The Heart Sutra, Compassion and Thought

The Heart Sutra is one of the most important pieces of Buddhist literature. In a relatively short space it conveys the critical idea that enlightenment requires that our skandhas be empty. The Buddha taught that an individual is made up of a combination of five skandhas---form, sensation, perception, mental formulations, and consciousness. In very simple terms, they may be seen collectively as representing our ego. Once the latter has been “destroyed,” enlightenment is possible and compassion may flourish.

Compassion is often seen as a sensation of concern about those in need, which it certainly is. But it is much more than that. In simple terms again, compassion is a comprehensive sense of appreciation of and concern for the well-being all people at all times. They do not have to be in need for this sense to exist. In fact, if that is the only time it is manifest, we are likely to misbehave. The reason is our normal responses to conflict, situations in which others disagree with us or appear to obstruct a goal we have. Conflict often brings out the worst in us as we attempt to force the universe, in the form of the human obstacle in front of us, to do as we wish. That usually means unpleasantness in the form of hostile emotions coupled with facts, pseudo-facts, misrepresentations, and outright lies. We will do anything to prevail in this contest, because we live in fear that what we want we may not get. Compassion is absent.

Back to the Sutra. Buddhist masters teach that as the ego becomes less and less a force (as its components move toward “destruction”), compassion increases. A person may not believe the Buddhist masters or stories about the challenging role of our egos. But it is clear that we cannot have much compassion when our ego is active, when the self is the main focus. Over the last 30 years or so we have seen considerable growth in narcissistic behavior---“this is all about me.” For many people, instead of the ego receding, it has actually grown to the point where their needs prevail over everything and everyone in all circumstances. Naturally, the more focus on me, the less on you. Morality, fairness, and appropriateness are irrelevant. Is it any wonder then that compassion has also diminished and incivility increased?

Now to thinking. In the grip of narcissism or fear of loss we act out automatically to protect our needs and goals, events to which we are often completely oblivious. We are emoting, but not thinking at all. Thinking asks that we attend to incoming information in a fair and objective manner, even (especially) if we do not like it---the essence of intellectual honesty. Selfcenteredness and fear cause us to act in harmful ways towards others, as our needs must prevail no matter what. I am not referring so much to big harm, but mainly to the “little” harms we do day to day when differing with others. Imagining that our view of the world (especially and most damagingly so in political aspects) is correct and the other person’s is wrong practically guarantees the disappearance of compassion and presence of harmful interactions. The need for certainty in our views is the kiss of death to compassion and to constructive thought.

Many people I know, fine folks all, imagine with great sincerity that they are compassionate in the broad sense that I am using it, and that they do in fact think clearly when under interpersonal stress. Sadly, their behavior, often dogmatic and rigid as the need for their views to prevail asserts itself, belies that. Political “discussions” are among the most damaging and useless events I can imagine. Embedded in their litany of belief, people can be very intolerant, often engaging, as I mentioned in the last post, in derogatory labeling of those whose political views differ from theirs. Even if they refrain from this particularly unfortunate brand of anti-compassionateness, they are so convinced of the rightness of their view that they cannot contain their negativity. It now finds its path a in constant and grinding refutation of the other’s views, and absolutely no self-examination of the weaknesses of their own. Their dogmatism goes unquestioned because they have told themselves a (at least partially) false story that they are open-minded, tolerant and compassionate. The story is inviolate because it rests on the ego’s own weakness. If the story is understood as false, the ego "collapses." Fear of that occurring keeps this sad system in place.

We cannot be compassionate until we have given up the need to be right or prevail, and when we have lost the fear that drives us to be certain, to protect and defend our views at all costs. When we can accept difference with equanimity, with no need to attack or defend, we move towards compassion. In my mind the Dalai Lama, to the very limited degree that I understand him, embodies compassion. Imagine a conversation in which I am talking to His Holiness, keeping in mind that he is the world-wide spiritual leader of those following Tibetan Buddhism.

Larry:  I really love all your books and writings and have gained a great deal from them.

DL:      Thank you.

