12 HASTY CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER TWELVE HASTY CONCLUSIONS A hasty conclusion is a premature judgment – that is, one drawn before sufficient evidence is obtained. Exactly what constitutes sufficient evidence varies from case to case. In general, we may say the evidence is clearly insufficient when there are two or more possible conclusions and the evidence does not clearly favor any one of them. For example, consider a conclusion some people accept quite readily: "The average American college student is in college to have a good time." Most who accept this probably arrive at their position from a mixture of the stereotype of the carefree, fun-loving college student and some acquaintance with a few college students. They may know a neighbor who failed out of a couple of colleges, have heard stories about wild irresponsibility among other young people, and believe their own sons or daughters pay too little attention to their studies. Is that enough evidence to support the conclusion? Hardly. The judgment may not even fit the known students. The neighbor may have been enrolled in programs beyond his capacity and failed despite arduous effort. The stories about the other students may be inaccurate or oversimplified. And the people's own children may be more conscientious than they appear to be. Yet even if the judgment fits all those individuals, that does not prove that their behavior is typical of the "average American college student." The close study of a wider sampling of college students would undoubtedly reveal that for many, perhaps a majority, there is no single motivation for being in college. Rather, there are several motivations – for example, some degree of interest in their particular field of study, a hope for the added career security that a degree traditional brings, the desire to please their parents, and the hope of meeting other young people with similar interests. In such cases, where the motivation to have a good time exists – and it is entirely normal for it to exist – having a good time is usually only a part of the overall motivation. · WEIGHING BOTH SIDES Another example of a quite common hasty conclusion is this one: "The overall effect of technology has been dehumanize people." Many arrive at this conclusion after reading an article or two lamenting the decline of craftsmanship or the rising rate of crime in cities. There is a wide array of additional evidence that can be used to attack technology – from the character of many of the tasks workers are expected to perform to the development of sprawling suburbs, the emphasis on objects rather than human relationships, the increase in personal mobility, and the resulting erosion of family life and the values traditionally taught by the family. However, even this impressive evidence would not be sufficient to support the conclusion. Any judgment about the "net or overall effect" demands a weighing of both sides, the plus and the minus. Specifically what is needed, then, is the other side of the issue – the favorable effects of technological advance. If we were to look for such balancing effects, we'd find that technology has decreased the burden of extreme physical labor for millions of people. It has cut the fourteen- to sixteen-hour workday in half and given people time to invest in the finer human pursuits. It has given us electric lights and central heating and the means to travel long distances quickly and comfortably. It has conquered plague and famine. Any judgment of technology that does not weigh these and other advantages against the shortcomings is unfair and shallow. Hasty conclusions are not just an affliction of the uneducated. They are also found among the highly educated – even among serious scholars. The reason is that hasty conclusions are a consequence of the human condition. In other words, they are made possible by our own natural tendencies and the peculiarities of certain normal situations. · CAUSES OF HASTY CONCLUSIONS Some people's major concern in thinking is convenience. They are afraid of arduous analysis and rattled by complexity. As a result they will leap at the first conclusion that occurs to them. They may hear someone saying energy shortages are artificial, manufactured by the oil companies and corrupt government officials. And so they will accept that conclusion uncritically. After repeating it a few times, they harden it into an article of faith. Compounding this tendency is the desire to sound authoritative. Feeling some insecurity and wanting to compensate for it, or wanting to make their conversation livelier, many people have the habit of escalating every statement to a higher level of generalization. "A teenager was behaving very boisterously in the supermarket yesterday" becomes "Today's teenagers are very boisterous." "Mr. Easel, the art teacher at the local high school, gave my son an unfairly low grade" becomes "Teachers aren't fair in their grading." In a thousand different