true but wrong

A pitfall with relying too heavily on rational deduction is that lots of logically 'true' conclusions are unimportant, or worse yet, dominated by contrary forces. Something may be true 'all else equal', but all else is never equal. Examples:

• Paul Krugman points out that economic theory favors free trade, but in practice there are so many other factors that it doesn't make a first-order difference in prosperity.
• I've reasoned to myself that relationships function as constraints on identity: just as it's harder to change international treaties than to change domestic laws, it's harder to change or grow a shared identity than a private one. This isn't false; indeed in some ways it's a deep insight. But it ignores the many ways in which a good relationship can support personal growth and help you become the best version of yourself. My model-driven reasoning has identified a challenge, but it would be fallacious to conclude from this that the challenges dominate the benefits.

see also: non-dominating force