[Neurons] 2018 Neurons #41 ACCUSATIONS & CRITICAL THINKING

Tue Sep 25 19:48:54 EDT 2018

From: L. Michael Hall

2018 Neurons #41

September 25, 2018

Neuro-Semantics and Modern Challenges #2

ACCUSATIONS AND CRITICAL THINKING

An accusation was made.  One person accused another person of doing
something unethical and illegal.  In human affairs this occurs a lot; it's a
regular event between people.  And normally once an accusation is made, the
conversation then moves to hear it out and find evidence that the asserted
event did happen.  After all, one can make an accusation without there being
any actual event.  That also happens all of the time.  Sometimes it is
intentional (someone is just trying to hurt another) and sometimes it is
unintentional (someone thinks that someone did something or assumes it or
jumps to that conclusion). Saying that something happened is not the same as
something actually happening.  One is a verbal map, the other is the
territory of action.  "The map is not the territory." 

Now in the case of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, when an accusation surfaced from a
Doctor Ford, a great many people on the left politically assumed that the
words of accusation was sufficient as evidence. Many came out and said, "I
believe her..." even though there is no evidence of the event except her
words.  They are taking her words (a verbal map) as equivalent to the event
and releasing the need for evidence.

Her words stopped their thinking-they stopped questioning and stopped
looking for evidence.  Normally, when someone accuses someone of an act- we
ask for evidence.  We ask for details.  When, where, how, etc.?  We do not
assume that the act of accusing is evidence.  It is not.  That's what people
did in the dark ages.  If someone accused you of being a witch, you were
considered guilty of being a witch until you disproved it.  That kind of
reasoning meant that you have to prove a not.  When the human race matured,
we stopped asking people to prove a not.  We only ask that you prove what
is.  If you say someone actually did something, then we ask you to give
evidence of what is- what did the person do?  When?  Where?

Anyone can make an accusation against anyone else.  That's the blame frame
and people do all the time.  Yet when that happens, thinking people ask
questions in order to find out if there's any evidence or truth to the
assertion.  That's what you do if you are a thinker and know how to do
critical thinking.  Asking a woman who is making an accusation to give proof
is the foundation for all modern legal systems.

After all, who would want to live in a world where any and every accusation
is treated as unquestionably true?  That would be a nightmare world!  In
that world you could easily ruin someone's life and reputation by simply
making an accusation.  If you are not responsible for giving evidence, for
proving the accusation, then you could create all sorts of havoc by simply
inventing whatever accusations that would darken someone's character.  Then
the person is guilty until he or she proves himself not guilty.
Fortunately, all modern justice systems start from the other direction:
innocent until proven guilty.

For anyone who is skilled in critical thinking, asking for facts that
provides evidence of an event is a basic first step in rational thinking.
To jump to the conclusion that the accuser is truthful, that you believe him
or her, assumes a fundamental illogical prejudice.  The irrationality?  You
have pre-judged before you have any evidence.  You are privileging an
accusation (a verbal map) over an actual event.  Now why would anyone do
that?  Probably to make a point or to achieve a political agenda.

Critical thinking is lacking when someone jumps to the conclusion that an
accuser is to be believed because a woman is claiming sexual aggression.
That's pre-judging (prejudice) that we must believe her is due to her
gender, not the facts.  Now it is true that in the past many women have made
such claims and have not been believed.  Yet because that is about other
people in other circumstances, that history is irrelevant.  Just because
something has been the case in the past does not mean that is the case now
or always will happen.

It is also true that many accusations used to be dismissed because a woman
uttered them.  But again, that does not mean "all women who make accusations
always tell the truth."  That's an over-generalization.  That
over-simplifies a complex situation.  Women lie and make things up just as
men do.  The gender of being female does not prevent one from
misrepresenting things, being confused, having agendas, or outright lying.
The issue is not about gender.

In the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, several factors make the facts of
this particular accusation very weak.

1) The fact that there was no report or statement that anything happened for
30 years (1982 to 2012).  For 30 years there was no indication of a trauma.

2) The fact that the accusation arose as a "recovered memory" in therapy.
Once in psychology, the idea of "recovered memories" prevailed.  Then Dr.
Ellen Langer of Harvard showed how easy it was to "install false memories."
Also there were repeated cases where DNA evidence proved the innocence of
persons who had been convicted of rape based on the so-called "recovered
memory."

3) Every person who was supposed to have been a witness to the event has
sworn that they were not there or that the event didn't happen, so there's
not a single witness to corroborate the story.

4) The accusation arose in a social, political context wherein the Democrats
have been trying hard to stop the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.  It arose
as last minute leaks from a Democrat Senator, Dianne Feinstein.  Though she
had the accusation in a letter for two months, she never brought it up
during the formal Senate process.  So the context and timing of the
accusation seems suspiciously political.

Next time you are accused of something- let's hope that everyone involved
can do some solid critical thinking!  That is, "disciplined thinking that's
clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence" and that they can
also think-about-their-thinking. That's what Executive Thinking (2018) is
all about.

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D., Executive Director 

Neuro-Semantics 

P.O. Box 8

Clifton, CO. 81520 USA                             

               1 970-523-7877 

                    Dr. Hall's email:
<mailto:meta at acsol.net\hich\af31506\dbch\af31505\loch\f31506> meta at acsol.net

    cid:261CED33-4408-4124-862B-B9A4B37A367A

Dr. L. Michael Hall writes a post on "Neurons" each Monday.  For a free
subscription, sign up on www.neurosemantics.com.   On that website you can
click on Meta-Coaching for detailed information and training schedule.   To
find a Meta-Coach see  <http://www.metacoachfoundation.org>
www.metacoachfoundation.org.   For Neuro-Semantic Publications --- click
"Products," there is also a catalog of books that you can download.   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20180925/09709712/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20180925/09709712/attachment.jpg>