every phrase with, “When I was in Paris,” or, “In Italy I saw…”

33. When asking questions about persons who are not known to you, in a drawing-room, avoid using adjectives; or you may enquire of a mother, “Who is that awkward, ugly girl?” and be answered, “Sir, that is my daughter.”

34. Avoid gossip; in a woman it is detestable, but in a man it is utterly despicable.

35. Do not officiously offer assistance or advice in general society. Nobody will thank you for it.

36. Avoid flattery. A delicate compliment is permissible in conversation, but flattery is broad, coarse, and to sensible people, disgusting. If you flatter your superiors, they will distrust you, thinking you have some selfish end; if you flatter ladies, they will despise you, thinking you have no other conversation.

37. A lady of sense will feel more complimented if you converse with her upon instructive, high subjects, than if you address to her only the language of compliment. In the latter case she will conclude that you consider her incapable of discussing higher subjects, and you cannot expect her to be pleased at being considered merely a silly, vain person, who must be flattered into good humor.

Tactics and Strategy

Strategy is high-level goal-setting, planning, organisation and resource management, to get active elements into a place where they can have an effect.

Tactics are lower-level, operational methods. Forming objectives to satisfy strategic goals, employing available elements and implementing plans for maximal effect.

The Salesman’s Guide To Manipulating Your Friends

A common convention used when pricing a product is to offer 3 different prices - a premium option, a normal option, and a budget option. Even if you would prefer to offer just one product at one price, the three tier option is usually better.

Why? Because when it comes to making decisions based on prices, people are easily manipulated. Here is a good example that summarizes an experiment from the book Priceless:

“People were offered 2 kinds of beer: a premium beer for $2.50 and a bargain beer for $1.80. Around 80% chose the more expensive beer.

“Now a third beer was introduced, a super bargain beer for $1.60 in addition to the previous two. Now 80% bought the $1.80 beer and the rest the $2.50 beer. Nobody bought the cheapest option.

“Third time around, they removed the $1.60 beer and replaced it with a super premium $3.40 beer. Most people chose the $2.50 beer, a small number the $1.80 beer and around 10% opted for the most expensive $3.40 beer. Some people will always buy the most expensive option, no matter the price.”

As the experiment shows, people often have a preference for the middle option, irrespective of quality or price. Although we tend to think of ourselves as making decisions by comparing the cost of a product to its quality (or our willingness to pay), we don’t always do so in practice.

Instead, we often compare the options that are immediately available against each other. The type of person that always buys the premium option will go for the premium option, the person sticking to a budget will go for the cheapest option, and most people will see the middle option as the reasonable balance between quality and price.

As a result, a common sales tactic is to offer a budget and premium option around your product. If you just offer one price for one option, customers will only decide whether to purchase the product by comparing it to similar products or estimating how much they think it’s worth. But by offering three options, you can change the conversation and induce people to make their decision by comparing the three options.



This principle can also be applied outside pricing to any area where you are trying to frame a decision for someone. It’s also a great way to manipulate your friends into making a decision you want.

Let’s imagine a completely hypothetical situation involving two roommates. The roommates decide to go out for dinner, but they can’t agree on a restaurant. So, one of them volunteers to research some options.

On Yelp, he finds a restaurant he wants to go to. But rather than suggest that one restaurant, he pitches his roommate on three different eateries: First a cheap Italian restaurant, next the moderately priced and conveniently located Cuban restaurant that he favors, and finally an expensive Chinese restaurant that is far away.

Now, instead of debating the merits of the Cuban restaurant in isolation (as the first roommate doubts that his roommate would want to go), the second roommate is comparing it to two other options. Comparatively, it seems great. It’s neither the overly cheap nor overly expensive option, and it is conveniently located.

Of course, you probably shouldn’t suggest anything you’re not willing to actually do. In this author’s case, the plan backfired. Bucking the trend, his roommate chose the Chinese restaurant. Luckily, it was delicious.

How to behave at a sushi restaurant

If you’ve ever found yourself at the counter of a sushi restaurant, nervously watching and copying other customers around you, don’t worry; you’re not alone. It turns out that even Japanese people aren’t too sure of themselves when it comes to dining with sushi.
Thankfully, Japan has etiquette guides for everything – from how to wear a suit to how to eat a hamburger – so proper tips aren’t hard to find. We’ve sourced a compilation of sushi manners that outlines some of the finer points, while also giving us an insight into the type of things that confuse Japanese sushi customers.

First up, “irasshaimase” or “welcome.” Let’s take roll-call with the main styles of sushi (photo left). Nigiri-zushi: Hand molded, with neta (topping) on a bed of sushi rice; “makimono:” Sushi rice with a seaweed wrap and a variety of fillings. These come in regular roll shapes (“makizushi” or roll sushi) and more rectangular, battleship shapes (“gunkanmaki”).

How to Order

Either tell the staff your budget to receive a specially designed course from the chef, or make your requests from the menu. Keep in mind that it’s best to start with lighter flavors and then move on to stronger flavors as the course progresses.
 
While “toro” (supple, fatty tuna) is a popular choice for many people, ordering it in bulk and dismissing all other choices is considered bad form. A well-rounded order with a few different varieties is a much better way to get on good terms with the chef.

They say you can test the flavors of a sushi restaurant by their egg rolls but the “anago” (conger eel) and the “konoshiro” (gizzard shad) are also great ways to see the chef’s talent and try distinctive flavors.
 
When the “makimono” comes out, it’s a sign that your specially designed course is at an end. Make any additional orders now if you’re not full.

