Chopping - Why I don't

In live games it’s common that when everyone folds to the small & big blind, instead of playing the hand they will simply chop the blinds. Both players pull back all or most of their money and move on to the next hand. Virtually all players chop blinds - I do not. recovery

I’ve had dozens of  very short conversations on why I don’t chop, but I felt the desire to maybe explain in detail not only why I don’t chop, but why I think every decent player should not chop.

Here are my personal reasons, ranked by importance, for not chopping in live poker.

1. Letting fish off the hook - If you believe you’re a better player than your opponent, allowing them to avoid playing a hand with you is letting them escape a chance to make mistakes against you. This is mercy. If your goal at the table is to make money, and you achieve your goal by playing as many hands with weak opponents as possible, then chopping does not make sense.

2. Headsup pots are easier to win - All things being equal, you have a 1 in 5 chance of winning a 5 way pot, 1 in 4 chance of winning a 4 way pot, and so on. Also, in a heads up pot all of your focus is on one opponent, and there are less factors to consider making them easier (in my opinion at least) to play. Blind on blind pots are always heads up, and chopping simply removes one more potential pot won away from you - there’s no reason to allow this.

3. Live players are clueless when playing blind vs blind - I remember this really funny hand in vegas where it folded to the small blind, and the player assumed it was a chop and I calmly told him I don’t chop.

player: wait, you don’t chop?
me: nope.
player: oh...*stares around blankly*...wait, so now what?
me: haha...well.. you can call, raise, or fold
player: oh..i call
me: raise...
player: oh..um..fold

It’s as if he completely forgot how to play poker in the moment he was forced to play blind vs blind. It was too funny.

recovery In poker literature/culture, blind on blind or headsup poker is in a way it’s own little meta game. All decent players are aware that hand ranges are to be wider in this situation, and therefore the entire post flop dynamic is different. Most live players are completely oblivious to these dynamics, and therefore have no idea how to adjust to a heads up pot. If your goal in poker is to make money, allowing your opponent to avoid a situation where he’s the most clueless is complete insanity, you might as well light money on fire at that point.

4. Players hate you - One of the side effects of not chopping is it tilts your opponents. Players irrationally find it offensive that you want to play poker instead of chop, and if you’re lucky will develop a personal grudge against you and make you a target. A common response is “oh! You don’t chop huh! Then I’ll raise!” which translates as “Oh, you want to play poker, this offends me, so in response I’ll put more money with worse hands in the pot! haha! now what!”

I had one occasion while playing in LA, the player to my right asked to chop twice, each time I calmy said “no thanks” and raised his small blind limp. He got so upset that the third time we were blind on blind he made a ridiculous raise (like 10x the bb), I woke up with two kings and moved in. Him being tilted from this called with Q-3 - something he’d never do if my non-chopping did not upset him.

If your goal in poker is to make money, then allowing your opponents to avoid situations that may tilt them, and cause them to play worse than before is a mistake.

5. Rake Shmake - Many will point out that a blind on blind pot will be very small due to the rake, in some casinos the rake will take half of an unraised pot, causing a player to only win his money back if the pot is played without a bet postflop. They will argue this is a reason to chop.

The first thing to point out is this ONLY applies if both players do not raise pre-flop. All arguments about pot size are fallacious since the pot is only small if both players do not raise. To a player who  will raise playable hands and fold/check unplayable this argument has no validity. I personally am a player like this, and this among many reasons is why I find this argument unconvincing.

In addition this argument could be used to argue against limping in, since a limped pot of many players often has a higher rake than a heads up pot. A the local casino I play at, a unraised pot of two players will go from $4 to $2 after rake (50%). However an unraised pot of five players will go from $10 to $5 or $6 after rake. So if one is to argue that rake is a reason to chop, one most also argue it’s a reason to not limp either.

In short, chopping allows weak opponents to avoid playing against you, it prevents you from playing in easy spots, most players are clueless headsup, and it may drive your opponent crazy causing him to give you his stake with Q3 - all things that will increase your bottom line. Cn@@checkotherblog%

The Rosemary Complex

One of the most frustrating ‘types of girl’ is a girl who has what I’d like to call a “Rosemary Complex” or “Shallow Hal Syndrome.” In the movie “Shallow Hal” the main character who is hypnotized into recognizing only the inner beauty of women, falls in love with an obese girl named Rosemary. Rosemary is fat, but Hal sees her as a slender perfect 10. On paper you’d think Rosemary would love and appreciate the compliments and attention from Hal, but instead it weirds her out.

Rosemary: Hal, do me a favor and stop saying that I'm pretty and that I'm not fat, ok? Cause it makes me uncomfortable.

Hal: Umm, ok. Do you have a problem with compliments?

Rosemary: Look, I know what I am and I know what I'm not. [...] I'm not beautiful, ok, and I never will be. And I'm fine with that. But when you go around saying I'm something that I'm not, it's just, it's just not nice.

(click image for video)

The underlying issue here is not about ugly or pretty, but is rather a conflict in self-image & a lack of entitlement. Rosemary’s self-image is SO much different than how Hal sees her that his attention actually creates distrust in Hal. Her subconscious is essentially saying “Why is he lying to me?”

