The “Jingle-Jangle” fallacy and it’s implications for clear discussion

[Red Sky at Morning]

I came across a logical fallacy I had never heard of a couple of days ago. It seems to be of interest to people engaged in psychological research, but to me it seemed even more relevant to people from various backgrounds engaged in debate, where common (yet confusing) language is used....

Introducing... “The Jingle-Jangle Fallacy”



Jingle-jangle fallacies refer to the erroneous assumptions that two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy) or that two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).

The Jangle Fallacy


In research, a jangle fallacy describes the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. In debate, this same effect may have two people from different backgrounds arguing over topics where, but for a clearer discussion of the meaning of the terms they were using, they would be in agreement.

The Jingle Fallacy


By comparison, a jingle fallacy is based on the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct. I think this one is even more common (especially on this forum). When people are using common language to describe something, it doesn’t hurt to check what they understand by the use of a word.

 

[Helioform]

A fallacy fit for Christmas. Cool.

 

[Maes17]

I came across a logical fallacy I had never heard of a couple of days ago. It seems to be of interest to people engaged in psychological research, but to me it seemed even more relevant to people from various backgrounds engaged in debate, where common (yet confusing) language is used....

Introducing... “The Jingle-Jangle Fallacy”

View attachment 48699

Jingle-jangle fallacies refer to the erroneous assumptions that two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy) or that two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).

The Jangle Fallacy
View attachment 48700

In research, a jangle fallacy describes the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. In debate, this same effect may have two people from different backgrounds arguing over topics where, but for a clearer discussion of the meaning of the terms they were using, they would be in agreement.

The Jingle Fallacy
View attachment 48701

By comparison, a jingle fallacy is based on the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct. I think this one is even more common (especially on this forum). When people are using common language to describe something, it doesn’t hurt to check what they understand by the use of a word.

This is what I try to explain in my arguments lol.
I’ve always been horrible at wording stuff. But yes. Our perspectives even in agreement differ

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

This is what I try to explain in my arguments lol.
I’ve always been horrible at wording stuff. But yes. Our perspectives even in agreement differ

The way I look at it, I would rather debate with people on what they actually think rather than assume I already know what they think, beat them with a straw man and then start calling each other shills and morons!!!

Perhaps the most under-used phrase is:-

“what do you mean when you use the word ______”

We might still disagree, but we will have a better quality of disagreement!!!!

 

[Maes17]

The way I look at it, I would rather debate with people on what they actually think rather than assume I already know what they think, beat them with a straw man and then start calling each other shills and morons!!!

Perhaps the most under-used phrase is:-

“what do you mean when you use the word ______”

We might still disagree, but we will have a better quality of disagreement!!!!

I agree.

It’s all perspective. This is why I approach threads on this forum in a moderate fashion. I always like to see both sides to something before I pick a side.

Even if I pick a side I’m not going to carry grudges personally.

 

[irrationalNinja]

Another jingle fallacy can be seen in “Whitey’s Supremacy.”

One definition of white supremacy is the belief that whites are racially superior to other groups.

The other definition is that anywhere there is a majority of people with skin that is lacking melanin (“jingle”): white supremacy.

Most Leftists today are talking about being disgruntled about the majority of whites. While true that more white people literally mean a white majority, it is not “white supremacy.” (Nothing can be done about this unless white people are killed off to put them in the minority, so white Leftists who talk about the best way to rectify the evils of (“jingle”) white supremacy are confusing.)

When leftists decry the evils of (“jingle”) white supremacy, it would be wise to ask them to define white supremacy, to help understand what it is they are actually arguing. Chances are, they are using “white supremacy“ in place of “white majority” in a radical context that makes little sense. Arguing with this idea is futile, due to its absurdity and anti-intellectual origin.

 

[Maes17]

left——>Views points<——right

Put it simply end result is the same just a different perspective/identity so it feels justified

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

left——>Views points<——right

Put it simply end result is the same just a different perspective/identity so it feels justified

One of the best books I ever read that never made it onto the @VigilantCitizen list of recommended books was “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis. Subtitled “a fairy tale for grown-ups” it is an allegory for the attempted establishment of an NWO that bears far closer resemblance to the real state of things than 1984 or Brave New World.

In one section, Mark (the “hero”) finds himself recruited to write propaganda pieces for the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (NICE). His conversation with the head of their secret police says one of the most incisive things about the nature of power, left, right and human susceptibility to persuasion:-

“‘I’ve no notion of spending my life writing newspaper articles,’ he said. ‘And if I had, I’d want to know a good deal more about the politics of the NICE before I went in for that sort of thing.’​

​

‘Haven’t you been told that it’s strictly non-political?’​

​

‘I’ve been told so many things that I don’t know whether I’m on my head or my heels,’ said Mark. ‘But I don’t see how one’s going to start a newspaper stunt (which is about what this comes to) without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot about Alcasan?’​

​

‘Both, Honey, both,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to the NICE is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us–to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is.’​

​

‘I don’t believe you can do that,’ said Mark. ‘Not with the papers that are read by educated people.’​

​

‘That shows you’re still in the nursery, Lovey,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Haven’t you yet realised that it’s the other way round?’ ‘How do you mean?’ ‘Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.’​

 

[Maes17]

One of the best books I ever read that never made it onto the @VigilantCitizen list of recommended books was “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis. Subtitled “a fairy tale for grown-ups” it is an allegory for the attempted establishment of an NWO that bears far closer resemblance to the real state of things than 1984 or Brave New World.