How to eat
—Eat the sushi as soon as it’s placed in front of you.
—Eat it with one hand or with chopsticks; either is no problem.
—It’s important to eat the sushi in one mouthful. If you think the sushi might be too big, then ask for it to be cut or molded into a smaller portion.
—When dipping sushi into soy sauce, do it so the sauce only touches the “neta” (the fish topping) and not the rice. You don’t have to totally turn the sushi over to get the job done; just tilt it to the side and dip the tip of the “neta.” As rice soaks up the soy sauce, it’s likely to crumble.
—“Gunkan” sushi might spill and fall apart if tipped, so a bit of sneaky sauce on the rice is forgiven here, as long as you aim mostly for a seaweed dip.

What to avoid
—Don’t drown your sushi in loads of soy sauce. Taste the fish and rice.
—Don’t take the “neta” off the sushi rice; dip it in soy and then return it to the top of its rice bed.
—Don’t wear a strong smelling fragrance if you plan to sit at the counter
—Don’t show off half-hearted sushi knowledge. Show some humility to the chef and he’s sure to treat you in kind.

8 tips to acting upper-class

1. Never, Ever, Ever talk about money. You can talk about pricey things, like a trip, but you never mention how much it would cost. You may say the name of the hotel (if it was a good one), but there is no need to point out the price.
2. Dress well for the occasion. Do not overdress. Check what others are going to wear, and if possible prepare before with someone who is already "in the club." They will (if they like you) give you good hints about what to wear and not to wear.
3. Be nice. Smile, don't insult anyone, and don't pull any rude jokes.
4. Be open and charming. Don't be shy. There is no need to attack the first person that you see, but if you spot someone interesting go and talk to them.
5. Boys and girls from upper class families are very strict with good manners. Be careful of how you act. If you want to come on to some one, do it very discreet. Find out if they have a boy/girl friend first. If they do, let them go. You will only be called trashy.
6. Have good manners. Know in what order to use the forks and knives and so on.
7. Have a good vocabulary. Don't use bad or vulgar language.
8. If you get upset over something, try to stay calm.

Seven tools for thinking

1 USE YOUR MISTAKES

We have all heard the forlorn refrain: "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!" This phrase has come to stand for the rueful reflection of an idiot, a sign of stupidity, but in fact we should appreciate it as a pillar of wisdom. Any being, any agent, who can truly say: "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!" is standing on the threshold of brilliance. We human beings pride ourselves on our intelligence, and one of its hallmarks is that we can remember our previous thinking and reflect on it – on how it seemed, on why it was tempting in the first place and then about what went wrong.

I know of no evidence to suggest that any other species on the planet can actually think this thought. If they could, they would be almost as smart as we are. So when you make a mistake, you should learn to take a deep breath, grit your teeth and then examine your own recollections of the mistake as ruthlessly and as dispassionately as you can manage. It's not easy. The natural human reaction to making a mistake is embarrassment and anger (we are never angrier than when we are angry at ourselves) and you have to work hard to overcome these emotional reactions.

Try to acquire the weird practice of savouring your mistakes, delighting in uncovering the strange quirks that led you astray. Then, once you have sucked out all the goodness to be gained from having made them, you can cheerfully set them behind you and go on to the next big opportunity. But that is not enough: you should actively seek out opportunities just so you can then recover from them.

In science, you make your mistakes in public. You show them off so that everybody can learn from them. This way, you get the benefit of everybody else's experience, and not just your own idiosyncratic path through the space of mistakes. (Physicist Wolfgang Pauli famously expressed his contempt for the work of a colleague as "not even wrong". A clear falsehood shared with critics is better than vague mush.)

This, by the way, is another reason why we humans are so much smarter than every other species. It is not so much that our brains are bigger or more powerful, or even that we have the knack of reflecting on our own past errors, but that we share the benefits our individual brains have won by their individual histories of trial and error.

I am amazed at how many really smart people don't understand that you can make big mistakes in public and emerge none the worse for it. I know distinguished researchers who will go to preposterous lengths to avoid having to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. Actually, people love it when somebody admits to making a mistake. All kinds of people love pointing out mistakes.

Generous-spirited people appreciate your giving them the opportunity to help, and acknowledging it when they succeed in helping you; mean-spirited people enjoy showing you up. Let them! Either way we all win.

2 RESPECT YOUR OPPONENT

Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticising the views of an opponent? If there are obvious contradictions in the opponent's case, then you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view – and then dump on them. But the search for hidden contradictions often crosses the line into nitpicking, sea-lawyering and outright parody. The thrill of the chase and the conviction that your opponent has to be harbouring a confusion somewhere encourages uncharitable interpretation, which gives you an easy target to attack.

But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody's time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one's opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport's rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…

3 THE "SURELY" KLAXON

When you're reading or skimming argumentative essays, especially by philosophers, here is a quick trick that may save you much time and effort, especially in this age of simple searching by computer: look for "surely" in the document and check each occurrence. Not always, not even most of the time, but often the word "surely" is as good as a blinking light locating a weak point in the argument.

Why? Because it marks the very edge of what the author is actually sure about and hopes readers will also be sure about. (If the author were really sure all the readers would agree, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.) Being at the edge, the author has had to make a judgment call about whether or not to attempt to demonstrate the point at issue, or provide evidence for it, and – because life is short – has decided in favour of bald assertion, with the presumably well-grounded anticipation of agreement. Just the sort of place to find an ill-examined "truism" that isn't true!

