The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Devil is in the Details

Introduction

The Devil is in the Details is a truism that must always be remembered when considering an issue in our personal, work-related, or public lives. In this article, I wish to consider three devils: The Big Picture, The Details, The Bottom Line, and the four devilish Issues and concerns of Presumptions and Assumptions, The Debatable, The Verbal versus the Written, and The Philosophical versus the Practicable.

To spot the devils, you must understand the structure of the reasoning to understand the validity of the reasoning, as I have examined in my Article on "Reasoning". A reasoning that is unstructured is difficult to evaluate, and thus it is difficult to accept the conclusion. The proper structure of reasoning is 1). The Premises (The Big Picture), 2). The Arguments (The Details), and 3). The Conclusions (The Bottom Line). People will often intermix these items, which will give rise to misunderstandings and confusion, which often leads to the devil as it is often very difficult to untangle the reasoning. It is the responsibility of the person stating the reasoning to structure their reasoning properly. Anyone who is unwilling or unable to do this deserves little attention, as they are exhibiting a lack of intelligent acumen that makes their conclusion untenable.

The Big Picture

When people ask for The Big Picture, it is not only for an understanding of what is to be discussed and resolved but is also often done to avoid the details, as they often wish to skip over The Details to reach The Bottom Line. This is often done for brevity purposes, as the details not only take time to discuss but also the time necessary to analyze the details. Many people do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to understand the full scope of the big picture, and therefore, the details are necessary to understand the big picture. The Big Picture is required to set the premises of any discussion, but The Details are required to affirm The Big Picture and The Bottom Line.

Often, assumptions and presumptions are embedded into The Big Picture, which are hidden devils that should properly be in The Details. It is very important the Big Picture is properly set to analyze the Details to reach a proper Bottom Line. It is also true that in obtaining the details, you may discover any false, misleading, or forgotten premises. Consequently, The Big Picture without The Details often leads to an erroneous Bottom Line.

The Details

The details are the crux of all the devils. Details often have assumptions and presumptions contained within them, and assumptions and presumptions are often incorrect or wrong and the work of the devil. Consequently, all assumptions within the details must be challenged to ascertain their validity. Details can also contain incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information that will lead you astray, and you will reach the wrong Bottom Line. In the details, you may also encounter the problems of Formal and Informal Logic, and a logical argument that has faulty logic will produce an incorrect Bottom Line. The Details also require that people have the knowledge, intelligence, "Reasoning" and "Rationality" skills to analyze the details. As many people do not have one, some, or all of these skills, it is possible to sneak in the devil to obtain the wrong Bottom Line.

Formal logic may contain the problems of Logical Fallacies and/or Cognitive Biases that may be difficult to detect for people without knowledge and experience in Formal Logic. But Logical Fallacies and/or Cognitive Biases will invalidate The Bottom Line. Informal logic arguments also need to be deconstructed properly to be analyzed correctly, a skill that is difficult for people without knowledge and experience in Informal Logic. An incorrect deconstruction can lead you astray, and it usually leads to an incorrect Bottom Line.

Any arguments that do not have the proper information and correct formal or informal logic will allow the devils to do their work. Therefore, it is imperative that you verify the veracity, appropriateness, correctness, and completeness of the details to reach a sound Bottom Line.

The Bottom Line

Skipping the details and proceeding to the bottom line seems to be de rigueur in today's society. Often it is done for brevity to get to the ‘meat” or “heart” of the matter. However, The Bottom Line of faulty premises and improper details leads to the wrong conclusions. Consequently, the Bottom Line cannot be properly ascertained until you have a proper Big Picture and The Details are correct. The devil will also slip assumptions and presumptions into The Bottom Line, which properly belongs in The Big Picture or The Details. Therefore, I am not a bottom-line type of person until after I have verified the veracity and correctness of The Big Picture and The Details. The Bottom Line not only requires the proper conclusions from The Big Picture and The Details, but it must also contain the impacts of implementing the Bottom Line.

Those who wish to skip over the details to reach the bottom line are prone to make mistakes and, thus, faulty decisions. Faulty decisions that could have deleterious consequences for yourself and others. When the bottom line approach is utilized for public policy or to craft laws and regulations, it will always lead to the “The Law of Unintended Consequences” and its perverse and possible ruinous effects. In public policy, these impacts are not only upon the government but also affect society and individual Liberties and Freedoms.

If you wish to dispute The Bottom Line, the best means to accomplish this is to dispute the premises, assumptions, and presumptions, the correctness and completeness of the details, the logical fallacies, and the cognitive biases contained within The Big Picture and The Details which lead to The Bottom Line. However, to do this, you must first examine the devils in the details to dispute the bottom line. Therefore, never accept a bottom line until you are sure there are no Devils in the Details.

Issues and Concerns

In disputing The Bottom Line, there will be controversy. Much of that controversy is on presumptions and assumptions, what is debatable, imperfections and misunderstanding of verbal and textual communications, and the desire to achieve the perfect at the expense of the practicable. It is here that the devil takes an active part in the discussions.

