Today's blog post pertains to a common fallacy which uses popularity to determine efficacy. This tactic is commonly used as an emotional appeal instead of a logical deduction, and the idea is to obfuscate reality by suggesting a large group of people can't all be wrong. However, throughout history we have seen large groups of people are routinely wrong, and some examples involve, slave owners in the United States, Nazi's in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Islamic State in Syria and Libya, and many many others. I had previously written about the mob mentality, and how it can make people inherit certain behaviors they would deem unsavory, therefore it doesn't make sense that a large group would determine something to be authentic. If anything, a large group of people can spiral and become less good as it grows, take the government as an example. The idea that a large group of people can prove something to be legitimate is flawed, and yet this fallacy continues to be used by MLM apologists.
One of the biggest issues with this logic is the subjectivity of determining when a group is big enough to be considered authentic. There aren't any parameters for this logic, therefore a large group to one person may be a small group to another person. The news is a great example of the inconsistency in labeling big groups and small groups. One example would be the Las Vegas shooting versus the Florida massacre. If someone were to judge these two by their identifying titles, then they would think the Florida massacre was considerably larger than the Las Vegas shooting. The actual numbers are quite different, and by a wide margin. The Florida massacre left seventeen dead and fourteen injured versus Vegas which left fifty-eight dead and eight-hundred fifty-one injured, according to Google. Yet, Vegas was labeled as a shooting and Florida was a massacre. Now, there was some clear bias as Florida involved children at a school, which is a much more emotional topic than a concert being attacked, but objectively the labels should have been reversed.
The context in which the group is being labeled is also extremely important for determining whether or not the group would be considered small or large. Going back to the Florida massacre example, a group of 17 people killed is a large number, considering a mass shooting is labeled as four or more people being killed. According to this fallacy, it would be fair to say every group of 17 people or more would be considered large, yet we know this to be untrue. If 17 senators voted against a bill, then we would consider that group to be very small and an overwhelming majority, 83 senators would make the bill pass. Therefore, simply focusing on a number cannot hold any weight, since context must be defined.
A final issue with this logic is, what happens when a big group runs into a bigger group? What I mean by this is, let's say there are approximately eighteen million MLMers in the world, according to qurora, in 2015. That would be considered a big group, except the population of the world was seven billion, meaning less than .3% of the world's population was involved in MLM. Does that now mean that MLM is not a big group? To take this a step farther, let's say people say MLM is legitimate because eighteen million people were participating. Can we then say MLM is not legitimate because seven billion people didn't?
The idea or qualifying a group as large, and therefore assuming they have an absolute truth, should be a red flag. There should be better qualifying characteristics than a number, and the person pitching the MLM should be giving those qualifications instead of this fallacy. The idea that a certain number of people couldn't be wrong is asinine, and it perpetuates a mentality of blind obedience.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Here is my version of this quote as it relates to this article. I have a dream that people will judge a business opportunity based on its merits and not on fallacies and misinformation.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-MLM-network-marketing-distributors-are-there-in-the-U-S
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
One of the biggest issues with this logic is the subjectivity of determining when a group is big enough to be considered authentic. There aren't any parameters for this logic, therefore a large group to one person may be a small group to another person. The news is a great example of the inconsistency in labeling big groups and small groups. One example would be the Las Vegas shooting versus the Florida massacre. If someone were to judge these two by their identifying titles, then they would think the Florida massacre was considerably larger than the Las Vegas shooting. The actual numbers are quite different, and by a wide margin. The Florida massacre left seventeen dead and fourteen injured versus Vegas which left fifty-eight dead and eight-hundred fifty-one injured, according to Google. Yet, Vegas was labeled as a shooting and Florida was a massacre. Now, there was some clear bias as Florida involved children at a school, which is a much more emotional topic than a concert being attacked, but objectively the labels should have been reversed.
The context in which the group is being labeled is also extremely important for determining whether or not the group would be considered small or large. Going back to the Florida massacre example, a group of 17 people killed is a large number, considering a mass shooting is labeled as four or more people being killed. According to this fallacy, it would be fair to say every group of 17 people or more would be considered large, yet we know this to be untrue. If 17 senators voted against a bill, then we would consider that group to be very small and an overwhelming majority, 83 senators would make the bill pass. Therefore, simply focusing on a number cannot hold any weight, since context must be defined.
A final issue with this logic is, what happens when a big group runs into a bigger group? What I mean by this is, let's say there are approximately eighteen million MLMers in the world, according to qurora, in 2015. That would be considered a big group, except the population of the world was seven billion, meaning less than .3% of the world's population was involved in MLM. Does that now mean that MLM is not a big group? To take this a step farther, let's say people say MLM is legitimate because eighteen million people were participating. Can we then say MLM is not legitimate because seven billion people didn't?