4 ANSWER RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

Just as you should keep a sharp eye out for "surely", you should develop a sensitivity for rhetorical questions in any argument or polemic. Why? Because, like the use of "surely", they represent an author's eagerness to take a short cut. A rhetorical question has a question mark at the end, but it is not meant to be answered. That is, the author doesn't bother waiting for you to answer since the answer is so obvious that you'd be embarrassed to say it!

Here is a good habit to develop: whenever you see a rhetorical question, try – silently, to yourself – to give it an unobvious answer. If you find a good one, surprise your interlocutor by answering the question. I remember a Peanuts cartoon from years ago that nicely illustrates the tactic. Charlie Brown had just asked, rhetorically: "Who's to say what is right and wrong here?" and Lucy responded, in the next panel: "I will."

5 EMPLOY OCCAM'S RAZOR

Attributed to William of Ockham (or Ooccam), a 14th-century English logician and philosopher, this thinking tool is actually a much older rule of thumb. A Latin name for it is lex parsimoniae, the law of parsimony. It is usually put into English as the maxim "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity".

The idea is straightforward: don't concoct a complicated, extravagant theory if you've got a simpler one (containing fewer ingredients, fewer entities) that handles the phenomenon just as well. If exposure to extremely cold air can account for all the symptoms of frostbite, don't postulate unobserved "snow germs" or "Arctic microbes". Kepler's laws explain the orbits of the planets; we have no need to hypothesise pilots guiding the planets from control panels hidden under the surface. This much is uncontroversial, but extensions of the principle have not always met with agreement.

One of the least impressive attempts to apply Occam's razor to a gnarly problem is the claim (and provoked counterclaims) that postulating a God as creator of the universe is simpler, more parsimonious, than the alternatives. How could postulating something supernatural and incomprehensible be parsimonious? It strikes me as the height of extravagance, but perhaps there are clever ways of rebutting that suggestion.

I don't want to argue about it; Occam's razor is, after all, just a rule of thumb, a frequently useful suggestion. The prospect of turning it into a metaphysical principle or fundamental requirement of rationality that could bear the weight of proving or disproving the existence of God in one fell swoop is simply ludicrous. It would be like trying to disprove a theorem of quantum mechanics by showing that it contradicted the axiom "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".

6 DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON RUBBISH

Sturgeon's law is usually expressed thus: 90% of everything is crap. So 90% of experiments in molecular biology, 90% of poetry, 90% of philosophy books, 90% of peer-reviewed articles in mathematics – and so forth – is crap. Is that true? Well, maybe it's an exaggeration, but let's agree that there is a lot of mediocre work done in every field. (Some curmudgeons say it's more like 99%, but let's not get into that game.)

A good moral to draw from this observation is that when you want to criticise a field, a genre, a discipline, an art form …don't waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the good stuff or leave it alone. This advice is often ignored by ideologues intent on destroying the reputation of analytic philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology, macroeconomics, plastic surgery, improvisational theatre, television sitcoms, philosophical theology, massage therapy, you name it.

Let's stipulate at the outset that there is a great deal of deplorable, second-rate stuff out there, of all sorts. Now, in order not to waste your time and try our patience, make sure you concentrate on the best stuff you can find, the flagship examples extolled by the leaders of the field, the prize-winning entries, not the dregs. Notice that this is closely related to Rapoport's rules: unless you are a comedian whose main purpose is to make people laugh at ludicrous buffoonery, spare us the caricature.

7 BEWARE OF DEEPITIES

A deepity (a term coined by the daughter of my late friend, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum) is a proposition that seems both important and true – and profound – but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous. On one reading, it is manifestly false, but it would be earth-shaking if it were true; on the other reading, it is true but trivial. The unwary listener picks up the glimmer of truth from the second reading, and the devastating importance from the first reading, and thinks, Wow! That's a deepity.

Here is an example (better sit down: this is heavy stuff): Love is just a word.

Oh wow! Cosmic. Mind-blowing, right? Wrong. On one reading, it is manifestly false. I'm not sure what love is – maybe an emotion or emotional attachment, maybe an interpersonal relationship, maybe the highest state a human mind can achieve – but we all know it isn't a word. You can't find love in the dictionary!

We can bring out the other reading by availing ourselves of a convention philosophers care mightily about: when we talk about a word, we put it in quotation marks, thus: "love" is just a word. "Cheeseburger" is just a word. "Word" is just a word. But this isn't fair, you say. Whoever said that love is just a word meant something else, surely. No doubt, but they didn't say it.

Not all deepities are quite so easily analysed. Richard Dawkins recently alerted me to a fine deepity by Rowan Williams, the then archbishop of Canterbury, who described his faith as "a silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark".

I leave the analysis of this as an exercise for you.

A Survival Guide to Starting and Finishing a PhD

Tips on making it through, what I would tell my previous self going in, and advice on taking advantage of the unique opportunity that is graduate school.

Disclaimer: Everyone's graduate school experience is different. Mine wasn't a typical one, mainly because I spent so much time away from campus (in a different state), but hey, most of your PhD experience is independent learning anyways. That's the best part.

Before you begin (or apply)

You should really like the field you're thinking about pursuing a PhD in. You don't have to have this, but you kind of do. A doctorate is a commitment of several years (for me it was 7), and if you're not fascinated by your work, it feels like an impossible chore. There are a lot things that are actual chores — administration, research results that go against your expectations, challenging collaborations, etc — and the interest in your work pulls you through.

