There's a scene in the doc Born Rich where some obnoxious titled adolescent objects to Americans asking people what they do within moments of meeting. He acts as if it's an invasion of the deepeset privacy. Moreover, one apparently should be able to tell what a person "does" (i.e., does he or she have money) by their accents, their interests, their topics of conversation, etc.

When I've been unemployed for long stretches of time, one of the most depressing aspects of it was dreading going to parties or anywhere social because I had no answer to "What do you do?"

The logical fallacy is, um, I have forgot the latin name. But in science, you might call it correlation is not presumptive of causation.

Poor people who got ahead worked hard. Therefore, hard work is what gets one ahead. Double therefore, non-hard work is what causes a lack of getting ahead.

It is sort of like saying that because F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway had editors, and they are both dead, that editors are fatal.

(Or my personal favorite, on basis of eyebrow-absence, that Whoopi Goldberg is the Mona Lisa.)

When I've been unemployed for long stretches of time, one of the most depressing aspects of it was dreading going to parties or anywhere social because I had no answer to "What do you do?"

Word word WORD.

Given this discussion, I thought some of you might be interested in the (granted, old) link to the PBS documentary on social class in America, People Like Us: [link]

The documentary itself was incredibly revealing, to me at least. This site has even little games and such which supposedly help to peg your personal attitudes about the classes, as well.

The logical fallacy is, um, I have forgot the latin name. But in science, you might call it correlation is not presumptive of causation.

post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Poor people who got ahead worked hard. Therefore, hard work is what gets one ahead. Double therefore, non-hard work is what causes a lack of getting ahead.

OK, that makes sense. I wasn't sure what "can" meant in that context....

If your premise is false, all possible consequences may be considered true. Or so my Logic class truth tables led me to believe.

Though I don't now if I'm using the terms correctly.

Oh well, I'll post anyway. My boss is gone for the day, I have to make my own fun.

Quid post hoc, ergo propter hoc is what you're thinking.

If you're overwhelmed by that site, btw, I found the Teacher's Guide under the Resources tab a good way to get the overview of what is actually on the documentary.

(I used this documentary several years ago when discussing The Great Gatsby, so I don't have a clear memory of it. The teacher's guide was a helpful review.)

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Yes. After the thing, therefore because of the thing. Which is actually not a very specific way of expressing the concept, but who can pass up the opportunity for some latin?