Man of Steel answers insight commentary episode 31 tornado part two I will ask the obvious question start asking questions and answers welcome to Man of Steel answers insight commentary on your Man of Steel apologist Dr. awkward I cover a mosaic of topics for fans who love the Man of Steel and the DC cinematic universe together will endeavor to answer the questions criticisms and controversies raised by Man of Steel like the infamous tornado scene this episode it's decision-making and how to fairly judge it and will answer seven critical questions along the way this podcast dives deep into Man of Steel to answer the critics and the confused the show is not meant to convert anybody meaning it's not my mission to convince you or ignore the subjectivity of taste but the celebrate a film that will lead us into the DC cinematic universe reasonable minds will differ which means you may reach your own valid conclusions especially on subjective matters like moral dilemmas but this is a show intended for open-minded fans who love Man of Steel and who love to chew their food so the tornado scene draws a lot of criticism and much of it bleeds back and forth between the die genic and creative choices but to be clear this episode is meant primarily as an analysis of the in story logic and consistency of the fiction of the story will get into the creative intentions but that's a separate episode and there are so many ways to approach this topic from philosophy to psychology to physics to viewing comprehension and literacy but I think the easiest approach is the just tackle the questions and him packing them as we go at the core that we have these seven questions which may be rephrased or a stand-in for other questions or related matters but they essentially encapsulate the in story objections to the scene these questions are number one why didn't Martha let Hank outnumber to why did they go for the overpass number three why go back for Hank number four why didn't Jonathan send Clark number five why didn't Clark act number six why did Jonathan hold up his hand and number seven why did Clark abide by that will before we move on to those seven critical questions I do want to quickly address a reader emailed by Thomas wasn't satisfied with the uncertain fears laid out in our last episode he agrees that we can speculate but he felt the film could have used in expressly stated fear and as we discussed there were some explicitly stated fears such as the rejection of Clark or him being taken away from them but I understand that the absence of the clearly expressed danger to Clark's secret getting out makes it harder for some to gauge and therefore sympathize with that more abstract beer will if you absolutely need a concrete fear and can't imagine one for yourself the suicide squad presents an easy one individuals with paranormal powers are in the thrall of the government they're lost in an unaccountable whole and their families are used as leverage to ensure compliance and their controlled by fear now know it isn't the fact of the bomb but rather the fear of a bomb which is controlling them is simply presented with a compelling case which may include an exhibition but at the end of the day it's actually a threat which is controlling you so Clark finds himself held with his parents threatened or he is told they have the ability to kill him with a switch who is 17-year-old Clark to doubt that if he's caught at that point in his life he wouldn't have met Jor-El and he wouldn't have learned the parameters of his powers he would be questioned relentlessly unable to provide answers that he didn't have after 16 years of that kind of treatment by the government later when the military found in accessed the scout ship and then brought Zonta earth we get a different picture of who Clark might side with when choosing between Earth or krypton may be the fact is as we discussed in last episode those fears were discussed because they were uncertain an unknown but the very fact that they are unknown is knowledge itself and is remarkably modeled in the film the way humans solve problems through cognitive processes don't really provide Clark's parents with much guidance insight or certainty as difficult as raising any child is there's no readily available modern algorithm or conceptual prototype of how to raise and parent and otherworldly child that's part of the reason why I said Jonathan might lean on biblical narratives last episode is the best example that he's got they couldn't use trial and error given the potential costs of failure so instead they very much had to play by ear they had to make it up as they went along and had to rely on heuristics or patterns and a proven history so keeping Clark safe had largely worked and so it would continue to be the strategy until it didn't Jonathan acknowledged the need to explore additional possibilities in his last moments like actively keep your mind open to make room for evolving concepts and remember may sometimes hurt as much as they help Jonathan recognize that their concept of safety was beginning to hurt and so he was open to its evolution Jonathan's awareness of his own uncertainty and failing honestly is the mark of a wise incompetent parent it's the mirror side of the psychological concept called the Dunning Kruger effect a let David Dunning Summit up David Dunning who is a social psychologist his research focuses on accuracy and illusion in self judgment and you may recognize his last name from the Dunning Kruger effect let's start there what is the Dunning Kruger effect meant to designate well aware of hundred student popular culture is that incompetent people tend not to know that they earn complimentary can scratch that it on position to know that there incompetent they we don't have the skills to recognize this how many errors in design mistakes the making of problems always like that the theories he used to solve problems are over the theories used to judge whether not a problem has been solved and John Cleese puts it into more explicit terms gives you a very very stupid' realize that you're very very stupid you'd have to be relatively intelligent to revise history there's a lot of over the research by David Dunning Cornell is 5-56 was pointed out to you don't know how good you are at something positive exactly the same skills as it does to be included in the first place which means necessary quality that if you submitted a new good at some toll when you sent to the skills that you need to know your absolutely no links in the show notes that while the Dunning Kruger effect tends to talk about the low-end the imposter effect describes how experts who are competent in the areas tended to underestimate their performance applied to Jonathan only a good father knows or recognizes how he's lacking is a father this has been observed throughout history Confucius said real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance Shakespeare said the fool.think he is wise of the wise man knows himself to be Darwin said ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge and finally Bertrand Russell said one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid and those with any imagination or understanding are filled with doubt and decision so faced with a unique challenge Clark's parents knew what they didn't know and they tended to towards a more cautious approach to parenting over and over again the film challenges us not to take things for granted as humans are minds are built to trade accuracy for speed which means that we take efficient shortcuts and assumptions all the time and that's a good thing until you're dealing with something that the man's deliberation and accuracy above all else are you have to systems of thinking that the through line for fast intricate system one that is incredibly powerful and does most of the driving and slow logical system to that is clever little lazy trouble is is a bit of a toll between them as to which one is driving your decisions fast system one is a master of taking shortcuts to bring about the quickest possible decision is us who question is the question is the focal but there is a related question the visible on the somewhat simpler to disclaim glimpse of the other question and not even notice so the system does all kinds of shortcuts to freedom of information in a faster way we can make action and assistant is accepting some mistakes we make decisions using fast system one when we really should be using slow system and this is why we make the mistakes we do systematic mistakes known as cognitive biases there are so many fun and fascinating cognitive biases examples where our intuition this leads us and psychological experiments that entire podcast and shows can be and are dedicated to illuminating that's not this show so instead the following is a simple experiment by Derek Mueller of their Atencio which translates well to audio you guys three numbers at three number sequencing and I have a rule in mind that these three numbers are back want you to try to figure out what that rule is for the weight of you can get information is by proposing your own set of three numbers to which I will say yes of all is my role are no it doesn't vulnerable and then you can propose what you think there will direct you you is a here here the three numbers 248 find you need to continue to sequencing propose a totally different take on what everyone proposed I wasn't we say yes or no 1632 1632 and 65 there's also follow my role what's the role of public to that is not my real world but you're alive you if you want propose 300 numbers three 612 three 6012 936 12,010 2040 the 24th that follows the rule got some Obama to sign up to you as if all is my role but no it's not my room five 1010 and $20 Merrill hundred to 19 $400 Merle 500,000 $2000 Merle more barbecue point but I just keep going to come your targeted Robert of armor is run regularly fine but your particular way most people a project like think strategically about is you want information you have information the point of the three numbers right is to allow you to figure out what the religious you are paranoid give you the numbers I don't think it's a sequencing see what you said Saul say 2476 my room so whatever proposes right there all I even cut know that you are on the right track now this is good 15 that follows Merle that can be 123123 all is that policy is that both the rule 1639 that serve excellent but where no classical about one 713 Pulitzer 11 1213 Pulitzer And it does not follow the rules and then he does not all and ending ordinary you have you you get down and that the rule set the rule increasing numbers increasing order and ignore is 610 1525 doesn't matter any numbers in ascending order to the point is you can never prove a theory true was interesting for me was that everyone I spoke to came up with a rule very early on and and only propose numbers that fit with that rule they were thinking I was looking for you guys are propose a set of numbers that didn't follow your wrong I and in all my rule I was looking for you guys not to try to confirm what you believe you're always asking something where you expect the SVS right like you get at it you they now he wanted the much more informational for years in the yes like everything again and are inherently and so that was a trite example of how were biased to look for an answer when we've already decided upon it consider that in the context of judgment if investigations and convictions were determined by our initial inclination towards guilt or innocence the outcome would be in arguably is incredibly biased by our first impression is because we know that we have these frailties in our decision-making that we have a justice system with systematic procedural requirements biased in favor of acquittal innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent our system requires a high barring evidence and testimony it's an adversarial system with zealous defenders multiple jury members and ideally an impartial arbiter to referee it all the system is far from perfect but it aspires to minimize those cognitive biases which rush to judgment the system is meant to slow us down and force us to deliberate force us to evaluate the evidence rationally and it clear that high bar uncertainty beyond all reasonable doubt before condemning someone jurors have to be taught some of the steps crimes have to be broken into elements smaller aspects often specific mindset specific actions with consequences of a specific degree which each then must be satisfied to be guilty of the larger whole the prosecutor has the step through them one by one the defense has to try to dismantle them one by one every piece of evidence has to be evaluated from multiple facets whether it's reliable it comes from an unimpeachable source hasn't been tampered with and someone and the judge will provide the jury instructions so that the jury knows what they're evaluating and how you why do we bother with all this because were aspiring for a just and a fair result anyone can just decide and say your guilty or that stupid and they are entitled to their opinion and they might have good reasons for that opinion however a systematic form of deliberation allows us to have greater peace that that opinion is founded in fairness that is not a decision based just and Ron motion prejudice or bias but hopefully evidence reason and justice so for each of these questions with a look at the underlying assumptions or the elements needed to reach that conclusion in the more than a test them and we'll see if that judgment it's fair so with our first question why didn't Martha let Hank out of the car the critic asked this question because to them the answer is that Martha was stupid if Martha was in the backseat with Hank let him out before they ran to the overpass there would be no decision to run back for him later it's all Martha's fault in their opinion clearly the best thing would've been to run to the overpass with Hank right and on that point there absolutely right assuming that the overpass represented safety more on that later going to it with Hank is the best course of action is not much question or debate about that however the flaw in the criticism is how the critic arrives at the answer when they allege that Martha is stupid they're talking about a standard of care or an expectation of behavior when they talk about all the future consequences failing to behave as they expect their talking about foreseeability together an expectation of how Martha should have acted failed to act that way and knowing what the outcome would be is the basis for their condemnation obviously all of these have to come together for the condemnation to be just or fair if Martha is expected to leave Hank in the car then she did nothing wrong or if she couldn't have foreseen the consequences it's unfair to judge her when you break up the criticism into its elements I think the flaws become apparent starting with the standard of care what the critic is saying is I wouldn't do that that's why Martha is stupid and when they say I wouldn't there using themselves as the standard that representing what we call in the law the reasonable person for example if they say I wouldn't do that but I'm a psychopath who hates animals their example means nothing the appeal of using themselves as an example is to say what they do is what we'd expect the typical or every day person to do we do this because we can't possibly have a rule or law for every conceivable situation that could possibly exist instead we just ask jurors to imagine what a reasonable person would do is critical to understand that the just and fair standard by which we judge people is not what the best or the optimal action would be to what a reasonable one is and that's because humans are perfect and rarely act perfectly now before we agree that the perfect action would be to take Hank to the bridge from the outset but again the standard isn't the best action but a reasonable one legal scholar Percy Henry Winfield described the reasonable person saying he has not the courage of Achilles the wisdom of Ulysses or the strength of Hercules nor has he the prosthetic vision of a clairvoyant he will not anticipate folly in all its forms but he never puts out of consideration the teachings of experience and so will guard against the negligence of others when experience shows that such negligence is comment use a reasonable man but not a perfect citizen nor a paragon of circumspection yet even with this explanation of the reasonable person the critic can still say you don't have to be perfect to take Hank to the overpass that simply what a reasonable person would do yet part of the reasonable person analysis adds under the circumstances it makes no sense to judge the reasonable person in a vacuum we have to adopt and accept the circumstances to judge fairly you can't condemn a deaf person for ignoring cries for help because his circumstance is that he's death and unable to hear the cries by the same token the law accounts for people in emergency circumstances under what's called the emergency doctorate as judge bellicose of wrote the emergency doctrine recognizes that when an actor is based with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought deliberation or consideration or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context a person in such an emergency situation cannot reasonably be held to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as one who has had the full opportunity to reflect even though it later appears that the actor made the wrong decision so at no point in this film does it present us with the Kents as unfeeling strictly rational robots who behave optimally along the best course of action and every instance their very much emotional human beings caught up in the panic of the emergency people are streaming past their car a terrible tornadoes brewing before them and they immediately interact with a been trained to do again more on that in a bit this is critical to understand because this oversight is intentionally illustrative of the entire situation we are expressly being shown that they aren't fully rational calm collected and calculating in this scenario and nor should they be expected to be now note that an emergency situation isn't a free pass it doesn't mean that Martha can suddenly start punching and biting people left and right just because the standard of care has been lowered yet even if we completely lack imagination it's easy to tell what the standard of care is or would be just by looking at other people in that situation it's a mistake for the critic to frame it as Martha's fault because guess who else forgot Hank Clark forgot Jonathan forgot none of the strangers running pass them seem to notice or if they did it in say or do anything to help they are all hurried and harried and making poor decisions but everyone is a mother who has doubtlessly secured and released her little girl from that car seat hundreds of times before stumbles and struggles to do it now that's the expected standard of care under emergency circumstances the critic might say that the behavior is contrived that no one in real life would have those issues but I'd encourage that critic to look into the infamous collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge if you've ever watched a video of a suspension bridge dramatically twisting in the wind after picking up a periodic frequency the most exaggerated example and the one that you probably saw