S’porious Logic #1: n=I

This is a series inspired by the illogic of some common arguments put forth by Singaporeans in the arena of public opinion and debate. ‘S’porious’ is a play on both ‘spurious’ (not valid) and ‘porous’ (full of holes) with ‘serious’ and ‘S’porean’. It sounds horrible, I know, but that is precisely the point, the illogic is horrible too.

Class 95FM was discussing the fresh ballyhoo about schoolwork during the mid-year holidays this morning and a listener texted in his view that school holidays should be kept free of schoolwork and kids allowed to play since he turned out well doing just that growing up. The argument that I turned out well playing during the holidays, so all kids should be allowed to play during the holidays is a fine example of ‘s’porious’ logic. Let me re-work the argument to remove the s’porious logic.

1. This is akin to making an opinion based on n=1 (sample size of 1), or rather n=I. Nothing wrong if it is a personal opinion that you keep to yourself:
   
   I turned out well playing during the holidays, so I should be allowed to play during the holidays if I am allowed to relive my life with all else being equal.
   
   But it can’t be applied to everyone else, and so it can’t be stated. We thus have to limit the claim to state the opinion.
   
   
2. This n=I opinion may apply to people similar to the opinion-maker:
   
   I turned out well playing during the holidays, so kids who are very much like me when I was a kid in terms of socio-economic status, cultural beliefs, psychological make-up, etc. should be allowed to play during the holidays.
   
   The problem is that the opinion-maker is probably a middle-aged dude (assuming most common type listening to 95FM), and today’s kids are really quite different from kids growing up in the 1970s/80s.
   
   
3. The n=I opinion makes a very premature assumption that the opinion-maker has turned out well, for the detrimental effects of excessive playing during the holidays may very well kick in when he is 40, 50 or 60. So assuming that the opinion maker is 35, it would be less s’porious to argue that
   
   I have turned out well so far playing during the holidays, so kids who are very much like me when I was a kid in terms of etc. etc. and who have a lifespan of 35 should be allowed to play during the holidays.
   
   
4. It should be obvious by now that this n=I opinion is so egoistical, untenable and ridiculous, to the extent that only someone at his/her deathbed can make such a claim and only applicable to people who are similar to him/her. But then no matter what the opinion-maker think of himself, his family and friends who know him well may think differently, and n=those who know me well is way better than n=I. In this light, the proper claim would be (notice that it is no longer n=I):
   
   If the consensus among my family and friends after I have passed away is that I have turned out reasonably well playing during holidays, then kids who are very much like me when I was a kid in terms of etc. etc. and who have the same lifespan as me should be allowed to play during the holidays.
   

Try texting that early in the morning.