I often get asked about the underlying causes of certain human interactions. One domain that has been popular this year is political polarization, civil discord, and hostility in general. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The range of responses propounded by many which cite acute conditions, while quite plausible, do not address what I feel are the systemic conditions common to all of these concerns. I propose, instead, that the root of these conflicts is borne in childhood and reinforced culturally throughout the lifetime, particularly through language. I offer three scenarios in support.
Arguing
Children have been raised on an implicit notion in the home that arguing is an offense. A formalized proscription is found in institutional settings where the notion is reinforced. However, arguing should not be shunned.
During arguing the participants are engaged in creating logical constructs to support or defeat a position. Arguing facilitates and promotes calm, rational deliberation. Participants demonstrate respect for each other by recognizing that each has reasoning ability. Through engaging in argument, instead of enforcing a position based upon a hierarchical structure or abandoning the debate, the participants tender their positions and open themselves to adopting the other’s position.
By arguing with others you show concern for them in that you are demonstrating a willingness to convince them and that you recognize the benefit to them of adopting your proposition.
An initial reaction to the proposition that arguing is for the benefit of the other party is that most people will argue for what they want. This is true. However, notice that I did not say that the purpose of the engagement was for them, but rather, there is a benefit to them. I will provide an example for clarification of this proposition.
As our introduction to argument has primarily been in the household my demonstrations will relate to that relationship dynamic.
Many parents have complained about the mono-syllabic retort or grunt from a child in response to the query about the school day or essentially any aspect of his or her personal life. Never more so than during the adolescent years. But argument enlightens both sides. It provides new information upon which an informed decision may be made. At times the rebuttal may defeat the proposition and the request is withdrawn.
Upon his or her evening departure you remind your child to be home by a certain time. Your child responds that it is unfair that he or she has to be in that early when “all my friends get to stay out later.” You could respond with something akin to “well that’s my rule so live with it.” However, if you invite your child to argue his or her position you have given yourself an opportunity to gain new information.
You may get the names of the friends, possibly parents names also, and where they go or what they do. You could find out the various particular offenses that your child’s friends engage in when he or she defends against your assertion that maybe they get to stay out later because they are better behaved.
So, your child argued to get his or her curfew extended. And did so selfishly. But, as a parent, it was a benefit to you. You got to find out who your child hangs out with and the type of activities they do. Your child even divulged the forbidden acts that his or her friends engage in which then gives you a heads up as to what to look for in your child. Hence, you benefit from arguing instead of asserting your authority.
Arguing is a good thing. This is why when someone says, “We have a great marriage, we never argue” I respond by saying, “That is unfortunate.”
Compare and Contrast
Compare: To examine the attributes of something to determine likeness and difference.
Contrast: To emphasize the attributes of something which demonstrate difference.
Complement: To emphasize the attributes of something which demonstrate agreement.
Compare and Contrast is a phrase that we likely got introduced to in grammar school and continued to see through matriculation. In adulthood the phrase surfaces during political programs, business news, or policy discussions.
This phrase may give a prima facia appearance as being a redundancy but rarely is that so.
In mathematical structure Complement has a value of +1 and Contrast has a value of -1. Compare is the nexus of Complement +1 and Contrast -1 which gives in a net value of 0. Thus, Compare is a neutral term. The phrase Compare and Contrast, having a value of -1 has an implicit negative bias.
In daily life we regularly compare. Often it is done without conscious consideration. We may compare two routes to the same destination. We may compare our attire to that of those surrounding us and conclude, “Oops, I am a bit under dressed for this occasion” -- or just the opposite. A personnel manager will compare applicants for a position.
The more formal Compare and Contrast is rarely undertaken spontaneously though. Unless a situation arises in which you are asked to but may not want to participate you would typically compare doing versus not doing the activity. In such a case as this you will naturally contrast also to support your bias.
There are times when others will be motivated for you to be in conflict. Conflict is profitable for someone. How broke would many a lawyer, judicial staff person, mental health counselor and many others be if all child custody cases were resolved amicably. The motivation to foster conflict is great. When profiteers are behind the scenes is when you will find Compare and Contrast as the standard. This is why it is an institutional standard. Institutions are profit driven.
While the instructive within the phrase demands showing likeness and difference the focus is then turned to the disagreement or discord within the comparative structure. That is, it seeks as a conclusion as a negative outcome.