I don't know anyone who finished their PhD who wasn't excited about the field in some way.

On that note, do your research before you apply to programs, and try to find faculty whose interests align with yours. Of course this is easier said than done. I entered graduate school with statistics education in mind and came out the other end with a focus in visualization. The size of my department probably allowed for some of that flexibility. Luck was also involved.

So what I actually did was apply to more than one program and then wait to hear if I got in or not. If I only got into one place (or none), then the decision was easy. In the end, I compared department interests and then went with the one I thought sounded better.

Consider it a red flag if it's hard to find faculty information because there's little to nothing online. There's really no excuse these days not to have updated faculty pages.

Absorb information

Okay, you're in graduate school now. The undergrads suddenly look really young and all of them expect that you know everything there is to know about statistics (or whatever field you're in). This becomes especially obvious if you're a teaching assistant, which can feel weird at first because you're not that far out of undergrad yourself. Use the opportunity to brush up on your core statistics knowledge.

I had coursework for the first two years, but it varies by department I'm sure.You also take classes yourself. Don't freak out if the lectures are confusing and everyone seems to ask smart questions that you don't understand. In reality, it's probably only a handful of people who dominate the discussion, and well, there's just always some people who are ahead of the curve. Maybe you're one of them.

Tough early goings has a lot to do with learning the language of statistics. There's jargon that makes it easier to describe concepts (once you know them already), and there's a flow of logic that you pick up over time.

There's usually a qualifying exam after the first two years to make sure you learned in class.Don't hesitate to ask questions and make use of office hours (but don't be the person who waits until the week before an exam or project to get advice, because that's just so undergrad). Once you finish your coursework, it's going to be a lot of independent learning, so take advantage of the strong guidance while you can.

The key here is to absorb as much information as you can and try to find the area of statistics that excites you the most. Pursue and dig deeper when you do find that thing.

I remember the day I discovered visualization. My future adviser gave a guest lecture on visualization from a mostly media arts perspective. He talked about it, I grew really interested, and then went home and googled away.

Oh, and read a lot of papers. I didn't do nearly enough of this early on, and you need proper literature review for your dissertation. Background information also informs your own work.

Find an adviser

Actually, I don't think I ever officially asked my adviser to be my adviser. It was just assumed when I became a student researcher in his group.I kind of had an adviser from the start of graduate school, because I was lucky to get a research assistant position that had to do with statistics education. However, as my interests changed, I switched my adviser around the two-year mark.

This is important and goes back to the application process. After a couple years, you should have a sense of what the faculty in your department work on and their teaching styles, and you should go for the best match.

I think a lot of people expect an adviser to have all the answers and give you specific directions during each meeting. That's kind of what it's like early on, but it eventually develops into a partnership. It's not your adviser's job to teach you everything. A good adviser points you in the right direction when you're lost.

Jump at opportunities

Statistics is a collaborative field, and there are a lot of opportunities to work with others within the department and outside of it. A lot of companies are often in search of interns, so they might send fliers and listings that end up posting to the grad email list. Jump at these opportunities if you can.

Graduate school doesn't have to be expensive.Opportunities within the department or university should be of extra interest, because it usually means that your tuition could be reduced a lot, if not completely.

If something sounded interesting, I'd respond to it right away, and it usually resulted in something good. A lot of people pass up opportunities, because they see the requirements of an ideal candidate and feel like they're not qualified. Instead, apply and let someone else decide if you're qualified. There's usually a lot of learning on the job, and it's usually more important that you'll be able to pick up the necessary skills.

At the very least, you'll pick up interview experience, which comes in handy later on if you want one of those job things after you graduate.

Learn to say no

As you progress in your academic career, you'll look more and more like a PhD (hopefully). You have more skills, more knowledge, and more experience, which means you become more of an asset to potential collaborators, researchers, and departments. A lot of my best experiences come from working with others, but eventually, you have to focus on your own work so that you can write your dissertation. Hopefully, you'll have a lot of writing routes to take after you've jumped at all the opportunities that crossed your desk.

So it's a whole lot of yes in the beginning, but you have to be more stingy with your time as you progress.

There are probably going to be potential employers knocking at your door at some point, too. If you really want to finish your PhD, you must make them wait. I know this is much easier said than done, but when you start a full-time job, it's hard to muster the energy at the end of a day to work on a dissertation. I mean, it's already hard to work on a dissertation with normal levels of energy.

All the times I wanted to quit, I justified it by telling myself that I would probably have the same job with or without a doctorate. I also know a lot of people who quit and are plenty successful, so finding a job didn't work for me as a motivator. But it might be different for you, depending on what work you're interested in.

Solitude

This might've been the toughest part for me. During my first two years in school, I hung out with my classmates a lot and we'd discuss our work or just grab some drinks, but I had to study from a distance from my third year on. I've always been an independent learner, so I thought I'd be okay, but my first year away, it was hard to focus, and it was lonely in the apartment by myself. I didn't want to do much of anything.

I eventually made friends, and pets provided nice company during the day. It's important to have a life outside of dissertation work. Give your brain a rest.

Separation from the academic bubble wasn't all bad though. FlowingData came out of my moving away, and my dissertation topic came out of a personal project. So there are definitely pros and cons, but it's mostly what you make out of what you have in front of you.

I found Twitter useful to connect with other work-at-homers and PhD Comics proved to be a great resource for feeling less isolated.Anyways, my situation is kind of specific, but it's good to have a support system rather than go at it alone. I mean, you still have to do all the work, but there will be times of frustration when you need to vent or talk your way through a problem.

