Nitpicker's Delight

So I started an LSAT prep class a few weeks ago. I think the whole concept of taking a class so that you can do better on a test that is supposed to measure your prowess at logic is ridiculous. I wish everyone would just walk into these types of exams and take the test. Isn’t that what was intended when the test was invented? It seems like instead of measuring how logical you are, it is measuring how well you prep for an exam. Different skill set, I think. Whatever. I can play the game. I didn’t throw the party, I just came to get down.

Today’s class was interesting. Not a whole lot of new info being shared, but we did quite a bit of practice with logic reasoning problems. Pretty straightforward. You read a very short passage and then answer a question or two about it. The important thing, as my instructor Brent Dunn explains, is to be very careful with the semantics of the statement and answers. If I tell you that some people like chocolate, that is very easy to agree with, as it is a weak assertion. By changing to most people like chocolate, I increase the burden of proof dramatically. If I say all people like it, then that is an easy argument to tear down. Never assume more than is asserted and always be sure that you understand when a certainty is clearly stated. We messed around with plenty of these types of words; probably, certainly, often, always, never, etc. You get the picture. If you are asking wtf is interesting about this the answer is pretty clear: nothing.

What I thought was interesting, however, was the point the instructor made when applying these types of wordings to real life situations. He explained that by picking apart these uses of language with those around us, as well as exaggerations in general, we would technically be correct but after a while nobody would want to hang out with you because you would be so annoying.

First of all, amen. Unless purely for comic effect, this type of behavior bugs. Even if it’s funny, the humor wears off fairly soon. I really didn’t have a second of all, but I like using the phrase “first of all.” The funny thing is that when we were discussing this, I realized that I have been well prepared in this area because it just so happens that I hang out with several people who thoroughly enjoy picking these nits. I get called out all the time for these types of exaggerations. Not that it has stopped me from spinning a yarn or two.

Let it be known that I do exaggerate. I enjoy telling stories but sometimes they are just ok and need that little extra juice to get em over the top. Nobody cares if some guy at the grocery store gave me a menacing stare, but they would care if we went toe to toe and almost came to blows. Does the truth suffer? Yes, it does. Heart wrenching as it may be, it does. But sometimes there are casualties when looking out for the greater good. And by greater good, I mean providing entertainment and laughs to those around me, all the while making me look good. Win-win.

Who cares about accuracy anyway? Not me, I can promise you that. Did George Washington really chop down a cherry tree or whip a fastball across the Potomac? Unlikely. Did the flawless face of Troy’s Helen actually launch a thousand ships? Don’t care. Did Wilt Chamberlain really... ok so I won’t go there. But you get the picture. Hyperbole is cool. Tall tales are so in. Always have been, and always will be. Give me a captivating lie over an uninteresting truth any day. It is, after all, the foundation upon which this great nation was built. George did indeed say it best, but he’s often misquoted. I cannot tell a lie?

Pretty sure he just meant boring ones.