Larry:  However, I think that all this stuff in Tibetan Buddhism is bunk.

DL:      You may be right.

Self-Interest and Labeling

Self-interest is a fascinating topic for me, given as it is often in bad odor with some folks. Yet, self-interest is a necessary component of human existence. Like many other human characteristics, it is neither a purely good thing nor a purely bad thing. Self-interest is most helpfully seen as a continuum, with absolutes at each end. At one end is total self-interest, in which others’ needs are irrelevant. At the other end is total non-self-interest (or total other interest), in which my needs are irrelevant. Nearly all of us are somewhere between the two end points, separated by degrees of difference.

But I am actually doing a disservice to self-interest’s complexity. While we fall at some arbitrarily defined spot on the continuum, we may move around depending on the issues, our age, emotional condition, preferences, etc. One continuum is insufficient to explain the complexities, but the image suffices for understanding that conversing about such a difficult issue demands flexible and open thinking.

Such thinking is tough enough to come by under normal conditions, but things can get very unpleasant when people sense that others have different views. This applies especially because  self-interest is often equated with selfishness, seen by many as even more negative than self-interest. We have a distinct penchant for lauding ourselves and our friends for our moral uprightness, and an opposite penchant for demeaning those who do not think as we do. We may label a person as selfish, and with a word and a flourish we have condemned him completely. Such labeling ignores any differences that are explained in a much more subtle fashion by degrees of separation. But when our need to be right is at stake, in our world we get to do whatever we want---a sad moral failure.

There is also the issue of motives, and the often wrong stories we tell ourselves about how good we are. People who think of themselves as compassionate and sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others, especially those who are troubled, see themselves as unselfish and their motives as positive---not unreasonably. However, they also tend to see those without the same level of other interest as less moral or less humanely sensitive, a bit of moral superiority. It is this hubris, and the need to be right that often goes along with it, that leads us to categorical condemnation, to negative labeling. There is no gray, only good (me) and bad (him). Regardless of complicating factors (recall multiple continua), he is judged as completely uncaring of others, and must be punished. Surely some people are largely selfish, but that is not the issue. When we negatively categorize others we actually demean ourselves and add to the societal challenges of incivility.

And motives are often complicated things. One can have a conscious motive to want to help the disadvantaged, or at least be sensitive to their need for help. But because much of what we think, feel and do arises from our unconscious, a person with a laudable conscious motive may also (not necessarily does) have a less laudable unconscious motive at the same time---wanting to be perceived by others as especially sensitive and morally upright. The problem, as we know, is that the less laudable motive is invisible and thus deniable. This allows the person to feel morally superior and avoid the complications of potential hypocrisy, or at least of a perceived lowered moral condition.

In addition to avoiding hypocrisy, labeling a person as selfish allows the labeler to avoid any thinking. As we know from my earlier blogs, assessments of those deemed selfish, as just one negative labeling example, are driven primarily by emotions, with carefully selected “facts” added later. Labelers also ignore the complications of their own situations, which in the normal human condition are exemplified by degrees of difference in almost everything. Labelers tend to see many aspects of the world in black and white terms---what I have referred to as two-valued reasoning, which is hardly reasoning at all.

Making our society a better and more thoughtful place is certainly a positive goal, especially being sensitive to the challenges facing those in difficulty. Negative labeling accomplishes nothing in this vein. But it does make people more hostile to each other, thereby contributing paradoxically to making our society overall less humane rather than more.

Appreciating the dangers of labeling, particularly regarding selfishness, provides us opportunities for real thinking and conversing. This leads to uplifting conversations which assist us in addressing the misfortunes impacting others, and in making our society overall more compassionate and tolerant.

"I Have No Biases"

This post is an excerpt from my upcoming book on Living Well

“I have no biases” is a statement we often make with complete confidence and certainty, and not a little moral superiority. I told myself this story for years. Many of my good friends do so to this day, not at all aware of how biased we are.

