the ‘winning side’ heuristic
Some time during my on-going law degree, we had an assignment on a slightly altered case based on a real one, had to develop an opinion, and defend it convincingly.
After the main part of the assignment was done, we we were divided into break-out sessions to discuss that process and how we came to our conclusions - what moved us about the case? What arguments convinced us?
While some were open about their thinking and how they arrived at their final opinion, there were surprisingly many who just said they researched until they found the actual case, and copied the opinion of the highest authority, because that must be the more convincing and correct one. Anything else wouldn't really matter.
Their focus wasn’t on developing their own arguments and proving or disproving them, it was being on the winning team and on the side of authority, no matter what it said, because only what’s good and right is popular and wins, and the higher up you are, the more true it is. Why think when authority has already released a statement for you to use? Why evaluate something when you can just stick to the winning side?
Of course, that’s just one university exercise. If you wanna put the least amount of effort into it to pass, that’s your choice, and it worked there.
However, I can’t help but notice that many people’s behavior outside of this situation makes a lot more sense if you consider that this is their heuristic for a variety of things that aren't university assignments.
Please don't give in to that. Trust your eyes, your ears, your gut. Think.
Reply via email
Published