Most of the things people pass on are things that give them an emotional rise. This is why we hear very little of Aristotle or Descarte and a lot about current violence, divorce, and the like. Why, just last night on the way home, I was cut off by two stupid drivers. We don't talk about the rest because their behavior is reasonable.
Sensationalism sells. That's why they pass on stories about certain school shootings and why the American soldier who killed civilians is a big deal but not the Afghan who shot some soldiers today. It's very reasonable for soldiers to die, but it's emotionally painful for others to be involved in violent exits from mortality.
However, when we get emotional, we start ignoring facts and bending the ones we have to fit theories. Last week when Trayvon Martin was shot, the President said we all need to do some soul searching. Last night, a UMiss student was shot in his dorm by some non-students, but because it wasn't something he could sensationalize, he will ignore that. This is why they claim the GOP is at war with women, intent on destroying social security, etc., not because it's true, but because it creates an emotional response that precludes the likelihood that people will be rational and reason it out by doing their own research.
Sunday night, I spoke on the phone about some misgivings I have with a person in a position of authority. I told him that "I wish I knew what information they have that leads them to believe it's a good idea, because from where I sit it makes no sense". I wasn't attacking the person. I was attacking the conclusion. I know it's possible he has information I lack that makes his decision better than the one I would make without that information. Consequently, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
We get new information all the time, but if we are already emotional, we frequently dismiss it. On our emotional high, we are invested in a particular outcome or conclusion, and any new information threatens to require us to admit we were wrong and change our minds. So we reject it by rejecting the messengers. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it's true. I used to go to wikipedia when I was bored and change the articles so that they weren't true. I no longer do that, but other people might.
Today, I heard new information on the shooter both in the case of the soldier as well as in the case of the teenager. Apparently, the soldier was on some drugs and the dead teen was belligerent to the point of escalation. If true, that changes things. I am reserving my conclusions just like I have in the past. I still haven't heard anything conclusive that the allegations that lead to Hermann Cain's withdrawal from the GOP primary were substantiated. Even though I think based on his behavior that he's hiding something, we learned from JK Rowling that Snape wasn't hiding his former Dark Lord master; he was hiding his love for Lilly. Plus, who can forget the Duke Lacrosse case? Apparently everyone but I.
Almost all attempts to rush to judgment are knee-jerk-reactions. They are emotion over reason. Consequently, they are frequently wrong, and yet the retractions and apologies are buried on page F-22 of the paper. The apology does not match the allegation in severity, and it is a huge injustice to hang anyone for a moment. We are human; we will make mistakes. Don't let anyone else make your mistakes make you.
No comments:
Post a Comment