Competencies and Learning Objectives:
- Knowing common logical fallacies and their definitions.
- Knowing how logical fallacies negatively affect your relationships.
- Knowing how logical fallacies negatively affect your thinking.
- Knowing how logical fallacies negatively affect your dreams.
- Learning effective strategies for eliminating logical fallacies.
- Learning effective strategies for recognizing and countering logical fallacies used by others. .
Recognizing and countering logical fallacies requires both awareness and tact. The “awareness” part can be learned by studying the different fallacies, learning to recognize them, and not falling for them. The “tact” dimension is much more difficult because people typically take it personally if you call them on their logical fallacies. They tend to feel insulted and that you are telling them that they do not know how to think logically and rationally, which, in fact, is what you are doing. Therefore, focus first on not committing them yourself and secondly on recognizing or getting embroiled in a false argument. Avoid directly pointing out logical fallacies in others because that will almost certainly evoke a defensive reaction and a hardening of position.
Familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies, some of which we discuss below, because understanding them makes it easier to spot them when they occur. Pay close attention to the arguments being presented by others, looking for any flaws in reasoning or logical inconsistencies. A bonus from learning to do so is very much like that for the Drama Triangle: as you learn to identify when others are in the role of Persecutor, Victim, or Rescuer you increase your own ability to “wake up” and recognize when you have fallen into one or another yourself. Logical fallacies rely on hidden assumptions that may not hold true. Therefore, learn to ask, “what are the underlying assumptions behind what is being said? Are they true?
It is important to learn to keep your emotions in check when dealing with an irrational argument. That’s where meditation, pranayama, and awareness of both the Drama Triangle and emotional cognitive distortions come into play in important ways. Responding calmly and rationally strengthens your position and keeps you from later having regrets. It is also important to ask for clarification, which gets back to the fundamental idea of asking questions rather than assuming you understand or have all the information. Use Socratic questioning. Instead of directly confronting the fallacy, ask probing questions to guide the other person to recognize the flaw in their reasoning.
If you suspect a fallacy but aren’t sure, ask for clarification. Sometimes, what appears to be a fallacy could be a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and questions generally provide additional information that keeps you from jumping to wrong conclusions. In addition, your questions can serve to wake the other party up to the irrational nature of their argument.
Many logical fallacies are best to note but then ignore, because otherwise they become distractions from your intention and purpose. If you do feel a need to counter a logical fallacy, ask yourself “why?” If it is because you feel attacked, your response is likely to be based on emotional reasoning, a cognitive distortion. If you have evidence, facts, and sound reasoning and can present them logically and rationally, AND the argument is important and worth making, by all means, do so. However, if you lack evidence or facts, doubt your own ability to present them in a logical and rational way, resist the urge to make a counter-argument, even if it is important and worth making. That is because the other party is unlikely to take you and your argument seriously. You will sound as if you are merely attempting to justify yourself.
Approach the situation with respect and understanding. A good way to do so is by first pointing out the merits of the other persons’ position. This tends to disarm them, leading them to be less defensive and more likely to be receptive to your position. However, be aware that there will always be those who will see your agreement as a sign of your malleability and weakness, causing them to double down on their attack. If you suspect you are dealing with such an individual, recognize that no amount of evidence is likely to change their minds because they have a pre-rational ideological and personal investment in their argument, and hearing you or changing their position would cause too much cognitive dissonance for them to tolerate the acceptance of rational counter-arguments. In such situations, at best you are talking for the benefit of more neutral and non-invested third parties rather than to or for someone using logical fallacies. Therefore, know when to disengage. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, it may not be possible to reason with someone who relies heavily on logical fallacies. In such cases, it’s okay to disengage from the conversation rather than engaging in a fruitless debate. Disengagement itself can be tricky. Many people do so by either changing the subject or walking away. If you have been on the receiving end of either you know how disrespectful in can feel to be cut off in such a way. It is better to thank the person for sharing their perspective when you break off the argument.