OJ Simpson murder trial outcome
As a student of law I watched intently the proceedings of the OJ Simpson murder case. While the proceedings were ongoing I had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Mr Simpson as I had not seen the complete presentation of evidence. Upon presentation of the verdict my opinion became clear. He was not guilty.
That was the proper opinion to have yet there was significant discord across the populace as to opinions regarding his guilt, innocence, lack of guilt, and culpability. However, “not guilty” was the most warranted and logical conclusion.
The jurors’ verdict form was signed, read in open court, and the jurors were polled -- that is they were each asked if they agreed with the verdict. The court entered the verdict into the record and Simpson was set free. To this day that verdict stands. The warrants for the opinion that he was not guilty is so strong that to have an opinion otherwise is to defy logic. Yet, there is no global consensus of opinion on the matter.
I attribute this to ignorance about the criminal justice system and standard along with a dearth of logical processing skills in the general population. Once I explain this process and provide the warrant for the verdict then it will become clear that the jurors reached the correct verdict.
In a criminal trial the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The two other legal standards are “preponderance of the evidence” which means 51% or more in favour. This is the basic civil judgment bar. The next level is “clear and convincing evidence” which is generally thought to be with surety of around 80%. This is a standard used in particular civil cases such as Child Protective Services proceedings when the state seeks to take custody of a child. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is flexible according to the potential deprivation to the defendant. In a death penalty case jurors have tended to report wanting to sure to the high 90s, maybe 98% sure, while in a stolen toolbox case 90% has been sufficient.
In the Simpson case there was one critical revelation that must meet the reasonable doubt standard for any observer. That was the incident of perjury by lead detective Mark Furman. Furman was the one who allegedly found a bloody glove belonging to Simpson at the scene of the crime. The term “allegedly” must always be attached to any claim by Furman because he is a liar in court. Thus, any evidence connected to Furman cannot be used to warrant the charge. In essence, anything Furman said, purportedly found, or handled no longer exists as evidence. If he perjured himself on one issue then it must be assumed that he would do so on all. But the depth of Furman’s lying is what shattered the case.
Prior to the trial Furman gave an interview to a local screenwriter. In the taped interview Furman refered to black people as “niggers”.[fn1] Additionally, he implicated the Los Angeles Police Department -- his employer and lead agency on the Simpson case -- in a scheme where defendants were targeted by police although there was no probable cause. Furman indicated the false pursuits were racially based. Yet when asked, under oath, in open court if he had ever refered to black people as “niggers” Furman resoundly said “no.” There was the perjury that disqualified anything connected to him from warranting a guilty verdict. It was not just the act of perjury that held such great force but, rather, it was the particularities. The act to which he testified that he had not committed was done so during a video recording which was made and preserved with his full knowledge. This implicitly demonstrates that lying is a habitual act for Furman. It is so routine for him, that there is contradictory documentary evidence is inconsequential in his mind. There was more to the interview though.
Additionally, his revelation that the LAPD schemes to unlawfully create criminal cases against defendants disqualifies any evidence obtained by or connected to the LAPD from warranting a guilty verdict. Significantly this includes any evidence obtained from any area secured by the LAPD in which independent third party observers were not present to monitor the entirety of LAPD activities. The crime scene was such an area.
Thus, there remained only a smattering of ancillary physical evidence that could be considered. From the lack of any physical evidence tying Simpson to the crime scene, the lack of eyewitnesses and the required presumption that the LAPD may have “planted” evidence the only logical conclusion for a verdict was “not guilty”.
Yet, when presented with this absolute logical certainty there will be people who still hold an opinion otherwise. The admonitions against making logical arguments which were inculcated since early childhood and the lifelong programming of seeking contradiction, I contend, are at the root of such illogical opinions.
Conclusion
While cognitive dissonance may contribute to inhibiting people from considering new information that may dismantle a firmly held belief the greater barrier to harmonious and logical conclusions is the implicit combative bias. Political polarization will continue to increase. Civil discord will continue to increase. Hostility will continue to increase. That is, until such time as the deliberate effort to cause those increases is reversed.
If we encourage argument, especially by children. If we seek to compare and complement. If we require opinions to be validly warranted. Then we will be on course to a more enlightened, harmonious, and productive society.
Footnotes
1] Fuhrman boasted of fabricating evidence against suspects and expressed amazement about the racial makeup of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Wilshire Division. “Go to Wilshire Division,” he said. “Wilshire Division is all niggers. All niggers, nigger training officers, niggers.” LA Times 30 Aug 1995.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Monday, November 9, 2020
Implicit biases promoting a more hostile world and political polarism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment