It's OK to admit that you can be wrong
Hi, I'm a person doesn't believe that they're wrong, ever. Even if I have multiple facts from multiple points of view offered to me in multiple ways that completely disprove what I am saying, I'll still cling to the belief that I am correct and that you and the rest of those like you are flawed in your thinking. I know that I'm right because I've been involved in things relating to what we're arguing about and since I have more experience than you, I have to be right.
OK, obviously I'm not describing myself here. I'm not right nearly enough to even imagine that I'm not ever wrong. But I'm pretty sure the person I just described is a person who we've all encountered at some point or another in our lives. Usually this person, while driving you nuttier than the fellow on the Planters tins in a top hat, can't actually mess up too much of your life or cause you a hug insignifcance. At the very least it's a person you know, so you're at least used to it and you know how to go after their train of thought or idea. Well imagine for a minute, that you don't know that person, that you've just met them a few days ago, but now your general existence is tied to their insistance that they are right. Welcome to jury duty.
Yes, I was one of those fortunate few citizens that was recently drawn for jury selection (the second time I've been drawn in 3 1/2 years by the way). And I was one of the lucky few during the selection process to be chosen as a juror. Now I know that it's easy to deride jury duty and the whole process, but it is actually important in many regards. Still, it can be something of an annoyance and not neccesiarly because of the trial you're sitting in on.
While my particular trial wasn't all that enthralling it still required paying attention and being attentive to testimony and documents provided so a verdict could be rendered. I served as a juror for a civil trial, which means there was no guilty or not guilty verdict. Instead, we (the jurors) were given a list of questions that we either had to answer in the affirmative or the nagative. Answering in the affirmative would have found for the plaintiff and the negative would have found for the defendent. Each question could have been answered independently of one another so there could have been in theroy finds both for an against the plaintiff.
Well at the conclusion of arguments and evidence presentation us lucky folks got to go deliberate over the matters at hand. Most of the items we were able to find our way throught without issue, we all understood them as the same. But then, oh then there was a glorious item that had us stuck. When I say us, I refer to the jury as a whole, since the jury has to render a unanimous decision in regards to what we're presented with. So the issues that had "us" stuck didn't have most of "us" stuck at all. There was one of "us" that was stuck and well, that proved to be a sticking point.
Let me refine something here. Initially there was more than one of "us" stuck on this point at hand. There were like three of "us". But after presenting logical arguments in conjunction in presenting them with facts, they became unstuck, well at least two of "us" did. There was still one that didn't quite see things that we were seeing. And that was all well and good. It gives a different perspective and a different idea. That's why you have a mix of people, so you get a diversity of ideas of opinions. In fact, read the play or watch the movie of 12 Angry Men, that's part of what the whole thing is about.
HOWEVER, when you a presented with FACTS and LAW in regards to your opinion that differ from your opinion, you don't really have much of a choice anymore. You have to concede. Not because what the rest of us are telling you, but because of what the law is telling you. Then when you see the point you're arguing has no basis, please don't try and argue your point again using a different idea, through which the LAW says your opinion is invalid. Then please don't argue yourself in circles because all that does is create confusion as to what you are arguing anyways.
And worst of all, don't say what you BELIEVE to be right in the case, because in the end what you BELIEVE has nothing to do with it. It's what you believe in regards to the application of the law. You might believe one thing, but if the law says the other you have to apply the law regardless of what you believe. That's why we have laws, to prevent folks from doing what the believe is the right thing all the time, because sometimes what they believe really isn't right. Case and ponit, there are plenty of peolpe that BELIEVE that it's OK to hit kids, but that's why we have laws that tell us it's not.
At any rate, this one of "us" (gooble gobble gooble gobble) chose to express what they believed instead of what the law told them they had to believe. At some points they expressly disregarded the law we had been told that we had to regard. After a while it became apparent that this one of "us" didn't want to admit their initial view point was wrong regardless of how many ways we tried to point them in the correct direction. This was espcially apparent when they said "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to."
Well that sentiment is nice, because sitting in a tiny room arguing in circles for more than four hours over the same point isn't fun, but that's not how this process works. That's coercion, making you say something that you don't agree with and that's not how this process works. You can't convince other jurors to change their view simply because you want them to. You have to present ideas and opinions that will cause them to change it. They can't just go along with the pack and pretend everything is peachy, that's not how the process works, or at least how it's supposed to anyway.
The "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to," was a nice way of saying "I refuse to admit that I am wrong, but I'll do what you want so I can appease you." There are greater tragedies in the world than admitting that you were wrong, in fact it's OK to do, even good to do in most cases. It's not neccessary to continue to stick to your guns for the sole purpose of sticking to your guns because that's who you are and that's what you do. When you refuse to accept logic and law then you are refusing to accpet the fact that you were incorrect.
So do you sense some frustration here? Imagine this but over the course of four hours with a 10 minute break sprinkled in there somewhere. These four hours also came after a previous session of nearlty 2 1/2 hours previsouly. This boys and girls is what jury deliberations for my trial was like. A refusal to accept fact and law and a belief that they couldn't be wrong. My point of all this I guess is this. You're never 100% right, no one is. Not the Pope, President, your gradma or that kid you knew in high school the teachers always called on when they wanted the correct answer. Don't prolong things by holding to your convictions about something when you know you're wrong over a matter that in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter. Don't disregard fact and logic simply because you don't like what they say.