Of course, ensure that your own arguments are free from logical fallacies. That is where knowledge of logical fallacies and self-awareness are vital. Leading by example strengthens your credibility in pointing out fallacies in others’ arguments.
Twenty common logical fallacies
What are some of the most common logical fallacies to watch out for in your own thinking and in the arguments of others? What are examples of each you have encountered? What are strategies to use to counteract them?
Ad Hominem: Attack the person instead of addressing their argument.
Example: “You can’t trust Jane’s opinion on climate change because she’s not a scientist.”
Strategy: Redirect the focus back to the argument itself and refrain from engaging in personal attacks. “Attacking the person making the argument doesn’t address the validity of their argument. Let’s focus on the merits of the argument itself rather than attacking the individual.”
Straw Man: Misrepresenting or oversimplifying someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: “Opponents of the new healthcare bill just want people to die without medical care.”
Strategy: Clarify the actual argument being made and address it directly without distorting its meaning. “You’re misrepresenting my argument. Let’s address the actual points I’ve made rather than creating a distorted version of them.”
Appeal to Authority: Relying on the opinion of an authority figure rather than on evidence or logic.
Example: “Dr. Smith says that drinking three cups of coffee a day is good for you, so it must be true.”
Strategy: Evaluate the credentials and expertise of the authority and emphasize the importance of evidence and reasoning over mere authority. “While expertise can be valuable, it’s important to evaluate arguments based on their own merits rather than simply deferring to authority. Can you provide evidence or reasoning to support this claim?”
False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when there are more available.
Example: “Either we ban all guns, or we have mass shootings forever.“
Strategy: Highlight the existence of additional options and explain why the situation is not as limited as presented. “Presenting only two options when there are actually more available choices is a false dilemma. Let’s explore alternative solutions rather than limiting ourselves to these two options.”
Slippery Slope: Asserting that one event will lead to a series of increasingly dire consequences.
Example: “If we allow students to retake exams, soon everyone will want to retake them, and before you know it, the entire education system will collapse. “Let’s focus on the specific consequences of the proposed action rather than speculating about extreme and unlikely outcomes. Can you provide evidence or reasoned arguments for the steps in between?”
Strategy: Challenge the causal link between the initial event and the predicted outcomes, and provide evidence to support your counterargument.
Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises.
Example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because it’s the word of God.”
Strategy: Point out the circular nature of the argument and request evidence or reasoning that does not rely on the conclusion itself. “Your argument is circular because it assumes what it’s trying to prove. We need evidence or reasoning that doesn’t rely on the conclusion itself.”
Appeal to Ignorance: Asserting that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).
Example: “There’s no evidence that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real.”
Strategy: Emphasize the need for evidence to support positive claims and explain that lack of evidence is not proof of the opposite. “Just because we don’t have evidence that X is true or false doesn’t mean we can automatically assume it’s one way or the other. We need to rely on evidence and reasoning rather than filling gaps with assumptions.”
False Cause: (Also called “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” (After this, therefore because of this): Assuming that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second.
Example: “I wore my lucky socks to the exam, and I passed. Therefore, my lucky socks must have helped me pass.”
Strategy: Highlight the need for evidence of causation rather than mere correlation, and consider alternative explanations for the observed relationship. “Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. We need evidence to establish a causal relationship rather than assuming one based on correlation alone.”
Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains an unjustified assumption.
Example: “Have you stopped cheating on exams?”
Strategy: Identify and challenge the assumption inherent in the question before providing an answer. “I reject the premise of your question because it assumes something that may not be true. Could you please rephrase the question without making unfounded assumptions?”
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size rather than a robust analysis of evidence.
Example: “I met two rude people from New York, so all New Yorkers must be rude.”
Strategy: Request more evidence or examples to support the generalization and emphasize the need for a broader and more representative sample. “Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence or a small sample size is a hasty generalization. We need more data or examples to support this conclusion.”
Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating emotions in an argument in order to distract from the facts.
Example: “If we don’t pass this law, think of all the poor children who will suffer.”
Strategy: Acknowledge the emotional appeal but redirect the focus back to logical reasoning and evidence. “Appealing to emotions doesn’t provide valid evidence for your argument. Let’s focus on logical reasoning and evidence-based arguments rather than emotional manipulation.“
Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
Example:During a political debate about healthcare: “Why are we talking about healthcare when there are more pressing issues like national security?”
Strategy: Identify the diversionary tactic and steer the conversation back to the main point of contention. “Let’s stay focused on the current topic at hand. Bringing up unrelated issues is a distraction from addressing the matter at hand.”
Bandwagon:Arguing that because something is popular or widely believed, it must be true or good.
Example: “Everyone is buying this new smartphone, so it must be the best one on the market.”
Strategy: Highlight that popularity does not equate to validity or correctness and emphasize the importance of independent evaluation. “The popularity of an idea doesn’t necessarily make it true or valid. We should evaluate arguments based on their own merits rather than simply following what’s popular.”
Appeal to Tradition: Arguing that something is true or good simply because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: “We should continue to use leeches in medicine because they have been used for centuries.”
Strategy: Question whether the age of a belief or practice has any bearing on its validity and emphasize the need for evidence and reason. “Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean it’s the best or most rational approach. We should evaluate practices based on their merits rather than their history.”
Appeal to Nature: Arguing that something is good or desirable because it is “natural.”
Example: “It’s natural for animals to kill each other, so humans killing each other is also acceptable.”
Strategy: Question whether “natural” necessarily means “good” or “desirable” and evaluate the specific merits of the argument or claim. “The fact that something is natural doesn’t necessarily make it good or desirable. We should base our decisions on evidence and reason rather than appealing to nature.”
Tu Quoque (“You too.”) (Appeal to Hypocrisy): Dismissing someone’s argument because they don’t follow their own advice.
Example: “How can you tell me not to smoke when you’ve been caught smoking before?” “The behavior of others doesn’t justify or excuse the behavior in question. Let’s focus on the issue at hand rather than deflecting blame.”
Strategy: Acknowledge any hypocrisy but emphasize that it does not invalidate the argument itself and focus on addressing the substance of the argument. “Pointing out someone else’s faults doesn’t address the issue at hand. Let’s focus on the argument or situation being discussed rather than deflecting blame.”
Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing an argument based on its origin or source.
Example: “You can’t trust his opinion on climate change because he’s a petroleum engineer.”
Strategy: Evaluate the argument on its own merits rather than dismissing it solely based on its source or origin. “We should evaluate arguments based on their merits rather than dismissing them because of the person making them. Let’s focus on the substance of the argument rather than the background of the speaker.”
Burden of Proof: Shifting the burden of proof onto the opposing party.
Example: “Aliens must exist because no one has proven they don’t.”
Strategy: Clarify who holds the burden of proof in the argument and emphasize the importance of supporting claims with evidence. “The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Until evidence is provided to support the assertion, it’s reasonable to withhold belief.”
Composition and Division: Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts (composition) or vice versa (division).
Example: “Since each player on the team is skilled, the team as a whole must be unbeatable.”
Strategy: Evaluate whether the inference from the whole to its parts (or vice versa) is justified and provide counterexamples or reasoning as needed. “Just because individual parts share a characteristic doesn’t mean the whole does. Let’s evaluate the team or group as a whole rather than assuming all parts share the same qualities.”
Non Sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.
Example: “People who exercise regularly are usually happy. Therefore, if you want to be happy, you should eat more vegetables.”
Strategy: Point out the lack of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion and request clarification or additional reasoning. “Your conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises you’ve presented. Could you please clarify how your conclusion relates to the evidence provided?”
You will probably find that by recognizing these logical fallacies your life will become simpler because you will not be distracted, confused, or manipulated by them. You will be able to solve problems more quickly and effectively, both individually and as a member of a group process. Your communication will be simpler, more direct, respectful, and honest.
