I’ve written before on this and will likely do it again. Which suggests (by volume) that it is important.

One of the oddities of “logical” discussion of complex subjects, in law and out law, is the ease with which something important can be treated the same as something unimportant. Both of these are boxes, boxes are equal.

Conversely, it is possible to “decide” that when things point different directions that we simply prioritize them.

There is probably something visual going on here.

And there may be something deeper — that in a society that is schooled and ruled — opposed for present purposes to educated and experienced — people don’t have the complex neural paths that can handle multiple factors at once. We can reach more categoric opinions on things that we don’t have experience with. And conversely have trouble reaching non-categoric opinions on them. If our experience with “experience” is impoverished by spending formative years in controlled environments, then perhaps our capacity generally to work in an non-rule-seeking mode may be impaired.

If we are doomed to intellectualize judgment, perhaps What is needed is a way of weighing.