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