by California Lawyer, TF Metals Report:
What do these three things all have in common: Detroit, Trayvon Martin and JPMorgan?
In the legal profession, especially, reasoning to a sound conclusion is done with hard evidence, and from inferences. Proving a fact from the existence of other facts, another way of saying inferential reasoning, often requires identifying and challenging long-held assumptions. If the underlying assumption is false, then it calls into question any conclusion based on such false assumption. Especially when analyzing human behavior, always one must ask: “for who’s benefit” and dig deep to identify hidden incentives that motivate behavior.
So let’s apply ourselves to something in the news at the moment.
In youth, life was simpler. Before I attended law school, I tended to look at things through an either or paradigm, such as right versus wrong, on versus off, etc. This simplistic reasoning skill serves many well, and it did me well, until I advanced my thinking beyond this simplistic problem-solving model, learned how to critically think and actually use this method in my profession.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.