Follow the Pointer
Facts Do Not Come With Permanent Arrows Attached
By now, we have spent a lot of time asking:
What does this point to?
Good.
Now add one more layer.
A fact does not have one permanent evidentiary job.
Its job depends on the question.
Take:
He desperately wants P to be true.
Relative to:
Is P true?
That may be neutral.
His desire cannot rearrange reality just to make him happy.
But relative to:
Is motivated reasoning a risk here?
Now the same fact matters.
A lot more.
Same observation.
Different proposition.
Different job.
The Arrow Belongs to the Relationship
This is important because people often talk as though a fact is simply:
Good evidence.
Bad evidence.
Strong evidence.
Weak evidence.
Evidence for.
Evidence against.
But those descriptions are incomplete until we add:
For what?
A fact becomes a pointer because of its relationship to a proposition.
Change the proposition and the evidentiary value may change too.
Sometimes dramatically.
One Fact Can Be Strong, Weak, or Neutral Depending on the Question
Suppose:
Marcus was seen leaving a bar at midnight.
Question one:
Was Marcus at that bar around midnight?
Strong pointer toward yes.
Question two:
Was Marcus drunk?
Maybe somewhat relevant, depending on what else you know.
Question three:
Did Marcus drive home drunk?
The fact alone may be weak.
Question four:
Is Marcus an irresponsible person?
Now you have jumped several floors without using the stairs.
Same fact.
Different destination.
Do not confuse the strength of the observation with the strength of every conclusion you can build around it.
A Fact Can Be a Pointer in One Place and an Indicator in Another
This is where the distinction from earlier lessons becomes especially useful.
Suppose someone has a large financial stake in a claim being believed.
Question:
Is the claim true?
The financial interest may be neutral or weak relative to the external proposition itself.
Question:
Should I inspect this person's presentation more carefully for selective framing or omission?
Now it functions as an indicator.
Again:
Same fact.
Different job.
You do not need to decide whether the fact is “real evidence” in the abstract.
Ask what it does relative to the question in front of you.
Social Agreement Can Change Jobs Too
Suppose:
Ten thousand people agree.
Question:
Is this belief widespread?
Very strong evidence.
Question:
Do many people publicly endorse this claim?
Also strong.
Question:
Has this claim been independently verified 10,000 times?
Not necessarily.
If all 10,000 people are repeating one original source, the agreement does a very different job.
Question:
Is there substantial social pressure around this issue?
Maybe the visible consensus itself becomes relevant there.
Same observation.
Several possible destinations.
The number did not change.
The question did.
Emotion Works the Same Way
Suppose someone becomes furious when accused.
Question:
Are they angry?
Strong pointer toward yes.
Question:
Do they feel attacked?
Probably relevant.
Question:
Are they guilty?
Weak or neutral by itself.
Question:
Is this conversation currently in a state where careful reasoning is becoming harder?
Now the anger may be a useful indicator.
You do not need to erase the emotional reaction.
You need to stop asking it to answer questions it cannot answer.
Even Absence Can Change Jobs
Suppose your friend has not replied to a message for twelve hours.
Question:
Have they replied yet?
Strong evidence toward no.
Question:
Are they busy?
Possible.
Question:
Are they angry with you?
Much less clear.
Question:
Are they ending the friendship?
That is a much larger claim.
The silence is real.
Its evidentiary value depends on the proposition.
The brain may experience the silence as one giant glowing fact.
Your job is to separate the questions hiding underneath it.
Do Not Let a Useful Fact Become Universal Currency
Once a fact proves useful somewhere, the brain may start spending it everywhere.
You learn:
“He lied about this.”
That may strongly bear on:
Did he tell the truth about this event?
It may also bear somewhat on:
How much confidence should I place in his unsupported claims right now?
Reasonable.
But if you jump immediately to:
Everything he has ever said is false.
He is incapable of honesty.
Nothing about the relationship was real.
you have let one valid pointer become universal currency.
Evidence does not become infinitely spendable because it was strong once.
The Same Fact Can Legitimately Support Different Questions
The opposite is also true.
One observation can bear on multiple propositions for different reasons.
Suppose someone repeatedly misses important commitments.
That may bear on:
Whether they are currently reliable about scheduling.
Whether another missed commitment is more likely.
Whether you should use a backup plan.
Whether there is a larger problem worth discussing.
That does not mean all of those conclusions are equally strong.
It means one fact can enter several models when there is an actual evidentiary connection.
The rule is not:
One fact, one question.
The rule is:
Every arrow has to earn its destination.
Ask the Full Question
When a fact feels powerful, try this:
Do not ask:
“Is this evidence?”
Ask:
“What is this evidence for?”
Then:
How strongly?
Toward or away?
Pointer or indicator?
Would the same observation be expected if the competing explanation were true?
Does this fact tell me something about the world?
The reasoning process?
The source?
My own state?
Several of those at once?
Now the evidence has somewhere to go.
Do Not Permanently Label the Fact
This chapter began with a simple problem:
Facts wander.
They get aimed at the wrong propositions.
Indicators get mistaken for verdicts.
Real pointers get dismissed because they do not constitute proof.
One dramatic observation votes in six different elections.
The correction is not to memorize a giant table of facts labeled:
POINTER.
INDICATOR.
NEUTRAL.
The correction is to inspect the relationship.
What is the proposition?
What does this fact actually bear on?
The same information may do one job here and another job somewhere else.
That is not inconsistency.
That is higher resolution.
Follow the Pointer
Chapter 2 has been about keeping evidence attached to the question it can actually answer.
Desire cannot rearrange reality.
Pointers bear on propositions.
Indicators tell you something about the inspection conditions.
Evidence has a destination.
True pointers move estimates without becoming verdicts.
False pointers send real facts toward the wrong conclusions.
And one fact can do different jobs depending on what you are asking.
So when something important appears, do not just ask:
Is this evidence?
Ask:
Evidence of what?
Then follow the pointer.