Write the dissertation and defend

Despite what you might've heard, a dissertation does not write itself. Believe me. I've tried. Many times. And it never ever writes itself.

I even (shamefully) bought a book that's lying around somewhere on how to write your dissertation efficiently. That's gotta be up there on my list of worst Amazon impulse buys. The book arrived, I started reading, and then realized that it'd be a lot more efficient to be writing instead of reading about how to write.

Procrastination comes in many forms.

The hardest part for me was getting started. Just deal with the fact that the writing is going to be bad at first. You come back and revise anyways. I've heard this advice a lot, but you really do just have to sit down and write (assuming you've worked on enough things by now that you can write about).

If you already have articles on hand, it doesn't hurt to take notes so that it's easier to clean up citing towards the end.Don't worry about proper citing, what pronouns to use, and the tone of your writing. This stuff is easy to fix later. (It can be helpful to browse past dissertations in your department to learn what's expected.) Focus on the framework and outline first.

Just google "successful PhD defense."By the time you're done writing, you know about your specific topic better than most people, which makes your defense less painful. There's a lot of online advice on a successful defense already, but the two main points are (1) your committee wants you to succeed; and (2) think of it as an opportunity to talk about your work. In my experience and from what I've heard, these are totally true. That didn't stop me from being really nervous though and probably won't help your nerves either, but there you go.

I like this video by Ze Frank on public speaking.The best thing to do is prepare. Rehearse your talk until you can deliver it in your sleep. Your preparation depends on your style. Some like to write their talks out. I like to keep it more natural so it's not like I'm reading a script. Go with what you're comfortable with.

It'll all be fine and not nearly as horrible as you imagine it will be.

Wrapping up

So there you go. A PhD at a glance. Work hard, try to relax, and embrace the uniqueness of graduate school. There are many challenges along the way, but try to learn from them rather than beat yourself up over them. A PhD can be fun if you let it.

How to be interesting (in 10 stupid-simple steps):

1.Go exploring.
Explore ideas, places, and opinions. The inside of the echo chamber is where all the boring people hang out.


2. Share what you discover.
And be generous when you do. Not everybody went exploring with you. Let them live vicariously through your adventures.


3. Do something. Anything.
Dance. Talk. Build. Network. Play. Help. Create. It doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you’re doing it. Sitting around and complaining is not an acceptable form of ‘something,’ in case you were wondering.

4. Embrace your innate weirdness.
No one is normal. Everyone has quirks and insights unique to themselves. Don’t hide these things—they are what make you interesting.


5. Have a cause.
If you don’t give a damn about anything, no one will give a damn about you.
 

6. Minimize the swagger.
Egos get in the way of ideas. If your arrogance is more obvious than your expertise, you are someone other people avoid.

7. Give it a shot.
Try it out. Play around with a new idea. Do something strange. If you never leave your comfort zone, you won’t grow.


8. Hop off the bandwagon.
If everyone else is doing it, you’re already late to the party.  Do your own thing, and others will hop onto the spiffy wagon you built yourself. Besides, it’s more fun to drive than it is to get pulled around.


9. Grow a pair.
Bravery is needed to have contrary opinions and to take unexpected paths. If you’re not courageous, you’re going to be hanging around the water cooler, talking about the guy who actually is.

10. Ignore the scolds.
Boring is safe, and you will be told to behave yourself. The scolds could have, would have, should have. But they didn’t. And they resent you for your adventures.

7 life lessons from the very wealthy

Please excuse the very wealthy for feeling a bit under siege lately.

Taxes for the top 2 percent are very likely to go higher. Uncle Sam’s share of capital gains and dividend income might rise, and means-testing for Social Security and Medicare is probable. In the United States, the very rich hold most of that wealth in dollars, which are worth increasingly less. As income inequality has grown dramatically in the nation, the very wealthy are blamed for all manner of social ills.

Rather than pile on the wealthy, this week I’d like to approach the subject of money a little more philosophically. There are surprising insights to be gleaned from the experiences of the very wealthy regarding their investments and experience with wealth.

Some context: In my day job, I come into contact with very high-net-worth individuals. These include young technologists with modest portfolios to families that measure their wealth in nine and 10 figures. For the math-averse, that’s hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.

Over the years, I have had some fascinating conversations with people who have hospitals and graduate schools named after them. I’d like to share some of the things I have learned from these folks.

1. Having money is better than not having money.

Sure, this may be obvious, but let’s get it out of the way upfront. Money may not buy you happiness, but it buys many other important things. Like financial security, excellent health care, education, travel and a comfortable retirement. In a word: freedom.

2. Don’t become “cash rich” and “time poor.”

Devoting all of your waking hours to making money is a problem, especially in professions with a partnership fast track. Lawyers, doctors, bankers and accountants can get so caught up in the competitive nature of their jobs that they lose touch with their family. Any semblance of a normal personal life disappears, and a very unhealthy balance between work and home can develop.

Work is the process of exchanging your time for money. Remember: What you do with your time is far more meaningful than the goods you accumulate with your money. If you are working so much to become rich but you ignore your spouse and miss seeing your kids grow up, you are actually poorer than you realize.

3. Memories are better than material objects.

You may be surprised to learn that among the monied set, expensive cars, yachts, houses, jewelry and watches come at the end of the list.

Their priorities? Memories and accomplishments. This was especially true when it came to family. Toys matter less than good times.

