What are some examples of deductive and inductive fallacies to avoid?

Example: When the switch is flipped, the light (usually) comes on. However, what if: - The electricity bill was not paid, and the service was shut off by the utility company? - The light bulb is burnt out? - There is a short in the wires? - Etc.

One of the most common deductive fallacies you can find in the industry is black-and-white thinking. We sometime encounter sentences like "We are either on top, or we are nothing", "The feature was not fully adopted - it was a disaster", "If we don't develop this feature exactly *this* way, we will lose customers", "We have to either move the whole product to the new coding language, or to stay as we are today". This thinking is flawed and could be dangerous. Almost all situations have several solutions and a full spectrum of outcomes. My tip is: be vigilant when you hear too definitive "either... or" statements about the development, organization, or business

“Post hoc ergo propter hoc is when one event is assumed to have caused another simply because it follows it.” In a recent court case that was televised nationally, I am pretty sure the defendant was guilty of murder; however, the jury convicted him based on the fact that he had stolen money and lied to countless people. He is likely guilty of both offenses, but there is no direct causation.

Which would you prefer - a restaurant ranked 5 stars with 9 rankings, or a restaurant ranked 4.6 stars with 2,219 rankings? Some data sets are better from others to draw conclusions from. Consider this scenario (for a company with ~100 customers): a) A customer tells you your new feature solves their issue to a satisfactory level b) 4 more customers tell you the same c) You actively ask 50 customers and find out only 10 are satisfied, and the others are searching for (or have already found) other solutions So my tip is: don't jump to hasty generalizations and conclusions. Orderly data collection is invaluable for decision making

Remember, arguments are not made by pure logic. Rather, arguments are made by claims and evidence. The claims must be falsifiable, and the evidence must be true, relevant, and sufficient. Logic is how we understand the relationship between claims and evidence, but it is not a substitute for claims or evidence.

Here are some of the best tips I know for sharpening your thinking and making better decisions in the workplace: - Disconnect the statement from the speaker. Don't dismiss things just because a junior said them, and don't accept "truths" just because the boss said them. - Avoid over-conformity - to market, to competitors, to colleagues that are sitting with you in a meeting. It kills creativity. Voice your ideas - Be vigilant when people say "all", "none", "everyone", "no one", "always", "never" - this is rarely an accurate description - Be vigilant for "a caused b" sentences. A lot of times b actually caused a, or c caused a and b - If data is available - basing your decisions on it is almost always better than intuition.

One thing that can really lengthen workplace debates, and make both sides leave them thinking they were right, is "moving the goalpost": A: "This feature will improve our processing speed" B: "How?" A: "The competitors have it" B: "How is it helping them?" A: "It improves ease of use" My tips are: 1. Stay on the subject. Don't move to another claim until you have an agreement on the previous one 2. When someone else jumps to another claim - insist on closing the previous one: "Let's discuss one thing at a time. Do you agree with my previous statement?" or "Before we move on to the next argument, what do you think of what I just said?"