was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge as the bridge violently waived and twisted unsurprisingly people did abandon their cars including Leonard Coates work who left behind his black cocker spaniel topic more on that story later the point is the end film behavior is absolutely consistent with what we've seen in real life and what happened on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Martha Clark and Jonathan behaved like real reasonable people have under emergency circumstances if we break down the scene even further when they got of the car initially it's not like they knew that they were going to abandon it at that moment instead Martha did what you reasonably do if you have a dog you shut the door to prevent your dog from running off during a temporary stop but only once people streamed past them and they could all behold the coming storm and Jonathan gave voice to what everyone was already doing today go towards the overpass and then overlook Hank Martha shouldn't be blamed in fact she's the one who remembers Hank when no one else did it's not like they abandoned Hank in a hot car while grocery shopping or negligently left Kevin home alone for Christmas twice it was a 22 second momentary lapse less than half a minute saying that they should have acted optimally is counterfactual lacks imagination and empathy it's a hypocritical condemnation from the common the comfort of an armchair which is wholly unlike the Kents circumstances in that emergency it's because we know that it's hard to make decisions under those circumstances that there is a debate even to this day of how to advise the public and reacting toward tornado consider the following clips on what to do if caught out on the road during a tornado and there's no sturdy structures and site the first from the Red Cross scientific advisory Council Dr. Rick Bissell opines on whether to lay flat in the ditch or stay in one's car the research has been unsatisfied humanity but particularly the researchers would our last decade is pretty unanimous and showing that the cars are much safer place to bury that Dan out on the road or out in the field around in a ditch by herself modern cars adult protective surrounded with a steel cage this impact absorption and the airbags will still work if you leave the car running and so the suggestion is that you remain in the car engine running and then because things can fly through the windows about you out the other side of the car it's good to lower yourself down as much you can so that your head is above the lower so the window so there is likely to be hit by flying debris next alternative advice from Dr. Sanjay group.chief medical correspondent for CNN one place she cannot type from a tornado is in your car tornado strength winds can pick up a 1 to 210 vehicle like this one and toss it around like you or I would a basketball Matthew are stuck outside is a tornado approaches find a ditch for any place far away from potentially dangerous objects vehicles instead love with some additional support is huge trailers is huge breaks the backend tractor-trailer that are literally picked up and thrown hundreds of yards hundreds of yards closer look keeping these trucks will at least 12,000,000 pounds your feet hundred feet into the air now despite this the experts don't actually disagree on the right course of action what they disagree on is how to streamline their advice to the public the truth is there is a complex matrix of factors involved in reacting to a tornado under optimal conditions where the actor knows everything there are ideal courses of action which run contrary to the advice given as public policy just for example if you know the strength and the direction of the tornado and you know that the roads are clear and how far you can get during your lead time which is typically around 30 minutes it may well very be that your optimal course of action is to out run and escape the tornado altogether however because people have variable leadtimes their terrible engaging the strength direction the duration of tornadoes and generally can't predict how the traffic will be even if that might be the optimal course of action in a specific case the general expert advice is to not run away but to run towards a sturdy structure and await tornado in the case of our dueling experts above one expert feels that most tornadoes don't have the strength to throw cars and the greater risk is therefore from debris additionally people may be poor judges of whether a ditch is sufficiently lowered to the ground to offer better protection and so they espouse the broad advice of staying in the car on the other hand other experts recognize that generally weaker tornadoes won't kill as many people surveyed rather people be prepared for the worst case scenario where the cars can be thrown by tornado this isn't a one-size-fits-all answer they have to weigh in balanced the likelihood of harm against the ability of the people to execute it if people could handle more factors and accurately judge them under stress the experts wouldn't have to streamline their advice and they could just leave it up to the individuals because they know our decision-making is compromised during emergencies they have to simplify the message and that applies to our second question question number two why did they go for the overpass today hopefully should know that if you're ever caught in a tornado on the road is almost universally advised that you shouldn't seek shelter under an overpass the basic reasons are threefold first the wind speed is greater due to the elevation and wind tunnel a fact both of which increase the risk of getting hit by flying debris getting blown away second most overpasses do not have girders to hold onto and even if they do the wind speed is likely to break your grip third if you leave your car there especially during low visibility conditions like with a thunderstorm your risk collision with others there have been a number of fatalities due to people seeking shelter under overpasses however why is the idea of overpass safety so persistent that Jonathan believed in 1997 and the idea survives to this day requiring experts to routinely advise against it at every turn well as I said before safety is a complex matrix of factors and if they come together just right people can survive a tornado under an overpass and in some rare circumstances they may survive because the overpass not simply in spite of it there were three instances of this happening were especially famous and completely captured the public perception in 1979 Wichita Falls Texas a man survived and F4 tornado on the embankment under a bridge with only minor injuries while those caught in the same traffic jam sustained serious injuries or even perished so the story goes in 1991 Kansas television crew played and replayed their howling survival under a Kansas Turnpike overpass and then in 1996 a Minnesota television crew survive the tornado outbreak in central Illinois under an overpass these three stories and particularly the replay of the videos completely ingrained into the viewers the idea of overpass safety in 1999 a veteran storm chaser distributed a photograph of a mother and her children under an overpass with a tornado in the distance near Newcastle Oklahoma the myth became so powerful that people actually left their homes to drive to the nearest highway overpass to seek shelter the National Weather Service was so incensed that it published a 25 page presentation solely dissecting the myth of overpass safety they listed the fatalities that had resulted in how to reverse the public perception up a link in the show notes out consider that even the National Weather Service who were certain that overpass safety was amiss struggled with how to convey this to the public as a matter of policy in their presentation they ask is there a need to revisit the current tornado safety guidelines for people and vehicles or in open country should we say anything about staying in one's car or driving at right angles to the tornadoes path simply to get out of the way so as we discussed earlier the experts know what they don't know and the answer with uncertainty rather than absolutes so how does our critic answer the second question what the critic might say they went to the overpass because they're stupid and the should've known better well like our first question we agree this isn't the optimal action but that's not the test to fairly judge someone's choices the test is whether it is reasonable for somebody with the same knowledge experience and circumstances to do the same thing in that situation the National Weather Service's 1999 presentation and the concerted effort to dispel the myth ever since shows that it absolutely was what people would have done in 1997 because that was what they were being shown in fed by the media without proper context that the people survived despite the overpass and not because of the overpass this whole issue reinforces the theme of the scene and much of Man of Steel even if it's not what people should do or what we want people to do it's what people actually do we wish to humanity would embrace somebody from the stars with open arms without prejudice without fear to not reject somebody who only wishes to help that's what we want to happen but that's not what people actually do we wish that the Kents would've remembered Hank but in reality people are careless during emergencies we wish people wouldn't run to overpasses for safety during tornadoes but in 1997 that's what people did and that's what some people still do to this day Man of Steel isn't afraid to show the reality of the human condition because it Superman ultimately prevails but that's another episode so basically it's hypocritical to assume Jonathan