What Fallacies

“YES! We need to kill this idea that hierarchy is somehow inherently outdated and ‘bad’ (and the cousin of this argument, that networks are modern and ‘good’.) There can by tyranny not just in structurelessness, but in hierarchies, networks and any other organisation structure that humans care to invent.

Better ways to conceptualise human organisation can help limit some of the damage caused by certain human drives and behaviours. Yet ultimately it’s the development of human minds that has the largest impact on the outputs and impacts of a system.

I think of both networks and hierarchies as very natural structures. Hierarchies appear in many places in nature, including in human endeavours. Especially so in creative initiatives where you see a natural hierarchy of an overall vision deconstructing into a nested pattern of ever more specific visions. At each step you find an individual with natural creative authority over that part of the vision. Not power over people, but authorship.

We can debate whether or not we like the idea of that being the case (the concept of ‘shared vision’ is appealing, if flawed!) I find it more useful to accept nature as-is, and work consciously with it. Starting by mapping what’s there, and nurturing authors to be more compassionate, aware and vulnerable. Or even just to be better listeners.” 

What fallacies are being used here? Given the concept of the argument from fallacy? If fallacies exist in this, does that necessarily make him wrong? 

Well, let's break out our trusty Fallacy Detector and see what we find.

First up, there's the potential False Dichotomy fallacy. The writer is insisting that hierarchies must be either 'bad' or 'good', 'outdated' or 'modern'. Have a quick look around, and you'll find life rarely deals in absolites. Yet, in this case, hierarchies are apparently auditioning for a Star Wars role - they have to be on either the light or the dark side!

There's also an element of the Naturalistic Fallacy, assuming that because hierarchies and networks appear naturally, they must be somehow desirable. Listen, if we stuck with just what comes naturally, we'd all be wearing loincloths, hunting mammoths, and updating our rock-based living arrangements.

Lastly, we have the lovely Proportional Fallacy, suggesting the development of human minds and their effect on systems is somehow inversely proportional or lesser to the structures they create. But, if my yoga class has taught me anything, it’s that our minds are all-powerful and infinitely stretching (unlike my hamstrings unfortunately).

As for the Argument from Fallacy, our dear author might be feeling pretty smug right now, but just because they've committed a few logical missteps doesn't automatically render their main argument false. Remember, even a broken clock is right twice a day! Not that anyone uses clocks anymore... a better analogy might be: even a buffering Netflix show eventually finishes loading (unless your wifi is like mine...but that's another argument).