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.
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
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Rhetorical Fallacies:
- 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.
- When we steer the discussion away from issues to attack the credibility, motives, or character of our
debate partners, we often resort to a technique known as the ad hominem attack. It's unfair, it's unethical,
and it leads to bad, expensive decisions that we'll probably regret.
- Begging the Question
- Begging the question is a common, usually undetected, rhetorical fallacy. It leads to unsupported conclusions
and painful places we just can't live with. What can we do when it happens?
- The Reification Error and Performance Management
- Just as real concrete objects have attributes, so do abstract concepts, or constructs. But attempting
to measure the attributes of constructs as if they were the attributes of real objects is an example
of the reification error. In performance management, committing this error leads to unexpected and unwanted
- 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.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.