In one section, Mark (the “hero”) finds himself recruited to write propaganda pieces for the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (NICE). His conversation with the head of their secret police says one of the most incisive things about the nature of power, left, right and human susceptibility to persuasion:-

“‘I’ve no notion of spending my life writing newspaper articles,’ he said. ‘And if I had, I’d want to know a good deal more about the politics of the NICE before I went in for that sort of thing.’​

​

‘Haven’t you been told that it’s strictly non-political?’​

​

‘I’ve been told so many things that I don’t know whether I’m on my head or my heels,’ said Mark. ‘But I don’t see how one’s going to start a newspaper stunt (which is about what this comes to) without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot about Alcasan?’​

​

‘Both, Honey, both,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to the NICE is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us–to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is.’​

​

‘I don’t believe you can do that,’ said Mark. ‘Not with the papers that are read by educated people.’​

​

‘That shows you’re still in the nursery, Lovey,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Haven’t you yet realised that it’s the other way round?’ ‘How do you mean?’ ‘Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.’​

Pretty much what I try to explain.
Glad you see it

 

[VigCizMember]

One of the best books I ever read that never made it onto the @VigilantCitizen list of recommended books was “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis. Subtitled “a fairy tale for grown-ups” it is an allegory for the attempted establishment of an NWO that bears far closer resemblance to the real state of things than 1984 or Brave New World.

In one section, Mark (the “hero”) finds himself recruited to write propaganda pieces for the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (NICE). His conversation with the head of their secret police says one of the most incisive things about the nature of power, left, right and human susceptibility to persuasion:-

“‘I’ve no notion of spending my life writing newspaper articles,’ he said. ‘And if I had, I’d want to know a good deal more about the politics of the NICE before I went in for that sort of thing.’​

​

‘Haven’t you been told that it’s strictly non-political?’​

​

‘I’ve been told so many things that I don’t know whether I’m on my head or my heels,’ said Mark. ‘But I don’t see how one’s going to start a newspaper stunt (which is about what this comes to) without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot about Alcasan?’​

​

‘Both, Honey, both,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to the NICE is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us–to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is.’​

​

‘I don’t believe you can do that,’ said Mark. ‘Not with the papers that are read by educated people.’​

​

‘That shows you’re still in the nursery, Lovey,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Haven’t you yet realised that it’s the other way round?’ ‘How do you mean?’ ‘Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.’​

Love that book! I think I picked it up due to a reference you made to it a year or so again on another thread - thanks for the recommendation!!!

 

[VigCizMember]

Yes this jingle/jangle theory is so important- especially as societies and cultures convene on one plain - language and definitions carry so much inherent meaning, and our understanding of these words also carry with them our understanding based on our personal experiences - as experiences diversify so does meaning and we can experience communication breakdown. It’s like you mentioned above- it’s always a good idea to get people to explain their understanding of a word or concept before trying to debate them.

 

[Maes17]

Yes this jingle/jangle theory is so important- especially as societies and cultures convene on one plain - language and definitions carry so much inherent meaning, and our understanding of these words also carry with them our understanding based on our personal experiences - as experiences diversify so does meaning and we can experience communication breakdown. It’s like you mentioned above- it’s always a good idea to get people to explain their understanding of a word or concept before trying to debate them.

Agreed

 

[Aero]

There are at least 300 logical fallacies. Most people only know a few, and I've only got a decent grasp on 20 or so. As far as Jingle Jangle goes, I agree that people conflate things a lot.

But I don't think we need to rehash what people think words mean. Being a cage fighter doesn't make you an ax murderer. Being crazy doesn't mean you have bad character; it just means you are crazy. These things don't need to be rehashed or explained; they are common sense.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

There are at least 300 logical fallacies. Most people only know a few, and I've only got a decent grasp on 20 or so. As far as Jingle Jangle goes, I agree that people conflate things a lot.

But I don't think we need to rehash what people think words mean. Being a cage fighter doesn't make you an ax murderer. Being crazy doesn't mean you have bad character; it just means you are crazy. These things don't need to be rehashed or explained; they are common sense.

I agree, but I have to observe that much of what fills threads with hundreds of posts of misunderstanding appear to have a root in failing to acknowledge the fine differences in meaning that words have for individuals of different backgrounds.

For a non-contentious illustration, take the phrase “good morning” and consider Tolkien’s dialogue between Gandalf and Bilbo:-

“Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?” “All of them at once,” said Bilbo. “And a very fine morning for a pipe of tobacco out of doors, into the bargain.