The rule of diminishing returns is a harsh mistress with luxury goods. Do you really think $100,000 audio speakers sound 20 times better than a pair of $5,000 speakers? (They don’t). Is a $250,000 sports car five times faster than a $50,000? (It is not). These days, you can buy quite a lovely home for $1,000,000 (and much less in the country’s interior). Those $10,000,000 manses are not 10 times roomier. Anyone who has owned a $10,000 Rolex will tell you that a $39 Casio keeps better time.

When discussing the benefits of wealth, I have heard again and again about amazing experiences, family get-togethers, vacations, shows, sporting events, weddings and other events as these people’s most important life experiences. While these things cost money, nearly every family can afford reasonable versions of them.

4. Watch your “lifestyle leverage,” especially early in your career.

Those partnership-track careers? The dirty little secret: Those firms love to get their young employees leveraged up. They will even help you get that way, co-signing mortgages for big houses or even directly lending you the cash on favorable terms.

They encourage up-and-comers to spend extravagantly; they extend lines of credit to their rising stars. You need a big house with a jumbo mortgage; you cannot pull up to a business meeting in anything less than the best luxury car. It is part of their corporate culture.

Isn’t that nice of them?

Not really. The big banks, investment shops, law firms and accountants have learned how profitable it is to have “golden handcuffs” on their best employees. These highly-leveraged, debt-laden wage slaves will work harder, put in longer hours and stay with the firm longer than those debt-free workers.

Besides, overleveraged employees do not leave to work at a new start-up or a smaller, more family friendly competitor.

You recent graduates: Remember this when you are offered credit on generous terms. Your leverage is your detriment.

5. Having goals is incredibly important.

I have a friend who is a serial entrepreneur. He was a board member in a household-name dot-com from the 1990s. He sold his stock — too early, I warned at the time — for $30 million. (It would have been worth $90 million a few months later.)

But that didn’t matter to him — he planned to use that money for his next company, which he promptly built and sold for $250 million. He rolled that l into his third venture, which he cashed out of for a cool $1 billion. His long-term goal, and the ability to execute that vision, are what led him to incredible success.

He once said something that has stayed with me: “I am always surprised at how many people have no goals. They simply let life’s river flow them downstream.”

There is a Latin phrase associated with military actions: “Amat victoria curam.“ It translates as “Victory loves careful preparation.” You would be amazed at what you can accomplish with planning.

6. You must live in the here and now.

Goals are important, but don’t miss out on what is happening today.

This is especially true among entrepreneurs, corporate execs and Type A personalities. Do not let dreams of that mansion on a hill prevent you from enjoying the home you live in.

This is an area that can easily veer into cliche. Rather than risk that, I’ll simply remind you of what John Lennon sang in “Beautiful Boy”: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

7. It helps to be incredibly lucky.

I am struck by how many very wealthy people I know — especially tech entrepreneurs – have expressed being grateful for their good luck. Again and again, I have heard the phrase: “Being smart is good, but being lucky is better.”

Rather than leave you with the impression that success is simply a roll of the dice, I am compelled to remind you what the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger was reputed to have said: “Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.”

I don’t know whether it’s better to be smart or lucky, but I would suggest that making the most of the opportunities takes more than just dumb luck.

Derren Brown’s Guide to overcoming Awkward Situations

Navigating life’s stickier situations

Life. It’s always waiting around the corner, ready to stick out a gnarly ankle to send you tumbling into the muddy puddles of social peril. Whether it’s coming a cropper with oversharing youths on public transport, failing to network at work parties or finding yourself face to face with an aggressive drunk on a Saturday night, you never quite know when you’ll be caught in an awkward or potentially dangerous situation. But, as we’re always keen to lend a hand, we asked thought-pestering psychological illusionist Derren Brown to give his tips on avoiding the everyday obstacles of 21st-century existence, guiding you safely home with your dignity, takeaway curry and smartphone all intact.

How to… handle aggressive situations

This is simply about not engaging with your aggressor at the level they expect. I was coming back from a hotel at about 3am one night and there was a guy in the street with his girlfriend. He was really drunk, clearly looking for a fight and he started kicking off at me. I had a routine ready in my head for this sort of situation and it worked a treat on this occasion. He asked me that typical aggressive rhetorical question — “Do you want a fight?” You can’t say “yes” or “no” — you’ll get hit either way. So, I responded with, “The wall outside my house is four-feet high.”
I didn’t engage at the level he was expecting me to, so immediately he was on the back foot. He came back with, “What?” and I repeated my bizarre response. I delivered the line in a completely matter-of-fact tone, as if he was the one who was missing something here. Suddenly, he was confused. All his adrenaline had dropped away, because I’d pulled the rug from under him. It’s the verbal version of a martial-arts technique called an ‘adrenaline dump’, whereby you get the person to relax before you hit them. A punch will have much greater impact if the recipient’s guard is down. I stuck to this surreal conversational thread with my assailant, saying things like, “I lived in Spain for a while and the walls are really huge, but in this country they’re tiny.” After a few of these exchanges, he just went, “Oh f*ck!” and broke down in tears. The guy had all this adrenaline and was on the point of really laying into me — I was seeing myself beaten to a bloody pulp — but these non-threatening nonsense statements broke that aggression down and he genuinely started crying. I ended up sitting next to him on the kerb, comforting him. It’s the same with guys that come up and ask to “have a look at your phone”, and you end up handing over your stuff and hating yourself for doing it — you can use the same approach. My PA had some stuff nicked in a Tube station recently, and I said to him, “If you’d just starting singing, they would have left you alone.”

How to… get someone on the bus to turn their music down

This is the same principle as trying to keep the seat next to you free. Don’t put your bag on it and stare at your feet, because people sense what you’re trying to do and it doesn’t work. Instead, you should smile at them as they approach and pat the seat invitingly. That guarantees it’s kept free, as no one wants to sit beside a nutter. Similarly, when someone’s playing their music loudly, don’t directly ask them to turn it down. Instead, catch their eye. Nod, smile — maybe even conduct along to the music they’re playing or go and sit down next to them. Generally act like you’re enjoying their awful din, which will promptly weird them out to the point that they will turn it off just to get you off their case. I had a friend who used to walk home every night through a dodgy part of London and there were always gangs of guys out on the street. He’d get abuse from them, so he’d cross over on to the other side of the road. Then, one day, he stayed on their side of the street and walked past them shouting, “Hello! Good evening!” He never got any hassle after that.

How to… evade a persistent charity collector

The best way out of this situation is to initially engage fully with them and feign interest in what they are saying. Then, at one point, ask for clarification regarding exactly what they’re raising money for and immediately appear disgusted by what they tell you. So, they say, “We’re trying to raise money to save the dolphins,” and you reply, “I’m sorry? To save the dolphins?! Oh, God. That’s disgusting.” Appear utterly outraged, as if they’ve somehow got the wrong end of the stick. This should baffle them enough to leave you alone. Charity ‘muggers’ occasionally recognise me, and I always stop and say hello. Recently, however, one of them managed to turn the conversation quickly from how much they enjoyed my shows to how much money I was willing to give them. So, there was no way I could say no to signing up. I plucked up the cowardice to cancel the direct debit the next day, though.

How to… avoid embarrassment when you can’t remember someone’s name

I was in this situation with someone famous, and because I don’t watch TV I have a terrible time with famous people’s names. Who was it? I can’t even remember now. Anyway, I wouldn’t tell you even if I could — it would be embarrassing. But they approached me and knew my name, and I couldn’t remember theirs. What I did was to say, “Oh, I was writing about you in an email the other day,” — which is flattering, firstly, and gets you off on the right foot — “but I think I spelt your name wrong. Don’t you have a strange way of spelling it?” He then had to spell his name for me. Problem solved. It even works for simple names — if you find out they’re called Chris, you can just say, “Oh, I thought you spelt it with a ‘K’.” If they’re called Tom — “I thought you had an ‘H’ after the ‘T’.”

How to… return a meal at a restaurant

I’m generally quite fussy, so I do end up sending stuff back occasionally. The problem with this one is that you’re engaging with the waiter, not the chef, and the chef is the person who’ll be doing the spitting if you complain about his food. So, you need to worry about what the waiter tells the chef. The best trick is to frame your complaint as a compliment. Say, “Excuse me, could you please tell the chef this is the best steak I’ve ever had… but would it be possible for him to cook it a little longer?” You could even add a question — ask which herbs he used, say, “They’re delicious... but could it could be a tad more well-done, perhaps?”

How to… make friends in a room full of strangers

The key thing, initially, is remembering people’s names. I have to do this on-stage with volunteers from the audience and it’s no good pulling off ‘amazing mind feats’ if you can’t remember the name of someone you met two minutes ago. My technique is, when you are introduced to someone, to make a visual link between them and whatever their name reminds you of. So, if I meet someone called Tom, I immediately think of my friend Tom from university, who had ginger hair and lived in a castle. I’ll picture this new Tom with a big red mane, standing on top of a turret and whenever I see him again, that visual will immediately present itself. So, if somebody’s called Mike and they’re wearing a stripy jumper, I’d imagine a big stripy microphone — that’s what ‘Mike’ makes me think of — the more bizarre the image, the better, as if it’s too ordinary, you’ll forget it. If you’re like me at parties, and you often find yourself looking round, thinking, “I don’t like these things, what the f*ck am I doing here?” take a minute to review the people you’ve met and see how many names you remember. People are always delighted when you approach them again later in the evening and remember their name. If you’re not hugely confident, just turn the spotlight on the person you’re talking to. Ask them questions and be engaged and enthused by their answers. It’s very simple — the nicer you are to people, the more they will like you.

How to Instill False Memories

Everyone enjoys the occasional practical joke – assuming the gag isn’t mean-spirited or overly perilous, even the prank’s poor victim can appreciate the punch line!

I’m sure you have your favorites: gluing dollars to sidewalks, filling your co-worker’s office with balloons, moving your roommate’s bed to the basement… while he’s sleeping in it.

More typical stunts may employ whoopee cushions, fake vomit, and hand buzzers, but honestly, those are a tad sophomoric and overdone. Thus, in an effort to elevate the standard of stunts, I’d like to present a gag that makes use not of stink bombs, but of science.

How to implant false memories in your friends, in four steps:

In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan argued that implanting false memories in people is not only possible, but is actually pretty easy when attempted in the proper settings with a gullible subject, He cited as examples people who, at the urging of therapists or hypnotists, genuinely start to believe that they’d been abducted by UFOs or falsely remember being abused as a child. For these people, the distinction between memory and imagination becomes blurred, and events that never actually took place become sewn into their memories as real events. They can even describe these false remembrances incredibly vividly – as if they actually happened!

“Memory can be contaminated,” Sagan wrote. “False memories can be implanted even in minds that do not consider themselves vulnerable and uncritical.”

