Judge Judy
29Jun. 09
I was just watching an episode of Judge Judy because it just happened to be on.
I used to think that she was just an angry old lady for no reason and never watched the show, but upon watching it just now I realise that I get pissed off for the same reasons she does.
People aren’t logical. (or simply don’t listen :-) )
I never realised before but logic must have a lot to do with the law system. Without logic it would be very rare to give an accurate sentence.
In the show people throw out red herring after red herring, but i’m glad that Judge Judy has the sense to cut them off. I suppose this is just a show of basic human insinct of someone trying to get out of a tight spot by any means necessary.
A good example of an ad hominem came up on the show;
Two people (the plaintiff and defendant) had gone in on a deal with a third person to refinance his house and that they would split the commission 50/50. The problem was that Person A went to jail (he was on parole and skipped jury duty) and Person B took all of the money.
Person B said Person A didn’t deserve the money because he didn’t do any work and he was in jail.
Because he’s in jail he doesn’t deserve money that he worked for? He’s going to jail as a punishment, the judge didn’t sentence him to jail AND lose all his wages.
Judges give sentences, not just any person.
It was later found that he did do work, he brought the customer into the deal and set up all the details.
In the end Judge Judy came out with a zinger, the contract was for 50/50, not 50/50 and if Person A goes to jail then Person B get everything.
There was another case that amazed me, a lady had turned herself into a sort of dobber-paladin, she was calling child services on people because she didn’t think the kids were being treated right. That’s all good and well, but when she gave the reasons she was just making vague assumptions. In the three times she called the reasons had been that the mother had been pulling the childs arm or yelling and one time was because the mother spanked her child. Now depending on the situation these all seem like acceptable behavior to me.
If my kid wants to go to a toy store and I say no, they’re probably going to chuck a tantrum. Of course i’m going to tell them off and if I have somewhere to go I’m going to pull their arm to get them moving.
Punishment is how we learn; the stove is hot, we touch it, we get burned, we don’t touch the stove again.
If people don’t punish children then it tells the child that it’s ok to chuck tantrums and that’s just not on.
With the last call she was with people that knew the person and I’m glad Judge Judy asked why she thought she had to ring child services and not the people that knew them. It seems to me that she’s made her opinion an authority above all others.
The biggest problem I had was that she didn’t even have any kids!
Now I may be committing ad hominem myself a bit here, but that also means that she is making an argument from personal incredulity.
She doesn’t have children and can’t understand that punishing a child is acceptable therefore it isn’t acceptable.
I want to compare this to non-scientist trying to do science. Leave the science to the scientists and the parenting to the parents.
Wow, that turned into a parenting rant quickly.
From now on i’m not going to skip past Judge Judy, it’s very good practice at identifying logical fallacies because it’s so full of them. Although without Judge Judy in the court there would be alot more. :-)
Tags: Judge Judy, Logical Fallacies, parenting
July 1st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Honing the logical fallacies while you’re incapacitated i see! You know something dude, i never realised Judge Judy was being incredibly logical until you pointed it out. I used to think the same way about her but you’re right, she’s doing the world a favour by bashing on illogical approaches to situations.
Nice post, keep it up!
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Good stuff.
However… who was making an argument from personal incredulity? If you mean the woman who was calling child services, how so?
And “Leave the science to the scientists and the parenting to the parents”?!!
Since when did parents go through 4 – 7 years of training to be a parent?A real parent doesn’t necessarily know what’s best for a child any better than a non-parent, and in many cases a non-parent may know better. ( I’ve often thought that prospective parents should go through training before they’re allowed to have a kid.)
This deserves its own post, but here is an example of a person who probably does “know better” than real mothers:
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/parenting/baby/no-more-tears-20090629-d1u5.html?s_rid=rainbow%3Ahp5%3Ano-more-tears%3Aeb%3Ababy%3A30jun09
(ps. I’m a mum)
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
@Stanzi
I think the argument from incredulity Chumley is trying to get at is; she can’t understand that punishing a child is acceptable (or that would be her personal belief/conviction) so therefore it isn’t…
Normally this argument is applied to a premise being unlikely and can therefore be assumed to be false, i.e. i cannot explain or understand how evolution by natural selection could develop life into such complexity therefore evolution of the species could not have occurred.
Keeping in mind this type of argument is normally coupled with an argument from ignorance, and hence often added in is this idea that, if i don’t understand how evolution could be responsible for the complex species around me, but i can understand (even though completely unproven) how God could be responsible, then God must have done it. If that makes any sense? haha it’s 7 am! :p
Logical fallacies are so important in argumentation if only to make sure your own argument is as logically stable as possible.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
btw Stanzi
”Since when did parents go through 4 – 7 years of training to be a parent?A real parent doesn’t necessarily know what’s best for a child any better than a non-parent, and in many cases a non-parent may know better. ( I’ve often thought that prospective parents should go through training before they’re allowed to have a kid.)”
OMG… I completely agree with you i just never thought i would ever hear that from an adult let alone a mother! My family is rather traditionally Italian, so no matter what you do if you’re younger you’re automatically more stupid, less wise and your opinions less valuable. Training you say? I have often suggested a parent license, is that too much?
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
As a new parent myself i recognised early on the importance of sourcing advice from many sources. Parents with the same aged child, parents of older children, grandparents, books on child psychology and development. I also discuss personal experiences with my wife to determine what lessons we can learn from our parents methods. We also respect an element of instinct. Observing other parental methods is useful and self assessing our own methods regularly is important. Frankly its very pseudo scientific, we have no training as such but we try to apply critical thinking to our daily life.
I think rather than a license, training or such on top of what services there currently are. I would much prefer to see a critical thinking class be added to high school education. This has unlimited applications to that persons future actions.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Critical thinking in high schools. That would be the way to go… although… I’m sure teachers would find a way to teach it so that it amounted to nothing more than memorizing stuff from books.
oh.. by the way. Someone called child services about ME this week… I got a phone call from Child Protection Services who had to ask me about a few claims that someone had made (they remained anonymous, but I knew exactly which lunatic had made the allegations). The phone call ended with him saying “Your answers have all been very logical” and the issue was dropped.
July 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
There are some great programs out there for teaching critical thinking. Its not about rote learning, they do a lot of student involvement and use lots of real world examples and practicing.
Sorry to hear about your stressful call.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Sorry I haven’t been around to comment. I posted this just before I went in to surgery on my “extreem lower back” :-) and this is the second time I have actually been able to sit down.
stanzi you bring up a very good point that I hadn’t thought about. I think I was wrong in saying “Leave the science to the scientists and the parenting to the parents.“
There are plenty of scientists that subscribe to psudo-science so it only makes sense that there would be parents who subscribe to bad parenting.
I think the main point I was trying to put forward is that just because you don’t agree with a punishment doesn’t make it wrong.
I think I should restate my main point as;
wait for adequate evidence before you call child services.
The call you recieved is bad news but i’m glad you were able to logically disprove the allegations.
I think a “parent licence” would be a great idea. I’m not a parent yet, but I would go through a test to prove my capability. When you have a child you hold someone’s life in your hands, just like driving a car, so I think it would be a good idea to show that you can be responsible.
Also parenting classes are another resource for parenting knowledge. Making at least a few sessions mandatory would be a good basis for your parenting knowledge. I know when I have a child i’m going to be looking everywhere for information and advice.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Good luck with preventing randy teenagers from fornicating because they don’t have a license!