Scientific Definition
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. The most basic valid inference move in formal logic.
Plain-English Definition
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. The most basic valid inference move in formal logic.
Feynman Explanation
Most business arguments fail at 'P,' not at the inference.
Core Principle
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. The most basic valid inference move in formal logic.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. The most basic valid inference move in formal logic.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Strategy memos should make the conditional explicit. Hidden premises = hidden risk.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Most business arguments fail at 'P,' not at the inference.
Examples
- Baggini & Fosl, 'The Philosopher's Toolkit,' Chapter 1.
- Strategy memos should make the conditional explicit. Hidden premises = hidden risk.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Force the form: 'If X, then Y. X holds because… Therefore Y.' Now the assumption is visible.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Force the form: 'If X, then Y. X holds because… Therefore Y.' Now the assumption is visible.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. The logic behind every falsification test.
Whoever makes the positive claim carries the obligation to support it. Absence of disproof isn't proof.
Treating one kind of thing as if it belonged to a different ontological category.
Justified true belief isn't always knowledge — luck can produce true beliefs from defective reasoning.
You can't derive an 'ought' (value claim) from an 'is' (factual claim) without a smuggled premise.
Necessary = required for X. Sufficient = enough on its own for X. Conflating them is a common error.
Assume the opposite of what you want to prove. Derive a contradiction. The opposite must be false.
How will I feel about this in 10 minutes / 10 months / 10 years?
Basics first (health/finances), then depth (mastery/impact), then altruism (widening circle).
A group decides on a course of action that nobody actually wants, because everyone assumes others prefer it.
Inattention or forgetfulness caused by low attention, hyperfocus, or distraction.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.