E17: Lindsay Clancy's Trial Explained Through Quantum Cognition copertina

E17: Lindsay Clancy's Trial Explained Through Quantum Cognition

E17: Lindsay Clancy's Trial Explained Through Quantum Cognition

Ascolta gratuitamente

Vedi i dettagli del titolo

Offerte di stagione | 0,99 €/mese per i primi 3 mesi

A seguire 9,99 €/mese – si applicano condizioni. Puoi disdire mensilmente.
A mother strangled her three children, then twelve strangers had to decide if she was legally responsible. Eleven agreed on a verdict. One didn't. What would you have done in that room?Lindsay Clancy killed her three children in January 2023 and pleaded not guilty by way of Massachusetts' insanity defense, arguing postpartum psychosis – not intent – drove the act. This episode traces how her jury spent 38 hours and a week of deliberation moving toward an 11-1 deadlock, and runs the decision through the four pillars of quantum cognition: superposition, interference, contextuality, and non-commutative effects. The throughline is conformity – how a jury of ordinary people, under national scrutiny, can end up voting for a verdict more than a third of them privately doubt.=================================Links: 📖Substack: https://superposeddecisions.substack.com/ 📺YouTube: @Superposed_Decisions 🤝LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aidan-m-lewis/=================================What you'll take away:Why over a third of jurors vote against their own private judgment – and how the Asch conformity effect explains itWhy less than 22% of jury vote-switches are driven by actual evidence or debate, and what that means for how "consensus" gets manufacturedHow being asked to state your position mid-decision – a non-commutative effect – measurably shifts what you end up believing=================================This is not a debate about Lindsay Clancy's guilt – she has admitted to killing her children. It's a decision-science breakdown of how eleven strangers reached reasonable doubt, and why the twelfth almost didn't hold the line.=================================Primary Sources:Franzen, A., & Mader, S. (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment. PLoS ONE, 18(11), e0294325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294325Waters, N. L., & Hans, V. P. (2009). A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 114. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lsrp_papers/114Garcia, R. J., Shaw, E. V., & Scurich, N. (2021). Normative and informational influence in group decision making: Effects of majority opinion and anonymity on voting behavior and belief change. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000145Jaeger, C. B., & Trueblood, J. S. (2022). Thinking Quantum: A New Perspective on Decisionmaking in Law. Florida State University Law Review, 46(4). https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol46/iss4/1Wojciechowski, B. W., White, L. C., Allefeld, C., & Pothos, E. M. (2025). Order effects and the evaluation bias in legal decision making. Decision, 12(3), 246–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000263Wojciechowski, B. W., & Pothos, E. M. (2018). Is There a Conjunction Fallacy in Legal Probabilistic Decision Making? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00391Wojciechowski, B. W. Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003402480 =================================Secondary Sources:Boston.com — Verdict watch, deadlock noteABC7 — Day 23 deliberations, postpartum psychosis defenseNPR — Mistrial declared, 11-1 splitBoston.com — Jan. 24 timelinePlymouth County DA — Arraignment press releaseCrime Timelines — Detailed case timelineNPR — Mistrial declared, holdout juror bias claimJURIST — Legal commentary on the deadlockNBC News — Tuey-Rodriguez instructions, deadlock notes timelineCNN — Mistrial declared, SJC appeal denied
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione