Thinking Is A Serious Problem: Not Much Thinking Going On In Juries

Jury deliberation bears no resemblance to thinking. In fact, it actively discourages quality thinking. How can I possibly say that about a hallowed institution which has been around for over 1000 years? Easy, and I will use the example of my personal experience on a jury.

My one and only jury event (may I be forever spared from another!) happened many years ago in Marin County, California. After the prosecution and defense rested, the jury was charged with determining the guilt or non-guilt of a 55-year-old man who was arrested and charged with drunk driving. The facts were straight-forward and uncontested during the trial and in the jury room.

A highway patrol officer observed the man weaving dangerously for 3 miles on a major freeway, crossing lanes indiscriminately without regard to the safety of other drivers (Fact #1). The man was pulled over and given a breath test, which he failed (Fact #2). The officer then searched the man’s car and found an open, half-empty bottle of whisky under the driver’s seat (Fact #3--illegal in CA if an opened container of any sort of alcohol is anywhere inside the car). The man was arrested and taken to county jail where he was given a blood test, which confirmed that he was legally drunk (Fact #4).

Let the “fun” begin. To me the situation was open and closed: guilty as charged. I was the only person with this view when we started deliberating and the only one when we finished (a majority of jurors decided the outcome---a unanimous decision was not required). It is important that you know that the jurors were from Marin County, a wealthy suburb of San Francisco, were mostly professionals, and clearly smart and articulate.

I wish I could have filmed this. If justice were not so perverted, it would have been hilarious. The defense attorney had presented arguments that addressed the man’s life problems, such as his being recently divorced and disaffected from his son, and having trouble adjusting to retirement. These influenced my fellow jurors hugely, and they worked hard to explain each of the facts in a way that would get the man off. Naturally, such “explanations” (e.g., he did not put the open whiskey bottle in the car, someone else did) failed because the evidence was clear and simple, and compelling on the face. The group expressed considerable sympathy for all the man’s troubles, and a general non-too-small dislike of the sheriff and highway patrol, referred to by one non-black juror as “the man.” The group, with me voting guilty, judged him innocent.

So, what happened in that jury room? Very simply, sympathy triumphed over fact and thought. Feeling sorry for the man was not the problem. I felt sorry for him. But he broke more than one law and endangered others. It looked to me that the folks on the jury came with agendas: feeling sorry for someone can be more important than anything else, and “cops” are not very nice people. The “thought” used was simply the aggravated distortion of each of the facts to try and get the man off without having to admit that sympathy for the man and antipathy for the police were the real factors. This type of “thinking” is akin to the police catching a burglar on your lawn at 3am with your computer in his possession, and he argues he was returning it, and the police accept that.

When I quizzed the group members, they assured me that sympathy for the man and antipathy toward the officers were not the reasons they voted to acquit. They honestly thought they had explained away any guilt by their rendition of the facts, one that I saw as tortured in the extreme and a near unbelievable violation of common sense, all to produce the outcome they wanted.

Critics will no doubt say that my experience was unique. Unfortunately, it is not. Reason #1 is other examples. No doubt most readers will recall the McDonald's case in which the top of an elderly woman’s coffee, held between her legs, came off and scalded her. The jury was understandably sympathetic, but the jury failed to find her culpable in any way, awarding multi-millions. Even more interesting from the standpoint of non-thinking is the truly infamous O.J. Simpson trial. Exceptions? Let’s assume so. Just for the sake of argument, of course! Be that as it may, my next point is incontrovertible.

Reason #2 is that my observations of friends, relatives, clients and folks in general over nearly 40 years demonstrates that most people cannot think objectively if their and their children’s lives depended on it, and this is about everyday behavior, nothing so serious as a jury charge. The psychological research is now beyond compelling: most of what we think, feel, and do is driven by our unconscious. Being unaware of this means we get to live our false story of objectivity with impunity. Certainly juries can produce just outcomes, but when people have something at stake (most of the time), they will default to their need and justice be damned. Since the latter cannot be admitted, a pretence of thinking is provided by logical contortions and ex post facto justifications. If you wish more information on how juries are paneled and the often perverting roll of jury consultants, this will add a bit more disturbance to the pot. And this leads me to my grand conclusion: since thinking and fairness in their most sophisticated senses are rare to non-existent in jury deliberations, they should be abolished in favor of a judge or a panel of judges.

