I have never heard of mindbugs before. I knew that the mind can perceive things differently even after we have analyzed the situation, but I was not sure there was a name for that. It is amazing to know the way our mind processes information. However, it is scary to see how even after knowing and seeing the right answer, our mind can still interpret the wrong information.
It is unsettling to think that we have to question the way our mind thinks. We have our own judgements towards different situations and ideas but what makes us think that we are right about what we believe? This is especially unnerving for court cases, where they can sometimes rely heavily on eye-witnesses accounts. This makes me question the justice system as there have been many cases where the offender was proven not guilty through DNA test or the eye-witness coming forward saying they have lied. This reminds me of the court case in the book Just Mercy, where a black man, Walter, was framed for the murder of a young white girl in Alabama. He was found guilty with only having one eyewitness, a white man who was told by the officers to lie about Walter’s whereabouts during the murder. That was all the evidence it took for the court to convict Walter for the murder. A lie that made no logical sense was held as a belief by the town for years, which an innocent man almost died for. Because of the way the mind works, I think the way decisions are made in court cases should be reevaluated and based more on hard evidence.
I had not heard of mindbugs before, either, even though I am a psychology major and it is such an important concept in understanding situations like eyewitness memory. I agree that it’s also very unsettling, but now that we are aware of this concept, we can hopefully be more conscientious in the way we consume information.
I agree with what you said about questioning the justice system. However, mindbugs and implicit biases are so out of our control. Everyone has them, whether we want to or not. So, we can question the justice system all we want, but there is no real solution, which is really hard for me to accept.
I agree with you that mindbugs are unsettling, especially when you consider the extent of their impact on criminal cases. I agree that when there is harder evidence such as DNA, I think eyewitness accounts should not be considered greatly. However, in cases with a lack of other evidence, should eyewitnesses testimonies still be considered important evidence? Do you think eyewitnesses with more familiarity about the situation would be less susceptible to mindbugs?