The idea or qualifying a group as large, and therefore assuming they have an absolute truth, should be a red flag. There should be better qualifying characteristics than a number, and the person pitching the MLM should be giving those qualifications instead of this fallacy. The idea that a certain number of people couldn't be wrong is asinine, and it perpetuates a mentality of blind obedience.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Here is my version of this quote as it relates to this article. I have a dream that people will judge a business opportunity based on its merits and not on fallacies and misinformation.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-MLM-network-marketing-distributors-are-there-in-the-U-S
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
Even if there are a lot of people in MLM, the astonishing thing is the number of "ex MLMers". That number is staggering. People get into MLM for whatever reason. Dreams and hopes, or they were lied to or deceived, and the fact that MLM doesn't work except for a select few, and the attrition rate confirms what I an saying.
ReplyDeletePeople get in with good intentions but most quickly figure this out and quit, Some get hooked badly and stay in for a long time before they finally figure it out.
Since 2014, Amway sales have plunged more than 25%. Perhaps market saturation and the availability of information is starting to take its toll on the MLM scams?
Joe,
DeleteThanks for bringing up the point about "ex-MLMers". If the number of "ex-MLMers" ever got published, I think that would be a huge blow to the MLM racket.
I would venture to guess that nearly 100% of all adults have had some kind of contact with an MLM.
I think there are many factors that hurt Amway's sales. Some of these factors could be,
1. An immense amount of competition (More MLMs now than ever before)
2. Amway's reputation is extremely tarnished, and now there are multiple generations that have churned through Amway. Family members are probably warning their younger members, where as they didn't have that resource for themselves.
3. The internet is critical for publishing tons of information against Amway.
4. The younger generation may not have the financial ability to participate like older generations. There is a larger wealth disparity currently than when Amway first came around.
5. Amway's strategy is becoming outdated. There are very few people willing to travel many miles, or in your case fly to the mainland, to attend meetings and seminars. Everything can be done online, or in closer proximity, and it is much easier to find part-time work than before.
I'm sure there are more reason, but these were some that came to the top of my head.
The "Argumentum ad Populum" (an appeal to popularity or majority opinion) is a material fallacy, rather than a formal fallacy in logic.
ReplyDeleteA formal fallacy involves a logical error in argumentation (similar to a misplaced number in a mathematical equation). A material fallacy is based on wrong information, untruths, or unwarranted assumptions.
The notion that "the majority is always right" is a material fallacy, since there is plenty of material evidence to prove that this isn't always the case.
The "Argumentum ad Populum" is a favorite material fallacy of advertisers ("More people use our product than any other choice on the market!") and of politicians ("Be on the winning side!") and those who equate quantity with quality ("We've got more money than you, so therefore we're better than you!")
For MLMs like Amway, the "Argumentum ad Populum" is just a lazy way of drumming up enthusiasm among not-very-smart potential recruits.
Anonymous --
DeleteThank you for your thorough comment!
You reminded me of the people that wanted the electoral college to be abolished after Hillary lost the election. Their logic of an election being solely determined by the popular vote was exactly what the founding fathers didn't want, and yet, 225 years later, people have completely forgotten the message. They warned of mob rule, or pure democracy for people that love the political term, and how dangerous it is. It's amazing how far we have deviated from our roots.
I must admit, I used to be dazzled by the crowds. It's hard to fight against that energy, even if you know they are wrong. I would say vulnerable and low self-esteem people are just as capable of succumbing to the pressure as those that are "not-very-smart".
I haven't seen an MLM yet that isn't a scam. Can you name me one that's been around for more than...five years? And I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically.
ReplyDeleteIn my very humble opinion, most the people who join these MLM's know full well they're scams or at the least that they're dodgy, but they just see £ signs and don't care how they get the money. Many of them recruit for a living because they have no prospect of getting a regular job or they are perfectly capable of getting a real job but prefer to 'honestly' steal from people in the comfort of their homes.
And unfortunately there are still enough gullible people around who WANT to genuinely believe that these schemes will make them rich that keep these scams going. The Chinese in particular are lapping these scams up (they're going crazy for FUTURENET at the moment) and we can't warn them.
Lambs to a slaughter.
Payza being shut down is the beginning of the end for these scams I'm sure. When the dodgy payment processors go, the MLM's will go too. It's just a matter of time...
Tara --
DeleteThank you for your comment! You are absolutely correct in your assertion that all MLMs are scams. They all come from the same flawed concept of increasing wealth at the expense of your "downline" instead of pushing a product or service. They use the products and services to hide their pay-to-play fees. When these companies have been forced to rely on the sales of products and services, their sales nearly turn to 0. Vemma is a great example of this.
I do believe many people join MLMs because they are unscrupulous, but many also get swept up in the hype and the hope to help their families. I think it is unfair to label people as bad if they enter the MLM racket, many of them have no idea and are usually lazy critical thinkers.
MLMs, in my opinion, aren't going anywhere until they are prosecuted under the RICO statutes (reference David Brear). The attempt to prosecute them individually is not effective, and if they are big enough, they can pay a gigantic settlement, such as Herbalife's recent $200 million dollar payment, and continue on their merry way. I would like to think it is a matter of time, but as long as they are allowed to perform the scam, then the scam will persist.