I’ve come across girls who have a Rosemary complex enough times to finally recognize the symptoms and causes. In short a “Rosemary Complex” is where a beautiful woman's self-image is that of an ugly one, and views genuine attention from a guy as weird, offensive, and with distrust - the more she’s attracted the more weirded out she is.

Here are actual quotes said to me from girls with a “Rosemary Complex”

“Why are you even talking to me? I’m not even pretty”

“Ok, seriously David you can stop, you don’t have to say all that, I know i’m just average”

“Well, to be honest, the reason I said no so many times to you was I thought you might be messing with me, I mean there’s a lot of beautiful girls out there so I didn't get why you wanted to take me out”

“honestly talking to you is humiliating, i’m ugly, have small boobs, so I just don’t get it”

The most frustrating thing looking back on girls who had a Rosemary Complex is that often they are girls i’ve found myself the most attracted to, & paradoxically the more attracted to you they are, the stronger the doubt over your attraction is.

Something i’ve noticed many girls with “RC” have in common is a lack of socialisation. They rarely go to traditionally social places (bars, clubs, parties) where a beautiful girl will get positive feedback over her looks by romantic advances or undeserved attention/treatment. A girls self-image is thus not being shaped in the “normal” way and results in a warped self-image.

Possible causes for lack of socialisation include:

1. Being in a long relationship with an anti-social boyfriend since she was very young.

2. Not getting along with girls with a normal social life.

3. Having unique hobbies that foster an antisocial lifestyle, or hobbies that are enjoyed by a more nerdy crowd.

4. Being a foreigner from another country too scared to go out.

5. General social anxiety.

58 thousand possible lives

Here’s a thought that might change the way you view relationships & dating. Let’s say you live in California, like I do. The population is around 37,000,000. Half of those are women. Of those 1/4th are probably within your age range, of those 1/8th you’d be attracted to, of those let’s say 1/10th are not only attracted to you back but you’d have great chemistry with.

We’re left with close to 58,000 women. That’s 58 thousand different lives that could be lived together, and shared. 58 thousand different Disneyland trips, 58 thousand potential ‘i love you’s’, 58 thousand opportunities. Imagine standing on a stage with 58 thousand women, all who you’re attracted in terms of looks and chemistry/personality, staring up at you smiling. 

You could have brushed shoulders with one of them at the mall, or made eye contact at the beach once - you’ll never know, and she’ll never know - life paths that could have flowered will never exist due to this fact. The only thing preventing these potential lives from existing is you not finding out when you see her walking by.

Women & Phantom Feedback

One of the most unique things about women & dating is the complete lack of genuine feedback you get when making mistakes. In most things in life, making a mistake will result in some form of feedback - think about it: In archery you see where the arrow goes, and how far it is from the target. In sales, if you sell a bad product, customers will return it with an earful of reasons why they are not happy. In comedy, if you tell a bad joke nobody laughs.


It’s only with women you get virtually no feedback on making a mistake. The only feedback you may get will be a gentle lie to salvage your feelings, or to reduce guilt in her mind. If a girl is turned off by something she’ll rarely tell you - even at the risk of it being a misunderstanding - she’ll simply stop responding, or lie to you.

It’s like having this deep burning longing to hear a song you don’t know how to play on the piano. You sit down and the piano will only play the note if you hit the right note at the right time - if you hit the wrong note no sound comes out at all. You randomly hit a key, and nothing. You try again, and nothing. On your 28th try “Ding.”

You get excited and hit the same key again but nothing. “What the hell?” You later realize this piano will only make a sound if you hit the right key in the right order.

This would be eternally frustrating. You have no notes, no feedback on what keys make what sound, and only hear anything if you play the notes in perfect order.

This agonizing reality about women is why many average guys will throw their hands up, and channel their desire for love with porn or harassing an ex girlfriend. They are left in the dark with no clue why she won’t text them back, or why she flaked. Being porn addicted & anti-social in response only adds to the problem, making them even worse than before.

Of course some men find excitement in the puzzle, or develop a competitive ego based desire to figure out how to play the notes and continue. They smile as they come close, and hear the beautiful song.

From a woman’s perspective none of this is known. All she knows is there’s creepy guys and cool guys, but puts little thought into why. She meets a “cool” guy and thinks “I like him, he’s relaxed, keeps eye contact and makes me laugh” - when in reality he may just be the product of an ocean of rejections, flakes, tears, scars, and lessons all in the name of putting together life’s most frustrating but rewarding puzzle.

My approach to keeping emotional control while playing poker

1. Remind yourself of your goal

Your goal most of the time is to get your opponent to put his money into the pot with the worst hand. If this happens, you win. Logically speaking you can only get a “bad beat” if you had the best hand when the money went in, and lost. Therefore a bad beat is an indication that you achieved your goal. Getting mad at factors beyond your control such as turns & rivers is irrational, pathetic, and wastes mental energy. Remind yourself of this.