would have knowledge from the future that is to have today's views on overpasses back in 1997 and to require him to act more perfectly than people actually did in reality showing the frailty and the weakness of humanity only enhances the meaning and the significance of its strengths here Jonathan is in an emergency situation where it's hard to think straight and make good decisions yet his true self comes out under the circumstances and he is a hero to others even if everyone else is just running towards the overpass and a spare you the psychology of herds and peer pressure Jonathan gives that action voice by guiding others to take over which incidentally is not against anyone's guidelines taking cover is universally advised in the face of the tornado and if we wanted to do some inventive apologetics we might say that Jonathan spotted an especially low-lying ditch by the overpass which he intended people to get into but that's disingenuous and what Jonathan is looking after the people around him trying to direct them to safety and when he spots somebody in need a woman struggling to get her daughter out of the backseat he steps forward to help her no less than a dozen people ran past that woman without helping her but Jonathan didn't hesitate to help there's no calculation or deliberation Jonathan is simply acting on instinct and his core characters coming out whether he knows it or not he's setting the standard in the example for Clark in that moment you take care of your family first then when you feel that their relatively benign absolutely safe you look after others before you secure your own safety this is generally how a hero does and is expected to act it's probably a large part of why people have problems with Clark not acting like this but more on that later now if you take issue with Jonathan stopping to take this action a human life was at risk the action is perceived as heroic and the action is ultimately successful without a clear nexus with Jonathan's death consequentialism is not really an appropriate analysis but assuming Jonathan wanted to optimize his behavior he probably shouldn't have helped if he didn't he would've gone back towards Martha and Clark's sooner than he would've gone to Hank earlier and before the car was thrown into the air and he would've returned without issue meanwhile in all that time admittedly the mother was panicked but likely she would've managed to get her daughter free on her own eventually and arrive at the overpass a bit later but no less safe the problem with this kind of forecasting is that it is completely unfair to the characters making decisions in the moment with the knowledge they have at the time this kind of presumptive prediction is a form of hindsight bias where we judge the characters based on our knowledge of the totality of the events which the characters couldn't have known at the time now we know the Jonathan is able to free the girl relatively quickly so we can assume that the mother could eventually do the same but Jonathan didn't know that at the time and when he decides to help he doesn't know if it's going to take a while to get her unstuck or if it's going to be quick he simply makes the decision to help it isn't like he has a clear ticking clock over his head letting him know how much time he has to act nonetheless countless critics act as if Jonathan and Clark knew the exact moment of Jonathan's perspective demise and the propose and plan all sorts of strategies around that knowledge as if the characters should have known despite the plane back to the characters clearly didn't and couldn't have known such criticisms are unfair and unreasonable and they take a lot of liberties with what we assume to be true for example for all we know the mother is in such a panic state that she can never free her daughter or Hank is so afraid that he still doesn't get out of the car soon enough it isn't fair to the characters the story for the film to play fortuneteller with their fates and judge them harshly based on our knowledge being fair means putting ourselves into their situation and knowledge at the time rather than judge using information established after the fact it's the same idea behind using the reasonable person standard which asks us to imagine and empathize with what that person would do and that brings us to question three why go back for Hank to the critic answer is that going back to Hank makes no sense Hank is just an animal and no human life is worth the life of an animal this is one of those places with the critic can't necessarily divorce their own point of view from fair evaluation of the characters irrespective of their personal feelings and valuation of pets against human life the consistency of the story isn't judged on whether it matches their preference so whether it's realistic for people to risk their own lives for their pets you don't have to dig very far at all to find countless examples of pet owners doing just that unfortunately the stories tend to be a little rambling so I've cut them all for time bullet Jonathan did was something that many had done before in the real world and this isn't necessarily an isolated case of pet crazy people there is some neuroscience to backup just how much people love their dogs so the same chemicals that make people go all nothing for babies are presently deal with salaries the study found that oxytocin hormone that facilitates bonding percent dog owners who gave in a pet eyes so it's possible animals are hacking and why a lot of cuteness and by extension are instinct to protect the helpless and NSX opening is is that people when it really matters will save his life over a dog probably join the regions University psychologist by hundred 73 people what they would do if a bus was hurling for the person had dog and they can only save one in the dog with their personal and a person was an unknown tourist but personally a messy red hood ornament 40% of the time so earlier we talked about the tale of Tybee the cocker spaniel stranded in a car on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge after Leonard codes worth abandon the car it was absolutely clear that the collapse of the bridge was imminent and that the situation was dangerous and life-threatening I encourage you to check out the video to see just how violently the bridge was swaying at the time it was the third longest suspension bridge in the world and it earned the nickname galloping Gertie despite how dramatic this way and how apparent the danger not one not to the three different individuals risked their lives to try and save Toby first coats worth try to return to the car the motion the bridge through them to the ground repeatedly been a photographer Howard Clifford tried but he couldn't get to the car third and finally Prof. focus on a dog lover decided to try and managed to reach the car he opened the door and tried to coax Toby out he got bit by Tybee who wouldn't come the professor gave up and stumbled back to safety mere moments before the bridge collapsed sadly Toby perished but note that three men willingly risked their lives for this little dog it wasn't even Leonard's pet but rather his daughters dog and it wasn't Howard stopped and the professor merely liked dogs with no particular attachment to this one you don't have to agree with what they did but it shows that this is a real thing that happens in the real world know to how Toby refused exit the car just like people have different reactions to a pet in danger dogs have different reactions to danger I'm surprised by the number of people who find it inconceivable that Hank might hesitate to exit the car once Jonathan reached at not only does Toby show is that exactly what some dogs do but the ASPCA in the National Weather Service specifically advise training dogs to come on command under stress and being prepared to safely remove insecure dogs who might cower during a tornado again fair judgment means empathy and examining the standard of care even if it's not the choice you make or the actions you do or what your pets would do as long as you understand it's a choice that actual people make in the real world and behavior which many pets exhibit actions are plausible and rational well the critic may accept that this happens in reality but then condemns them all real or unreal as stupid essentially there making a value judgment and doing a cost-benefit analysis however the cost-benefit analysis is not really that useful a lens and these creatures have perfect self-control perfect calculating ability rational expectations and no emotions I I don't know any of those people certainly there are none here we like to pretend that we make decisions like Mr. Spock but we don't people think they calculate risks and rewards and decide accordingly but were not always rational we rarely behave like Vista's most of our decisions we use fast intuitive occasionally unreliable system on a cost-benefit analysis is faulty for two reasons first it assumes that there is enough information on which to base a reasonable calculation and second it assumes that the calculation is done it all addressing the first point tornadoes vary greatly in strength and power investigators like to use a system called ER scale to measure the strength of tornadoes by rating the damage to the seer all three lambs shingles off the roof or so and then you is more substantial damage Lex roof decking EF one can often be powerful enough to overturn a mobile home you to the roof is on the aftermath of even in he have to can look like a bomb exploded you have three is basically the outer walls of the house for now and only the interior walls remain and EF three releases the same energy as 10 tons of CN key you or is basically all the walls are now just a pile