But judges are fallible, too, you might say. Indeed so. But there is one huge difference between judges and juries: the judge’s opinion must be argued logically and supported and, most importantly, is reviewable and reversible by a higher court. Jury deliberations are absolutely closed, and reviewable by no one, a prescription for a breakdown in thinking and for misbehavior if ever there was one.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: The Dangers of Two-Valued Reasoning

What are “conversations” like today when people differ in view? They are mostly unmitigated disasters, what I call crap-throwing contests. The goal of these interactions is “I win, you lose,” with each party throwing as much crap as possible at the other: anger, guilt, sarcasm, yelling, interrupting, pseudo facts, misrepresentations, outright lies, name-calling, and so on until one person collapses. These interactions are no more conversations than water is stone, and quality thinking is obviously the big loser.

Thinking clearly requires a lot of us. It demands first of all that we suspend all emotional reactions, which obstruct clarity and degrade respect, and face the issue on its merits. Having such reactions is normal; allowing them to intrude into the conversation is a recipe for a bad outcome. I have already addressed in earlier posts the real unpleasantness arising when people fail to suspend emotion.

Second, to think clearly we need an attitude toward conversations that stresses learning, truth, openness, and greater understanding. Most people I know say they have exactly this attitude, but they could not be more mistaken. In this post I will talk about the attitude they do have, one that characterizes their real behavior and which is demonstrably inimical to quality thinking and respectful conversations. This attitude is known as “two-valued reasoning,” and considering the damage it does, I view it as both a moral and a practical “affliction.”

Two-valued reasoning results from a view of the world defined by categorical opposites. Everything is seen from the standpoint of what I like or dislike, see as good or bad, approve or disapprove of, support or condemn. Folks with this standpoint invest huge amounts of emotional energy in the attitude, such that it becomes a fact of their existence (part of their ego) and is no longer merely an intellectual aspect of differing views on something.

People with the two-valued reasoning affliction generally express themselves with great certainty on anything in which they have an emotional investment, and their comments are often framed as “either/or” type propositions. As a consultant to organizations I would often hear comments like, we are either customer oriented or profit oriented, or we are either sensitive to employee well being or we are not. As a counselor to couples in conflict I often hear similar phrasing, as in you can have transparency or privacy in a relationship, or you can have individuality or community, but in neither of these cases can you have both.

People with the affliction not only have an emotional investment in their general view of the world as defined by categorical opposites, they also have an equally strong attachment to one side or the other of any “either/or” proposition. In organizations managers who argue that the firm is either customer oriented or profit oriented have a clear and obvious attachment to one side of this proposition, defended with great emotion (while anyone with a different view is often  attacked). And the same is true in all “conversations” in which the parties have differences, no matter what the subject matter. To describe such interactions as characterized by thinking is absurd.

If quality thinking involves the search for greater understanding of what are often very complex issues, then two-valued reasoning does precisely the opposite----it actively diminishes (strenuously denied by the arguers) the breadth, depth, and sophistication of the interaction.

As an example, at the time of the first Gulf War I encountered a large number of folks who either supported the war or thought it crazy and morally wrong to boot. Typically, this difference in view was articulated by folks on the political right as, “We are going to Iraq to promote democracy,” and by folks on the left as, “We are going to Iraq solely to get their oil.” Two-valued reasoning, and its attendant emotional disturbance, characterized both of these views in any conversation. Folks with the affliction tend to describe very complex situations (like the Gulf War) in such simplistic terms that they border on child-like. They use a pre-existing litany of statements that they accept at face value (if I like it, it must be right) and trot out any time they encounter someone whose views differ from theirs. It’s very difficult to give the name thinking to this.

An additional unpleasant outcome to interacting with those using two-valued reasoning is the impossibility of engaging with them in a productive and respectful way. Since their view is certain, backed up with big emotion, any alternative views cannot be allowed to exist. Whether those alternative views have any merit is of zero importance. What is of utmost importance is that those views be destroyed. So, if you differ from me you are by definition wrong, and often morally corrupt as well. The current political scene gives ample evidence of the prevalence of two-valued reasoning and the accompanying inability to deal openly and respectfully with those who differ.

The great tragedy of self deception: I have exposed the two-valued reasoning idea to some folks and they believe it has considerable value, and that it does describe what they and others they know have experienced. Sadly, these same individuals will not hesitate to immediately trash, with typical two-valued reasoning, those who differ from them. Bertrand Russell expressed this unfortunate state neatly:

            Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting

            Convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.

Failure to subject our convictions to critical analysis ensures two-valued reasoning will prevail, and that we and our society will continue to see ever greater hostility and irrationality among people of different views.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: Values, Words, and Hypocrisy

Thinking well requires the careful use of words, including a clear understanding of the meaning and intent of a word, and a consistent use of that word. Words often have multiple meanings, which is entirely workable. But in certain cases such variability can cause thinking as well as action problems, most obviously when one person uses the same word differently depending on the situation.

