Scar Experiment

Something a little different. But interesting. I am still trying to figure out what it means. 

A scar experiment done at Dartmouth University painted disfiguring scars on subjects to determine how people would react to them. But in a twist, the scars were actually removed before the interactions without the subjects knowing. 

The subjects, thinking they were disfigured but actually not, "overwhelmingly reported back that people stared at their scars, and were mean and rude to them."

As I say I am still trying to figure out what this means. Maybe being uncomfortable with your looks makes you feel discriminated agaisnt even when you are not. And conversely being comfortable in you looks makes you more likely to feel you are treated fairly. 

And I suppose it might extend to more than looks. Intelligence, wealth, or basically nay thing you feel uncomfortable about. 

But take it with a grain of salt as it was a very small study. 

Lawyers, Lawyers, Everywhere

There are a lot of lawyers. Especially in the United States. We are, after all, know to be a quite litigious society. The U.S. has 1.26 million lawyers. That is one for every 248 people. 

Ireland, in contrast, has one for every 2062 residents. Finland one for every 2672 people. 

I suspect when you add in all the non-lawyers involved in the legal industry, the number is much, very much, worse. 

I have yet to find good numbers but the amount of money our legal system consumes has a substantial impact, and that would be a negative impact, on our GDP. Yes, of course, there is a need for some lawyers but we have a huge excess which is just a waste of brainpower. Such intellect would be better utilized on work which actually improves society. 

Worse, much of our legal system is nothing more than influence peddling and outright crime. As I well know. 

Bow Street Runners

Something I learned recently. Henry Fielding, the English author of the fantastic novel Tom Jones among many other works, was also a magistrate in London and just prior to the formation of the Metropolitan police reformed the first professional police force called the Bow Street Runners. 

Before the introduction of the Bow Street Runners and anything of the like, policing took the form of privately paid individuals used to maintain law and order without a formal system connected to the state. This resulted in unofficial policemen who were known as ‘Thief Takers’ who would capture criminals for money and negotiate deals in order to return stolen goods whilst claiming rewards. People who partook in this activity, such as a figure called Charles Huitchen and his accomplice Jonathan Wild, were voluntarily policing the streets of London for big profits when in fact, these men and others like them were often behind much of the crime in the area. The informal, volunteer based system was not working.

Fielding was different from most magistrates at the time in that he was honest. This would make him different from many judges and prosecutors today as well.

In 1729 Thomas De Veil became a justice of the peace, eventually settling in Bow Street. He was as corrupt as any; he had some 25 children to provide for, however in 1748 Henry Fielding took the post, and he just happened to be honest.

It was Henry’s half brother John who showed that in order to stamp out corruption, magistrates must not be given an incentive to arrest and take bail money; instead they should be paid a stipend. John followed Henry to the position of Principal Justice and raised Bow Street’s reputation to the point that he became what would in modern terms be the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police.

Fielding's novels are pretty risque so it was a bit surprising to me he had another life reforming the judicial system but then again it it often the ones who promote themselves as being holier than thou who are the most corrupt. Take Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Please. 

The Fiction Of Alimony

I ran across a page on alimony in a divorce mediation website from a law firm in Massachusetts  specialized in divorce mediation. I cannot help joking they are quite divorced... from reality. 

Practically speaking, alimony represents an attempt by the court to solve two very real issues that lower-earning spouses often face in a divorce:

1. To avoid leaving one spouse “empty handed” after the marriage when that spouse provided uncompensated work during the marriage, such as raising children or homemaking.
2. To avoid forcing a spouse to suddenly fend for him or herself in a working environment (in which they are unfamiliar and unprepared) after the spouse dedicated years of his/her life to the marriage at the expense of their own professional growth.

Not true, at least normally true in reality. If it were true. why would my ex-wife, who was not the primary care giver for the children during the marriage and who was able to earn just a much as me obtain such a huge amount of lifetime alimony? 

I understand I am just one case but I have talked to a lot people who have gone through divorce and looked at a lot for the statistics which assure me that my experience is pretty normal. 

