17 February 2006Gut instinctsOklahoman sportswriter Berry Tramel today characterized Charles Barkley as a "man who speaks first, thinks second and then repeats what he said the first time," which may sound like damning with faint praise but which strikes me as something almost worthy of emulation: you follow your gut, even when it's making untoward, Barkleyesque noises. Which, as it happens, might be the best advice for most of us anyway:
''It is much better to follow your gut," said Ap Dijksterhuis, a professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam, who led the research.
For relatively simple decisions, he said, it is better to use the rational approach. But the conscious mind can consider only a few facts at a time. And so with complex decisions, he said, the unconscious appears to do a better job of weighing the factors and arriving at a sound conclusion. The finding, published today in the journal Science, would have practical implications if borne out by further research. In years gone by, I'd been known to waffle on such insignificant matters as "Paper or plastic?" I can't legitimately claim to be a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but I have learned that the consequences of jumping into a decision need not be heinous: I spent barely fifteen minutes inside this very house before I decided that this was the one I wanted. Then again, it was the eleventh house I'd looked at.
I'm thinking mandatory cloture within 72 hours of commencement for all state and federal legislative debates, and especially federal judicial confirmation hearings, unless the legislative body can summon a five-sixths majority to extend debate another 48 hours.
I'm just shooting from the hip here, of course, but wouldn't that force these gassy buzzards we elect to actually focus their thinking? This I couldn't say. In the case of pending legislation, it's hard enough to get them to read the damn bills; if you take away the pontification periods, you're going to wind up with, say, Joe Biden learning how to talk fast enough to do FedEx commercials, which would not be much of a gain. Still, if someone wants to base a campaign on the theme of "Screw nuance," I'm listening. Posted at 7:38 PM to Almost Yogurt[mandatory cloture within 72 hours of commencement for all state and federal legislative debates] is kinda what got us the PATRIOT Act. Not a model of probity or deliberation. Rush rush rush. Now, if that mandatory cloture with a time limit automatically resulted in a "Nay" vote if the time limit were reached, I'd be very interested. As for "screw nuance," have you visited this site? Or too nuanced for you? Posted by: Fûz at 11:18 AM on 18 February 2006I've seen it, though not lately. The biggest problem with selling classical libertarianism these days, it seems to me, is that people think they're spending so much for government they ought to get some visible return on their investment: the idea of government doing less is simply unthinkable. Since I just re-watched High Fidelity mere days ago, I have to go with Nick Hornby's summation: "...I've been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I've come to the conclusion that my guts have sh*t for brains." Posted by: CT at 2:18 PM on 19 February 2006 |