In the end I guess what I'm trying to say is get over yourself. No one should be so self serving just because they like the way it makes them feel. Just stop it, it's not worth your time to do so and certainly, it's not worth anybody elses'.
OK, obviously I'm not describing myself here. I'm not right nearly enough to even imagine that I'm not ever wrong. But I'm pretty sure the person I just described is a person who we've all encountered at some point or another in our lives. Usually this person, while driving you nuttier than the fellow on the Planters tins in a top hat, can't actually mess up too much of your life or cause you a hug insignifcance. At the very least it's a person you know, so you're at least used to it and you know how to go after their train of thought or idea. Well imagine for a minute, that you don't know that person, that you've just met them a few days ago, but now your general existence is tied to their insistance that they are right. Welcome to jury duty.
Yes, I was one of those fortunate few citizens that was recently drawn for jury selection (the second time I've been drawn in 3 1/2 years by the way). And I was one of the lucky few during the selection process to be chosen as a juror. Now I know that it's easy to deride jury duty and the whole process, but it is actually important in many regards. Still, it can be something of an annoyance and not neccesiarly because of the trial you're sitting in on.
While my particular trial wasn't all that enthralling it still required paying attention and being attentive to testimony and documents provided so a verdict could be rendered. I served as a juror for a civil trial, which means there was no guilty or not guilty verdict. Instead, we (the jurors) were given a list of questions that we either had to answer in the affirmative or the nagative. Answering in the affirmative would have found for the plaintiff and the negative would have found for the defendent. Each question could have been answered independently of one another so there could have been in theroy finds both for an against the plaintiff.
Well at the conclusion of arguments and evidence presentation us lucky folks got to go deliberate over the matters at hand. Most of the items we were able to find our way throught without issue, we all understood them as the same. But then, oh then there was a glorious item that had us stuck. When I say us, I refer to the jury as a whole, since the jury has to render a unanimous decision in regards to what we're presented with. So the issues that had "us" stuck didn't have most of "us" stuck at all. There was one of "us" that was stuck and well, that proved to be a sticking point.
Let me refine something here. Initially there was more than one of "us" stuck on this point at hand. There were like three of "us". But after presenting logical arguments in conjunction in presenting them with facts, they became unstuck, well at least two of "us" did. There was still one that didn't quite see things that we were seeing. And that was all well and good. It gives a different perspective and a different idea. That's why you have a mix of people, so you get a diversity of ideas of opinions. In fact, read the play or watch the movie of 12 Angry Men, that's part of what the whole thing is about.
HOWEVER, when you a presented with FACTS and LAW in regards to your opinion that differ from your opinion, you don't really have much of a choice anymore. You have to concede. Not because what the rest of us are telling you, but because of what the law is telling you. Then when you see the point you're arguing has no basis, please don't try and argue your point again using a different idea, through which the LAW says your opinion is invalid. Then please don't argue yourself in circles because all that does is create confusion as to what you are arguing anyways.
And worst of all, don't say what you BELIEVE to be right in the case, because in the end what you BELIEVE has nothing to do with it. It's what you believe in regards to the application of the law. You might believe one thing, but if the law says the other you have to apply the law regardless of what you believe. That's why we have laws, to prevent folks from doing what the believe is the right thing all the time, because sometimes what they believe really isn't right. Case and ponit, there are plenty of peolpe that BELIEVE that it's OK to hit kids, but that's why we have laws that tell us it's not.
At any rate, this one of "us" (gooble gobble gooble gobble) chose to express what they believed instead of what the law told them they had to believe. At some points they expressly disregarded the law we had been told that we had to regard. After a while it became apparent that this one of "us" didn't want to admit their initial view point was wrong regardless of how many ways we tried to point them in the correct direction. This was espcially apparent when they said "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to."
Well that sentiment is nice, because sitting in a tiny room arguing in circles for more than four hours over the same point isn't fun, but that's not how this process works. That's coercion, making you say something that you don't agree with and that's not how this process works. You can't convince other jurors to change their view simply because you want them to. You have to present ideas and opinions that will cause them to change it. They can't just go along with the pack and pretend everything is peachy, that's not how the process works, or at least how it's supposed to anyway.
The "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to," was a nice way of saying "I refuse to admit that I am wrong, but I'll do what you want so I can appease you." There are greater tragedies in the world than admitting that you were wrong, in fact it's OK to do, even good to do in most cases. It's not neccessary to continue to stick to your guns for the sole purpose of sticking to your guns because that's who you are and that's what you do. When you refuse to accept logic and law then you are refusing to accpet the fact that you were incorrect.
So do you sense some frustration here? Imagine this but over the course of four hours with a 10 minute break sprinkled in there somewhere. These four hours also came after a previous session of nearlty 2 1/2 hours previsouly. This boys and girls is what jury deliberations for my trial was like. A refusal to accept fact and law and a belief that they couldn't be wrong. My point of all this I guess is this. You're never 100% right, no one is. Not the Pope, President, your gradma or that kid you knew in high school the teachers always called on when they wanted the correct answer. Don't prolong things by holding to your convictions about something when you know you're wrong over a matter that in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter. Don't disregard fact and logic simply because you don't like what they say.
In the end I guess what I'm trying to say is get over yourself. No one should be so self serving just because they like the way it makes them feel. Just stop it, it's not worth your time to do so and certainly, it's not worth anybody elses'.
posted by MC at 11:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home