2. Don’t argue with your opponent

When your opponent plays a hand badly and wins, it’s tempting to make a comment that may spark a small argument. This has no value. Your goal at the table is take money from the inferior, not to educate them. Also realize your desire to make a critical comment is impulsive and based purely in ego, and not based in any real desire to help anyone. Remind yourself of your goal (Point #1). Getting into a debate directly after losing a hand will only ignite a hotter burning tilt since bad players have fallacious views of what good poker playing is. Think of your opponents like mentally handicapped people, or children - if a child says something stupid like ‘when i grow up i want to be the moon’ you wouldn't get upset and get into a debate over this right? You’d just pat them on the head and go “That’s cute” - Take this approach to your opponents. Don’t waste mental energy in sparking ego battles with idiots. Treat them like children not worthy of serious conversation. Reserve mental energy to invest in your game.


3. Change your views on what ‘being mad’ means

People pride themselves in having a level of control over many things in life: money, eating habits, ability to wake up and go to work etc. For example, having control over your financial life is a sign of adulthood, and not buying into stupid marketing scams is apart of that. If you were sitting on a bench with a stranger, and a guy in a blue suite approach you both with a sales pitch: “I have this watch, 90% off! I’m selling it for ONLY $300!” - You decline but the other guy goes “wow! 90% off, thats amazing” and buys it. You would look at him like “What a fool, he just let a random person dupe him into a silly watch”

Now imagine you’re sitting on a bench with a stranger, and a random person came up and said “Wow, look at you guys, you look like losers.” It wouldn't be strange to expect the guy next to you to get all pissed, and maybe let it ruin his entire day. Nobody will look down on this, but you should. He let a random person who means nothing to him completely control his emotional state with statements based on nothing. He was ‘duped’ into allowing a stranger to control his emotional state. The same way that the watch pitch was from a random person with statements based on nothing. There’s nothing more intimate than your own thoughts & emotions, and getting upset over the words of strangers, or the effect of random causes, is allowing people and things to have a huge amount of control over you. This is pathetic, and should be viewed as pathetic.

Looking at tilt in this light, the idea of ‘being mad’ about the river, or an inferior opponent, is a pathetic sign of a weakness and lack of mental control. Change this type of behavior to be seen the same as a baby crying because he ate his last gummy bear and wants more. Strive to be nonreactive.

4. Conscious breaths & being present

This is a little ‘out there’ but it’s a practice I’ve come to love as a means to reduce anxiety. The idea is to ‘get out of your head’ and be in a state where you’re present to the moment, and come close to a state where you’re not thinking but being.

Stare at one spot that contains no words. Take a deep breath in and out, and put all of your focus on the sensation of the air going in and out of your chest. Try to not think. Imagine that your negative thoughts & emotions are clouds in front of your face, and with each breath they’re being blown away. Put your focus into your feet, bring your attention to how they feel against your shoes etc. Then legs, arms, neck etc. All of this while taking conscious breaths. After a few minutes of doing this you’ll find you’re more calm and less anxious over whatever was in your mind. Do this while on tilt. (See The Power of Now / A New Earth )

This is easy to make fun of, but I’ve come to use this in lots of areas in life and can honestly say it’s helped (dealing with co-workers, approaching hot girls, dealing with a headaches etc).

Being offended

[ based on a real conversation I had recently ]

Her: ...and then she said I was immature and stupid, I got so upset because I hate it when people disrespect me and..

Me: Why did you get upset?

Her: She said I was immature & stupid!

Me: So? Are you?

Her: No, but it just was disrespectful!

Me: So what?

Her: *laugh* So?! What do you mean?

Me: Why do you need respect from everyone?

Her: uh.. I don’t know, it’s just rude.

Me: So let her be rude.

Her: I don’t know, it just made me mad.

Me: Do you like being mad?

Her: NO lol!

Me: ...then don’t be mad

Her: You’re so weird.

Me: I’m serious. First, you admit you don’t believe it’s true that you’re immature & stupid, so you’re getting upset over her saying something that isn't even true, second what actually happens to you if you’re disrespected? Do you get sick? Nothing happens, you’re ego and self-image is fictitiously threatened by it. Also do you think you deserve respect? If you do, then people not respecting you is them making a mistake, right?

Her: It still pissed me off.

Me: Sarah, if a really fat ugly girl pointed at you and said “Look at you, you need to hit the gym fatty” - would you be offended?

Her: No I think it would be funny

Me: Why?

Her: because she’s fatter than me!!!

Me: Exactly *smirk* so you see the words are not what offends you, it’s who it’s coming from. Your beliefs about the person who’s saying the words changes whether it’s offensive.

Her: hmmmm... ok

Me: So in the case of the fat girl, would you let it ruin your day, and rant about respect, or would you laugh at how cute it was and continue your day?

Her: Well, I mean it’s funny...

Me: The same is if a little kid says something mean to you, it’s hard to care right?

Her: ...

Me: In a way you’re reaction to her says more about you than it does about her..in a way

Her: I see what you mean I guess.. She still shouldn't say those things

Me: True, but next time someone says something that would normally get upset, just think of the little fat girl.