of debris left on the foundation very little is left standing after and EF for tornado and EF five is complete sweeping clean off the foundation of the house of all the belongings such that there's only a little perimeter left in the warehouse once was and EF five is equivalent in bomb damage to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima have and EF five go through a major metropolitan area is rare less than 1% of all tornadoes get to be that strong begin to produce that kind of intensity but EF four and EF five storms combined just 1% of all tornadoes produce 70% of all casualties in a based on the clips statistically any tornado Jonathan was facing was unlikely to be on the high end of the spectrum additionally the scale looks backwards in time looking at the FX of the tornado and the level of damage to determine its severity that doesn't help Jonathan to make his decisions as he hands little girl over the Clark it's not until Jonathan has reached the station wagon to receive the barn in the background vaporize and vehicles being lifted into the air allowing us to categorize this tornado at the time Jonathan ran out there he wouldn't have the experience of knowledge to categorize the tornado and if you what is experienced with them you know that they were dangerous but that the vast majority of tornadoes are brief and do nominal damage it's very difficult for a layperson to prospectively gauge tornado strength or seriousness or how long it will last or how much time that they have a wager that this was Hank's first tornado so Jonathan would have little to no idea how Hank might react to handle it Hank did get out immediately Jonathan would've been completely vindicated he be alive that has Hank and everything would be fine but again that's inappropriate hindsight analysis however it suggests that Jonathan's estimates were basically spot on it Hank hadn't hesitated or that specific car hadn't come down on the station wagon everything was completely achievable nonetheless critic could come back and say that in the face of such uncertainty risk of human life for a dog is unreasonable perhaps but that assumes that there was any kind of cold rational calculation during an emergency situation if you asked Jonathan Leonard Howard with a professor if they would trade their lives for a dog in a case of certain death they probably say no however if you pose the question as you can keep from losing your dog if you take a nominal risk on your life suddenly the question enters that sliding scale which relies on the reasonable behavior of others practically everything we do in life contains some amount of risk whether driving a car eating out or even stepping into the shower those mundane activities are statistically more likely to bring about your demise than death by tornado yet we do them daily because we consider it a fair trade to travel enjoy food prepared by others and enjoy basic hygiene there is a spectrum of tolerable risk that a reasonable person is willing to take to rescue a beloved furry family member in our real world examples show Jonathan is within that spectrum of course that isn't really how our minds work in an emergency situation we don't do calculated analysis of the risks were much more prone to be biased by loss aversion and engaging even riskier behavior cognitive biases play havoc with our best intentions our willingness to take a gamble is very different depending on whether where faced with the loss or gave it a winning frame of mind people are naturally Robin cautious but what about losing always similarly cautious when faced with a potential loss when the choices framed in terms of a loss most people take a risk slow system to could probably work out that the outcome is the same in both cases instead fast system ones makes a rough guess based on change of conservation is unbiased gold loss aversion people think it is in their thinking typically also of the other lady in my home by roughly 5 to 2 when we think what winning we don't take risks when where faced with a loss frankly were a bit reckless faced with the safe option of doing nothing and the risk of rescuing Hank Jonathan behaved like the cognitive bias predicts not to mention the influence of priming we discussed last episode face with the prospects of losing Clark and his usefulness challenged and his protective nature brought out by the discussion in the car Jonathan would be primed to not lose another family member to show that he's useful and to protect his entire family if we look back to episodes to the three examples of heroes we have further proof that heroes don't do cold rational calculations but simply act heroic altruism towards strangers is generally a rational the rational economic theory of altruism tends to deal with our genetic propagation which isn't supported by saving a stranger or a dog in rational terms are three heroes from episode 29 put their own lives at risk for the mere possibility that they might save another already at risk as not a safe rational choice but it's what heroes do you remember Wesley Autry the construction worker who left his two girls on the subway platform to hold an epileptic still with his body as a moving train passed over them if you asked him whether it makes sense to risk making his two little girls fatherless the slim chance of saving a man that they don't know he'd acknowledge that it doesn't but nonetheless it's a choice he successfully made countless first responders servicemen and so on risk their lives and the possibility of leaving their families for the sake of others based on ideals the transcend human selfish rational calculation Joseph Campbell reflected upon this in an interview with Bill Moyers is a wonderful paper by Schopenhauer called the foundation of morality is exactly the question of duress how is it that a human being can so participate in the peril of pain of another without thought spontaneously he sacrifices his own life to the other option is the wobbly novelistic I was the first law of nature name self-preservation is suddenly dissolved as a breakthrough in what a some 45 years ago with extraordinary adventure that represents this problem is a place called the poly people like to go up there to get the hair blown around on to suicide while the police, sans way up and they sure just be on the railing young man actually clearly about to jump and prepare himself to jump police car stopped the police found the right jumps out to grab the board and grabs him just as he jumped and was himself been pulled over and going over a second cup hadn't gotten around rather than political and the policeman was asked why didn't you tell me you would have lost your life you see what happened to that madness is what's known as one pointed meditation everything else in his life dropped off his duty to his family to his job his duty to his own career all of his wishes and hopes alive just disappeared and he was about to go in his answer was I couldn't let go and let that young men go I could not have lived another outcome Schopenhauer's answer is this is the great of a metaphysical realization that you and the other one and that they separate this is only an effect of the forms of sensibility of time and space and true reality is in that unity with all life is a metaphysical truths that become spontaneously realized because it's the real truth of your life was wounded know that young man was Schopenhauer said in small ways you can see this happening every day all the time this is a theme that can be seen moving life in the world people doing nice things for each other out much of Campbell's work is heady and perhaps is confronting as it can be insightful but allow me to propose the possibility that the interconnectedness exemplified by his heroic ideal is demonstrated by intergalactic trans-species love dogs aren't human there's something philosophically poignant about family transcending species and a pair of humans are called to lovingly raise an alien kryptonian as their own okay so the critic is now throwing up their hands okay fine we get it people love their dogs that doesn't address question number four why did Jonathan send Clark and the critic is dying to answer this with their list of grievances all your talk of rational calculation from Jonathan's perspective is pointless because the clear option was always to send Clark Clark was ready and willing to go but Jonathan stupidly stopped him if Clark went Clark would be stronger faster and invulnerable if anything happened to Jonathan had only sent Clark he be risking nothing if Clark went they'd all be safe and alive well there's a time of poor logic that assumptions and unfair judgments in that but let's try to unpack them and fortunately we've tackled many of them already and perhaps you've spotted a number of you can tell that there succumbing to hindsight bias in assuming the outcome to judge the decisions there assuming a calculation is being done and assuming a lot of knowledge unavailable to the characters that are ignoring the psychology of how decisions like these are actually made and their ignoring practical considerations like law emotion and utility let's assume for the sake of argument that everything goes their way which we don't have to even with hindsight we can guarantee that Hank doesn't hold Clark off until the same point in time and that Clark doesn't dive into the station wagon just like Jonathan did because he's never had a car dropped on them before and wouldn't know that he be fine and then Clark ultimately ends up in the scenario highly likely to reveal his powers and then the government seizes them up for their suicide squad precursor of assume none of that happens and it goes exactly as the critic predicts Clark gets to hang quickly returns