In
his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” Daniel Kahneman posits that we humans,
as mammals/primates, have two different decision-making systems in our brains.
There’s a “fast” system, which does quick evaluations on the basis of
likelihood and present evidence, and makes a quick decision. There is also a “slow”
system, which takes time and evaluates more carefully.
The “fast” system is useful for emergencies. The “slow” system is
useful for – well, just about everything except emergencies.
Sadly, most of us use the “fast” system for everything, which
means that – for us – the obvious reason seems always to be the right reason.
Even more sadly, we rationalize these “fast” decisions: we take our
quickly-drawn conclusions and try to justify them mock-logically.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it’s just silly.
Which brings me to Dan
Abrams and Nancy
Grace.
For whatever reason, ABC’s “Good
Morning America” often uses these two as tandem commentators on court cases
in the news. Dan is reasoned and careful and takes the law into account. Nancy,
on the other hand, always knows immediately who’s to blame and mocks Dan for
not following her lead.
See? Dan is slow-thinking.
Nancy is fast-thinking.
It’s sickening to watch, sometimes. Dan is reasoning through a
case, and Nancy will accuse him of “sitting in his ivory tower.”
No, Nancy. Not right.
Nancy used to be a real court prosecutor. Now she’s just an
imaginary prosecutor, allowed by ABC to pontificate on cases about which she
(and the rest of us) know next to nothing.
But it ain’t.
She’s a dimwit in love with her own opinions who has forgotten how
the law works. She wants opinion to be law.
That’s a creepy thought.
“Good Morning America” really shouldn’t give her this kind of
exposure. Except, I’m sure, that she’s good for ratings, because fast-thinking
quick-judging viewers like to hear her expound on her ill-judged beliefs, which
agree with their own.
(Sigh.)
No comments:
Post a Comment