Her: *laughs*

How you handle words said about you from another person often reflects more on how you feel about yourself & them than it does on the words themselves. This is why none of us would get upset over being called a loser by a homeless man, or being told over and over that we’re not a human but a computer mouse. Your beliefs about you being a human are so strong and secure that the only reaction to being told you’re a computer mouse is laughter. Take a moment on this and consider how absurd it would be to let a comment like that ruin someone’s day.

Instead of getting upset over the beliefs others have about us, take a moment to step back and observe yourself getting upset, and consider what about this is making you upset. Is it coming from a rational place? Is it coming from a place of insecurity? Think of it as a moment to learn something rather than waste time and mental energy getting upset - a reaction that mainly primitive that’s purpose is to prepare for violence. (getting upset gets you excited in anticipation for some kind of fight or flight[i think], a throwback to our evolutionary history as animals)

You can't be sad

Something I've for done for years when facing a stressful or upsetting situation is snap my mindset back to a normal or happy state by reminding myself of certain things I take for granted. Over the years I've become better at finding reasons to melt stress away and I thought it would be interesting to write down a few basic things I remind myself that help laugh at problems and resolve them rather than let them ruin my day or week.

1. You're alive

It's a cliche that we should be happy to be alive, but when you think deeply about what it means to be alive, in the grand scheme of things, the thought makes it hard to stay upset about something.

If you're reading this now, you're the winner of a race bigger than any marathon ever run. During your conception, you likely competed with 300 million other sperm cells to be the one that made it. The chance of winning the biggest lottery is around 1-150 million. Your 299 million potential brothers and sisters all washed away into nothingness, never to even get a chance to experience a single second of consciousnesses. How lucky are you?

Richard Dawkins touches on this when he re-frames death as a gift (I highly recommend watching this in it's entirety)

2. You can see, hear, and run

If you lost your sight tomorrow, how much money would you pay to get it back? I think most of us would pay any amount, and even be willing to go in debt for the rest of our lives to get our sight back. Now consider what you paid for your eyes - nothing. Isn't the implication here that if all of us internalized the value of something like sight, even for a day, we should have the same emotional state of being that we would have if we had been given a million dollars? But we don't because we have no reference experiences of blindness.

Even if you could not get your vision back, you at least know what it is like to see. You got to experience the sight of the ocean, the sight of birds flying, or a child playing - all things a person born blind will never experience.

If any of us could truly appreciate this fact for even a few seconds, all of us would most likely fall to our knees in tears of joy over how grateful we are, tears of guilt over how little we valued these things, and sheer embarrassment over how pathetic we will have been to allow such small things to upset us.

( A woman’s reaction to hearing for the first time in her life after receiving an ear implant )


3. You're free


Imagine while traveling to another country you're arrested for a crime you didn't commit, and are jailed. You don't speak the language of the guards, don't have the same rights, and have no way of contacting anyone. Think of how helpless and terrified you would be over how uncertain your future is. You’re alone with your thoughts, wondering about your family and friends.

You had no choice over what to eat, had nothing to read, never were let outside.  Months go by and suddenly a man walks up to you who speaks English and says "I'll make you an offer. I'll let you stay here or be a homeless man in California" - There's no doubt everyone would choose to be the homeless man, but think of how amazing it would feel to just walk around freely on the beach after being jailed. It would be like the scene in the matrix when Neo is told he's in a matrix, everything and everyone would look differently - the reality that you could do basically what you wanted without fear of death would sink in and you'd finally see how precious it is just to be free.

Millions of people throughout human history were enslaved or ruled by a dictator, and their biggest dream of all was to have what you've had everyday. Their dream was not a nice car, a cool jacket, or a healthy lawn, it was live a single day without being ruled by another person.

If any of us could truly appreciate that each day of our life we're living the fantasy of millions of people throughout history, not just intellectually understand it but internalize it, I think we would not allow as many trivial things to upset us.

Mental frames & silliness

One silly thing about human nature is how we don't judge the value of something by its virtue, but how it measures up against something else. How we feel about what we have is more influenced by what others have compared to us, and not on the actual quality of what we have. This is why you will see people get more excited over whether their lawn is better or worse than their neighbor and not the lawn itself.

In the book "The Mind of the Market" by Shermer, he cites studies on this fact about human nature where they asked people would they rather live in a modest house in a neighborhood where it was the biggest, or in a mansion in a neighborhood of mansions - most people picked the modest house although objectively a mansion is much better - it was more about where they stood compared to others than it was about the actual quality of life.

The implication here is that if we're seduced by this 'where do I stand compared to...' mindset, we essentially allow others to dictate whether we can be happy. We should focus on what we have compared to what we want and that's it - and achieving our goals based on our values should give us pride & fulfill us.

An easy way to test your ability to maintain this 'mental-frame' is to imagine you're job hunting. You get a job at a really large & cool restaurant as a server and let's say they start you off at $15 an hour. You're totally thrilled to go to work and are happy with the pay. You tell your best friend and he decides to try to get a job there too and is hired! You're even more excited to work closely with your friend.