How each cognitive bias negatively affects your relationships
Logical fallacies can damage relationships in many ways. Using personal attacks (ad hominem) instead of addressing the substance of an argument can lead to hurt feelings and resentment, damaging the trust and respect between you and the other party. Misrepresenting someone’s argument (Straw Man) can create misunderstandings and miscommunication, leading to frustration and resentment. Presenting a false dichotomy (False Dilemma) can make others feel trapped or marginalized, leading to resentment and strained relationships. Relying solely on authority figures (Appeal to Authority) rather than engaging in open dialogue and critical thinking can create power imbalances and undermine trust in relationships. Assuming causation without evidence (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or False Cause) can lead to misunderstandings and blaming others unfairly, causing resentment and distrust. Manipulating emotions in arguments (Appeal to Emotions) can make others feel manipulated or dismissed, leading to breakdowns in trust and communication. Engaging in Circular Reasoning can frustrate and alienate others who value logical consistency and evidence-based reasoning, damaging mutual respect and understanding. Relying on ignorance (Appeal to Ignorance) to support an argument can undermine trust and respect between you and others, as it suggests a lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking or seek out evidence. Pressuring others to conform to popular opinions without considering alternative viewpoints (Bandwagon Fallacy) can lead to feelings of exclusion and resentment, damaging relationships. Making sweeping generalizations based on limited evidence (Hasty Generalization) can lead to misunderstandings and unfair judgments, damaging trust and respect between you. Overall, logical fallacies can erode trust, communication, and mutual respect in relationships by hindering honest and constructive dialogue, fostering misunderstanding, and promoting unfairness and manipulation.
How each cognitive bias negatively affects your thinking
Logical fallacies can create confused, distorted, and manipulative thinking in a variety of ways: Encouraging dismissing arguments based on personal characteristics rather than their validity (Ad Hominem), leads to shallow and biased thinking. Distorting the original argument (Straw Man), prevents a clear understanding of different perspectives and hindering critical analysis. Oversimplifying complex issues (False Dilemma), limits the consideration of alternative viewpoints and potential solutions. Promoting reliance on authority rather than critical thinking and independent analysis (Appeals to Authority), stifles intellectual growth and innovation. Encouraging drawing faulty cause-and-effect relationships without considering other possible explanations (False Cause) leads to erroneous conclusions. Manipulating emotions to override rational thought (Appeal to Emotions), prevents objective analysis and decision-making. Creating a closed loop of reasoning where no new information is considered (Circular Reasoning), inhibits the discovery of new insights and understanding. Relying on lack of evidence rather than evidence itself (Appeal to Ignorance), leads to acceptance of unsubstantiated claims and hindering critical inquiry. Promoting conformity over independent thought (Bandwagon Fallacy), discourages you from questioning prevailing beliefs and ideas. Leading to premature conclusions based on insufficient evidence (Hasty Generalization), results in flawed reasoning and erroneous beliefs. Overall, logical fallacies undermines the quality of your thinking by promoting biased, superficial, and irrational approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. They hinder the development of critical thinking skills and impede the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for fostering clear, logical, and rational thinking.
How each cognitive bias negatively affects your dreams
While logical fallacies are primarily related to reasoning and argumentation, they may indirectly impact your dreams. If you’re preoccupied with personal attacks or feeling attacked yourself (Ad Hominem), it may manifest in dreams as conflicts with others, leading to disturbed sleep and fragmented dreaming. Misrepresenting arguments (Straw Man) may reflect a sense of confusion or distortion in dreams, making it difficult to discern reality from fiction within the dream world. Dreams might present situations where you feel trapped or forced into making binary choices, mirroring the false dichotomies (False Dilemma) presented during waking hours and causing anxiety or frustration. Dreams influenced by Appeal to Authority might involve encounters with authoritative figures whose opinions or directives are unquestioningly accepted, limiting your freedom of thought and creativity in the dream world. Dream scenarios may feature illogical cause-and-effect relationships (False Cause), leading to confusing or nonsensical dream narratives that disrupt restful sleep. Dreams influenced by emotional manipulation (Appeal to Emotion) may evoke intense feelings without clear context or resolution, potentially leading to nightmares or unsettling dreams that disturb sleep. Dreams might loop endlessly without resolution or progression (Circular Reasoning), reflecting a sense of mental stagnation or inability to break free from cyclical patterns of thought. Dreams influenced by Appeal to Ignorance may involve situations where evidence or information is disregarded or overlooked, leading to confusion or uncertainty within the dream narrative. Dream scenarios may involve conformity to group norms or societal expectations (Bandwagon Fallacy), suppressing individuality and personal exploration within the dream world. Dreams influenced by Hasty Generalization might feature exaggerated or oversimplified representations of real-life situations, leading to distorted perceptions and unresolved conflicts that disrupt sleep.