Among the most important words we have are those representing our personal values. Our values are principles we hold very dear and which are not compromised at all or very rarely. Typical values we might hold are integrity, fairness, openness, personal responsibility, truth, tolerance, respect, loyalty, family, honor, care for others, objectivity, or hard work. The list is nearly endless.

Over the last 40 years or so I have observed a change in how people talk about their values and how, if at all, they implement them. As I grew up people generally stood by their values, meaning they acted those values out to the best of their ability.

After the 60’s and the cultural tumult that accompanied it, things began to change in unhealthy ways. It wasn’t that folks had no values, but that their implementation was suspect. We can argue forever about the benefit or fitness of one value over another. We can even argue about the methods of implementing a particular value. But one thing that is very bad for a society happens when people espouse good values and then fail to implement them, or implement them differently depending on how they feel at the time.

Whether one really holds a value highly cannot be determined by how vocal a person is at proclaiming the value. It can determined only by seeing the person apply the value when it is not only inconvenient to do so, but very difficult if not nearly impossible. Applying the value when it is easy is not the best test. Today the action commitment to one’s values seems lacking in the extreme and I will give two personal examples of this.

I was talking with a colleague at the local community college where I teach part-time. In the conversation I asked him about values important to him, and he said a prime one is respect for others. The conversation moved on and we ended up talking about college unions. At one point in response to something I said he made a dismissive comment accompanied by a bit of sarcasm. I mentioned that I thought respect was a prime value for him, and in my view sarcasm was not respectful. He assured me that respect was a hugely important value to him, but I irritated him with my view and that explains (read: justified) his behavior.

In another circumstance I was talking with a person at a party whose political views differed from mine considerably. Before we knew this, he told me that he saw himself as very tolerant. When it became clear that we differed politically, his whole demeanor changed. He did not attack me personally, but lit into my party, its views, candidates and office holders, castigating them for what he termed idiot thinking and a mean-spirited attitude. I mentioned to him that he did not seem particularly tolerant of my thinking, and he agreed totally and said, “Because your thinking is wrong.”

Certainly these anecdotes do not define all folks with espoused high values. But I have seen far more than just these two, as have friends of mine. Watch TV or movies and you will see that generally values, when espoused at all, are mainly for show, not for action. But the worst offenders of the “I-get-to-do-and-say-what-I-want-no-matter-what-my-values-are” crowd are politicians. Take the simple word “disclosure,” at the moment a “big” deal in the media. Each side defines the word differently and quite favorably for themselves. They then define it very unfavorably for opponents, not at all attentive in their righteousness to the hypocrisy.

In both my examples a person with a self-proclaimed important value failed to implement it, and was not at all bothered by the hypocrisy. Espoused values such as respect and tolerance are important and socially valuable, but only if they are implemented. These individuals can tell themselves (and me) that they have fine values, feel good about that, and then ignore situations in which those values should be implemented. I suggest that what is going on is a classic case of self-deception, and all-too-common psychological event these days.

What is important to such individuals is that they have an important value, and that everyone knows it, hence the sense of righteousness. When it becomes uncomfortable to implement such a value, it will be ignored, and then justified with ex-post-facto reasoning (Your thinking is wrong). This is one of the huge dangers of situational ethics: the game is played so that I get to do what I want to do, even if that includes ignoring one of my own prime values. In fact, if I am in the presence of others who “think” as I do, they will not only accept the deviation from the value, but positively applaud it as the right thing to do, adding more ex-post-facto justifications to my already rich repertoire.

Social divisiveness, of which we surely have enough, is increased when folks espouse and then fail to implement values when the going gets tough. The important trust structures that enable the members of a society to co-exist are destroyed by people hailing their own values and then ignoring those values when they have become inconvenient. The meaning and use of a person’s value word is now subject, not to some reasonable standard of consistency, but to a whim, particular agenda, or emotional need, clearly evidenced in my two examples.

Not only does social coherence suffer, but thinking does as well. When a person fails to uphold his/her own espoused value, and then argues that such behavior is just fine, it is impossible to have a legitimate and open conversation with that individual. That person is not thinking but, as I have mentioned in prior posts, emoting. Essentially, it means he/she will change the meaning of an important word to get the outcome desired (usually a diminished opponent). A truly thoughtful person with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would be embarrassed by such hypocrisy.