Now (for forum context) take the word “Zionism”...

You can have any word and define it a number of ways. In that way, you might end up using the same word and continually misunderstand one another.

I see at least four definitions of “Zionism” - after all, what is a word other than the meaning someone assigns to it? These meanings share aspects in their definitions and also diverge from one another. Here’s my attempt at making sense of the various meanings I have come across:-

Zionism (type A) - This would be the expectations a dispassionate reader might have based on God’s OT prophetic statements about a future return of the Jews to the land of Israel.

Zionism (type B) - The specific Jewish interpretation which blends nationalistic political aspirations and rabbinic teachings with those OT prophecies.

Zionism (type C) - The “Dispensational” Christian interpretation which looks at both OT and NT prophecies in connection with Israel (and takes a futuristic view of Bible prophecy). This looks at the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 as the beginning of the “fig tree” generation and is prompted to take Bible prophecy more seriously as a result (as it may have immediate application within our lifetime).

Zionism (type D) - An increasingly popular perspective which sees Israel opportunistically riding on the wave of A, B and C to achieve a global power play. This typically involves infiltration of media and politics by the “Synagogue of Satan” in order to achieve it’s hidden aspirations (frequently referencing the Machiavellian plans set out in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”) This view is popular with secular conspiracy theorists, many Muslims and often with Christians who believe the Church has replaced Israel.

Which one of these definitions you mean when you use the word “Zionist” will depend to a large degree on your existing wider beliefs.

 

[Aero]

I agree, but I have to observe that much of what fills threads with hundreds of posts of misunderstanding appear to have a root in failing to acknowledge the fine differences in meaning that words have for individuals of different backgrounds.

For a non-contentious illustration, take the phrase “good morning” and consider Tolkien’s dialogue between Gandalf and Bilbo:-

“Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?” “All of them at once,” said Bilbo. “And a very fine morning for a pipe of tobacco out of doors, into the bargain.

Now (for forum context) take the word “Zionism”...

You can have any word and define it a number of ways. In that way, you might end up using the same word and continually misunderstand one another.

I see at least four definitions of “Zionism” - after all, what is a word other than the meaning someone assigns to it? These meanings share aspects in their definitions and also diverge from one another. Here’s my attempt at making sense of the various meanings I have come across:-

Zionism (type A) - This would be the expectations a dispassionate reader might have based on God’s OT prophetic statements about a future return of the Jews to the land of Israel.

Zionism (type B) - The specific Jewish interpretation which blends nationalistic political aspirations and rabbinic teachings with those OT prophecies.

Zionism (type C) - The “Dispensational” Christian interpretation which looks at both OT and NT prophecies in connection with Israel (and takes a futuristic view of Bible prophecy). This looks at the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 as the beginning of the “fig tree” generation and is prompted to take Bible prophecy more seriously as a result (as it may have immediate application within our lifetime).

Zionism (type D) - An increasingly popular perspective which sees Israel opportunistically riding on the wave of A, B and C to achieve a global power play. This typically involves infiltration of media and politics by the “Synagogue of Satan” in order to achieve it’s hidden aspirations (frequently referencing the Machiavellian plans set out in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”) This view is popular with secular conspiracy theorists, many Muslims and often with Christians who believe the Church has replaced Israel.

Which one of these definitions you mean when you use the word “Zionist” will depend to a large degree on your existing wider beliefs.

I think you described the problem well. And Bilbo pretty much answered the question.

Meaning can be difficult to encapsulate. Like when Zionism is brought up it's on you to extract what's implied throughout the argument. Now, maybe something is unclear or the topic is very advanced. In any case, in logic, you are allowed to take some steps backward, but your ultimate trajectory must go forward. If you don't go forward, you may be considered pedantic, or irrelevant.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I think you described the problem well. And Bilbo pretty much answered the question.

Meaning can be difficult to encapsulate. Like when Zionism is brought up it's on you to extract what's implied throughout the argument. Now, maybe something is unclear or the topic is very advanced. In any case, in logic, you are allowed to take some steps backward, but your ultimate trajectory must go forward. If you don't go forward, you may be considered pedantic, or irrelevant.

I agree - like I said to @Maes17 - I don’t mind a argument as long as it actually represents the true beliefs of the people having it!!! That’s why I don’t bother speaking to socks or people who just enjoy arguing!

 

[VigCizMember]

I think you described the problem well. And Bilbo pretty much answered the question.

Meaning can be difficult to encapsulate. Like when Zionism is brought up it's on you to extract what's implied throughout the argument. Now, maybe something is unclear or the topic is very advanced. In any case, in logic, you are allowed to take some steps backward, but your ultimate trajectory must go forward. If you don't go forward, you may be considered pedantic, or irrelevant.

Right - I believe this as well - absolutely no need to try to redefine words or minimize our lexicon - but in some instances, and particularly online where others forms of communication are lost - it can be beneficial to take a few steps back before moving forward- but forward we must go!