How to catch and stop using logical fallacies
While we noted strategies for catching and stopping the use of logical fallacies above, it won’t hurt to summarize them. Doing so involves developing awareness, critical thinking skills, and strategies to identify and avoid flawed reasoning. First, you are learning about Logical Fallacies by familiarizing yourself with these common logical fallacies and how they manifest in arguments and reasoning. Listen Carefully: Pay close attention to the arguments being presented. Look for any flaws in reasoning or logical inconsistencies. Challenge any assumptions made within the argument. Often, logical fallacies rely on hidden assumptions that may not hold true. Keep your emotions in check, since logical fallacies can be used to provoke emotional responses. Responding calmly and rationally strengthens your position. If you suspect a fallacy but aren’t sure, ask for clarification. Sometimes, what appears to be a fallacy could be a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Counter logical fallacies with evidence and sound reasoning. Presenting facts and logical arguments can help steer the conversation back on track. Use Socratic Questioning. Instead of directly confronting the fallacy, ask probing questions to guide the other person to recognize the flaw in their reasoning. Approach the situation with respect and understanding. Calling out someone’s logical fallacy in a respectful manner is more likely to lead to a constructive dialogue. Ensure that your own arguments are free from logical fallacies. Leading by example strengthens your credibility in pointing out fallacies in others’ arguments. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, it may not be possible to reason with someone who relies heavily on logical fallacies. In such cases, it’s okay to disengage from the conversation rather than engaging in a fruitless debate.
Cultivate your critical thinking skills by questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and examining arguments for logical consistency and validity. Practice analyzing arguments from multiple perspectives and considering alternative viewpoints. Pay attention to your own arguments and reasoning, and be open to the possibility that they may contain logical fallacies. Take the time to review your arguments carefully before presenting them to others. Challenge assumptions underlying arguments by asking critical questions, such as,”Are there any unsupported assumptions in this argument?” “Is the evidence provided relevant and sufficient to support the conclusion?” “Are there alternative explanations or interpretations that haven’t been considered?”
Evaluate the structure of arguments to identify potential fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, or appeals to emotion. Look for instances where the argument relies on invalid or irrelevant reasoning. Encourage feedback from others on your arguments and reasoning. Ask friends, colleagues, or mentors to review your arguments and point out any logical fallacies they identify. Be open to constructive criticism and use it as an opportunity for growth. Actively seek out and consider counterarguments to your own positions. Engage with opposing viewpoints and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses objectively. This helps mitigate the effects of confirmation bias and strengthens your critical thinking skills. Verify information and arguments from reputable sources to reduce the likelihood of relying on fallacious reasoning or misinformation. Be skeptical of arguments that lack credible evidence or rely on appeals to authority without substantive support. Avoid rushing to judgment or making decisions hastily without careful consideration. Take the time to thoroughly evaluate arguments and evidence, and don’t be afraid to pause and reflect before reaching a conclusion. Like any skill, recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies takes practice and persistence. Continuously challenge yourself to apply critical thinking skills in everyday situations and refine your ability to spot flawed reasoning.
Learning effective strategies for recognizing and countering logical fallacies used by others
Here are some further tips for avoiding getting seduced by one or another logical fallacy. To avoid Ad Hominem, the focus back to the argument itself and refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Clarify the actual argument being made and address it directly without distorting its meaning to avoid Straw Man.
