Rufusing to acnowledge real human behaviour.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
It might be great if we could just set a speed limit and expect it to work rather than basing speed limits on the speed most people drive at, but we know it doesn't. To me I'd conclude that there's no point setting them based on political pressure from locals etc.
To some people, that doesn't seem to matter. I argue that if you set them incorrectly it does very little to reduce speed, it does however massively increase non-compliance, I'll give examples of roads with as much as 97% non-compliance and I give an explanation based on behavioural phycology. My argument also is that setting a law so universally disregarded has a detrimental effect not just on the speed limits but also the law in general.
To some people it just doesn't seem to matter how high the non-compliance or average speed was because they were breaking the law, all my attempts at explaining what exacerbates non-compliance can be dismissed as apologetics for law breaking, therefore my argument is invalid.
No example I could give made any difference because I couldn't give an example of a physical force making people speed, they just shouldn't be speeding and the law is the law.
I know that's circular reasoning, that's not the fallacy I'm after, I'm not sure if this is really a fallacy per se, more it's a way of thinking where by it doesn't really seem to matter what really happens in reality, all that matters is that it would work if everyone just obeyed the law that was set, therefore we should ignore the non-compliance and set the rules that way anyway.
Another example could be communism, sounds great on paper, in reality, real world human behaviour seems to stop it from working. Or even prohibition on drug, when's that going to start working? It would work if people just stopped using drugs when you banned them, but we know it doesn't. A good example also would be alcohol prohibition in the US, that would have worked if banning it meant people wouldn't seek a drink any-more.
Even to an extent FPtP voting, I've known someone dismiss my point about how in incentivizes and rewards people for voting dishonestly because "Well, people should just vote honestly".
It could be summarised with I don't care how real world behaviour really is, I just know what it should be and I will set the rules based on that. Not really a fallacy, but is there a word for that?
Comments on Question
You write: "I argue that if you set them incorrectly it does very little to reduce speed, it does however massively increase non-compliance."
That is as an argument you are putting forward to strengthen your point, but where is the data? How do you know that speed limits do very little to reduce speed? As for myself, I reduce or increase my speed based on the limit posted, and I observe that most people do likewise.
Answers
3It seems like this blindspot could be the result of a few different cognitive biases at play, and the Sunk Cost Fallacy keeps it going. If this is done to keep revenue streaming in then it would be a whole different set of cognitive biases at play.
I don't see a logical issue here as much as a policy issue. In my experience, speed limits are set at what 80% of the drivers actually drive. There are various explanations, but the fact so many people drive at that speed indicates the speed is generally safe and lessens political influence.
This might be best described by in principle but not in practice . It is a multidisciplinary concept that begins with a logical/reasonable rule, tests it in the real world, and fails. As you alluded to, this is often due to the unpredictable complexity of human behavior. To say that one cares more about the rule than the outcome could have to do with one's moral positioning. For example, a virtue ethicist might suggest that we can never kill and innocent person to save thousands. In principle, not killing innocent people is a good idea, but in practice it might not always deliver the best possible outcome.
Overall, I don't see any fallacy; just different worldviews.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
The way I read this, it appears "R(e)fusing to ac(k)nowledge real human behavio(u)r" is being put forward as a possible fallacy. The speed limit and communism examples may be presented as supportive.
I suggest re-writing the question/observation/proposal, as it is not entirely clear, and potentially very broad.
To further muddy the water, and potentially go off point, the relatively recent field of behavioral economics may be what you are hinting at here. I am not prepared to argue this point, but I will postulate that many human behaviors are not understood to the level necessary to apply the tools of rhetorical fallacy. In other words, we are beginning to 'know ourselves' to an extent that we might recognize the 'rational consumer' models are largely a relic.