I don’t want to sound too Orwellian here, but it is difficult not to see the damage such hypocrisy does to our society. As such “tricks” make their way into the political arena, that danger increases exponentially, and is visible today.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: The Danger of Passion

Most people I know think that having passion for something is a good thing. This seems to make sense when you talk about such things as aiding the poor, searching for a cure for AIDS, or helping the local school system improve child outcomes. And yet there are big thinking and behavioral problems that may arise from one’s passion.

What can we say about passion?

­  Passion is the emotional energy generated by a powerful attachment to something.

­  Passion is a part of being human.

­  It is neither good nor bad in itself, but can clearly be used for both.

At this point in the conversation people are likely to become severely agitated with me, if not outright angry. They see their passion in terms of a positive goal or outcome, one in which they have invested very large amounts of energy, and one which, by definition, is absolutely good. It is impossible for them to see that passion can have both pleasant and unpleasant sides. The good side is clear when we think of Nelson Mandela’s passion for both his country and its people, of all races, a very good thing, indeed. The bad side is equally clear when we reflect on the passion of Pol Pot and his minions which led to the death of one-third of Cambodia’s population.

Those passionate folks still hanging around this conversation may agree that Pol Pot-type excesses are horrific and a tragic part of passion, but their passion, help for the homeless, for example, cannot be a problem because the passion’s goal is such a good thing. Wrong again. The problem is not the goal, which may very well be admirable. The problem is the passion itself, in two ways. First, for most folks passionate about something, a problematic identification has occurred: the good things they wish to accomplish have merged with their egos, and are one. This results in a blinding level of emotional commitment. Anyone who does not hold the same view of the goal cannot be tolerated because that different view represents an assault, not just on the goal, but on themselves as persons.

Second, the passion is seen as prima facie evidence not only of the goodness of their aims, but also of their personal moral rightness. Since passionate people have little or no allowance for difference, those with “deviant” views are seen not only as wrong, but morally corrupt as well, calling for emotionally-laden attacks on both the person and his/her ideas. This is justified by the passionate one’s total belief in the rightness of the cause or goal. Terribly unpleasant and hostile behavior can arise from such passion, but it is easily explained as not only necessary---the goal is good---but obligatory as the other person is evil.

I have a friend who is passionate about the rights of those in this country illegally. His passion consumes him when he sees that another does not agree, and his anger and attacks are horrendous. His passion completely blinds him to the idea that he could have a laudable goal even while others might disagree with his goal, or with the implications of pursuing such a goal. In his and most others’ minds (really, in their emotional systems), dissent is not possible and must be instantly and powerfully eradicated. He cannot allow them any space to exist because they represent a threat to his own emotional wellbeing.

So, the connection to thinking: passion can totally prevent a person from seeing arguments to the contrary. Thus, a conversation that is uplifting, where we each understand more about a complex issue and where there is no “I-win, you-lose” attitude, is not possible. People passionate about one side or the other of contentious issues (think of affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, and climate change) generally are not thinking, but emoting. The result is near hysterical levels of anger and outrage, and not a bit of real thought. In such circumstances we can be sure of only one thing: each side will attempt to “annihilate” the other by any means fair or foul.

A sidelight to such “conversations” is that both sides believe completely in the objectivity of their positions and arguments, while seeing the other side as moronic and irretrievably evil. Their passion has created a very big problem on its own, and another equally big one is created with their absolute belief in the correctness of their position and in their objectivity. False on both  counts, even when their passion is directed positively.

Regardless of the obvious value (and it may not always be obvious) of the goal of their passion, I am wary around people who have passion about anything. They can do wonderful things, and they can wreak thinking and behavioral havoc.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: Embracing the Unknown

Thinking well is in part about our willingness, our courage, to embrace the unknown, to open ourselves to real understanding and the uncertainty that surrounds that.

“Very few really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds---justification, explanations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.”

The Vampire Lestat, Anne Rice

Who better to instruct us in thinking than a vampire! This fine quote aligns with my past posts regarding people accepting only information that confirms their views, views which are deeply enmeshed with their emotions, literally inseparable from them. A contrary position is seen not only as an attack on their view, but also on the emotions supporting it. Their egos (fragile things that they are are!) are now at risk, calling for a counter strike to regain the “balance” of I’m right, you’re wrong. No truth, no expansive conversation, no greater understanding, no thoughtful uplifting of ideas, nothing….

The quote also offers a crisp and wonderfully insightful statement of the dangers of really asking and really listening. “To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.” What kind of stuff is this, says our “thinker”? Poor soul, he is lost. The reality and the truth are opaque to him. To grow as a person, and certainly as a thinker, we must open the door. This is about barriers coming down, ones that protected (sort of) our views, values, and positions from challenge, ones that kept us from the truth about ourselves and the world---“safely” in the dark of ignorance.