You then find out he's paid $25 an hour for the same position.

Most people would feel upset about this. However, if you're a rational person whose well-being is based on his values, and not dictated by others, you should be happy to see your friend earn more. His making more has absolutely no? effect on your job and does not change why you were happy with it to begin with. Since what you have matches what you want, you ought to be fulfilled.

I think it's important to not be a feather in the wind and allow our surroundings to control our emotional state. Not all of us have complete control over our life but all of us have control over how what attitudes and mindsets we choose to adopt.

Gay Marriage & Prop 8 - My position & why both sides are wrong.

As a person who lives in California I hear a lot of discussion of prop 8. Prop 8 was a ballot proposition that attempted to add the definition of marriage as a man and women in the state constitution. I personally voted no on prop 8 but did so for very different reasons than most people. I wanted to give a brief description of my position and why I think both sides are in many ways wrong.

People ask if I’m in favor of “gay marriage” – I’m not.
People ask if I’m in favor of “straight/traditional” marriage – I’m not.

I’m against the state.

In other words, I’m against the government being involved with marriage as an institution. I don’t believe it’s the role of the government to get involved in regulating what should be a private social institution.

This may seem like an odd position but all of us feel this way about other social or traditional rituals/institutions. Here is a list of things that many of us would be against the state being involved in, and this is what it would look like if they were involved in them.

Friendship licenses
A baptism license/permit
Birthday party permit
Sex contract/license

Imagine if the state were to require its people get a “baptism” license before they baptize their child. Certainly you can argue for the “sanctity” of baptism, the very definition of sanctity is holiness, saintliness, or godliness – which is the very reason we should oppose the state being involved. Is the purpose of the state to give us phony and meaningless documents “allowing” us to engage in activities like marriage or baptism? Is the idea of getting “permission” from a government to go fishing or have a birthday party consistent with a free society, or is it more consistent with a totalitarian one?

The proper function of the state I think most would agree is to protect our liberties, provide courts to handle disputes, and other basic functions – not to define and regulate rituals or traditions.

Now many will point out that the logic behind a marriage “license” is also a legal one. Many will point out that being married is a contract between two people that addresses issues like property inheritance, hospital visits, and other issues.

Of course these are all benefits that still could exist under secular civil unions. As of now you can get a civil union with anyone to resolve issues like this – even two roommates who were just friends could get a civil union. Marriage would still exist if we were to abolish state sponsored marriage, in the same way baptisms & birthday parties exist without the state. The difference would be a couple would get married in a church or whatever they wanted, it would be equally meaningful and “holy” in their eyes, but if they also wanted to resolve the legal issues they could get a civil union.

This may be an odd analogy but consider the way it is with driver’s license. As of now you can buy whatever vehicle you want – you can buy a motorcycle, a pink van, a tiny blue car whatever you like. The choice of color, type, size and location of purchase is something you decide. Of course if you want to use the state sponsored roads you must get a drivers license and registration. The registration process is secular and has nothing to do with the type or color of your car; it just is there to say “Hey California, I’m going to be driving around all right?”

The state is there to provide the legal stuff; you pick the car you want. Under our current system of marriage, it would be analogous to the state defining what color car you can drive and letting the people vote on “Prop 64 – to define a vehicle as a yellow Honda civic” – It’s a bazaar analogy but it makes the point.

How would abolishing the state’s involvement in marriage solve anything?

The reason that I believe this is the best way to resolve the ‘gay marriage’ debate is that it takes marriage out of the hands of the state and into the hands of the people – which will satisfy everyone involved. Here’s how:

Religious and traditional people personally do not recognize same-sex marriages and so naturally they’d be opposed to the state changing the definition of marriage. The underlying problem that defenders of traditional marriage have is with what definition they personally feel is right & moral being changed – this problem would disappear under privatized marriage. The Catholic Church defines its own doctrines, and the Democratic Party defines its values, and the state can’t dictate either values or doctrine to either of these organizations – why – because the state is not involved.

Under privatized marriage free men will define their own rituals and institutions according to their religious or personal beliefs, and would not have to bow down to some government that attempts to regulate their life.

Gay marriage supporters could get married or have whatever ritual they see fit and could get a secular civil union without any question. Of course the traditional marriage people may still not recognize their marriage as legitimate, and may even deny them access to their church for ceremonies – so what? That’s a product of a free society.

I do not recognize the Christian church as legitimate in the sense that its existence stands for truth since I believe Christianity is false. Mormons do not consider satanic rituals as legitimate, and many atheists do not see the Jewish tradition of chopping up a young boy’s penis up as legitimate. It’s a better world where people are free to decide on what they recognize as legitimate and not to have the state try to define things it has no business defining.

In short the problem isn’t with whether to define marriage this way or another, the problem is accepting that something as meaningful can even be up for a vote at all. Thomas Paine was quoted saying “That government is best which governs least” and I tend to agree with him.

