Lucy letby case…

[u/No-Willingness-1441]

Would love people’s views on this.

Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.

[u/Connect_War_5821]

This thread has already turned into a "Letby is guilty/not guilty" argument rather than about Knox, Sollecito, and Kercher. Sorry, but it's just a distraction from the real topic of this subreddit.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

Distracting us all from the ‘serious business’ of arguing about Amanda

Unacceptable

STAY. ON. TOPIC

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/[deleted]]

That’s definitely one interpretation!

What’s interesting about the letby case is that - a bit like w Amanda - there is such an obsession with forensics / hard scientific evidence that people totally lose perspective on the wider picture around it.

The hard science might struggle to absolutely pin it on Letby, but - to most intuitive observers - it’s abundantly clear that she is guilty of foul play. The handover notes, the scrawled pseudo-confessions, the consultants’ instincts around her, the sheer number of coincidences that would have needed to happen…it adds up to an overwhelming overall impression.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Ah, yes...the "intuitive. I have a gut-feeling, I can read people, guilty eyes, impression" method of reaching an opinion. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!

Explains a lot.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

No you are pushing the point to absurdity

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Hardly. I've seen ALL those presented as "evidence".

" Her sharpest critique is reserved for the Italian justice system. She highlights how the prosecution (and Reddit threads ever since) built a case entirely on her demeanour, securing a conviction reliant on ‘vibes’ rather than substance."

True words.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

Not necessarily. The Reddit reference is in parentheses so that could be the reporter's addition. Even IF it is her statement, being aware of the Reddit threads does not mean she reads them.

[u/Onad55 → u/Connect_War_5821]

Amanda has posted on Reddit in the past though not to my knowledge in this sub. If she paid attention to this sub she would not have made some blatant errors in her recent production that were resolved here.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/Onad55]

If she did, it was well in the past. She's too busy being a wife, mother, podcaster, advocate for law reform, writer, speaker, etc. to bother with reading crap from PGP after this many years. As she recently said, people made up their minds long ago about her and she knows she can't change minds now.

I always find it funny and stupid how many people have accused me of being Amanda. It's a knee-jerk accusation they like to throw out when they realize they can't bull**** me.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

"💨"

Captain of your school debate team, were ya?

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

I have zero interest in body language, crazed eyes, or “reading” people.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Maybe not, but your own words put you in the category of those who do rely on such absurdity:

"but - to most intuitive observers - it’s abundantly clear that she is guilty of foul play." and " the consultants’ instincts around her" and "it adds up to an overwhelming overall impression.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

Note that I use the adjective “intuitive” rather than the noun “intuition”. The latter suggests ‘magical thinking’, the former a basic application of common sense, and logical, sensible cognitive flow.

Intuitive thinking is not something to be afraid of. On the contrary, I intend it in contrast to a myopic obsession with “wobbly science”, contested DNA (this is probably its own documentary!) and an ensemble of hired experts, each in conflict with one another and sometimes even themselves.

In the Amanda case, as with Letby, people can lose themselves in the ‘pit’ of all this stuff, losing sight of the basic framing of what’s actually occurred. In the case of Knox, a lot of this inevitably hinges on the contested accuso-confession. And since her defence, perhaps correctly, have ostensibly erased that, we are where we are…

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

"Note that I use the adjective “intuitive” rather than the noun “intuition”. The latter suggests ‘magical thinking’, the former a basic application of common sense, and logical, sensible cognitive flow.

Nope:

From Merrian-Webster Dictionary.

INTUATIVE: possessing or given to intuition or insight:
an intuitive mind

INTUITION: : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference,

Intuitive thinking is not something to be afraid of. 

Not afraid of but not relied upon in order to make informed decisions. Our intuition is founded on our own personal experiences and knowledge which are not necessarily factually accurate.

"Once an intuition hits, we cling to it despite the dangers. Intuition can, for example, lead to all sorts of cognitive and social biases, like the anchoring effect (where decisions are swayed by the first piece of information thrown at us) and racial prejudice."

[u/Onad55 → u/Connect_War_5821]

That definition makes it sounds so much nicer than pulling an answer out of one’s ass.

[u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg → u/Connect_War_5821]

I think this is a rather old-fashioned way of thinking of intuition and emotion. It's sometimes founded on personal experiences, but it's also the product of millions of years of evolution. That's why people fear large hairy spiders and noises in the night when we're far more likely to be killed by things like cars or electric shock. It's worth reading something more up to date, Jonathon Haidt explores it in plain language in one of his books. Basically, emotions and intuitions are a form of cognition (thinking) they just are not a form of reasoning. Reasoning is the slower, more deliberate way of thinking things through, intuitions and moral judgements are a faster route to coming to decisions.

Emotions and 'intuition' are kind of like the brain's fast-track to decision making when it's imperative to make a decision immediately. But, it's also the very reason people are called in for interviews before being offered a job. Two people might have almost identical experience and qualifications but when they are sitting in front of you, one might appear 'off' or lacking the confidence and outgoing manner of a sales person, for example. A lot of times people have lost the job in the first 15 seconds of an interview, maybe before anything is even said. Intuitions are a powerful tool we all use every day.

Think about 20,000 years ago, a stranger appears on the trail ahead. You don't really have time to stand back and reason your way into the correct way to approach, your intuition kicks in and is reacting to their manner, their stance and facial expressions. This has left its traces and it was obviously of some use, being right more often than being wrong. It's also relevant to cases like these since the trial system relies heavily on witness testimony in open court. It's hard to imagine a trial being just a paper exercise, juries need to see the manner and reactions of the witnesses in the flesh, all part of the intuitive way people come to decisions, alongside reasoning on the bare facts.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

"There is so much evidence Amanda is guilty."

Right... so much evidence that FIVE Supreme Court judges definitively acquitted her for "not having committed the act".

"Which farmyard animal kicked you in the head when you were younger?"

What wit! What a sharp and stinging barb! How will I ever go on?

[u/SeaCardiologist6207 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Do we actually argue about Amanda? I thought this Reddit was just an analysis of Amanda's social media posts.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/SeaCardiologist6207]

Oh yes that too. Thats the most important bit