“But the tools of rationality are extremely powerful if you know how to use them.”
Yes this is why is irrational to think that right after you see the body of your room mate covered in blood and her neck open you do carwheels at a police station and go buy sexy lingerie to “have hot sex” as reported during the trial in court.
Is this rational to you?
Is this something you would do after you see your “friend” (because the other room mate claims they weren’t really happy friends anymore after something happened in October) dead on the floor?
This is what the article was talking about: privileging the hypothesis. Amanda’s boyfriend said that she was simply buying clean underwear, because she had no access to her clothes in the apartment, which should kinda be obvious, no?
Another example is Amanda’s internet-posted story about rape. Did you know that rape is the number one sexual fantasy of women? Well, that’s according to my surveys. Askmen.com puts the rape fantasy at #3. Whatever… it’s up there. I’m saying that it’s dangerous when people bring in the murder hypothesis to explain “weird” behavior, because that “weird” behavior may be normal.
If you were being interrogated for 30 hours straight, would you stand up and do some stretches at any point? Is that so different from doing a little gymnastics?
However, it’s a mistake to even go down this path. Let the evidence lead you. None of Amanda’s DNA was found at the crime scene, whereas Rudy’s DNA was all over the place. Therefore, Amanda likely never set foot in that room… and Rudy likely did.
The bigger question here is how can the court system (in Italy, America, and elsewhere) be fixed or at least improved? What can be done?
“But the tools of rationality are extremely powerful if you know how to use them.”
Yes this is why is irrational to think that right after you see the body of your room mate covered in blood and her neck open you do carwheels at a police station and go buy sexy lingerie to “have hot sex” as reported during the trial in court.
Is this rational to you?
Is this something you would do after you see your “friend” (because the other room mate claims they weren’t really happy friends anymore after something happened in October) dead on the floor?
This is what the article was talking about: privileging the hypothesis. Amanda’s boyfriend said that she was simply buying clean underwear, because she had no access to her clothes in the apartment, which should kinda be obvious, no?
Another example is Amanda’s internet-posted story about rape. Did you know that rape is the number one sexual fantasy of women? Well, that’s according to my surveys. Askmen.com puts the rape fantasy at #3. Whatever… it’s up there. I’m saying that it’s dangerous when people bring in the murder hypothesis to explain “weird” behavior, because that “weird” behavior may be normal.
If you were being interrogated for 30 hours straight, would you stand up and do some stretches at any point? Is that so different from doing a little gymnastics?
However, it’s a mistake to even go down this path. Let the evidence lead you. None of Amanda’s DNA was found at the crime scene, whereas Rudy’s DNA was all over the place. Therefore, Amanda likely never set foot in that room… and Rudy likely did.
The bigger question here is how can the court system (in Italy, America, and elsewhere) be fixed or at least improved? What can be done?