Why everyone should think like a lawyer

[CO. Hoosier]

Modify argument is not the same as change position. In military think, "we should not defend this open ground, let us stay here and modify our position" is not the same as "we should not defend this open ground, let us move onto that ridge behind that river."

In your example, what is the objective? Defending a position or is it something bigger?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In your example, what is the objective? Defending a position or is it something bigger?

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.

 

[mcmurtry66]

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

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

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.

 

[BradStevens]

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.

That's why you're Sigma, Marv. You could rizz Livvy Dunn like Kai Cenat.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

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.

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.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's why you're Sigma, Marv. You could rizz Livvy Dunn like Kai Cenat.

How much of that was English?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

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.

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?

 

[hoot1]

https://www.livemint.com/special-report/why-everyone-should-think-like-a-lawyer-11725018108784.html

Pretty interesting take on applying lawyer-think to business everyday life.

Scott Turow, an excellent legal fiction writer, described a legal education like this :

But legal education is not about specific cases or statutes. It is, as Mr Turow later understands, about processing a mountain of information and exercising judgment. It teaches how to infer rules from patterns, use analogies, anticipate what might happen next, accept ambiguity and be ready to question everything.​

​

I mostly agree, especially the part about being ready to question everything. Particularly when group-think is involved. But should everybody think like a lawyer? Not at all. Not all lawyers think like a lawyer. Variety is good. But the independence lawyers bring to the table is important.

As Ken Nunn in his television ads says, "Not all lawyers are alike".

 

[BradStevens]

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.

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.