There is great emotional satisfaction in saying and feeling one is unbiased. Besides the sense of being morally upright, it strongly implies being non-judgmental and respectful of all, a nice boost to our fragile egos. True enough if one does in fact happen to be unbiased, but I have never known such a person. In fact, while I have done a lot of hard work on myself, I still maintain many biases, perhaps hundreds, as I think we all do.

The problem is not necessarily having biases, for obviously there are many of no consequence. I prefer the color blue to red, classical music of the Romantic Period to today’s pop, sunny days to cloudy ones, trousers with pleats to those without them, and impressionist to abstract art. That I hold these biases may be irritating to some, but they are clearly inconsequential.

Yet there are ones which are indeed consequential, or at least potentially so. For example, I am biased for Asians’ work ethic, and biased against people whose work ethic is questionable. For good drivers and against poor ones. For people who are resilient and against people who are complainers. For doers and against takers. For strivers and against slackers. For those with open minds and against those with closed minds. And the list goes on.

Some may be disturbed because these examples smack of partiality, favoritism and judgmentalism. The horror may be especially pronounced since I am asserting that it is not just me who has such biases, but that we all have them. Yet the issue is more subtle than a simple and very easy condemnation of what I am expressing. Pretending we have no judgmental biases means we are living in a world of our own creation that  does not exist. Comforting as that may be, the cost is hypocrisy.

One can profess heatedly that one has no such biases, and yet do considerable harm from the falseness of the story. I know a goodly number of people who assert that they do not have any “biases against” anyone or group, that they are tolerant. As it turns out, this view has a unique meaning. It says they are biased for, and treat very respectfully and favorably, folks with whom they agree or whom they like. But they often actively demean and denigrate the very people for whom they should have tolerance: those with whom they most strongly disagree (and are biased against), especially those of the other political party. The story that we are unbiased must be maintained because admitting we are not runs the huge risk of undermining the very carefully crafted positive image we have of our moral superiority. We will have to face our hypocrisy head-on, and that cannot happen.

My consequential biases do look awful. But their existence says nothing about how I actually behave toward people. Certainly if I am not careful I could easily allow my preferences for and against to influence my behavior---for example, playing favorites with those I am biased for and treating badly those I am biased against. But controlling our behavior under challenging conditions is exactly what much of Living Well is all about. As a college teacher, I have felt minor bias against certain students because of how they dressed or the tattoos they sported. Nonetheless, I did not allow that sense to push me into treating them in any way disrespectfully or unfairly.

People may think that we should not have certain biases, but that is yet another defiance of reality. Humans are not perfect. In the end it is not whether we have biases, but whether we act out biases against others in a way that negatively characterizes and demeans them. Or, if we act out biases for others that expresses inappropriate favoritism. Living Wells asks that we accept all human beings as deserving of respect, which is impossible if we condemn them or play favorites. Having biases for and against is normal, but we must be very careful what we do with them. If the well-being of others is part of our life, then respect must be evident for all. Treating others respectfully demands that we acknowledge our biases and act firmly to ensure those do not harm anyone, especially those we disagree with, or who we actively dislike.  

Denying the reality of biases means we fight against reality and our own psyches, using up large amounts of emotional energy trying to maintain a fiction (I am absolutely unbiased!). We spread our inner struggle and upset those around us, loudly proclaiming our righteousness in the midst of our hypocrisy.

When we believe absolutely what we think, particularly about ourselves, we have likely closed our minds to openness and critical thought. Others can see we are living a delusion, but we cannot. We believe we are open, objective, and tolerant when the truth is a very different story. Living Well is impossible under such conditions.

Can Critical Thinking Be Taught?

Let's see if we can put a bit more substance on the thus far rather anemic considerations of critical thinking. Can critical thinking be taught? Well, yes and no. Critical thinking is affected by a goodly number of factors---mostly unconscious---that everyone has to one degree or another, only one of which is the intangible intellectual ability. Consider the following:

•          Built-in brain filtering mechanisms (Confirmation bias)
•          Acquired filtering mechanisms (Republicans/Democrats are bad people; atheists/theists are crazy).
•           Personality factors (Tendency to see the glass half full or half empty; tendency to prefer detail to big picture or the reverse).
•           Emotional drivers (the NEED to be right, to win, to be perfect.)