ways, "one" becomes "many" or "all," and "once" becomes "often" or "always." Even people who have managed to get beyond convenience-thinking to greater intellectual maturity cannot escape another normal tendency – the tendency to prefer, in certain matters, one idea over all others. People may be fully conscious of this tendency, even as it is exerting its pull on their thinking. Or they may be completely unaware of it. In the latter case, of course, they are more likely to be affected by it. But either way its attraction is powerful. Many movie magazine and romance magazine readers fall prey to this tendency. They stand ready to embrace any report, however farfetched, of scandalous behavior among celebrities. They accept as gospel the most incredible fictions, like "I Was Attacked by a Creature from Another Galaxy." Undoubtedly, many of the conclusions they eagerly accept reinforce their own deep desires and fantasies. Almost certainly, their conclusions support their view of life and human nature. Here's how one's preferences can influence one's judgment. Two businessmen have just concluded an extended conference and are having a late dinner in a crowded restaurant. Across the room they notice an acquaintance dining with a woman. They realize she is not the man's wife. The first businessman has had several illicit affairs himself and assumes other people behave similarly. He is also erotically stimulated by the idea that the couple are cheating on their mates. He concludes that they are. The second businessman likes to think well of people. He is also very disturbed by the thought of any thought of any kind of dishonesty, including martial infidelity. He concludes the couple are innocent of any wrongdoing. Which conclusion is reasonable? Neither. In the absence of additional evidence, both are hasty conclusions. It may be that the couple are having an affair. Or it may not. (there could be any number of other explanations for their being together.) So the only reasonable reaction is not to draw any conclusion at that time. · THE UNPREDICTABLE ELEMENT The other major cause of hasty conclusions – the peculiarities of certain situations – is largely unpredictable. Therefore, it can trap even the most careful thinker. Examples occur in every field of thought and work. One good example is the problem facing drug manufacturers. Every new drug must be thoroughly tested and proved safe for people to take before it can be released on the market. But testing is expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, competition with other firms in the industry encourages speedy research. For these reasons it is tempting to judge a drug prematurely. In the 9160s the most tragic example of this tendency was the drug thalidomide, which was branded safe and sold to thousands of pregnant women around the world. Only when hundreds of babies were born deformed, some grotesquely so, was the harm of the drug recognized. In the 1970s the "safe" drug Innovar began to be used as an anesthetic. A number of people now appear to have suffered extensive paralysis and brain damage from it. How much testing of drugs is enough? It is a difficult question. A drug called Intal has been effective in controlling the symptoms of asthma. A powder, it is sprayed into the bronchial passages. It desensitizes these passages so that they no longer constrict when allergens (pollen, for instance) are inhaled. During the early testing of this drug, one group of monkeys developed kidney lesions after being administered the drug. Was the reaction coincidental to the use of the drug, or did the drug cause the lesions? More testing was done, but the kidney lesions did not occur, so the conclusion was drawn that the lesions in the early testing had probably been coincidental. It is possible that the conclusion about the drug Intal may be proved incorrect in the future. However, that would not mean that the original conclusion had been hasty. A conclusion is hasty only if the person drawing it fails to make a reasonable to obtain sufficient evidence to judge responsibly. It is important not to rush to conclusions because once we forma nay conclusion, our curiosity in the matter is diminished. In other words, we make up our mind, and before we can even entertain a different conclusion, we must first unmake our mind. Doing that is difficult. "Mine is better" thinking, resistance to change, and face-saving weigh heavily against us. Here are three suggestions that can help you avoid hasty conclusions in your thinking: Before you draw any conclusion, be sure you have identified an answered all important questions pertaining to the issue. Where you cannot obtain sufficient evidence, either withhold judgment or (if circumstances require an immediate judgment) use the "If… then" approach for example, if the issue concerned what punishment would be most appropriate for a murderer and you lacked some important details about the case, you might say, "If the murderer acted in the