Technical information:
The perfectionism bias is another form of the false dilemma. The false dilemma in this case is to obtain or reject perfection. We conclude that without completion this question must be discarded. The format is:
Theory 1: X is complete or denied (if there are other possibilities).
Theory 2: X is not complete.
Conclusion: Therefore, X must be rejected.
Errors can also occur when standards are set too high.
Proposal 1: X must meet very high standards or be rejected (provided there are other alternatives).
Thesis 2: X does not meet excessively high standards.
Conclusion: Therefore, X must be rejected.
A person may make this mistake in good faith, believing that specialized knowledge or other unreasonably high standards are required. However, misunderstandings are often used as malicious arguments to deny something. Because the extreme form of this fallacy is a manifest delusion, the conscious user of this fallacy usually does not explicitly claim to have achieved perfection. Instead, they start with unreasonably high standards. Once these criteria are somewhat met, the target packets are usually moved to change the criteria until they are met.
In this case, the author knows that he is making deliberate and unreasonable demands and hopes that the error will not be discovered. This is a false dilemma because it arises when there is no viable alternative to perfection (or unreasonably high standards) or no alternative. This fallacy is often used in political discussions when one party opposes a bill. They strongly argue that the new law should not be passed because it does not fully solve the problem.
There is nothing wrong with wanting or rejecting something that meets reasonable standards. There may be a good faith debate about what is considered an appropriate standard. So just because you meet high standards doesn’t mean you’ve made a mistake. For example, a hospital administrator should not expect a perfect backup power system, but would be reasonable to expect a reliable system capable of supplying power to the hospital for a sufficient amount of time. How reliable and durable the system is is definitely an issue.
As another example, it would be wise and reasonable to evaluate the efficiency and benefits of legislation. If there are reasonable grounds that the law will not effectively address the problem, it is reasonable to consider other options. It is important to remember that sometimes a bad solution is better than no solution.
Defense: The most important defense to avoid (or make) this mistake is to assess whether the required criteria are sufficient. If the standard is set too high, it will (most likely) be this misunderstanding.
If you suspect someone is doing this on purpose, you can check by looking at their patterns in similar circumstances. For example, people who use this bias to oppose the passage of laws they don’t like often don’t apply the same standards to laws they like. As always, the fact that someone made a complaint in good faith does not prove that the allegation is false or that the allegation is false (but see Disclosure of Malicious Intent and Evidence for the Inadmissibility of Someone’s False or False Claim). their rhetorical power.
Example 1
Hub: Oh my God, another school shooting. More than 20 people died this time. I know you say that every time there is a shooting, but Congress needs to do something. We need laws like Australia that have proven effective. Reduce homicides and suicides.
Terry: “When we think and pray for these families, we can never have enough laws to stop all evil.” Do this with your weapon.
Hub: “The law doesn’t have to completely solve the problem.”
Terry: “Hey, we can pass any law, but there will still be violence in the end.”
Hub: “So we don’t make laws?”
Terry: “Of course.”
Hub: “So the abortion ban should be repealed?”
Terry: “What? Nobody.”
Example number 2
Terry: “Thank you for passing the Anti-Survival Act. You are saving so many children. We must always put our children first.”
Herb: “Well, there may be good intentions behind this bill, but…”
Terry: “But what?”
Herb: “There are ideas and calls for those who oppose abortion, but laws can never be enough to stop all evil. Evil people don’t follow the law. So no matter how many laws we pass, those who want abortion will.” “
Terry: “The law doesn’t have to solve the problem perfectly.”
Herb: “Look, we can pass any law, but at the end of the day, abortion is still practiced.”
Terry: “So we don’t have legislation?”
Herb: “Of course.”
Terry: “So you want to repeal these gun control laws?”
Herb: “What? Nobody.”
