|
This
one addresses important questions in both “obvious” courtroom proofs and
advocacy in divorce.
At a
glance, the article is an interview with documentary maker Errol Morris, who
questions our assumptions — and perhaps even those of others who may hold
our fates in their hands.
People look at a photograph and think, “Well, that’s obvious what it
means. It’s obvious what it displays or depicts or portrays.” And it’s
not at all obvious.... Somehow, if we see it, it must be the case....
But all this empirical information still doesn’t tell you what
you’re looking at. You may think you know a lot about the photographs,
but they don’t record what’s in people’s heads. They don’t record
context. They don’t record why the photograph was taken of what is
depicted.
That’s a problem. Because it subjects people to narratives that fall into
“patterns of belief” which are both simpler to accept (or answer some social
need for description) and operate at a subconscious level.
Thus, applied to the challenges of trying to find “fact” in divorce
contests, Mr. Morris’ experiences and observations in this Harvard
Business Review article serve as somber reminder that “seeing” is
not always “believing.”
—posted by Dell Deaton @6:33 PM EST 10/28/2008
RSD 16610
|
