[Industrialblog,
April 27, 2004]
Levels of abstraction
In the post below I objected to the term "choice" on the grounds that choice is too high up on the hierarchy of abstraction to properly describe the "pro-choice" position.
What I'm referring to is simply the categorization of concepts. At the lower levels, we have specific words that are often quite accurate. At the top, we have very general categories: choice, life, freedom, justice, that encompass broad fields of vision. In the middle we have various levels of middle management words, just like in a corporation.
I object to categorizing people who are in favor of legal abortion as "pro-abortion." That's a misrepresentation of their position. The actual position might be accurately described as, "You as a pregnant woman have a right to privacy concerning the disposition of the gestating human within you." More colloquially, "you as a pregnant woman have the right to tell people to butt out when it comes to your pregnancy."
I also have little use for people who call people who are against abortion as, "anti-choice." That's a misrepresentation of the position. The actual position might be accurately described as, "That gestating human within you has some rights, or at the very least one right, the right to life, and if you the pregnant woman do not protect that gestating human within you, then we as a community will take steps to protect the life from you."
As you can see, the accurate descriptions makes both sides seem a lot less nefarious. One thing I try to do here at Industrial Blog is unpack professional rhetoric, manipulative debate and spin — lies are often embedded cleverly in a debate, and if you don't spot the lies, you'll draw the wrong conclusions. One way spin is spun is by manipulating the level of abstraction.
Simply put, you start with a specific example, and then zoom out — that is, expand your field of vision outward and outward until you come to a general category no one could possibly be against. Freedom. Justice. Love. Then categorize people who are against your specific example against the broader concept.
So when it comes to abortion, ten levels of abstraction might go from specific to general something like this: 10. this abortion. 9. abortion. 8. choosing abortion. 7. legal issues of choosing abortion, a/k/a privacy. 6. legal issues of choosing medical procedures, a/k/a medical privacy. 5. legal issues concerning choosing anything. 4. legal issues concerning human freedom (i.e., rights). 3. human freedom. 2. life. 1. existence.
Pro-choicers' language indicates that they are at abstraction level 5, while implying abstraction levels 4 and 3. They are not.
How do we know? The test is applicability. Broad concepts are applicable to everything under them in the hierarchy. Choice as it is used by pro-choicers doesn't apply even to abstraction level 6. Minors cannot have surgery without permission but for abortion. Which puts the pro-choice argument at abstraction level 7: legal issues of choosing abortion.
Now that's all well and good, being at abstraction level seven. Fine. Let's keep the discussion there. Problems occur, and millions of people engage in the kind of hysterical rhetoric of last weekend in D.C., when they zoom out from level 7 to level 4 and act like their opponents are against level 4, or hell, 3, 2, and 1.
And if you notice, often the very people who use this kind of categorical manipulation are the very same people who attack hierarchical thinking. My response: If you don't like hierarchical thinking, don't use a PC. The file system is EVIL. Use only mainframes. That file system is nice and egalitarian. And if you can't afford it, well, too bad.
*****
Take-home: If you feel like you're being manipulated, but aren't sure how, you're probably right. Sometimes, you have to listen to your instincts. Inspect the tools of spin: analogy is one of the most effective, but manipulating categories (through the level of abstraction) is another.
Here is the classic example:
Who's with me?
What I'm referring to is simply the categorization of concepts. At the lower levels, we have specific words that are often quite accurate. At the top, we have very general categories: choice, life, freedom, justice, that encompass broad fields of vision. In the middle we have various levels of middle management words, just like in a corporation.
I object to categorizing people who are in favor of legal abortion as "pro-abortion." That's a misrepresentation of their position. The actual position might be accurately described as, "You as a pregnant woman have a right to privacy concerning the disposition of the gestating human within you." More colloquially, "you as a pregnant woman have the right to tell people to butt out when it comes to your pregnancy."
I also have little use for people who call people who are against abortion as, "anti-choice." That's a misrepresentation of the position. The actual position might be accurately described as, "That gestating human within you has some rights, or at the very least one right, the right to life, and if you the pregnant woman do not protect that gestating human within you, then we as a community will take steps to protect the life from you."
As you can see, the accurate descriptions makes both sides seem a lot less nefarious. One thing I try to do here at Industrial Blog is unpack professional rhetoric, manipulative debate and spin — lies are often embedded cleverly in a debate, and if you don't spot the lies, you'll draw the wrong conclusions. One way spin is spun is by manipulating the level of abstraction.
Simply put, you start with a specific example, and then zoom out — that is, expand your field of vision outward and outward until you come to a general category no one could possibly be against. Freedom. Justice. Love. Then categorize people who are against your specific example against the broader concept.
So when it comes to abortion, ten levels of abstraction might go from specific to general something like this: 10. this abortion. 9. abortion. 8. choosing abortion. 7. legal issues of choosing abortion, a/k/a privacy. 6. legal issues of choosing medical procedures, a/k/a medical privacy. 5. legal issues concerning choosing anything. 4. legal issues concerning human freedom (i.e., rights). 3. human freedom. 2. life. 1. existence.
Pro-choicers' language indicates that they are at abstraction level 5, while implying abstraction levels 4 and 3. They are not.
How do we know? The test is applicability. Broad concepts are applicable to everything under them in the hierarchy. Choice as it is used by pro-choicers doesn't apply even to abstraction level 6. Minors cannot have surgery without permission but for abortion. Which puts the pro-choice argument at abstraction level 7: legal issues of choosing abortion.
Now that's all well and good, being at abstraction level seven. Fine. Let's keep the discussion there. Problems occur, and millions of people engage in the kind of hysterical rhetoric of last weekend in D.C., when they zoom out from level 7 to level 4 and act like their opponents are against level 4, or hell, 3, 2, and 1.
And if you notice, often the very people who use this kind of categorical manipulation are the very same people who attack hierarchical thinking. My response: If you don't like hierarchical thinking, don't use a PC. The file system is EVIL. Use only mainframes. That file system is nice and egalitarian. And if you can't afford it, well, too bad.
*****
Take-home: If you feel like you're being manipulated, but aren't sure how, you're probably right. Sometimes, you have to listen to your instincts. Inspect the tools of spin: analogy is one of the most effective, but manipulating categories (through the level of abstraction) is another.
Here is the classic example:
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests — we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the actions of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!
Who's with me?
It would be more concise, however, to categorize people who are not pro-abortion, exactly, as anti-anti-abortion.
Ironically, of course, they're also often the people who will start screaming if people were to abort only female children. For example, feminists are often not happy with the way abortion is practiced in India.
And just imagine the fun if homosexuality turns out to be genetic and detectable, and people start aborting their homosexual babies en mass.