to the Kents and everyone is happy so what we've handled this already that's just an example of optimal behavior we've already established that had they taken Hank to the overpass initially or if Jonathan had not stopped to help the mother struggling to get her daughter free or if Hank hadn't hesitated all of those scenarios also lead to potential happy endings the possibility or even the likelihood of a happy ending is not the test for whether a scene makes sense or is reasonable is the decisions of the characters make in the moment based on what they know their experience their circumstances and here to the critic fall short the proposal is essentially a utilitarian one which assumes that Jonathan is making a calculation in his head so the calculation goes like this Clark is faster he stronger he's more durable than Jonathan and therefore he's a better candidate to retrieve Hank then Jonathan the faster you complete the task the more durable that you are the lower the risk and therefore the better candidate Clark it's an in absolute terms all of those facts are true nonetheless this is and how Jonathan would approach the problem assuming for a moment the Jonathan considered sending Clark his interests are in protecting Clark protecting Clark's secret and in saving Hank will the interest in protecting Clark's secret means that Clark can use superspeed assuming he has even discovered his speed at this point we discussed that many times on this podcast before and it looks like Clark doesn't discover his speed until he discovers his flight but for the sake of argument even if Clark has some speed is not speed on the level which makes him invisible or impossible to identify especially if he returns to the rally point with all the witnesses right more or less the same goes for superstrength heat vision and super senses the expected task is running to a car and opening the door those other powers are generally irrelevant to that task and their use only jeopardizes Clark's secret so were left with durability but that's a far cry from knowing that you're going to survive getting hit in the head with debris flying at 200 mph that you'll be okay if you're crushed by a flying car or hit by a tornado backed with the energy of 10 tons of TNT it's simply impossible for Jonathan and Clark to know for certain that Clark can survive a tornado without consequences at this point in time course of the same time he's putting his secret at risk if he survives getting hit by debris's in full view of witnesses the advantage of some unknown amount of increased durability in the face of the tornado is weighed against the real possibility of death or the exposure of his secret and aside from debris getting thrown there's actually another way tornadoes killed more on that later so the mass of sending Clark is rapidly getting less appealing from Jonathan's perspective the chances of Hank being saved only go up marginally over what the projected task is run to a car door and open it but meanwhile Clark's life and secret would be unnecessarily jeopardized by this task much more than by going with Martha the math only makes sense if Jonathan knew exactly how much time they had an knew the Clark could run meaningfully faster without revealing his powers durability he vision and strength don't really enters the picture of the equation because preparing for that contingency means that you're expecting those risks which means that your intentionally jeopardizing Clark's secret and his life either creating a scenario were Clark might have to demonstrate his powers to save the dog or have his limits tested be on anything that they've seen before Jonathan has already established that having to choose between showing his powers and saving is not a choice that he wanted Clark to have to make with the bus rescue he never wanted to put Clark into the position of having to choose to save the life of his pet or to use for example visible heat vision or lift a car in front of strangers or explain surviving getting hit by debris none of that makes sense from Jonathan's perspective and the interests that he's been established in the film to have it's only unappealing to Jonathan to send Clark unwittingly Jonathan is putting Clark into the position of having to decide whether to reveal his powers or save Jonathan but Jonathan doesn't know that at this point when were careful not to succumb to hindsight bias now the biggest hypocrisy of the utilitarian analysis is that the critic is complaining the Jonathan didn't do a complete calculation on the benefits of sending Clark instead while failing to do a complete calculation themselves we just walked through all the disadvantages of sending Clark and now let's talk about the advantages of Clark being with Martha they are unfairly judging a decision that they have the time and the presence of mind to evaluate differently but ironically for all their half-baked calculations about Clark's speeding candidacy it's clear they didn't think them through because a full and thorough calculation tends to vindicate Jonathan we just talked about all the disadvantages of sending Clark now let's talk about the advantages of Clark's staying with Martha remember that a complete utilitarian analysis is about making choices which maximize overall happiness they're all sorts of philosophical problems and critiques with utilitarianism but that's not the show the critic assumes that Jonathan should've calculated Clark's higher likelihood of success in retrieving Hank sent Clark which would've resulted in everyone being alive Clark's secret being safe and everyone being happy we've already discussed how you can't use hindsight bias to predict the outcome you can't look at the result of the flip of a coin and then say Jonathan should've made the decision that came before the coin flip based on the outcome of the coin flip has already analyzed yes Clark is arguably the better candidate for the specific task of retrieving Hank will Clark is also the worst candidate for maintaining the overall happiness if you were to die of his secret was exposed which the Kents posited could have a global impact moreover had no point does the critic ever consider the utility of Clark's staying with Martha Jonathan doesn't just send Clark to the overpass he gives Clark a mission hands Clark a child and then says get your mom to the overpass in other words his mission is to protect his mom and the others around him this is a mission that he takes seriously and he does it obediently he brings them to the overpass and when Martha is the one that wants to run out to Jonathan Clark is the one to hold her back now irrespective of the myth of overpass safety as a practical matter I'm sure they recognize that it doesn't represent absolute safety it wasn't as if the overpass directed a force field around the mall this is still a tornado event and who knows it's going to turn their way or throw dangerous debris in their direction although Clark could only marginally improve on Jonathan's performance in retrieving Hank Clark was magnitudes more equipped to protect the people at the overpass then if Jonathan had been there the two primary ways a tornado can harm someone is getting sucked away and hit by flying debris Clark's increased strength could be used to keep people from flying away in a plausibly deniable fashion and depending on the type of debris and how Clark shielded others it's unlikely that people would recognize his power if all he did was cover their body with his finally if Clark was pushed into a position where he was forced to reveal his powers to save the two dozen or more people present their indebtedness would make the situation completely different than if he reveals his powers saving his pet or even his own father in saving Jonathan or Hank Clark's powers merely set him apart as another but if Clark uses his powers to explicitly save the witnesses using his strength or his heat vision to stop an incoming flying vehicle or something similar they would owe him their lives and perhaps some loyalty and hopefully some silence it would be far from the ideal circumstance of not having to demonstrate his powers at all but it would be better to show his powers the people he could reasonably asked to keep his secret the math for Jonathan and for Clark means that it makes more sense for Clark to go and protect everyone at the overpass then to run an open car door of course all of this is if they had time to strategize plan deliberate and calculate and we know that isn't the case or a fair standard of judgment this is merely to point out how the critics talking about the better candidate based on calculation clearly didn't bother to calculate fully and we very discussed and know how these kinds of decisions are made these kinds of decisions are fast intuitive and heavily influenced by our past experience and are recent stimuli someone is trying to work out an answer quickly and seamlessly as possible which is extremely beneficial in everyday life in every activity required for all the effort it would be exhausting Reuben knowingness allows us to understand that not all of our first impressions are correct in a similar way system one generate context without you knowing without explicit context system one quickly generates one raised on previous experience this type into a concept priming for example I said wash how would you complete this word fragment most would see soap had to show you the word to be more likely to see in this way both he and watch prime your thoughts the system to like to think that it's in charge in knows it's going on the truth is that priming effects have even been shown to affect and not by behavior these arising system one you have no conscious access to them we discussed this last