Liberal economic confusion

1. NO TAX CUT BUILDS A ROAD

BARNEY FRANK: —that cannot be accomplished by a tax cut. No tax cut builds a road. No tax cut puts a cop on the street. No tax cut educates a child in the way that it ought to be done. So this—only tax cuts, at a time when I think we have a deficiency in some areas that are important for the quality of our life, is a big disagreement. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSw3QqSF_zU

There are a few things to say about this.

First, nobody claims a tax cut builds a road.

Second, because something does not build a road or puts a cop on the street is not a reason to be opposed to it when we’re talking about what is good for the US economy. Computers and beer do not put a cop on the street, so what? Are we supposed to oppose them on that ground?

Third, there’s a sense in which it’s false anyway. There are private roads, cops, and schools. These things exist because people have money. It’s easy to imagine how a “tax cut” which results in people having more of their own money using that money to pay for services like security, or education.



2. TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

Obviously there’s an ocean of fallacious claims and reasoning when it comes to economics and especially with any statement that ends with “for the rich” by economic totalitarians (liberals). I’d like to briefly address some common claims.

On Bill Maher, he shows a graph showing that the bush tax cuts resulted in the top 10% of US earners keeping a lot more in dollars than 90%

(video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrWXk6BCsXQ )

The graph shows that out of all the people who benefited, the “rich” received the most in terms of dollars, and this is supposed to show that the tax cuts were unfair. There are a few things to say about this.

First, by definition the “rich” will save the most in dollars than the non-rich. 25% of a million is 250,000, and 25% of 100 is 25. So waving around a graph showing that people with more money save more money when their taxes are reduced does not prove anything. Imagine if all people making 1 million dollars a year paid 50% in taxes (Leaving them only $500k a year), and all people who make $10k a year pay 10% in taxes (leaving them 9k). Now let’s say they lower taxes on the “rich” by 1% point, and cut taxes completely on the poor, where they pay nothing.

The rich would save $90k, and the poor would save $1k. The rich’s taxes were lowered 1% point, and the poor now by nothing. Wow! The “rich” got 90x what the poor got! Man, I can’t wait to go home and make a graph in PowerPoint so I can wave it around to people talking about how unfair that is. The point is that what’s important is the percentage, not the savings in dollars.

Second, let’s say its true the rich benefited the most from the tax cuts. Let’s say its true that they were the only ones in the US who got any tax cut. So what? You don’t judge the fairness of a tax on who pays what compared to whom, but what a group is paying to what they were paying. The rich paying 99% in taxes would be evil, and unjust – If they were to have their taxes reduced, and their taxes alone this would be justified even though the other groups did not get a tax break. The reality is showing that fairness is something that should be judged on more than just “who got what compared to the poor”


3. POLICY X WILL CREATE JOBS

A common argument in favor of a certain policy or government program is that the program or policy will result in jobs, and jobs are good and mean economic stimulus. A recent gimmick is Obama’s claim that his giant spending plan (he calls it the stimulus package) will result in jobs from the ‘infrastructure’ spending, and therefore it is simulative.

First, the principle ‘if x results in a job, then x is good for the economy’ is false. Cancer, brain tumors, and mental retardation all result in millions of jobs in the medical field, and yet it’s obvious that cancer is not ‘good’ for the economy. This is known as the ‘broken window fallacy.’ The fallacy is the idea that if X results in a job, X is good for the economy would imply that we could help the economy by tossing bricks into windows, resulting in a high demand for window repair jobs and windows.

Second, even if we can agree that X is simulative, it still needs to be weighed against the costs. We can all agree that a machine that makes cars is an economically desirable machine, since it allows more cars to be made, but if the man selling the machine demands a billion dollars a day for its use, then the benefits may not outweigh the costs. This is where the idea of ‘government jobs’ and the inherent wasteful nature of government comes in. If a man tried to sell his machine at a billion a day in the free market, buyers would reject the offer since they are spending their own money. The result would be the man would sell nothing if he does not lower his price. In government, where people are spending other people’s money, the incentive to be careful & ‘look for a good deal’ is not as strong. In addition, if the people vote for a person who promises a program, if that man is voted in then his main incentive is to create the program regardless of costs. In ‘Economics in One Lesson’ by Henry Hazlitt he expands on this.

“A bridge is built, If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily "to provide employment" is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. "Projects" have to he invented. Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders
begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries. Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence. This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridge workers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most. Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.”

Bailouts, Socialism, & bankrupt reasoning

1. X is too big to fail, and if it failed bad things would happen. Therefore the government should give X a bailout.

If we accept the idea of something being “too big to fail” as a reason to justify a bailout, then is the government too big to fail?

If you accept that the government is too big to fail, then the same kind of reasoning applies. The question then is, what would it look like for “the government to fail” and what could cause a “government to fail”?

In the same way a business fails due to lack of funds, the state could fail for the same reason. California is a great example of failure since it’s currently so bankrupt, from its citizens voting massive spending, that it actually talked about giving people “IOU’s” instead of the tax money they were owed. California even wanted to get a bailout of its own.

