That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
How logic may be failing you
One of my favorite classes in undergrad was logic. I took logic in 2014 and I still have my textbook, and I reference it more than I’d like to admit. I’m a total nerd.
The core foundation of logic is that conclusions are made based on 1 or more pieces of information, called premises. Premises can be facts and direct observations, but they often come from assumptions.
Bob flirts with Sally often, therefore he must like her.
The premises are:
1. Bob flirts with Sally often
2. Flirting is a widely accepted indication of attraction or romantic interest
Therefore, it’s fair to conclude that Bob likes Sally.
Agreed?
Good.
But a conclusion can only be true if the premises are both true and complete.
We tend to think a lot of things are good for us because they’re natural.
The assumed premise is that natural things are better for us, and few people would argue with that. But there are also a lot of natural things that are not good for us.
Opium is natural but I don’t recommend it, unless you have narcan, which is fully synthetic. Fruit is natural, but too much can mess with your insulin. Speaking of insulin, synthetic insulin is often safer and more effective than natural insulin.
This is an example of how a premise can be misleading because the information is inaccurate. It’s not wrong, it’s just oversimplified.
We also know that flirting is often used as a way to get sex, even if the person is not romantically interested. It turns out that Bob doesn’t actually like Sally the way we initially believed, he just wants to sleep with her. We were wrong.
You’re probably thinking some version of
“Well, yeah, obviously that could be true, but I wasn’t thinking of that. Flirting usually means they like you.”
You knew there was an exception, a very common one, but you didn’t question Bob’s motives in my example. You assumed, and then you used logic. Flirting could mean a lot of things:
Maybe he just went through a breakup and isn’t actually interested
Maybe he’s just lonely.
Maybe he’s just a big flirt and it doesn’t mean anything.
Flirting, then, doesn’t really tell us much without some additional context, and even then, it can be tough to nail down.
This is an example of how a premise can be incomplete. The most common or widely accepted premise tends to be the one that is assumed, usually subconsciously. There may be other explanations.
If you take nothing else from this post, lock this in your brain: Just because you can’t think of another reasonable explanation for something doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Here are three of the most common misinterpretations we make in relationships and the inaccurate or incomplete assumptions that drive them.
“1. They know exactly what they’re doing.”
Assumed premise: People are aware at all times of what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and exactly what harm it causes.
Reality: Sometimes they are. Most of the time they are not. (Be honest. Neither are you)
People act from fear, shame, attachment wounds, habits, conditioning, identity protection, nervous system responses, and emotional blind spots ALL. THE. TIME.
People often don’t know what they’re doing, are oblivious of the harm, and/or believe they have a valid reason that supports some greater good. It doesn’t excuse it, but it can explain it.
2. “If they wanted to, they would.”
Assumed premise: If you want something, you will act on it. If you don’t act on it, then you didn’t actually want it.
Reality: Wanting something doesn’t automatically mean you have the capacity to do anything about it.
The problem is the confusion between won’t and can’t.
Won’t suggests a choice
Can’t suggests a limitation.
Big difference.
They may have a huge crush but not act on it out of fear of rejection.
They may want to call or text but don’t want to seem needy.
They may want to leave a relationship but fear the fallout.
Lots of things get in the way of what we want - fear, shame, time, anxiety, competing forces.
Maybe they want it. Maybe they don’t. Whether or not they act doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about why or why not.
**Be careful with this one. This is moral validation at its finest, and it can be incredibly toxic.
3. “They don’t care.”
Assumed premise: Cold or distant behavior means they don’t care.
Reality: People disappoint people they love every day. Lots of things cause someone to act flippant or indifferent, but it doesn’t mean it is.
Look at hit-and-run behavior. They hurt you, and then they avoid you. That could be they’re an asshole who doesn’t care. It could also be they’re too ashamed of their behavior, they learned avoidance from their parents, they don’t know what to say or how to face you, they think they’ve done too much damage so why bother, they’re afraid after what they’ve done they’ll be rejected.
Sometimes they don’t care.
Sometimes they care a lot.
Their behavior tells you what they did/didn’t do. It doesn’t tell you why.
The biggest mistake in these is that they all assume you can know someone’s motives simply by observing their behavior.
But there could be a dozen reasons for their behavior. When you assume to know why they did something, you’re making assumptions that you can’t possibly know.
When it comes to understanding relationship behavior, logic will almost always point you in the wrong direction.
Most people aren’t blind or irrational. In fact, they may arrive very cleanly at their conclusion based on the information they have, which makes it really hard to argue with. But they’re often reasoning from inaccurate assumptions they don’t realize they’re making. And if the premises are inaccurate, it doesn’t matter how well they can lay out their logic.
The moral of the story, kids, is this:
Logic using bad assumptions leads to bad conclusions.
Or as my mom always told me, “You don’t know what you don’t know.”