episode but Jonathan is primed on multiple levels to be paternal and protective towards Clark by the conversation in the station wagon the idea that Clark's ambiguous powers played a part in the analysis is unlikely as far as Jonathan is concerned the Broadway we saw on the bus rescue is more or less the last time Clark used his powers for the next four years he had grown and transformed into 17-year-old Clark over the course of 1500 days without using powers to the point of being sick of it on the blog I posted an article about how a more baby faced Henry cavil and a younger Kevin Costner would've played to our intuitions better however it's not inherently plot hole percent there are mature looking teens and if Clark had transformed that much Jonathan's instinct might have been to think of Clark is not having powers since this person was careful never to exhibit them nonetheless Clark's behavior in the station wagon also reinforced his relative immaturity which triggers another consideration Jonathan is Clark's Guardian and Clark isn't legally an adult commanding your son to head towards a tornado is arguably child endangerment of the boundaries of Jonathan's thoughts morality principles and beliefs would've never even had him come close to considering or needing to wonder about those legal limits the law acts as an agreed-upon societal boundary line enacted by our representatives and legislature in other words the societal norm is that parents don't endanger their children for minors but in the case were a parent is so bad that they don't conform to the norm the law ask is a safety net to hold parents who would endanger their children accountable it's one thing for an independent adult to choose to risk their own wife it's another to allow an on emancipated minor to risk of bears in your place consider the witnesses in that scene they don't know the Clark can survive a tornado they don't know the Clark might be safer they just see a parent allowing their child to risk their life it doesn't matter if Clark looks capable and volunteers there's no guarantee that the people by the overpass will unanimously let that go maybe they do maybe they don't I don't think it crossed Jonathan's mind either way but it shows how the critics suggestion crosses even a basic agreed-upon societal line they could argue that Clark comes back and lies about his age that doesn't change the rationale behind the law which parents aren't expected to cross in the first place and why you would never cross Jonathan's mind why because parents are naturally expected to have paternal and protective emotions towards their children again the utilitarian criticism fails to account for how feelings model any sort of math even if for the sake of argument sending Clark was absolutely the optimal course of action it doesn't mean that Jonathan would be inclined to do it based on his emotions and that's far from foolish is arguably the heart of humanity and why we struggle with moral dilemmas consider the following die limit where the optimal and rational path is clear yet nonetheless important sure me just as the better the more I study moral judgment and decision-making unit get into that whole or maybe would you elite question as exact as you wouldn't need to call this the wiki in that earlier regularly describe the last episode of the TV show man it's more time you are hiding in the basement with some of your fellow villagers and the enemy soldiers are outside Orders to kill anyone that they find nobody so you are you are huddled in the basement all around your enemy troops were holding your baby move your arms your baby with a cold is no your baby moment you hear your baby to find you and the baby everyone else to kill everybody in the only way you can stop this from happening is cover the babies about but if you do babies when his mother died if you don't cover the babies mouth soldiers and unified everybody everybody's been a be kill including you including your faith you have the choice would you smother your own baby to save the village or would you like me because knowing the consequences and in an intimate clear from UI where were going with this Robert Blake I don't know if you asked me a question at the time how many people chose to kill the baby about hand when you said in figure going to know what what would you do me I would never they would I wouldn't even consider kill the baby village will go on to have 100 babies your babies just wanted but my baby is way worldly reason why universal I don't dare raise all those people based on your one child but with a quick fix for the audience you know that the does not have a child of his okay now now we have the benefit of time passing you just as sheer curiosity now you have a child and you looked into that childhood friend over and over again just curious would you you will know relating on not know you I am commission with but just at Cassidy would you do but I come baby name your baby a baby your baby you is you will is child if you left knows he has the thought about this execution as he knows about the reason I'm running thing is that me now this not just like an abstract baby that it's my baby momentous change everything obviously set of place right I don't really know think they don't wait for me just think about this kind of possible question is like in order to answer truthfully what is I die would not come in a the have to sacrifice a principle which is like not as important to me has my baby but almost weapons will be but it's and has yet to sacrifice something very dear for the greater good actually that's a really means not take off communistic on you but that's a really poor 92 at and in this case by the way that the calculus of what is about to happen if the baby crosses really not know me if you have here the philosopher King you give me two options one is to kill mighty to save the village or to allow my baby to live in which case everybody dies if those really to options and instability, have to kill 80 that I don't think I could do that have again if I could get so to do the nicer pathetic answered this point is I can't kill my baby but then I can't sacrifice the village's I think I would just come like close my eyes and wish I could put so the ideas that even when you think about this case the one hand you have an intuitive emotional response that says know this is terrible killing a baby or killing my own baby even worse at the same time a different system within your brain is saying look this is is horribles this is this is a sensible thing to do with the only sensible thing to do because if you do nothing everyone will die as if you kill the baby then at least you and the other people can live and with what the evidence suggests is that these two competing moral perspectives are really grounded in different parts of the brain and the competition is not been resolved some a judge and say given a clear optimal path there's no question you smother the baby however a fair judge would recognize the nature of the dilemma choices this hard in this difficult generally the biases towards what you've already been doing when we come to make decisions window is cited the decision itself instead what we do is we try to look at similar decisions we make and possibly take the decision if it were good decisions and we sent us up all I made his decision before going to go ahead and so this is that we just use what I did before and repeated babies with some modifications to how can I predict what you are going to do on day 1501 just look at what you did from days one through 1500 Jonathan had made a concerted effort to keep Clark's safe all that time so naturally he did it again here and likewise Clark didn't rebel he was tired of safe because he had obeyed all that time so in a rushed circumstance Clark defaulted to what he had practiced his entire life he listened to his father okay they agree for Jonathan to bear the risk of running to the car in opening the door for Clark to bear the risk of protecting people by the overpass but what about question five why didn't Clark act here the critic says it's one thing dealing with abstract and uncertain risks it's another thing when you see a car come crashing down on your desk at that point there is a clear and present danger to your father's life versus some nebulous concept of danger to the people at the overpass triage demands that Clark act to save his father's life how could Clark sit there and do nothing until Jonathan emerged from the car a lot of that argument is reasonable and persuasive but it still relies on hindsight which can be used to evaluate the legitimacy of the choices fairly if you had told Clark all you have to do is believe right now for your dad and limped back together and everything will be fine of course he would've acted the possibility of success based on our omniscient audience knowledge is never the fair just or reasonable test it holds the characters unfairly accountable for information that they don't have Clark doesn't know that his dad is injured that he won't be up to walk and that there is not enough time for all he knows Jonathan will emerge from the car in the second and come sprinting back the critics like to imbue Clark with omniscience based on his x-ray vision and his heightened hearing but nothing in the scene suggest that he knows what's happening to Jonathan in fact Jonathan emerging injured appears to surprise Clark he tries to calm his mother saying it's okay when Jonathan leaps into the car further suggesting that he has no idea the Jonathan needs help although Jonathan safety is now an elevated interest note that nothing has changed about the risks of Clark venturing out there his abilities are still If he intends to conceal them and they still