To avoid Appeal to Authority, evaluate the credentials and expertise of the authority and emphasize the importance of evidence and reasoning over mere authority. To avoid False Dilemma, highlight the existence of additional options and explain why the situation is not as limited as presented. Challenge the causal link between the initial event and the predicted outcomes, and provide evidence to support your counterargument in order to avoid Slippery Slope. To circumvent Circular Reasoning, point out the circular nature of the argument and request evidence or reasoning that does not rely on the conclusion itself. To avoid Appeal to Ignorance, emphasize the need for evidence to support positive claims and explain that lack of evidence is not proof of the opposite. Highlight the need for evidence of causation rather than mere correlation to avoid False Cause, and consider alternative explanations for the observed relationship. Identify and challenge the assumption inherent in the question before providing an answer to avoid Loaded Question. To avoid Hasty Generalization, request more evidence or examples to support the generalization and emphasize the need for a broader and more representative sample. To neutralize Appeals to Emotion, acknowledge the emotional appeal but redirect the focus back to logical reasoning and evidence. Identify the diversionary tactic and steer the conversation back to the main point of contention to avoid Red Herring. To avoid Bandwagon, highlight that popularity does not equate to validity or correctness and emphasize the importance of independent evaluation.Regarding Appeals to Tradition, question whether the age of a belief or practice has any bearing on its validity and emphasize the need for evidence and reason. Regarding Appeals to Nature, question whether “natural” necessarily means “good” or “desirable” and evaluate the specific merits of the argument or claim. If someone attempts to pull “You Too” (Tu Quoque) on you, acknowledge any hypocrisy, but emphasize that it does not invalidate the argument itself and focus on addressing the substance of the argument. Regarding the Genetic Fallacy, evaluate the argument on its own merits rather than dismissing it solely based on its source or origin. Clarify who holds the burden of proof in the argument and emphasize the importance of supporting claims with evidence. Evaluate whether the inference from the whole to its parts (or vice versa) is justified and provide counterexamples or reasoning as needed. If you hear a non sequitur, point out the lack of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion and request clarification or additional reasoning.
How to neutralize the negative impact of each logical fallacy in your relationships
As with the Drama Triangle, enlisting the help of others in catching you in your logical fallacies is an effective way of educating others about logical fallacies and having them learn not only to be mindful of their own so as to avoid them, but vigilant for their presence in the arguments of others.
How to neutralize the negative impact of each logical fallacy in your dreams
As you work at recognizing, catching, and eliminating logical fallacies in your own relationships and thinking you will naturally be more likely to spot them in your dreams and to counteract them.
Assignments and Homework
Reading:
Under “Essays and Interviews,” read:
“Thinking About Thinking: Formal Cognitive Distortions”
Videos:
In the IDL video curricula, watch:
Logical Fallacies that Mess Up Dreamwork
<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lDbJ4YhY0Q” target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>
Quizlet
Check for study questions and/or create some of your own.
Click here to play the game to train your ability to detect logical fallacies!
Interviewing:
Look for any logical fallacies that you may have regarding the usefulness and meaning of your dreams. See if you can spot any cognitive biases that show up in how you perceive what’s going on in your dreams while you are asleep and dreaming. Look for logical fallacies in the life issues that you interview, both yourself and others. Look for them in the responses characters give to interviewing questions.
At a minimum, do one interview a week, getting experience with both dream and life issue protocols.
One week, interview yourself.
One week, interview a subject. It can be a fellow team member, a family member, friend, or client.
One week, be interviewed by someone else.
Submit your written interviews to your supervising team member. To have your interviews automatically created for you, use the on-line interviewing format on this site.
Questions
- Write down your answers to the following questions.
- Share your answers with your other study team members.
- Discuss.
- Submit your written answers.
Look back over the list of cognitive distortions. Can you think up examples from your life for them? It could be ones you have used or ones you have fallen for in past arguments. If you think of an example, add it as a Quizlet question and answer: “What logical fallacy is this an example of?”
Setting Intent
What do you want to take away from this unit to improve your life?
How would you like it to influence your dreams tonight?
How can you format that as a statement of intention to read over to remind yourself, before you go to sleep, to incubate in your dreams tonight?