Presumptions and Assumptions

The overriding issue and concern are in the Presumptions and Assumptions that we bring in considering an issue and any discussion that we undertake. Our inherent Presumptions and Assumptions are often based on our knowledge and life experience but often have not been arrived at through thoughtful consideration. Without thoughtful consideration, we often presume that other people share our presumptions, or we assume that other people have the same assumptions, and therefore we can take the quick and easy path to a conclusion. Alas, presumptions are rarely shared; to ASSUME is to make an ASS out of U and ME; and the quick and easy often leads to being wrong. Consequently, don’t presume or assume but thoughtfully examine the Devil in the Details before you reach a conclusion or decide upon a course of action.

Another presumption we often make is that other people attach the same relative importance as we do to the items in The Big Picture, The Details, and The Bottom Line. This is rarely so, as each person’s knowledge and life experience are different, and each person’s rationality, and thoughtfulness on the intended and unintended consequences, varies. On societal issues, the political viewpoints of each person come into play when they evaluate the importance of an item. Consequently, we can all reach a different Bottom Line and disagree as to what actions are proper based on The Bottom Line. And, as always, the devil plays a part in this presumption.

The Debatable

“That’s debatable” is often a statement that starts an argument. An argument that is usually not based on facts and reasoning and that often very quickly devolves into acrimony. An argument that usually consists of statements of someone’s bottom-line beliefs. Reasoning is rarely the basis for an argument, but without examining the facts and the reasoning of the issue, the argument will accomplish little except self-satisfaction or bitterness.

Most political debates today do not provide intellectual discourse on an issue, and visceral reactions are often utilized to score points. Visceral reactions are often emotionally based and not intellectually based reactions, and they can be accomplished with very little effort or time. An intellectual discourse on the issue requires facts, reasoning, and thoughtfulness, with enough time to explain and think about an issue. In today’s world, we want everything done quickly, and we do not wish to spend much time or effort required to provide illumination on an issue, and visceral reactions are quick and easy. Intellectual enlightenment, however, would reveal the devil in the details and help us to better understand the issues.

This is usually true in television discussions or debates that feature a point and counter-point panel discussion. Due to the constraints of television advertising, this discussion or debate is often limited to a short segment (usually about seven minutes) before cutting to an advertisement, then going onto another subject or issue. Intellectual enlightenment is very difficult to accomplish in a few minutes, but a visceral reaction can be invoked in a few seconds. Challenges to the facts or reasoning of someone’s argument are therefore cut short because of these time restraints. But it is in these challenges that Intellectual enlightenment is often achieved. When television does interview an individual person, they often jump from issue to issue within one or multiple time segments, thus not providing much Intellectual enlightenment on a single issue. Within this time constraint, there is insufficient time to present the facts and reasoning, as well as many of the facts are ignored or glossed over if they contravene the speaker’s contentions. Given the above, these types of debates are more entertainment rather than informative.

The other problems with modern political debates are discussed in my Articles "A Civil Society", "Criticism vs. Critique", "Dialog & Debate", and "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". These articles contain quite a long list of problems because there are many problems with modern political debates. These other problems are not good for the body politic, as it is difficult to understand or reach a consensus on an issue without "Rationality" and "Reasoning" followed by "Beyond Rationality and Reasoning", which the preceding other problems stifle. And without rationality and reasoning followed by beyond rationality and reasoning in modern political debates, it is not possible to determine the devil in the details nor resolve the issue.

The Verbal versus the Written

All too often, we Americans obtain our information through cursory verbal or textual communications (i.e., e-mails, text messages, tweets, blog posts, etc.) rather than thoughtful speeches, presentations, or the written words of articles and books. We also obtain our information via modern political debate, which is far more heated than illuminative, as previously discussed. This is unfortunate, as cursory verbal or textual communications in modern political debate are often limited in time and scope and, just as often, it lacks sustenance. Cursory verbal or textual communications are often disjointed and contain fewer facts and details than a thoughtful speech, presentation, or the written word. Verbal communications in an open forum are often interrupted, leading to a discontinuity of reasoning and thought. Verbal communications in a video or audio are often messages rather than information. And we often only listen to cursory verbal or textual communications that reaffirm our own ideas or beliefs. Cursory verbal or textual communications, and modern dialog and debate, are also bereft of details that effectively hide the devils.

A thoughtful speech or a presentation, or thoughtfully written words, often negates these problems. But a thoughtful speech, presentation, or the written word requires significant time to convey information, time that Americans seem unwilling to invest. A thoughtful speech or presentation is better than cursory verbal or textual communication, but the written word is the best means to communicate thoroughly. It is this written word I wish to opine upon, but these statements can also be applied to a thoughtful speech or presentation (but not always, as my article “The Troubles with TED Talks“ elucidates).

