The inherent nature of employing logical fallacies is that the employer is pointing to a correlation, in the hope that they can convince you of causation. Caus

The inherent nature of employing logical fallacies is that the employer is pointing to a correlation, in the hope that they can convince you of causation. Causation is like a perfect happy path through a software application, whereas any single correlation is a singular path through the application. Out of all possible paths through a software application, vast amounts of those paths result in failure, whereas far fewer paths result in success. We can all agree that performing tests on the happy path is important, but inferior to 100% code coverage, if our eventual goal is to harden our software against failure, both malicious and accidental. The point I'm driving at is not that we should all become perfectly logical at every moment of our life, because the logical, bitter end of that is a world of sociopaths, completely devoid of any humanity, emotion, love, and all of the other things we can all agree are just as important as logic and reason. My point is that if we are in complete consensus about clickbait titles, with respect to subjects that we don't find interesting, yet are willing and able to defend clickbait titles when they happen to bait us in to clicking them, that is the perfect marriage of our ignorance and arrogance. If we can point out to less informed management that their desire to reduce friction along the happy path of software is _precisely_ what increases attack surfaces, why can't we see that same flaw in ourselves? The answer is not to rush to one extreme to prevent the other. The answer is to strike balance.