Causeand Effect Fallacy
Causeand Effect Fallacy
Causeand belief fallacy, is a fallacy, based on simultaneously occurringvariables. Argumentatively one variable is assumed to be thedeterminant of the other variable, without justification. Whereby,cause becomes the initiator of the effect, a fallacybelieved, to be mistakenly based on unsound arguments (LaBossiere,2013). The cause and effect may take an example of simultaneousoccurrence of event X and Y, where event X leads to event Y, withoutjustification.
Incasual reasoning processes, belief may be misleading, with theclassification of fallacies into formal and the informal fallacies.Formal fallacies are identified to be errors which stem from logicalforms that are poor, and considered to be invalid arguments(Weinstock, et. al., 2006). Informal fallacies have reasoningerrors, which do not originate in logical forms that are improper.
TheCause and effect fallacy is understood to be a questionable cause,which calls for reversal of causation. There is a need to link two ormore situations that regularly appear together, resulting from acommitment, by an assuming person (Weinstock, et. al., 2006).Therefore, subjecting questionable causes, to predetermining othercauses, withdraw causal conclusions, that lack adequatejustifications. In the cause and effect fallacy, an assumption that agiven “endeavor” led to a given “progress” andtherefore justifying that the “progress” is as a result ofthe “endeavor”, gets to be argued, as being a fallacy.
Leadershipand management, incur from time to time the variances, which subjectunderstanding to a common argument, which develop new facts and ideasamongst the individuals involved in the respective processes. To myunderstanding of this fallacy, the examples below are elaborate.
Inan administrative example X and Y, may be in a situation where anoffice administrator tells their subject that, “you have beenpromoted because you work hard.” This sentiment highlights thefallacy, through the symbiotic individual-leadership principle, whichbecomes problematic. The fallacy arises because the “promotion”and “hard work” simultaneously occur, therefore perceivingthe promotion as being the outcome of hard work, instead of focusingon other additional promotional aspects (Hansson, 2004).
Aleadership where common ideas tend to hold intuitive certainty,concerning leadership characteristics, which are separate frominstitutional and cultural settings, is eminent. An example coded as“The projects are failing because of the leadership we have”automatically subjecting leadership to the projects failure. Thesimultaneous occurrence of leadership and failure, when criticallyanalyzed, may justify leadership as not being the cause of failure.
Leadersare profound of accusing others on the basis that certain projectsare not progressing, so as to gain popularity, without consideringthe facts based on institutions and cultural setting as an effectfallacy, that shapes leadership expectations and perceptions ofbehavior to the public (Hample& Velázquez, 2009).
Thenormative position accords a rational privilege regarding anindividual’s self-determination. Ideas cross fertilization, fromdisciplines, which are interrelated with example of organizationstudies, process philosophy and cultural theory, which lead to anaffirmation of substantiality off and ‘individualistic’ form ofleadership, which predisposed gets to be regarded as a fallacy, whichis misplaced. In a process relating to qualities of leadershipperspective, the qualities get to remain undesirable (Hample&Velázquez, 2009).
Througha leadership example, focusing on the individual leader’s notionconstrued simply as an abstraction that discerns from the recurrentflux of conditions, simultaneous outcomes, with the initial leadingto the other gets highlight (Sultan, 2007). Leaders havetraditionally immersed in the magnificent individualism principle.This has been through ascribing certain ascendant features exampleof: I am a leader with a visionary agenda I am a leader who isclear on what needs to be achieved, along other relevantexamples. The sentimental positioning, tries to equate achievement tovision.
Inaddressing this form of fallacy with regard to leadership, the ‘I’prefix tends to be dominance through these statements, whichepitomizes the individual leader’s view as being discrete andsubstantial, with self-centeredness essence. With regard to theproclaimed achievements, it may not be justifiable that vision leadsto achievement (Sultan, 2007).
Inconclusion, leadership, as a knowledge body of fallacy, occasionallyfaces a `relevate` pressing need for imaginative and new thinkingways towards gaining new theoretical leverages. The leverages get tobe an extension of existing phenomenon understanding of leadership inthe mutual relatedness process. The complexity, however, gets to beconceiving the common relatedness, ample for the exclusion ofindividuals without annihilating its leadership and complexity onwhich it depends on. The complexity may be in examples of X and Youtcomes that are simultaneous, subjecting Y to occur due to X.
Therefore,recognizing leadership complexity is vital, as a way to avoidcontinued “perceived automatic outcomes”, which aresuppressions through individualistic canon, brought about by causeand effect fallacy, which gets to be amid ‘environments’ and‘leaders’, in the primary individuation process (Hansson, 2004).Leaders constituted to be successful or unsuccessful get termedthrough the procession and dynamic terms emphasized on symbioticrelations of open milieu, proposed as alternative to ordinary ideasand leadership images, familiar to egocentric.
Hample,D., Sells, A., & Velázquez, A. I. (2009). The Effects of TopicType and Personalization of Conflict on Assessments ofFallacies.CommunicationReports,22(2),74-88. doi:10.1080/08934210903008935
Hansson,S. O. (2004). Fallacies of Risk.JournalofRisk Research,7(3),353-360.
LaBossiere,M. (2013).76Fallacies(p. 132). Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
Sultan,A. (2007).Some Interesting and Thought Provoking GeometricFallacies.MathematicsTeacher,101(2),114-119.
Weinstock,M. P., Neuman, Y., &Glassner, A. (2006).Identification ofInformal Reasoning Fallacies as a Function of Epistemological Level,Grade Level, and Cognitive Ability.JournalofEducational Psychology,98(2),327-341. doi:10.1037/0022/06184.108.40.2067