"I propose that we should get help from the federal government if we can again, also like the car manufacturers, prove that we have our fiscal house in order and that we can solve our problems ourselves but give us in this emergency kind of a situation or this crisis some addition money," – Schwarzenegger

So, now that we answered what it means for a government to fail, what would cause it? In California it was massive spending. If too much spending can cause a state to fail, what is a bailout? – Massive spending.

What does this mean? This means that simply by thinking for 1-2 minutes about the logic behind bailouts, you can be opposed to them *using the very same reasoning* people use to be in favor of them. If X is too big to fail, then Y ought to bail it out. Replace X with government and what could you possibly replace Y with? The only thing truly bankrupt is the logic used by the socialists in favor of bailouts. (Please don’t point out that Bush & Schwarzenegger favor bailouts as a way of showing it’s not socialist. Bush & Schwarzenegger are both socialists in that respect, and simply because you claim to be a conservative does not mean you are.)

State Intervention Opposition Fallacy

In some recent political conversation’s I’ve had with friends and strangers, I’ve come across a fallacious argument that’s so common that it deserves a name. I’ve already done a little re-search if there’s a term for this fallacy but have failed to find anything. The argument in short, is that one’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or it’s founders. Here are a few examples of this fallacy.

Charles: I agree with Obama that we ought to double our foreign aid to poor nations.

David: Yes, I hear that’s something he intends on doing, I don’t agree with him on that though.

Charles: I don’t get it, why are you opposed to that? Are you against helping poor nations? Don’t you think poor people should have food?

or

Charles: You know, obesity is a big problem, which is why I’m happy they passed a “trans fat” ban here in California.

David: I’m not happy at all, I don’t feel comfortable with the government regulating whether or not I can eat fatty foods.
Charles: …but don’t you want people have a healthier diet? Do you approve of people getting overweight?

The reasoning that motivates the questions asked by Charles is that David’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or its founders. What’s wrong with this? The error is that what is in question is not the intentions but the methods. The question on whether or governmental policy is just and should be supported is not solely determined by the intentions of the policy, but other considerations. Will the policy achieve its objective? Are there superior forms of that policy that will achieve the objective more efficiently? Does the government have the legal or constitutional right to do what is in question? Does the policy strip rights away from others? These are just a few important considerations that should determine whether a policy should be supported or exist at all.

I’m going to call this fallacy the “State Intervention Opposition Fallacy,” since the reasoning behind it is always in response to someone’s opposition to the state’s intervention.

Let’s consider the case of foreign aid. It’s obvious that the intentions of foreign aid are in part to help poor nations, if so why oppose it? For starters you could argue that giving poor nations food does address why they are poor in the first place but instead gives temporary assistance. Second, it’s clear that it’s unconstitutional and illegal. Here are some quotes by our founders and other political leaders:

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Third, there’s data out there (I don’t have on hand) that suggest the amount of money given by American’s voluntarily is much higher than given by our government in the form of tax dollars, therefore rending idea of foreign aid unnecessary. These are all legitimate reasons to oppose foreign aid, and none of them require that you hate poor people.

Stupid things people say during debate.

Close to four years ago, I bought a digital voice recorder that I used to record interesting discussions I had with people about controversial topics. I recently took a look at the number of hours I had recorded back then, and it's a little over 35 hours of recordings. I have since stopped recording conversations and can only speculate how many hours it would be if I had a voice recorder my entire life. As I listened through old conversations, I notice themes on what people say and how they respond to different things.

On occasion I'll get into conversations with people who I personally categories as "non-philosophers" or "misologists." Of course this is a harsh thing to be called, but let me explain what I mean when I say this and how I personally identify them.

By "non-philosopher" I don't mean someone who is not a professor or student of philosophy, but rather someone who, by his own statements, reveals his ignorance of logical fallacies or errors in reasoning. By 'ignorance of logical fallacies' I don't mean ignorance of what "ad hominem" is or what a "compositional fallacy" is, but rather does not see them as fallacies. You don't actually have to know what term is used to identify a fallacy to know it's a fallacy.

By "misologists" I mean someone who, by his own statements, reveals a hatred of reasoning altogether. Of course this may not be conscious, but known by what they say.

Obviously all of this might be seen as very condescending of me, but frankly I don't care about that very much.

Here are small lists of 4 highly obnoxious themes found in too many discussions/debates I've had over the years. Anyone who says, or argues, one of these I personally consider a misologists or a non-philosopher.

1. "That's never going to happen"

Often in discussions of politics or philosophy the objection is that a hypothetical situation or thought experiment is not valid or worth considering because it "will never happen." This objection usually will come up when a thought experiment involves wildly bizarre or unlikely circumstances. Here's a small fictional account of what this looks like.

John: David, you see I believe in a kind of democracy where the will of the people rule, and if the will of the people is served that is just.David: All right, but don't you feel that some things are not up to a vote?

John: What do you mean?

David: Well, are you saying that if the great majority of the people voted to kill you, that would be just?

John: That's ridiculous! That's never going to happen.

David: Fine, but if you're position is that it's just for the will of the people to be served, and the people will your death, wouldn't that be just under your view?

John: David, that's just never going to happen.

