In your example, what is the objective? Defending a position or is it something bigger?
Why everyone should think like a lawyer
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
The objective is to be right. I don't want to be so wed to a position that I will ignore that it is the wrong position. You never saw me claim Biden was in OK health, even though it was the position "my side" took. I have no interest what my perceived liberal side's position is. Hence why I also support a spending freeze for the government (but overall spending, we can redistribute to priorities). I didn't particularly criticize Manchin, he had to represent his people.
So I don't get things like RINO. I don't think there should be a litmus test for a party. Bending one's opinion to fit in should be wrong.
So the example I gave of COVID worked. I bought that it was needed to close schools in the opening weeks, we had no idea yet what was happening. But the evidence came back that schools could be reopened as long as we had a system for protecting the kids/families that were at danger (and there were some). It didn't matter what team blue thought, go with the evidence.
your approach is how everyone should think. lawyers in their practice operate more along the lines of the partisans we see on the board. you represent a side and therein are limited in your advocacy
For the vast majority of things there is no right. There is only better or worse. Accepting ambiguity is part of thinking like a lawyer, according to my opening link.
FWIW, I don’t think closing schools was “right” and it wasn’t the best answer either.
That's why you're Sigma, Marv. You could rizz Livvy Dunn like Kai Cenat.
The book Premonition by Michael Lewis does a great job of breaking down those early days. Our early modeling suggested it was going to be bad, but then they discovered something missing. The model didn't include children. second graders riding four to a bus row would spread a contagious disease FAR faster than anything else. The risk of having all of America come down with COVID within a few days was way too high given we had no idea how bad it was going to be. Our ICU capability was swamped as it was.
Ambiguity exists, but most ideas can be tested. Let me ask this, what do you find ambiguous about the success of Biden's immigration plan?
As Ken Nunn in his television ads says, "Not all lawyers are alike".
I don’t think your last sentence is correct. I think only ICUs in NYC were swamped.
My wife works at Rush, downtown Chicago. It’s the designated biohazard hospital, designed to handle it better than others, for Chicago. They were busy but never so full they couldn’t handle things.
Chicago had the McCormick center ready to use but I don’t think it ever became necessary.
They pretty much all do. It's the business & PR people that they report to, though, (like pharma CEOs) that put a spin on things.
Or its the media who always try to overstate the findings of a study. Say you have an experimental ALS drug and the prevalence of ALS among those talking the drug is 6 in 100,000 people, and those not taking the drug is 9 in 100,000 people. The headlines scream "33% reduction in ALS cases" without noting that both the 6 in 100,000 and 9 in 100,000 figures have ERROR BARS associated with them, and that -33% may in fact be -10% or even 0%.
Not sure what you are asking about immigration. I think the bill was a nonstarter because it legitimized an erroneous view of asylum and tied law enforcement’s hands. Not sure what that has to do with thinking like a lawyer and I’m not gonna debate immigration in this thread.
Some areas ran out, Bloomington and Bedford ran out. Indiana went below 10% statewide, hard to believe that happened and some hospitals weren't at or over 100
Here is Texas saying they had hospitals run out
Dozens of Texas hospitals are out of ICU beds as COVID-19 cases again overwhelm the state's capacity
"This surge is by far the fastest and most aggressive that we've seen," said the health authority for Austin and Travis County, who urged eligible Texans to get vaccinated.
www.texastribune.org
Or it might be a .003% reduction from 9/100,000 to 6/100.000
Do you have data to support this? Because research scientists have incentives to oversell their conclusions. I'd think you'd know this and mention it, if you weren't trying to construct a post like a lawyer to "win at all costs." TIC
The problem has been written about a lot over the last decade, and those who are complaining have at least some evidence to back it up:
Overselling results is a problem in science – Elephant in the Lab
“Scientists who oversell their results are a big problem for science.”…
elephantinthelab.org
The danger of overselling science
Sometimes scientists, the media and the general public inadvertently conspire to oversell science, and that is bad for us all.
theconversation.com
Overhype and ‘research laundering’ are a self-inflicted wound for social science
Breathless press releases, over-interpreted meta-analyses and other ‘crud factors’ mean that weak research results can get overhyped to the public. It’s time for a cultural change in the social sciences.