These aspects determine whether we can think objectively/critically or not. Nearly everyone I know, or have known, imagines that what they think about themselves (I am being objective, I am capable of critical thinking) is how they are. Could not be farther from the truth since they have failed to examine the above elements and deal with them. I am familiar with this as I lived it for many decades. Take the person who violates a principle of intellectual honesty and fails to acknowledge and question his/her own assumptions and biases. Did that happen because he is thinking rationally and openly? Hardly. It happens because he has an emotional agenda to be right, to win, to be admired, or whatever, and that agenda will prevail come what may. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table. Unfortunately, most deny they have such biases.

Consider Flatland, the book in which a group of people exists in a world having only two dimensions. They are literally unable to see a third dimension. Their language has no place for third dimension aspects, and thus they cannot imagine it, much less think or talk about it. It seems that language and thinking quality are related in a system's sense, with each influencing the other. Imagine a group like the Flatlanders whose language has only two colors: black and white. What nuanced critical thought can you expect of such folks when you ask them evaluate a Van Gogh palette? None. Thus, we can argue that part of critical thinking beyond the vital 4 aspects mentioned above is a largish (will go undefined) vocabulary about the issue in question. This can certainly be taught.

Most people I know have plenty of opinions backed up by nothing more than an emotional certainty they are right or at best by cute anecdotes. Their vocabulary (this can be read as facts as well) is minimal because they choose it to be so, not because they are inherently limited intellectually. Scientists have opinion and bias problems as well: when the walls surrounding the Sphinx were determined by Dr Robert Schoch, a renowned geologist, to have been eroded by water and not wind and sand, the Egyptologists went positively insane, including attacking Schoch with ad hominem “arguments.” Schoch’s information upset terribly their chronology of the pharaohs. Thus, even though they were not geologists, Schoch’s work was rejected, not for any rational reasons, but for pure emotional ones: we don’t like this, so it will have to go away. Years later, and without any apology to Schoch, they are gradually coming around.

Ask a person from the right to rigorously critique Glenn Beck or a person from the left to do the same with regard to Chris Matthews, and they will both look at you like you’re nuts. Their emotional vocabulary does not even permit this information to get in, much less be examined. Essentially, they are like the Flatlanders: what they cannot conceive of cannot be seen. They could no more constructively and energetically critique their boy than they could dis-embowel themselves.

I think that critical thinking can be taught, but that teaching has to happen at two different, albeit connected, levels. The first level deals with relatively simple elements such as how to examine a painting with an eye to distinguishing its positive and negative points based on certain standards of art criticism. Such standards themselves are subject to alteration (recall the rejection that the first Impressionists experienced) as new styles evolve. The same is true in asking a person to constructively critique the quality of an essay, according to generally accepted standards. To some degree, depending on the person's innate intellectual ability (sorry for leaving this undefined), we can teach this critical thinking.

The second level is not at all addressed in universities or elsewhere, although it is the issue upon which critical thinking stands or falls. This gets at the enormously powerful role of our unconscious and its often huge emotional needs---recall the Schoch example. The four critical, primarily unconscious aspects mentioned above will get no appreciation or recognition from the fearful for, as a great mentor once said, referring to me, “Certainty is the last refuge of the fearful.” And we are all afraid, even when we are not consciously aware of it. And, having been there I know what it feels like and what it looks like in others. When fear goes, when ego attachments to being right are gone, then and only then do we have a chance to think critically and objectively. Can this be taught? Absolutely. But only the most courageous have a prayer.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: Responsibilities and Consequences: The Lost Connection

Growing up in the 50’s meant something very different from growing up today. As children and teens we were provided with privileges (never, ever called rights---a topic for a future post) which adults generally agreed could aid in a young person’s growth into a responsible person. Being able to stay out a little later, use the family car, take a camping trip with friends were examples of what we got to do if our parents judged us worthy. Privileges meant explicit obligations. We could continue to do these things, or even add new ones, so long as we showed good judgment, behaved properly, and did not otherwise abuse the opportunity. If we violated any of these, the opportunity was withdrawn, at least for a while. There was a very clear connection between what we got to do as an opportunity and what we had to do in exchange---the obligation or responsibility.

