You're an entrepreneur looking to avoid common logical fallacies. But do you know what they are?

As an entrepreneur aiming to make informed decisions, it is crucial to be aware of and avoid common logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can undermine the validity of arguments. Some examples include ad hominem attacks, where the focus shifts to attacking a person rather than addressing their argument, and the slippery slope fallacy, which assumes that a specific event will lead to a chain reaction of negative outcomes without sufficient evidence. By familiarizing oneself with these fallacies, entrepreneurs can enhance their critical thinking skills and make more rational and sound business decisions.

Como especialista em empreendedorismo e consultor em TI para microempresas, é crucial reconhecer e evitar as falácias lógicas que podem prejudicar seus negócios. Aqui est?o algumas das mais comuns: Correla??o n?o implica causalidade: N?o assuma que apenas porque duas coisas est?o relacionadas, uma causa a outra. Apelo à autoridade: N?o aceite uma ideia apenas porque uma figura de autoridade a apoia. Avalie sempre a evidência por trás dela. Viés de confirma??o: N?o procure apenas informa??es que confirmem suas cren?as preexistentes. Esteja aberto a diferentes perspectivas.

Running a 40-year old B2B business for 7 years has taught me: -There is no one glove fits all product, pricing and marketing -Trusting the face value when it comes to pricing. Always overestimate your expenses and underestimate your income -Waiting for validation from all stakeholders will slow down your action-taking considerably -All decisions are taken with incomplete information. It's easy for owners/leaders to fall into analysis paralysis.

As an entrepreneur, especially solopreneur, it's easy to slip into this continuum: You sell your product --> you don't get much revenue, people don't want to buy --> "I'm not good at selling" --> you get less sales because your attitude can be heard through your communication and you're not convincing. That's because you're not convincing to yourself. Getting next to no sales doesn't necessarily mean that your service or product is not viable. Consider the following: your target groups might be elsewhere, your selling arguments are not effective to your target groups, your approach and delivery might be intimidating or unenthusiastic. All these are very fixable and not a problem if you're willing to work on them.

We view our actions and inactions through the perspectives and values we hold dear, not realising that they may be wrong or incorrect. However, a spring clean of our spectacles, through which we view, is possible through travel, mentors, peers, customers, competitors, your team, books, and podcasts. There is always a better view possible, but only if you are ready to accept that there is a new and better view somewhere out there.

You've probably heard of the entrepreneur's mindset. But have you heard of the scientist's mindset? Entrepreneurs tend to focus solely on validating their hypotheses, which is ok. But when we see data that doesn't support our desires, we have a tendency to ignore the bad and double down on the good. That's confirmation bias. Scientists, on the other hand, tend to have a greater mindset toward invalidating their hypotheses. They sometimes even consider it a win when they disprove their beliefs. If you doubt this, just read more academic papers. You'll see many top publications that publish papers with invalidated hypotheses. So try to prove yourself wrong. It's also a win to probe your assumptions and discover that they’re wrong.

This is a problem both for entrepreneurs and scientists (sorry to disagree with you Gerrit). 10-15 years ago, the number of physical science articles I saw published where a hypothesis was disproven, or where the result was a big, fat "this does not work," was much higher than it is now. I'd be surprised if it's 1 in 50 papers I've read over the last 4-5 years. (This may be different in social sciences.) Scientists need funding like entrepreneurs, and publishing "groundbreaking" "paradigm shifting" research does more to accomplish that than saying, "we learned something that definitely doesn't work." The scientific and entrepreneurial communities are both better off when the goal is to learn something new, not to "see if you're right..."