Eric (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} maniakes) wrote,@ 2005-03-31 13:12:00 |
|
Decision making process
No one side has a monopoly on this, and this isn't confined to any one issue. The examples are for illustrative purposes only. I'm not criticising anyone in particular; I expect I've been guilty of this to various extents myself a few times. I just see this pattern again and again, and I don't think it's helping anything.
How to Make a Rational Decision on a Current Events Issue
Step 1
Pick a solution that appeals to your prejudices.
Example 1: "Let Terri Shiavo die with dignity."
Example 2: "Don't make Terri Shiavo starve."
Step 2
Pick an extreme interpretation facts from the available claims and rumors. Make sure it unambiguously supports your prefered solution.
Example 1: "Terri Shiavo's brain is completely gone, and she said she didn't want to be kept alive as a vegetable."
Example 2: "Terri Shiavo isn't dead yet. Look at her react to the people visiting her! She could get better with therapy. And even if she doesn't, her parents said she would've wanted to keep going, so her husband must be lying."
Step 3
Assume the assessment of the facts from Step 2 is unambiguously correct and blindingly obvious to all concerned.
Step 4
Attribute the worst possible motives to those who take a position different from your own, since that's the only way to reconcile their actions with the assumptions from Step 3.
Example 1: "Terri's parents are selfishly torturing her by keeping her 'alive' against her wishes, and the Republicans are cynically exploiting the situation to pander to the religious right."
Example 2: "Michael Shiavo is trying to murder his wife so he can marry his mistress and keep Terri's insurance money for himself. Liberals are using this as a test case to advance their agenda of making euthenasia commonplace."
Step 5
Attribute all claims opposing your conclusions in Steps 2-4 to a monolithic group deliberatly trying to surpress the truth.
Example 1: "Blah blah blah blah Karl Rove blah blah blah Vast Right Wing Conspiracy blah blah blah blah blah."
Example 2: "Blah blah blah blah Activist Judges blah blah blah Lying Liberal Media blah blah blah blah blah."
Edit: Linking to the Beltway Traffic Jam to attract attention to myself.
No one side has a monopoly on this, and this isn't confined to any one issue. The examples are for illustrative purposes only. I'm not criticising anyone in particular; I expect I've been guilty of this to various extents myself a few times. I just see this pattern again and again, and I don't think it's helping anything.
How to Make a Rational Decision on a Current Events Issue
Step 1
Pick a solution that appeals to your prejudices.
Example 1: "Let Terri Shiavo die with dignity."
Example 2: "Don't make Terri Shiavo starve."
Step 2
Pick an extreme interpretation facts from the available claims and rumors. Make sure it unambiguously supports your prefered solution.
Example 1: "Terri Shiavo's brain is completely gone, and she said she didn't want to be kept alive as a vegetable."
Example 2: "Terri Shiavo isn't dead yet. Look at her react to the people visiting her! She could get better with therapy. And even if she doesn't, her parents said she would've wanted to keep going, so her husband must be lying."
Step 3
Assume the assessment of the facts from Step 2 is unambiguously correct and blindingly obvious to all concerned.
Step 4
Attribute the worst possible motives to those who take a position different from your own, since that's the only way to reconcile their actions with the assumptions from Step 3.
Example 1: "Terri's parents are selfishly torturing her by keeping her 'alive' against her wishes, and the Republicans are cynically exploiting the situation to pander to the religious right."
Example 2: "Michael Shiavo is trying to murder his wife so he can marry his mistress and keep Terri's insurance money for himself. Liberals are using this as a test case to advance their agenda of making euthenasia commonplace."
Step 5
Attribute all claims opposing your conclusions in Steps 2-4 to a monolithic group deliberatly trying to surpress the truth.
Example 1: "Blah blah blah blah Karl Rove blah blah blah Vast Right Wing Conspiracy blah blah blah blah blah."
Example 2: "Blah blah blah blah Activist Judges blah blah blah Lying Liberal Media blah blah blah blah blah."
Edit: Linking to the Beltway Traffic Jam to attract attention to myself.