Although not all adults’ views were identical, there was an unspoken consensus among parents, teachers, neighbors, religious leaders, and even newspapers about what was appropriate behavior for young people, and how to deal with behavior that did not meet that “standard.” Any adult, known to us or not, could reprimand us for misbehavior, and was expected to do so. Further, if my parents found out about a reprimand, I was in for another one at home. If I got into trouble at school, that entailed a loss of privileges at home in every case. No matter the source of the reprimand, except in very rare cases the word of the reprimanding adult was conclusive and final, especially if it came from a teacher or other socially important person. Consequences were enforced.

Arising directly out of the 60’s view that “if it feels good it is good,” we have discarded the consensus of responsible action, with a concomitant breakdown in behavior and civility in both young people and adults. A factor aiding this societal breakdown was an enormous expansion of “rights,” an essentially narcissistic view saying that whatever I want to do is a right, even if that is seen by others as inappropriate if not outright wrong. If I want to talk loudly in restaurant, that is my “right.” If I want to wear clothing that is offensive, that is my “right.”  If I want my kid to run amok at school, that is both my “right” and my kid’s as well.

Critically, and as I said in the last post, if your view is in opposition to mine, my “rights” prevail over yours under all conditions.  If you dislike or are offended by what I consider my “right,” too bad for you. The problem is yours. I am never to be held accountable for my behavior because it is a “right.”

The problems of rights without obligations have reached near catastrophic proportions in raising children. Starting from birth children have been accorded all sorts of “rights” by parents whose ability to set proper limits and hold their children accountable is bankrupt. The children, seeing a huge gap in the system of responsible behavior, have surged right through it, insisting with their parents’ often unwilling accommodation that they are in charge of the house, which they are, thus leading these mini-adults seeing the world as their entitlement---I get to do what I want, period.

 Even when rights expanded in legitimate ways, problems arose because of one huge failure---offering people new rights but forgetting that responsibilities must come with all rights. An interesting example of this started in high schools in the 70’s when young people were allowed to call teachers by their first names, have more freedom to select classes and wear unusual clothes, schedule classes at their whim, and leave campus more often. Nothing wrong with these, except for the fact that no responsibilities were attached, leading again to the idea that people could (should) have rights without any obligations.

Any right that is enshrined in our legal and governmental system comes with obligations to use the right properly. I can follow my religious dictates, but I cannot cause others troubles because they do not believe as I do. I may drive a car so long as I meet various driving and administrative (insurance, etc.) obligations. I may own and use a weapon so long as I follow important procedures for safety, etc. We all know that failure to exercise these rights properly generally means we will be held accountable. But the self-centered “rights” have no such connection, and American society has suffered badly because of it.

Overall, our society is characterized by a lack of personal restraint, of care for the wellbeing of others, and of adequate systems for holding people accountable for poor behavior. This has led to condition of little inter-personal respect, very high levels of incivility and crime, and increased levels of frustration and anger as legitimate social rights are trampled. Interestingly, the very people who will trounce you so that their “rights” prevail are often those who are adamant that our society needs more civility and respect. What they really mean is respect for and civility to them.

In his book, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says,

“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…. A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.”

Thinking Is a Serious Problem: The Loss of Shock and Shame and Societal Disintegration

Cultures decline for a number of reasons, and among the more important of those are the loss of cohesiveness, of connection to others in the culture, and of shared values. The more separation and fragmentation that occurs, the more the culture starts to socially, politically and economically unravel. Eventually it disintegrates or, like Europe, gradually drizzles away its mojo. Fragmentation occurs in a culture, just as it does in a marriage, when people have the view that whatever they want is what they are entitled to, and will get come hell or high water, no matter the adverse impact on others---a setting in which impulse control is considered not just useless, but outright stupid.

