Random thoughts on jury trials, lawyers, etc…
At the moment…these are the sketches of my ideas. This is probably in the top 10 of randomest posts here (sorry in advance):
Limits of model. Failure.
1. I can’t believe how seemingly little is in the textbook
2. Checklist manifesto on this issue
3. Flowchart for the issue
1. Fix–better process
2. Bigger screens
3. Both should use powerpoint decks (the question then becomes how do they contextualize the evidence in the deck)
Jury is left to:
1. Evaluate evidence
2. Compare evidence
The ability to fill gaps except with experience, intuition, and bias and guesswork.
On some level the notion of expert witness is hollow
How responsible are they for the unknown?
Random notation about law & jury, etc…
Expectations & understandings
Agents & stakeholders
2. Draw out
3. Emphasize (often through contrast)
What shouldn’t be hearsay:
neuroeconomics & jury cues (???). probably less relevant.
how to think like a lawyer or philosopher
EQ with patients
how do emotion & intuition interact
clarify (tell us about….)
concrete (reality & memorable)
context of knowledge
how can a decision tree be used for multiple versions of reality.
set scene & build