Sagan’s insight provides a segue into step one of our plot to implant a memory, which is made possible by a frank fact: your friends — while undoubtedly honest, funny, supportive, and intelligent — probably don’t all possess invulnerable and critical minds. Thus, the first step is to select one of your mates who, in your estimation, is “prone to suggestion.” Please note that you should be acquainted with this friend for at least five years, and have shared experiences with him or her. This will enhance your believability, and thus your odds of success.

Once you’ve got your target singled out, the next, and possibly the most critical step, is to fabricate a memory. The false memory should have “taken place” at least a year in the past, not be unduly intricate, and not be something that might engender strong feelings of emotion.

Studies have shown that it’s easy to make people falsely recall small details about events, but as the fake memories grow in complexity and specificity, implantation grows progressively harder, though not impossible. After three interviews, researchers at Western Washington University succeeded in getting subjects to recall details about accidentally spilling a bowl of punch on the parents of the bride at a wedding reception. As described by University of Washington psychologist Elizabeth Loftus in a 1997 article for Scientific American:

During the first interview one participant, when asked about the fictitious wedding event, stated, “I have no clue. I have never heard that one before.” In the second interview the participant said: “It was an outdoor wedding and I think we were running around and knocked something over like the punch bowl or something and um made a big mess and of course got yelled at for it.”

Emotions tend to make people remember associated events more vividly. (You probably can recall where you were and what you were doing around the time of traumatic events, for example.) Thus, your target might not be as apt to accept a false memory if you told him or her that they experienced something highly emotional. In 1999, researchers at the University of British Columbia did succeed in convincing 26% of their subjects that they had been victims of a vicious animal attack in their childhood, but the research team’s sophisticated methods probably won’t apply in a practical joke setting.

Choosing a childhood memory will give you the best odds of success. You’ll have an easier time implanting something that supposedly occurred far in the past. Since this is meant to be a practical joke, I recommend creating a false memory that’s comical and not potentially life-scarring.

If you want more of a challenge, try to implant a memory that supposedly occurred more recently. For example, you could concoct a scene at a bar in which you purchased your friend a plethora of drinks and he or she never paid you back. That way, should you succeed, you’ll get some money out of the deal (…which you will, of course, give back once you reveal your playful deception).

With the memory and target selected, your third task is to prepare. You’re going to need a couple things if the prank will have any chance of success. First off, you’ll need to formulate some narrative details surrounding the false memory. Be as specific as possible. What outfit was your friend wearing? What were the circumstances that led to the event? What was the setting like? Who was there?

If you’re skilled at editing images, you could also try doctoring a photo. In 2002, psychologists exposed twenty subjects to a false childhood event using a fake photograph. Over three interviews, subjects were instructed to think about the photo, which showed them on a hot air balloon, and were made to recall the event with guided-imagery exercises. At the study’s conclusion, fifty percent of subjects ended up concocting complete or partial false memories!

You’ll also need corroborators; the more the better. The power of corroboration in instilling false memories was demonstrated in the 1990s by researchers at Williams College. In their study, participants were falsely accused of causing a computer to crash by pressing a wrong key. According to Loftus:

“The innocent participants initially denied the charge, but when a confederate said that she had seen them perform the action, many participants signed a confession, internalized guilt for the act and went on to confabulate details that were consistent with that belief.”

Now you’re ready to set your plan in motion. When you commence, be persistent. The memory may not stick right away; you’ll probably have to bring it up multiple times over a span of days or even weeks. Additionally, don’t be afraid to use peer pressure. You and your compatriots should utilize phrases like the following:

• “Really? You don’t remember that?”
• “Seriously? You were there!”
• “Your memory is awful!”

Memory isn’t static. It’s fickle, ever changing, and easily tampered with; a patchwork quilt that can be ripped, torn, and remade.

“Perhaps what we actually remember,” says Carl Sagan, “is a set of memory fragments stitched onto a fabric of our own devising. If we sew cleverly enough, we have made ourselves a memorable story easy to recall.”

Still, implanting a false memory in a person, and having them fully believe it, takes some doing. Even in the lab, researchers succeed less than half of the time…

…but it can be done. So sew away, my friends. Sew away.

List of fallacies

fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

Formal fallacies

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without requiring an understanding of the argument's content. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

• Appeal to probability – takes something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case).
• Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
• Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
• Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
• Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

• Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.
• Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
• Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

• Existential fallacy – an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
• Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
• Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.
• Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
• Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
• Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. 
• Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – the failure to provide what is essentially the conclusion of an argument as a premise, if so required.
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.
• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
• Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
• Correlative-based fallacies
  • Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
• Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
  • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.
• Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.
• Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
• Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
• False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
  • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to land on tails" is incorrect.
• Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
• Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.^{[clarification needed][30]}
• Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question. 
• Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison.
• Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
• Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
• Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
• Petitio principii – see begging the question.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
• Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
• Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
• Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
• Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
• Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
• Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
• Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
• Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

• Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
  • No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
• Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
• False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
• Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
• Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
• Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
• Pathetic fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.
• Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
  • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says^[44]
  • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
• Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position
• Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so
• Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
• Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same
• Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
  • Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion
• Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
  • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
  • Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
  • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents
  • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
  • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
  • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
• Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer
• Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
• Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)^[55]
• Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
• Appeal to nature - wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is 'natural' or 'unnatural'^. For example (hypothetical): "Cannabis is healthy because it is natural"
• Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
• Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) - inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false. 
• Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held^{[citation needed]}
• Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
• Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
• Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law)
• Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data
• Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
• Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.

Conditional or questionable fallacies

• Black swan blindness – the argument that ignores low probability, high impact events, thus down playing the role of chance and under-representing known risks
• Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.
• Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
• Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature)^{[citation needed]} or God's will.
• Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, the it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)