heat of anger, without any premeditation, then I believe he deserves leniency. However, if he visited victim with the clear intention of harming her, then I believe his punishment should be severe." Where the evidence will support probability but not certainty, make your conclusion reflect that fact. That is, admit that it is impossible to say for sure what the right conclusion is, and explain why that is so. Then say what the right conclusion probably is. · APPLICATIONS Sdfsdfs 1. Examine each of the following conclusions. Decide the specific kind and amount of information that would be necessary to obtain before the conclusion would be justified. Determine whether another possible conclusion might be more supportable than this one. a. Why are there so many broken homes today? Why are crimes of violence increasing at an alarming rate? Why is pornography flooding our country? Because religion has been shut out of the schools. b. Many people have spoken out in recent years for a reduction in U.S. military spending. This is madness. We need to spend every dollar we are spending to maintain our national security. c. What makes people willing to speak out against lawful authority? What makes them attack the representatives of that authority – police officers, judges, member of Congress, presidents? Only one thing: lack of respect for authority. d. Have you ever wondered why European and American cultures have been so opposed to premarital sex? The answer is simple: prudishness. 2. While reading her evening newspaper, Jean notices that her congressman has voted against a highway proposal that would bring revenue to the area. She recalls that a recent poll of the voters in the district revealed that 63 percent favor the proposal. Concluding that the congressman has violated the people's trust, Jean composes an angry letter reminding the congressman of his obligation to support the will of the majority. Is Jean guilty of drawing a hasty conclusion? Explain your answer. 3. Ramona and Stuart are arguing over whether their ten-year-old son should have certain duties around the home, such as taking out the garbage and mowing the lawn. Ramona thinks he should. Stuart's response is as follows: "When I was a kid, a close friend of mine was so busy with household chores that he could never play with the rest of the guys. He always had a hurt look on his face then, and as he got older, he became increasingly bitter about it. I vowed a long time ago that I would never burden my son with duties and responsibilities. He'll have more than enough of them when he grows up." Evaluate Stuart's conclusion in light of the chapter. 4. Apply your critical thinking to the following cases. Be especially careful to avoid hasty conclusions. a. An Oklahoma man was sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison for indecent exposure. The prosecutor was able to ask for and get such a long sentence because the man had eleven prior convictions for burglary. The district attorney explained, "People are just tired of crime – they want the repeat offenders off the streets." Do you support the sentence in this case? b. A Connecticut teenager who stabbed a neighbor to death argued that he had not been responsible for his actions because at the time he had been possessed by demons. Despite that defense he was found guilty. Do you agree with the verdict in this case? c. A New York woman was having an argument with her neighbor over their children. In anger she used an anti-Semitic obscenity. Because it is a misdemeanor in New York to harass others will racial or ethnic slurs, the woman was sentenced to thirty-five hours of community service. Do you think such a law makes sense? d. A high school anatomy class in Agoura, California, dissects human cadavers as well as cats and frogs. The teacher obtains the bodies from a university medical school. Do you approve of this practice? e. Some people believe the college degree should be abolished as a job requirement. They reason that because it is possible to be qualified for many jobs without formal academic preparation (or, conversely, to be unprepared for many jobs even with a college degree), the only criterion employers should use for hiring and promoting is ability. Do you agree? 5. Group discussion exercise: Discuss one of the cases in application 4 with two or three of your classmates. Try to reach a consensus on the issue, taking special care to avoid hasty conclusions. Be prepared to present your group's view (or the individual views) to the class. � Ruth Ellen Thompson, "Lawsuits Link Human Catastrophes, Drug," Binghamton Press, March 13, 1973, p.9A. � "Long Sentences Sought for Repeat Offenders," New York Times, April 25, 1982, p.63. � "Possessed Teen Gets Long Prison Term," The (Oneonta) Star, December 19, 1981. p.2. � "Woman Convicted of Making Ethnic Slur," The (Oneonta) Star, May 14, 1982. p.2. � "high School Class Uses Human Cadavers in Lab," Binghamton Press, December 15, 1982, p.2C. P2-C12-5