The whirlwind will separate us from our distorted views of nearly everything, especially of ourselves. That is why it is so threatening. But how can we think clearly if we do not understand the false stories we have told ourselves about ourselves, acknowledge those, and undo them? How can we think well if we fail to see the world as it is, as opposed to how we want it to be?

The whirlwind is the loss of certainty and belief that everything we think and do is just dandy. Even the door’s presence evokes fear, but that fear is natural when we approach the door, and even more so when we open it. Many cannot stand the force of reality, of the real answer to their questions, and slam the door before they have to deal with the frailties they have been so assiduously protecting and pretending do not exist.

Annihilation is the only way out of true ignorance, the annihilation of our existing views. The new and the real cannot enter unless room is made by destroying the old views. Fear holds many back as this new openness appears like a disintegration of their worldview, a horribly threatening event for many. But it is more like a reconfiguration of that world view, one that creates us anew and allows us to see aspects of the world we had never seen before because of our filtered views.

If we are not clear inside, we can hardly be clear outside. Thinking well demands clarity, even if it is distasteful. That distaste often holds us back from opening the door, as we prefer the illusion of quality thinking to the often great difficulties of true quality thinking. Do we have the courage?

Thinking is a serious problem: we like what we like

In my posts last year I mentioned three critical aspects that affect our thinking: our unconscious, our emotions, and the process known as selective perception. In the latter, we accept only information with which we already agree with or that we like. Any contrary information not only cannot get in, it has to be destroyed, often (metaphorically speaking) along with the person bringing the message.

When most of us read about issues that concern us we usually imagine that we are thinking when we make decisions about what we will respond to and what we will agree or disagree with. Regrettably, this view is largely false. In fact, what’s really going on is that we align incoming information with our preconceived notions and the emotions that support those, leading to  selective perception.

Consider a very contentious issue: the minimum wage. There are two groups of economists on opposite sides of this issue, one that says raising the minimum wage is helpful to the less economically fortunate, and the other saying that in fact such an increase harms the job possibilities of those very people, and both have Nobel-prize winners in support. Who is right?

There is no way to definitively answer the question because neither side can conclusively prove its position. Worse yet, even after raising or not raising the rate neither side can prove its position. The biggest problem with all such complex issues is that the models used by the economists are built on assumptions that are not always testable or verifiable, meaning that the economists themselves are working off of information that is not conclusive. They have chosen the data that fits with their view of the minimum wage issue and have essentially neglected that which does not confirm their view. They are not necessarily acting falsely, but because there is so much ambiguity in the data, which can often be interpreted in a variety of ways, they have to make choices. But at least partially unconsciously they accept and interpret the data in ways that bolster their position and undermine that of the opponents. As I have said in prior posts, it is the lack of understanding that unconscious processes are driving much of what we “think” that causes so much misunderstanding and hostile difference.

Most of us have no way of understanding the very complex models that underlie each side’s position on the minimum wage, but that does not stop us from having an often very-firmly held position on the issue, underlain by a huge emotional commitment. So what thinking is going on? Virtually none if we are talking about critical thinking. Essentially what happens is that we read the statements of the economists whose view we like, and we say that is the correct view. We haven’t the slightest idea of the how the models were developed or whether assumptions that underlie them are accurate. Thus, our ability to assess correctness borders on zero. We like what we like and that is the answer. Clearly, to think critically, to think objectively, we need far more information and expertise that would allow us to make a carefully reasoned judgment. Lacking that, which in the case of minimum wage includes most of us, we accept what we are told if we agree with it and assume unconsciously that that has something to do with correctness. Often, we then trash the person who disagrees with us. No thought and no thinking. The only possible, rational position is: I don’t know, which may be accompanied by, but I do like this one. At least this would be intellectually honest.

What I have said about the minimum wage is the same for nearly everything about which we have exaggerated and often vicious arguments. Those arguments are over nothing because we understand little about the issue’s complexity, meaning a terrible lack of clarity and an abundance of emotional messiness. Such arguments’ viciousness are in direct proportion to the emotional commitment the person has to a position. That emotion keeps us from any chance at a fair and objective discussion. But there is one thing that is very clear. My goal is, “I win, you lose.” Somehow I have to crush you, using emotion, misrepresentations, outright lies, diversions, anything. If your ideas have merit, my whole structure of “thinking” (read emoting) could be in error. That cannot and will not happen.