Properly done, thoughtfully written communications can often overcome the limitations of cursory verbal or textual communication. The author often expends considerable effort to present the pertinent facts in a logical and reasonable manner. A good author will also examine their writings for logical fallacies and cognitive biases to ensure that their contentions are correct, as elucidated in my Observation “Reasoning”. A good author will also not ignore nor gloss over any facts that may contravene their contentions but examine these contravening facts. This is a major difference between good and bad writing; correct, pertinent, and contravening facts, proper reasoning, and the elimination of logical fallacies and cognitive biases define good from bad writing.

A proper reading of the written word is also necessary—for if you can read well, you can discern the correct and pertinent facts, contravening facts, the logical constructs of their line of reasoning, the reasonableness of their contentions, and any logical fallacies or cognitive biases that may be incorporated in their writing. You will also gain a better understanding of the issue and a better understanding of the reasoning that led to the conclusion.

Both a well-written and proper reading will overcome the limitations of cursory verbal or textual communication. A good write or a good read will also make your verbal communications more informative and persuasive. Good reading and writing will also often reveal the Devil in the Details.

The Philosophical versus the Practicable

In my Articles and Observations, I have often waxed philosophically along with being practicable. This can often lead you to believe that there is a dichotomy in my thoughts. But there is no such dichotomy. Before I become practicable, I will muse philosophically, then base my practicability on my philosophical thoughts. If there is a dichotomy between the two, I will try to first resolve it philosophically before being practicable. Thinking philosophically is also the best path to becoming a wiser person.

But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to become wise without reading extensively inside and outside of your current arenas of knowledge, and both the pro and cons of your beliefs, then thinking about what you have read. This is not an easy thing to accomplish and requires time and effort on your part. Waxing philosophically is the most effective way of thinking as thinking philosophically focuses and organizes your thoughts in a manner that helps you reach a sound conclusion that avoids the devil in the details. Becoming more familiar with logical fallacies and cognitive biases also assists you in your thinking and help you recognize the devil in the details. If you recall history, the wisest persons were almost always philosophical or theological, as all good theologians are philosophical, but not all good philosophers are theological. Becoming philosophical is not an easy thing to accomplish, and it requires that you examine the wisdom of others, both current and historical, to obtain wisdom.

To resolve something philosophically makes it much easier to reach a practicable decision. If you know who, what, when, where, and why then you can better determine how to achieve your objective. The questions of “who, what, when, where, and why” often need to be resolved philosophically. The question of “how” is the practical solution that is best based on philosophical answers. This requires that you “Think About Things” employing "Rationality" and "Reasoning" along with "Beyond Rationality and Reasoning", then utilizing your “Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom” and “With Facts, Intelligence, And Reasoning” to determine the best how.

Sometimes, however, the philosophical cannot be practicable, or the practicable conflicts with the philosophical. It’s called life. In such cases, it is best to try to determine what is more important of the moral, ethical, or legal thing to do to reach a practicable solution. This approach may not always be perfect, but what in life is perfect? I simply try to do my best, given the circumstances. When this happens, I often find myself humming “Que Sera Sera”.

Today’s bitter political "Hyper-Partisanship" is often rooted in the philosophical questions of the role and responsibilities of government in society, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". If we could answer this question, and determine how we wish to proceed, then we may become less bitter and perhaps less partisan. But this question is not often brought forth in political discussion and has been a contentious issue since the founding of America. Rather, wedge issues are created based on this question to divide and conquer the American electorate.

A proper philosophical foundation for your practicable solution helps in the resolution of the practical implementation of your solution. It will also help with the determination and elimination of the Devil in the Details of your solution.

Conclusions

When I was in middle age, I gained much more knowledge and experience than I had in my youth. My deficiency was in wisdom. Wisdom is obtained by aggregating this knowledge and experience in a philosophical manner so as to achieve wisdom, as I have examined in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom". It is very difficult, if not impossible, to become wise without reading extensively outside of your current areas of knowledge, and both the pro and cons of your beliefs, then waxing philosophically on what you have learned. This was not an easy thing to accomplish and requires both time and effort on your part. It also requires that you examine the wisdom of others, both current and historical, to obtain greater wisdom. I am still deficient in wisdom, but I have obtained more wisdom throughout my life, and I am always making an effort to become wiser.

Many intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced persons are not wise, as they have not made an effort to become wise, thinking that wisdom is the result of intelligence, knowledge, and experience. It is not, as it also requires thoughtfulness. Many wise persons are not as intelligent, knowledgeable, or experienced as others, but they have applied their intelligence, knowledge, experience, and thoughtfulness to become wise. And a truly wise person always pays attention and incorporates the wisdom of other wise persons.

My wisdom gained has shown me that you must properly formulate The Big Picture and provide The Details before reaching The Bottom Line. It has also shown me that to proceed directly to the bottom line is to take the quick and easy way out that, often, reach a false conclusion. My wisdom has also shown that to utilize cursory verbal or textual communications as a basis for your beliefs or ideas is also quick and easy, but it ignores the devil in the details and often does not often resolve a problem but very often adds to a problem. Therefore, always examine The Devil in the Details before reaching any conclusions and undertaking any actions.