This objection can only be made by someone who simply does not understand what a thought experiment is and what purpose it fulfills. A thought experiment is a proposal for an experiment that would test a hypothesis or theory but cannot actually be performed due to practical limitations; instead its purpose is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question. In the case of John's position on democracy and justice, his principle was that it is just if it is the will of the people. If his principle is true and going to be held consistently then the consequence of that would be that it can be just to kill an innocent man. The fact that the circumstances in the hypothetical are bizarre or unlikely is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the principle is true.

One thing to point out is that the essence of all thinking involves considering hypothetical situations - most of which will never occur. Consider for a moment what it actually means to think about something. For example, thinking about whether to go camping in the woods or to the beach. When think about each option, you imagine the circumstances (i.e. the weather and things you may do). In essence you're playing with hypothetical situations in your mind. So it seems that to reject the use of a thought experiment on the grounds that it's "hypothetical" or "never going to happen" is really to reject the idea of thinking altogether, and to reject the idea of thinking altogether amounts to a hatred of reason and philosophy.

2. "Debating this topic is pointless since nobody will change their mind"

Often you'll find that some people will avoid discussing topics of importance or controversy on the grounds that debating it is pointless or not constructive since it's unlikely that either side will change their mind after the discussion. This defense can be found in many forms:

1. Why debate? It's not like you're going to convince him of anything he doesn't believe
2. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and we're not going to convince each

other of anything, so why bother?

I first want to point out that this presupposes that the purpose of debate is to convince your opponent that he is wrong. This is not at all obvious, and you could argue that the purpose or one of the purposes of debate is to test your ideas against others, or to convince an audience member. The truth is that the purpose of debating probably relies on the intention of the debaters, and is not some kind of defined thing.

Second, this seems to suggest that if a debate does not result in someone being convinced then it was not worth having. The notion that a debate is not worth having, or has little to no value if others are not convinced is just false. One can debate for enjoyment, to test his ideas against others, for the audience, or simply because he feels it's important. This objection could be used to argue why the presidential debates are pointless and are not worth having since both parties usually have strong convictions about what is best for the nation.

Third, whether or not someone is convinced immediately after the debate does not mean they will not eventually be convinced. I personally have had many beliefs and ideas of mine changed as the result of debates I had months before, and I probably would have never changed my position on those things if I had not engaged in debate with others. The truth is that false ideas are best exposed by testing them against other ideas in debate. As David Hume said, "Truth springs from argument among friends."

3. "That's just your opinion"

Another common reason people give to justify why it's not worth their time to discuss important or controversial topics is to brush off the discussion as simply "your opinion against mine." The idea is that debating whether or not there ought to be a minimum wage or whether god exists is like debating which ice cream is best; it at the end of the day is just a "matter of opinion."

Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

There are three things to say about this. First, pointing out that someone's belief is a matter of opinion is uttering something meaningless since the definition of opinion is almost synonymous with 'belief.' It's like dismissing someone's argument on the grounds that "It's just a bunch of words put together."

Second, what is relevant in debating an issue is not whether or not something is an opinion but the level of evidence or justification for that opinion. Opinions are not all created equal, some may be supported by better reasons.

Third, there are many things that are considered knowledge today that were once opinion: the shape of the earth, the cause of lightning, and what causes illness are a few examples. The shape of the earth, and its position in the universe was at one time a theological issue debated amongst religious people. You could have easily dismissed debating the position of the earth's place in the universe as a "matter of opinion" or "your religious beliefs against mine." The fact that something happens to be an opinion currently has no relevance on whether it may be knowledge in the future, and it's through debating different positions that we can come to understand something is knowledge. So ultimately refusing to take part in a discussion of 'opinions' is refusing in discussing the truth, and refusing to discuss the truth amounts to a rejection of philosophy altogether.

4. "Pressing your beliefs on others"

Some object to debating topics of importance or controversy on the grounds that it's somehow rude or immoral to "press your beliefs on others." The idea is that provided an argument on why something is true amounts to trying to "convert someone" or "cram your beliefs down their throat" and those are both bad things to do.

First, a belief is either true or false. This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it 'maps on' to the real world.

There are some though, and they are not hard to find, who will object saying "Those beliefs are true to them" or "We're all right in our own way" and often resort to the Elephant in the room story. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to try and discover what it is. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective. Each blind man says "It's a rope!" or "It's a wall!" the story ends as follows:

"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thing we're touching is." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made false statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.

2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.

(one is better off holding true beliefs)

Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters; it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of those beliefs being false.

3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.

If people are better off holding true beliefs, and helping people in ways that is better for them is good, then it follows that helping people hold true beliefs is good. Of course, helping people hold true beliefs can only be done by providing good reasons and argument, which is precisely what 'converting someone' ultimately is. If you agree with premise 1, 2, and 3 you simply can not condemn or criticize someone for making attempts to 'convert the lost.'

Another thing to point out about this defense is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self-refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'

convert. (v)

1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.

2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.

The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.

persuade. (v)

1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion! The entire complaint is self-refuting.

By: David Campbell
Originally written: 2007