Alimony is not about justice. It is an often a criminal game to see who can take the most from the other. Those willing to commit crimes and other unethical actions have a clear advantage. By willing to lie and commit fraud my ex-wife was able to extract close to $2 million from me. All it cost her was her self-respect and the respect of and relationship with the children. 

Fathers’ Leave

 A new study report Fathers’ Leave Reduces Sexist Attitudes. No surprise there. 

Research shows that sexist attitudes are deeply ingrained, with adverse consequences in the socioeconomic and political sphere. We argue that parental leave for fathers—a policy reform that disrupts traditional gender roles and promotes less stereotypical ones—has the power to decrease attitudinal gender bias. Contrasting the attitudes of new parents who were (and were not) directly affected by a real-world policy reform that tripled the amount of fathers’ leave, we provide causal evidence that the reform increased gender-egalitarian views in the socioeconomic and political domains among mothers and fathers, and raised support for pro-female policies that potentially displace men among mothers. In contrast, informational, indirect exposure to the reform among the general public produced no attitudinal change. These results show that direct exposure to progressive social policy can weaken sexist attitudes, providing governments with a practical and effective tool to reduce harmful biases.

Of course if people are treated equally they develop more equal attitudes. It isn't just fathers' leave that reduces sexist attitudes. Likewise, more equal representation of women in work, management, politics, etc. all reduce sexist attitudes. If over your career, half your bosses were women, you will be less sexist.  The exact same logic applies to race and gender identity. 

But we need to remember it works both ways. Unless half the military and half of dangerous jobs are held by women, sexist attitudes, by men and women, will persist. We need to fix the whole problem. 

Myside Bias Or Self-Interest?

A new report from the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies discuses "myside" bias in litigation where lawyers overestimate their chance of success in the courtroom. 

In a vast majority of disputes, settlement is superior to litigation, which involves uncertainty, legal fees, and opportunity cost. Unnecessary litigation also causes judicial backlog, wastes resources, and increases societal conflict. Major contributors to the lack of settlement are intransigent litigants who harbor overoptimistic predictions of litigation outcomes, even though they are looking at identical facts and applicable law. A study (N = 166) found significant myside bias in the participants' predictions of a judicial award (claimants' advisers expected awards that were 69% higher than defendants' advisers) and in their evaluation of arguments (both sides thought the arguments supporting their side were 30% more convincing than the arguments supporting their counterparty). Debiasing interventions—alerting to the myside bias, considering the perspective of the counterparty and dialectical bootstrapping—reduced the bias but did not eliminate it. Exploratory investigation indicated that a large proportion of advisers exhibited naïve realism and bias blind spot, and that cognitive reflection provided a limited measure of resistance to myside bias.

They completely miss the point. Lawyers are biased to prolong litigation because they get more money by doing so. It really is that simple. This is especially true in family law as the lawyers can leverage the often strained relationship between the litigants to prolong the case. 

Of course not every lawyer does this, but I doubt you would fine an honest lawyer who didn't admit that many do. 

Our legal process intensifies lawyers to act unethically and criminally and there is virtually no risk in doing so. Of course it is corrupt. Follow the money as they say. 

Ethics & The Supreme Court

With the revelations about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's receipt of lavish vacations (in some cases exceeding $500,000 for an individual trip) by a wealthy republican donor, some have highlighted the lack of  rules of conduct for the supreme court as an enabling cause. 

While I agree the same rules of conduct all other judges are required to abide by should be extended to the supreme court, I am doubtful they will have any more impact on the supreme court than they do on the rest of the judiciary. The reality is, rules or not, judges can and often act corruptly without consequence. It is part of the larger issue of corruption which has become normalized within the legal system. 

There are many laws I disagree with and believe need to be changed. But at least they are known. The problem with corruption within the judiciary is there is no other place where one can go to seek justice.  You might think district attorneys or the FBI would help but in virtually all cases they are unwilling to even investigate their close colleagues who they work with in the judiciary. No matter what the evidence. 

It s difficult to overestimate the negative impact to society such corruption has.