The Nominal Fallacy at Work

We're committing the logical error called the nominal fallacy when we believe that because we've given something a name, we've explained it. An example: "He doesn't get along with his teammates because he's difficult." Labeling him "difficult" doesn't explain the troubled relationships in the team. It leaves many questions unanswered. Why is he difficult? How is difficult defined? Is he the only team member who's difficult? Are all people who don't get along with their teammates difficult? Can there be other reasons for troubled relationships in this team?

We can extend the nominal fallacy concept slightly to an Attributes Fallacy, which is the logical error of believing that we've explained an entity — or elaborated an existing explanation — when we merely list some of the entity's attributes. If an entity's name is one of its attributes, then the Nominal Fallacy is a special case of the Attributes Fallacy.

For example, when we categorize defects in a software product as change-request, performance-severe, unclassified, and so on, we aren't resolving the defects. We're classifying them. Each defect had a name, and now we've given it a classification. Name and classification are two of its attributes.

Naming and classifying can be satisfying. They might even be steps necessary for achieving our goals. But in most cases in the workplace, naming or classifying isn't the goal. When we enjoy naming and classifying so much that our enjoyment interferes with actual goal achievement, we're in trouble.

This trouble can appear anywhere. When we design project plans, we name tasks. I've done it myself. It's fun. But naming tasks doesn't bring the project home. It's a necessary step toward the goal, but it's just a step.

Consider When we enjoy naming and
classifying so much that
our enjoyment interferes
with actual goal achievement,
we're in troublethe annual budget for your organization. Somebody decides how much to spend on each major organizational element. When they do, they're assigning a value to each organizational element's "budget" attribute. But that isn't the end of the budget process. Budgets must be monitored. When they prove to be too low, or too high, interventions are required. That's hard work. Setting the budget is just the beginning. The same can be said for schedules and strategies.

What's so seductive about naming things, or setting the values of their attributes, or even merely understanding the naming work someone else has done, is that when we do it, we do experience a disproportionate sense of getting something done, however illusory that sense might be. My hope is that your having read this little essay will help you recognize that sense of satisfaction as the joy that comes — in part — from the Nominal Fallacy.

Now, you might ask, how does all this help me? Why does the Nominal Fallacy work the way it does? Haven't I merely named it? Is the Nominal Fallacy an example of itself? Hmmm.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

More about logical fallacies

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Rhetorical Fallacies:

The Slippery Slope That Isn't

"If we promote you, we'll have to promote all of them, too." This "slippery-slope" tactic for winning debates works by exploiting our fears. Another in a series about rhetorical tricks that push our buttons.

The Fallacy of the False Cause

Although we sometimes make decisions with incomplete information, we do the best we can, given what we know. Sometimes, we make wrong decisions not because we have incomplete information, but because we make mistakes in how we reason about the information we do have.

Misleading Vividness

Group decision making usually entails discussion. When contributions to that discussion include vivid examples, illustrations, or stories, the group can be at risk of making a mistaken decision.

The Halo Effect

The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that causes our evaluation of people, concepts, or objects to be influenced by our perceptions of one attribute of those people, concepts, or objects. It can lead us to make significant errors of judgment.

Straw Man Variants

The Straw Man fallacy is a famous rhetorical fallacy. Using it distorts debate and can lead groups to reach faulty conclusions. It's readily recognized, but it has some variants that are more difficult to spot. When unnoticed, trouble looms.

See also Rhetorical Fallacies and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 7: Toxic Disrupters: Tactics

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but they use techniques drawn from a limited collection. Examples: they violate norms, demand attention, mess with the agenda, and sow distrust. Response begins with recognizing their tactics. Available here and by RSS on June 7.

And on June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info