theconversation.com
Ed Yong on Science, Replication, and Journalism - Econlib
Ed Yong, science writer and blogger at “Not Exactly Rocket Science” at Discover Magazine, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the challenges of science and science journalism. Yong was recently entangled in a controversy over the failure of researchers to replicate a highly-cited and...
www.econtalk.org
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com
Do you have data to support this? Because research scientists have incentives to oversell their conclusions. I'd think you'd know this and mention it, if you weren't trying to construct a post like a lawyer to "win at all costs." TIC
The problem has been written about a lot over the last decade, and those who are complaining have at least some evidence to back it up:
Overselling results is a problem in science – Elephant in the Lab
“Scientists who oversell their results are a big problem for science.”…
The danger of overselling science
Sometimes scientists, the media and the general public inadvertently conspire to oversell science, and that is bad for us all.
Overhype and ‘research laundering’ are a self-inflicted wound for social science
Breathless press releases, over-interpreted meta-analyses and other ‘crud factors’ mean that weak research results can get overhyped to the public. It’s time for a cultural change in the social sciences.
Ed Yong on Science, Replication, and Journalism - Econlib
Ed Yong, science writer and blogger at “Not Exactly Rocket Science” at Discover Magazine, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the challenges of science and science journalism. Yong was recently entangled in a controversy over the failure of researchers to replicate a highly-cited and...www.econtalk.org
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
It is a problem, but much of the time the media has a lot of the blame. It isn't hard to find a story suggesting we are seconds away from something like fusion, but in reading the article the scientist with the "breakthrough" in no way says that. Or that a comet is on course to hit earth in 2028, and when one reads the article they give it a 3% chance and expect to be able to rule it out in just a few days.
But yes, in a world where one chases money, some play the game and oversell their product. A person suggesting their work on new generation batteries is just a waypoint that MIGHT lead someone else to a new discovery isn't as likely to get funding as the person who says their lead will create batteries the size of a dime that can power a car for 1000 miles.
It just shows scientists are subject to the same foibles.
The thing is, outside the grant process, a scientist claiming a theory of everything that cannot prove it with math will face intense scrutiny. The theory will quickly go into the garbage heap, far faster than our political failed theories do.
No, I don't, just basing it on personal experience. I would say that in my field anyway the impact of a proposed study is often oversold in research grant proposals, where you are incentivized to make the grant reviewers want to give you money.
But when it comes to a research paper, the peer review process necessarily makes you justify your conclusions and not oversell them, with precise language and recognition of statistical significance.
But then after you get the high impact publication, you are contacted by your organization's science writer, and you really need to insist on editing the final draft, otherwise they make it look like you cured a rainy day. Then the broader news media reads the press release and takes it even further.
"No, please don't write that! I didn't say that this new drug X was a cure for all brain cancers. I said that, when added to this other drug Y, there is a combined effect of extending the mean survival time in mouse models, from 3 months on drug Y to 18 months on the combination, which is near the expected lifespan of the mice used in the study. And we only looked at one genetic form of brain cancer. Further studies are needed to see if this result recapitulates in humans"
The science writers always think that the facts don't sound sexy enough.
Last edited:
Nope, the overall Biden immigration effort put forth by the Biden administration. Tell me what ambiguity you see, because your posts have consistently been "total failure". Where is the ambiguity?
If everyone thought like a lawyer, we’d be living in the stone age
Even Daniel Webster wouldn't be able to get my wife to say where she wants to eat. You have to guess and guess and guess until you finally hit it. And then she'll change her mind.Mostly disagree. Legal training is not law training. It’s mind training and those skills transfer to many disciplines and endeavors. The arguing part is not all bad, it is a pretty good leaning tool, but yeah, it can be abused. Abuses are more about personality and character than thinking like a lawyer.
I’ll. Illustrate with a real world example
Me: Do you want to go out to eat?
Stoker: where would we go?
Me: What does that have to do with whether you wanna go out?
Stoker: I don’t know if I wanna go out unless I know ehere we are going.
Me: pick one.
Stoker: I don’t care, you decide.
Me: Chinese.
Stoker: What would you order?
Me:Where’s the peanut butter.
Moral: Layers prioritize and make decisions.
