A Stupid And Dangerous Way Of Decisions...

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

If we really had cognitive superiority, we wouldn’t need to settle on the final assessment of ourselves and our ideas — the debates would be over, because our judgment wouldn’t need to be justified to anyone else. But we don’t — we are forced to justify ourselves and our decisions, even as we negotiate the situations we find ourselves in.

We need to justify them every day, in the midst of debates over everyday situations. This debate, about what we are doing or thinking and how we explain our judgments and judgments to other people, is at the heart of the human life.

It is one of the most valuable and difficult debates we can have, but it is also the most limited. It is the kind of debate that we can only have after we have learned to cope with cognitive situations.

This makes it, I think, one of the clearest ways of understanding why human life is so complicated, and why every day is a succession of events where we can gain knowledge and wisdom, and occasionally fail to do so. Every day presents us with situations and decisions that we have to assess on the basis of the information and thoughts we have to explain to others. For any situation to be resolved, we need to discuss these situations, and evaluate them, and argue about them, in the right way.

There are circumstances in which we can make a decision only because we are able to justify it to ourselves — in fact, we can’t explain it to ourselves at all. In these cases, the cognitive element, which makes it possible to discuss our decisions, is lost. The debate happens in the minds of other people — a debate that must be explained, and explained well. This is the debate about the way we describe our judgment and decide on the basis of the conclusions we draw about what we have learned. It is precisely the type of debate that requires the cognitive element of thinking and learning.

The conversation around this debate, about how to explain ourselves and our judgments to other people, is the core of every civil discussion in every civil society. It explains how we learn, and it describes how we judge ourselves. The disagreement over judgments and opinions in civil debates doesn’t take place in a void. It happens, in the same situations, under the same situations, in a context. There are situations in which we are able to explain our judgments and opinions to ourselves, and we are able to understand them, but there are also situations in which we cannot. What we try to explain, and to explain well, is why those judgments and opinions are justified or irrational. It is the human way of arguing.

It explains the reason for a judgment, and it explains the situations in which judgment and decision-making are especially necessary. It’s a matter of debating situations and situations, reasons and reasons, judgments and arguments. This is the debate that arises when judgments are necessary. It is the human way of explaining our judgments.

When judgments are truly important, the cognitive element of thinking is as essential as it is when they are necessary. We need to explain our judgments and our judgments explain us. They decide how we will live. They provide our reasons for living. Without this debate, which explains our judgment, we are neither able to explain it to others nor, on the contrary, are we able to explain ourselves to others. The debate about judgment and judgment-making, which explains to us and explains to other people how judgment should and should not be applied to a particular situation, explains why judgment and decision-making are necessary.

There is an obvious irony in discussing judgment and decision-making in debates about judgments and decisions, but it is just as obvious when judgments are necessary. The arguments about what we are talking about, about what we are deciding, explain how judgment and decision-making are necessary.