THREE LITTLE WORDS

Actually, that may be a misnomer to call them three "little" words. They're not really that little to a whole lot of folks.

The three words referenced here are "I was wrong!" - something you don't hear very often. You can't help but wonder why that is.

What is it of value that you lose when you utter those words? Pride? Status? Freedom from Humiliation? The fear of losing your credibility for all time - of never being believed again?

That's a tough one to answer. Some people, like Special Agent Jethro Gibbs of NCIS, (one of our favorites) states to his folks, "You never apologize- it's a sign of weakness."

One disclaimer here. Given what I am going to attempt to explain - to paraphrase the legal ads down here -I want to make it clear, "I ain't no lawyer"" Let's go on with what I believe to be correct. I may be wrong.

By changing the pronoun from "I" to "We" in those "three little words", it appears we may be getting a glimpse of what seems to be taking place in our legal society.

Despite being frustrated by reading "so-and so" corporation paid a fine of two million dollars but did not admit any responsibility or fault", there may be extenuating factors.

Too often, a criminal matter may be settled and a civil action will follow. Think O.J. Simpson here. He was acquitted of the criminal action but found guilty in the civil matter. This is not double jeopardy. It's just two different legal actions. The problem with the second is that it does not require the same level of proof as the first.

In criminal cases - a more serious matter - the prosecution must prove that there can be no reasonable doubt that someone other than the accused has committed the crime. A civil matter is decided by the preponderance of the evidence as a legal burden of proof.

In civil matters there is a pre-trial "discovery" process wherein , via depositions - interviews - investigation, etc., one may gather evidence to hopefully establish that their legal position in a civil matter will prevail.

One such example "might" (emphasized) be the admission of guilt by a corporation in a criminal matter should they have previously uttered the statement,"We were wrong."

But, how does this relate to an individuals reluctance or downright stupidity in not admitting they were wrong in a non legal scenario?

OP-Ed writer David Brooks wrote an interesting piece for The New York Times entitled "Case of Mental Courage." He states: "In this atmosphere - - - we're all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions."

Brooks spoke of "confirmation bias" wherein we pick-out only evidence that supports our views.

My studies of logical inference suggests this is a better example of "inductive" rather than "deductive" reasoning. The latter is what we're taught in school - particularly in most mathematical classes. It's a building process.

Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general - the opposite of deductive reasoning. An example was "the person looks uncomfortable - therefore, the person is uncomfortable."

I always thought of inductive as making a statement- often illogical - and then searching for examples to support that statement or argument - no matter how unreasonable. I found the "inductive" guy is not usually one who is going to admit to :"illogical fallacy."

We have recently begun the process of removing 100,000 troops in Iraq - while being extremely careful not to irrationally suggest a victory march is impending. Almost all current data suggests this decision is a direct result of Bush's "surge" decision, some time ago.

Have you heard any of his earlier surge critics now giving him credit? No, and we doubt you will.

Should they be confronted with this criticism they most likely will take the often used tact of simply changing the subject. I recently watched two leading Republican politicians, Boehner and McConnell, on Meet The Press and they "still" haven't answered David Gregory's questions.

Democrats don't get off the hook either. Apparently House Speaker Pelosi was thinking of a much smaller "swamp" than the rest of us - when she started her "draining process".

Brooks winds up his op-ed piece with:"Very few in public life habitually step back and think about the weakness in their own thinking and what they should do to compensate." ( So, is that the answer to our question? We're merely mimicing politicians?)

He then concludes with this statement, "Of all the problems that afflict this country, this is the underlying one." (Whew!)

Try using those three little words, but be prepared. In my house the response usually is , "Wait a minute. Did I really hear you say that?"