COURT TEAMS DECISION-MAKING The Roles Personality, Logic and Values Play Thomas N. Langhorne, Esq. The Langhorne Group, Inc. 4241 Saratoga Road Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23235 Voice/Text 804.306.3822 ContactUs@LanghorneGroups.com 1
Traditional Model of Courts Decision-Making 1. Focus on the real issue/define problem 2. Receive data, information, testimony 3. Sift all information Determine the FACTS 4. Apply principles to the case facts 5. Make a decision 6. Communicate/support your reasoning 2
THE PERSONALITY 3 Objectives 1. Increase self-awareness of: Who you are How you decide 2. Recognize/Appreciate different D-M styles Understand the filters you see through What and how others see the world 3. Reveal and explain: How different styles GATHER INFORMATION How different styles INTERPRET information How different styles CONCLUDE What Myers-Briggs WILL NOT DO/WILL NOT ASSESS IQ, pathology, ability to learn, maturity NO ONE BEST TYPE TYPE is never an excuse Only describes 4 areas of Behavior Only explains DOMINANT preferences DEGREES NOT KINDS (not 1 or the other) Preferences can change over time 3
4
E 1 (Pop. 75%) 2 (Judges 45%) I (Pop. 25%) (Judges 55%) S (Pop. 75%) (Judges 55%) N (Pop. 25%) (Judges 45%) T (Pop. 50%) (Judges 81%) F (Pop. 50%) (Judges 19%) J (Pop. 50%) (Judges 72%) P (Pop. 50%) (Judges 28%) Implications: Judges tend to be much more introverted, intuitive, thinking and judging than the general population. 1 Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types, David Keirsey, Marilyn Bates 2 Personality Type and Judicial Decision Making, The Judges Journal, Summer 1998, John W. Kennedy, Jr. 5
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ *18% Lawyers 4% Lawyers 3% Lawyers 13% Lawyers **23% Judges 3% Judges 2% Judges 11% Judges ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 4% Lawyers 1% Lawyers 4% Lawyers 9% Lawyers 5% Judges <1% Judges 3% Judges 7% Judges ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 3% Lawyers.5% Lawyers 5% Lawyers 10% Lawyers 2% Judges 1% Judges 4% Judges 5% Judges ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 10% Lawyers 3% Lawyers 3% Lawyers 9% Lawyers 17% Judges 2% Judges 3% Judges 10% Judges * How Personality Affects Your Practice The Lawyer Types, ABA Journal, July, 1993, Larry Richard ** Personality Type and Judicial Decision Making, The Judges Journal, Summer 1998, John W. Kennedy, Jr. 6
Extroversion > Source to Re- Energize FOCUS OUT/IN < Introversion intuitives > How We Take In/Process Information < Sensors Thinkers > How We Sort/Decide < Feelers Judgers > Prefer Closure vs. Keep Open/ Receive More Information < Perceivers 7
Pop. 75% EXTROVERT Judges 45% Pop. 25% INTROVERT Judges 55% Want to Change the world Externally focused Speak first think later Want to Understand the world Internally focused Think first speak later Thinks/processes out loud (impatient/doubts late response) ( I witness hiding something?) Sociability/expressive/interact (prefer deciding by discussing) Prefer communication by talking Breadth of Interests Lonely without people Seeks action in deciding (what are we going to DO?) May say too much Social genius Give life story if look at them Executes it Communicates decision Quiet while processing (quick/glib responses doubted) (talkative witness unreliable?) Territorial/private/concentrate (prefer deciding by reflection) Prefer communication by writing Depth of Interests Lonely with people Seeks meaning/understanding (what does it MEAN?) May not say enough Intellectual genius Won t give info unless ask Q Thinks it up Internalizes/memorializes decision 8
How We See the World Pop. 75% SENSING JUDGE Judges 55% (takes info thru senses) Pop. 25% INTUITIVE JUDGE Judges 45% (by seeing patterns/big picture) Seeks details More % in physical world/data Sees what IS (reality) (Joe Friday) trusts facts/experience Lives in Present Enjoys what is here/now REACTS Desires doing things better Practical solutions/decisions Definitive/measurable approach (steps/chrono/sequence) Oversimplify cases Loves practical implications Follow instructions/rules Enjoys the familiar Appear plodding/calculating to N s Repetition Perspire Overlook details make patterns % in meaning behind data Sees what could be Relies on imagery Lives for the future Anticipates what might be PROACTS Desires doing things differently Imaginative solutions Inventive approach (will go anywhere at trial) Overly complicates cases Values imaginative insight Skip Rules and directions! (Rules are merely suggestions) Enjoys the new Appear flighty/impractical to S s Hunches/Hates doing it twice Inspire 9
HOW ONE SORTS/DECIDES Pop. 50% THINKING Judges 81% Pop. 50% FEELING Judges 19% Attracted to Law by intellectual challenge Logical/objective (heartless?) Decides by logic/consequences % in outcome No exceptions Law/regulation/rules Attracted to Law by opportunity to help Values! People! (illogical?) By personal convictions/values But what about people? What about exceptions? Extenuating circumstances Truth, Justice Relationships, harmony Argue with logic facts It s just the case facts Detached, impersonal decisions (loves a good argument) Take immediate view of case Sees testimony as onlooker (objective) Same emotions/intensity (just don t show it) (cold?) With personal impact/emotion How do facts sound to others? Seek harmony/avoid confront (worn down by T s) (burnout?) Take long-term impact Sees as insider (empathy) NOT > emotionally sensitive (just everyone knows it) Spontaneously critiques Built to see the negative Seen as cold to F s (look for logical consequence of choice/action: Goal = find objective standard of truth and apply accordingly) Focuses too much on the good Seem fuzzy minded to T s (in D.M., goal is to harmonize, support, empathize: consider import to others) TIPS TIPS 10
