Monday, May 25, 2020
No surprise to the lawyers
A short feature on jury manipulation in the same 1895 SciAm that gave me the lamp clocks.
Note that the DESIRED EFFECTS of a lockdown were already seen after three days. Chaos, loss of internal resilience, obeying the commands of the psychopathic lawyer. The "untwisted" people without strong views were already obedient to commands, so they didn't really need the lockdown.
Note also temperance views. Prohibition was the Officially Assigned Science Argument in the 1890s, mixing religion and politics and real science, with both sides using fake "science".
= = = = =
Recalibrate: Well, maybe not unduly harsh. Active working men, unused to confinement, are unable to think and reason continuously on any topic outside of their everyday life. Science IS my active work and my everyday life, so I can think and reason continuously about science. And in this specific case, I am used to confinement, so I know the motives of the confiners. BUT: When lawyers present fake arguments on topics outside my everyday life, I'm completely bamboozled. Every single "velvet revolution" still fools me, and until recently every "war for democracy" fooled me.
A short feature on jury manipulation in the same 1895 SciAm that gave me the lamp clocks.
In reality the ordinary jury is selected from active working men unused to confinement, and unable to think and reason continuously on any topic outside of their everyday life. They are untrained to discern the probable facts in a contested case, and understand the real from the apparent in the arguments of counsel. The confinement of the court room, its bad, vitiated atmosphere, with the changed diet of hotels in a long trial, make them still more unfit.The writer is unduly harsh on the intelligence of ordinary men. Modern science writers are still unduly harsh, constantly demeaning the intelligence of Deplorables.
There are always men with a mental “twist” or bias in the average jury. In good surroundings and in good health this would be concealed, but after a day or more in the court room it becomes a dominant factor. Strong religious, temperance and political views intrude themselves, whenever the man becomes at variance with his surroundings, and its natural physical and psychical influences.
Lowering and changing the degree of health and functional activities makes him more intolerant of the divergent views of others. After the second or third day of a trial, appeals to these conceptions and efforts to make some facts apply along these lines are always effectual.
Note that the DESIRED EFFECTS of a lockdown were already seen after three days. Chaos, loss of internal resilience, obeying the commands of the psychopathic lawyer. The "untwisted" people without strong views were already obedient to commands, so they didn't really need the lockdown.
Note also temperance views. Prohibition was the Officially Assigned Science Argument in the 1890s, mixing religion and politics and real science, with both sides using fake "science".
= = = = =
Recalibrate: Well, maybe not unduly harsh. Active working men, unused to confinement, are unable to think and reason continuously on any topic outside of their everyday life. Science IS my active work and my everyday life, so I can think and reason continuously about science. And in this specific case, I am used to confinement, so I know the motives of the confiners. BUT: When lawyers present fake arguments on topics outside my everyday life, I'm completely bamboozled. Every single "velvet revolution" still fools me, and until recently every "war for democracy" fooled me.
Labels: Jackboot stomping forever, Jail mode
¶ 11:34 PM