Both reflecting and causing the US's decline is the loss of two great words and the behavior attendant to them: Shock and Shame. Many important words have been lost or intentionally denied existence (political correctness, itself a contributor to decline), but these two are particularly emblematic of our culture's decline because their loss has been accompanied by diminished shared values around healthy social behavior. Separateness and difference are facts of life, but societal fragmentation increases when they are emphasized and fostered to the exclusion of unifying elements. When I was young both shock and shame were social tonics that we all more of less shared, ensuring a more cohesive society and generally better and more respectful behavior.

"Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being shocked.... It may be that your grandmother was an extremely lively and vital animal, and that you are a paralytic."

G.K. Chesterton said (in As I Was Saying):

 We seem to have lost the ability to be shocked (offended by something), perhaps as the ancient Romans also were by the continual assault on their senses of the ever-increasing brutality of the games. In this era of everything goes if it feels good, we are reduced to insensate reactions. Shock is troubling for many because it implies standards, anathema to those who allege there is no truth, and nothing may be judged in any way, one opinion or view being just as good as another (some challenge in getting Hitlerian or Stalinist actions incorporated into this scheme).

The loss of standards of civil behavior is just one example or our decline led by the absence of shock, but the loss could easily apply to art, TV, literature, or different cultures. Misogynist and homo-phobic rap lyrics offend few. Women-demeaning violent video games (think early versions of Grand Theft Auto) got little attention. What passes for attire in young girls, at huge odds with the idea of women not being sex objects, receives virtually no comment. Politicians’ sexual misbehavior gets a passing glance. TV shows in which people reach sadly for their 15 minutes by debasing themselves are found humorous. Athletes’ drug use and denials have become ho-hum. Children having melt-downs is seen as part of how children grow up, a natural occurrence. Very poor educational outcomes upsets few. No shock, just standard societal operating procedure.

In addition to having lost the ability to be shocked, many are cowed by the current trends and agree (or pretend) that people can do anything so long as it feels good to them. When no standards exist other than your own needs and wants, it is clear that shock is an outdated issue.

The other great S word we have lost is shame, embodying emotional distress because of a failure  to live up to accepted standards. Growing up I encountered both shame and embarrassment, and these exerted a significant force that usually (but not always) kept people in a more socially acceptable behavior pattern. Certain things, as the Brits are wont to say, are simply not done. If any such thing were done, it was costly---pointed out and critiqued in no uncertain terms, often causing considerable personal discomfort, also known as embarrassment, anathema to the no-truth crowd. People did not hesitate to express shock at improper behavior, intended to produce a sense of shame. A very effective social remedy for unpleasant actions indeed. However, as this social remedy has disappeared, our society has not-so-gradually descended into a form of social anarchy driven by my (and your) needs. Regarding this latter there is one simple rule---where your needs conflict with mine, yours lose hands down.

In my dreams I hypothesize that the loss of these two great words, and the behavioral philosophy they underpin, arose with Love Story, a book of such gargantuan awfulness that words fail. Or, as a prescient friend once said of it, possibly the worst book in the history of the universe. Most of you will recall the emotionally troubled and sadly immortal line, "Love means never having to say you are sorry." And from this it is but one small step to the reptilian sensibility that you don't have to say you're sorry for anything. In fact, in the world of “whatever I want is good,” if someone else has a problem with my behavior, it’s tough luck for them. Simply---I get to do whatever I want and I am never, ever to be held accountable. You are not to be shocked nor am I to experience shame.

As shock and shame have lost social force, so has humility, a trait now practically de rigueur to disavow. Conformance to social standards can be extreme, as has been the case in some Asian countries. But once we have passed a certain point in undermining such conformance we will pay the price. In addition to the breakdown in cohesion and the increase in disrespectful behavior at all levels, we have seen the growth of humility’s opposite---narcissism, which revels under the no-shock, no-shame view. Being entirely “me” focused, it carries separatism and uncivil behavior to the nth degree.

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.