Starting with the wrong premise

I went on a backpacking trip to Si Chuan in China a few weeks ago (29 Aug to 5 Sept. Yup, I haven't blog about that trip yet. Feeling a bit lazy about it).

As usual, I was backpacking, though honestly, this wasn't very rough trip. Travelling with me was a friend who was backpacking for the first time. I had warned him many times about how I travel, but we still ran into a bit of friction during the trip.

One of the arguments we got into was air-conditioning. For my backpack trips, I always stay in guesthouses, and that typically means fan-rooms (no air-conditioning), shared bathrooms and toilets, and no hot showers.

When we got an fan room in Chengdu, my friend wasn't too happy about it. He argued that airconditioning only costs an extra 10yuan per person (Singapore $2) per night, and there was no reason to "suffer" for the want of saving that $2. Before I countered back, he went, "yes, yes, yes. I know, you've said it. We are backpacking."

I did not argue back. It wasn't just because he already said what I was going to say. But honestly, I do find his reasoning "logical", and I did find an argument like "we are backpacking" sounding pretty hollow. Yet, I found there was something problematic. As logical as he reasoning might be, I could not embrace it.

The next day, we did switch to an airconditioned room when one become available. I just wasn't going to argue over a trival thing. Not for a mere $2. (It would be a different matter if it costs $50 more per night).

But I could not help thinking about what's wrong with the argument. It took me quite a while to figure it out. That was when I found what I had learned in a recent course on Critical Thinking pretty useful.

What was wrong was not the logic or conclusion. What was wrong was the "premise".

Here what I learned from the Critical Thinking course, a "premise" is a set fact or assumption. For a given set of premises, a conclusion is either logical or illogical. If it is logical, then you can't argue against it.

Here's the premises my friend started with:
- airconditioning only costs an additional SGD$2 per person per night
- we all could more than afford that amount of money
- no aircon = suffering

Hence his conclusion was : it does not make sense not to take the aircon room and suffering for not spending an additional $2.

I must say that for the given premises, his conclusion was perfectly logical and I could not argue with that.

This is when it becomes clear to me why I can't accept his reasoning: it wasn't the logic. It was the premise. I do not share the premise that "no aircon = suffering"! I do not have aircon at home. I am used to sleeping without airconditioning. I don't even switch on the fan unless the heat becomes unbearable!

Thus, the premises for me are like this:
- I don't need airconditioning
- using aircon costs another $2
- using aircon increases my carbon footprint

Thus, my conclusion is "using airconditioning is not necessary and thus wasteful". And my conclusion is logical too.

So what so significant about this understanding? Well, I finally realised why some times we find other so "illogical" or we don't understand why others can't accept our arguments when we are so "logical". The problem is we start with the wrong premise. Or rather, we start with the premises which are valid for us and forgot that perhaps other people do not share the same premises.

Thus, from my friend's point of view, he could not understand why I chose to "suffer", because he started with the premise that "no-aircon=suffering". For me, I thought he was just being pampered and wasteful because I had not understood it was "suffering" to him.

Once I understood that, I was more forgiving towards his demand for airconditioning.

This episode also highlighted to me "suffering" is really subjective and is a matter of how we choose to react to the circumstances.