11
PREFER CLOSURE OR AN OPEN-ENDED WORLD Pop. 50% JUDGING Judges 72% Pop. 50% PERCEIVING Judges 28% (Does not mean judgmental ) Prefers closure in decisions Senses urgency until decision Takes deadlines seriously Trusts imposed order Impatient/Hurried/Hasty Loves to do check lists Prefers open-ended Keep options open/delay Deadline = reminder to start Trusts their ability to adapt Procrastinate Go with the flow! J Lock jump to conclusion Delays conclusions Imposes structure & control ORDER! Preferred Enjoys decisiveness Resist structure Chaos is O.K. with me! Enjoys surprises 12
THE LOGIC: The process of judging, so the psychologists tell us, seldom begins with a premise from which a conclusion is subsequently worked out. Judging begins rather the other way around with a conclusion more or less vaguely formed; a man ordinarily starts with such a conclusion and afterwards tries to find premises which will substantiate it. If he cannot, to his satisfaction, find proper arguments to link up his conclusion with premises which he finds acceptable, he will, unless he is arbitrary or mad, reject the conclusion and seek another. From the time a judge begins to review a file, including the pleadings, motions and perhaps affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment, the judge begins to get a feel for the case. The judge begins to form preliminary, tentative hypotheses as to what the facts are, how the law applies and what a just result may be. JUDGE FRANK 13
DEDUCTIVE TOP DOWN REASONING (FROM GENERAL TO SPECIFIC) 1 THEORY 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 OBSERVATION 4 CONFIRMATION INDUCTIVE BOTTOM UP REASONING (FROM SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS TO BROADER GENERALIZATION) 4 THEORY 3 TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS 2 PATTERN 1 OBSERVATION 14
FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT The fallacy lies in the assumption that because EVENT B occurred after Event A, it was therefore caused by EVENT A. Common Feature of Faulty Cause and Effect Arguments Effects follow causes. Inherent Weakness of Faulty Cause and Effect Arguments Everything that precedes anything can be a cause of it. Example of Faulty Cause and Effect: Mr. L. started living with Ms. C in early January, 2001. Ms. C s 14 year old daughter started showing signs of physical abuse in late January, 2001. Mr. L must have been physically abusing Ms. C s daughter. Practice Tip Always ask yourself Is the causal relationship justified? What other possible intervening causes events may there be? Remind yourself temporal sequence does not necessarily equal causal consequence. FAULTY ANALOGY This is a form of generalization. It asserts that when A resembles B in certain characteristics/respects, A and B will, therefore, resemble each other in additional characteristics/respects. It is a generalization that predicts or imputes, by analogy, the characteristics/behaviors/consequences of another. Common Feature of Faulty Analogy It assumes shared properties predict there will be additional shared properties. Inherent Weakness of Faulty Analogy When faced with a literal analogy (where one argues that similarities in several crucial respects implies similarity in some other respect), try to find at least one or two features which differ between the two things being compared and bring to counsel s attention that it is the difference(s) between the two that undermine counsel s argument. Example: Likewise, lab tests with product A on rats create cancer. Product A will cause human cancer. Practice Tip Explore or ask to distinguish, factually or policy-wise, the case precedent from the case presently before you. 15
16
LIFE EXPERIENCES & VALUES ARE OUR LENSES THROUGH WHICH WE SEE THE WORLD Query: How might the following list of values affect your determination of credibility or reliability? VIEW OF MEN AND WOMEN DIFFERENCES? NURTURE? EMOTION V. CREDIBLE? YOUR VIEW OF THE ROLES OF MEN/WOMEN CARETAKERS? TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE? YOUR VIEWS ON WORK ETHIC Recipients of welfare benefits? Long-term unemployed? YOUR VIEWS ON DIFFERENT CULTURES MACHISMO: DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION OF MINORITY YOUTH IN SECURE CONFINEMENT YOUR VIEWS ON RELIGION(S) YOUR VIEWS ON PATRIOTISM YOUR VIEWS ON AFFECTION/TOUCHING BETWEEN SAME SEXES: FAMILIES WHO SLEEP TOGETHER YOUR VIEW RE: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES Folks with certain accents have what other projectable qualities? YOUR VIEW RE: SAME SEX MARRIAGE APPROPRIATE CAREGIVERS TO CHILDREN IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html 17