have no idea whether tornado could kill him and to the extent that he intends to use his powers he would risk revealing that we know that Jonathan was trapped and wounded the Clark didn't all he knew is that Jonathan had the presence of mind and the agility to dodge a flying car Jonathan is in the car for only about 20 seconds and only 10 seconds longer than Hank the first time you watch the scene everything feels stretched out like an eternity and there's a sensation of asymmetric desperation and Fred the amount of trouble that Jonathan is in and the amount of inaction on Clark's part but the more you watch that scene the faster and faster you realize things happened Clark only just arrived at the overpass and finished handing over the little girl back to her mother a scant 12 seconds before Jonathan dodges the flying car at that moment Martha wants to run out and Clark manages to hold her back he's doing what Jonathan told them to do in about 10 seconds later Hank is free and on his way back to them to Jonathan's mission was harrowing but so far successful if he came sprinting after Hank everything would be all right only as the seconds ticked by Jonathan has emerged yet but at the 12 second mark they can see Jonathan fall out of the car Martha screams his name and Clark says something illuminating mom stay here he has already stepped pastor and he's holding her back with his left arm and what is that tell us that Clark was going to act he was getting ready to act there would be no reason to tell Martha to stay there if he was going to remain where he was the holder back Clark was asking for her cooperation as he prepared to go out there he wasn't ideally waiting while Jonathan was imperiled he was struggling to overcome a lifetime of programming in 20 seconds or less in the segment the presented the moral dilemma the horrific choices merely presented as a hypothetical tour man who had been a father for less than a year and yet it still took him minutes to arrive at a nonanswer fighting the facts of the situation by closing his eyes and wishing he were somewhere else in the story of Abraham's faith being tested he had days to overcome his every instinct to rebel here Clark had been told his entire life not to publicly use his powers and he had only seconds to defeat that core central tenet of his upbringing and to do the exact reverse less than five seconds after telling Martha to stay Clark looks back at the witnesses gathered at the overpass behind him and he's desperately doing the math like he's been taught to do to consider the consequences to think of everyone even those beyond his senses even if that's the last thing he wants to do that if you asked Clark when you rather just brush out and save your dad without worrying about witnesses keep say yes that's what he wants it Jonathan and Martha raised him to well even as he's about to – out and change the entire paradigm of his existence no longer a secret to the world but a known quantity exposed for all the world to consider fear reject control hate worship embrace sensationalize or drive out he still takes that reflexive look back to consider the witnesses and that gives Jonathan just enough time to make eye contact with Clark and he shakes his head no holds up his hand to stop Clark shakes his head again gives a sad smile and 14 seconds from he makes that initial eye contact with Clark he's gone the answer to why Clark didn't act was because he didn't have all the information that we have as the audience we have a better idea of his capabilities from tradition and from the oil rig scene we know what's going on in the station wagon and upon repeat viewings we know how much time everyone has put Clark didn't everything was coming to him in roughly 10 second increments 10 seconds from reaching the overpass until Jonathan reached the station wagon without issue the flying car hits the station wagon but in 10 seconds Hank is out and running back towards him and in 10 seconds Jonathan is out of the car in five seconds Jonathan stops Clark from coming to him and in the final 10 seconds Jonathan is gone at no point during that did Clark have the information to instantly overcome the inertia of his upbringing and a lifetime of training to the contrary if he had desperately tried to and was about to just before Jonathan stopped him basically the instant Clark had the information and the ability to act he tried to but he was stopped and that brings us to question number six why did Jonathan hold up his hand the critic assumes that Clark could save Jonathan and doesn't accept Jonathan stopping Clark and the critics raise a number of arguments in the alternative argument one Clark could of easily say Jonathan without detection or argument to Clark could have say Jonathan in a plausibly deniable way or argument three Clark could have saved Jonathan and revealed his powers and no one would've cared revealing your secret is no big deal just like with the bus rescue basically since the rescue was possible and without consequence Jonathan was foolish to stop Clark from saving him and after that the dog pile on ulcerative ancillary accusations that really aren't worth dignifying with an answer but they tend to be counterfactual dispersions like alleging that Jonathan was suicidal wanted to teach Clark a lesson etc. the plane viewing of the film makes such interpretations ridiculous of vernacular address those but I'm incredibly sympathetic to the first line of thinking for a casual viewer they are probably coming to the film with the baggage of tradition making it hard to pretend like you don't know that traditionally Superman has superspeed which allows him to act in visibly in the world without detection they see Jonathan hold up his hand and they think that means that he knows that Clark could save him and finally most damning of all that's exactly what Clark says to Lois to conclude the story in the scene I let my father die cause I trusted him or you do interpret something like that except as an admission that he could have saved his father I completely understand why does not heavily invested in the film came away with that belief and subsequent condemnation because it's very easy to draw that conclusion from those three points however hopefully by this point in the show you know that the standard of good judgment for fairness and justice isn't just an easily reached conclusion just because a judgment is easy doesn't mean that it's accurate or right now let's look at those three points I don't think the first one requires a time of analysis is clearly isn't just or fair to use external continuity to definitively declare what a character's powers are in another continuity I think most people will naturally into it that it's inappropriate to expect that this Superman can turn back time or steel memories with a kiss but since superspeed is seen across more renditions of Superman it's harder for people not to take for granted as hard as it is for casual viewers to set aside one impression of what Superman's powers are consider how much harder it is for Clark to set aside a lifetime of teaching telling him to never exposes secret anyways despite this difficulty the filmmakers were extremely deliberate in providing the parameters of Clark's powers up to this point the oil rig scene carefully establishes Clark's potential but shows that he was flightless a multitude of scenes between then and this point in the film would've been easier with flight or superspeed but neither are demonstrated because Clark doesn't have them until meeting Jor-El which is meant to definitively show the audience that that is when Clark gains flight and accordingly superspeed the flying scene comes immediately before this flashback making it clear the Clark didn't have flight during the tornado scene didn't know the full scope of his powers and his limits and in my opinion didn't have superspeed but American a retread all of that you can listen to previous episodes of the podcast laying out that proof but even if you want to believe that Clark had superspeed which he didn't use in the oil rig rescue or on Ellesmere or in the scout ship the flying scene shown right before this shows us that Clark speed is dangerous increase violent sonic booms that ripped through the air and it shatters mountains upon impact two episodes ago we talked about the collateral effects of speed on that magnitude and the question becomes even if Clark could move that fast it's neither fast enough to be invisible to the naked eye and it isn't bounded by something like the speed force to protect Jonathan Kent from those catastrophic collateral effects rushing out at that speed would killed Jonathan but any slower he's giving up his secret with Jonathan holding out his hand the implication is that if you didn't that meant the Clark could successfully rescue him without issue and while that's the natural assumption I don't think it's unnecessary what out of the context of paranormal he powered individuals we've actually seen this scene quite a bit haven't witnessed the true life trope the takes the form of go on without me or save yourselves or don't be a hero or the person who let's go after being told hang on don't let go in those cases the person is asking their compatriots not to attempt a rescue for the sake of the greater good it isn't a statement about their friends ability to rescue them in fact it tends to be quite the opposite the person sacrificing themselves knows that their friends have the impulse and the desire to rescue them however they know that in the attempt to rescue their compromising the safety of the entire group or the success of the mission if the person sacrificing themselves felt that there was no cost or risk to being rescued it wouldn't make any sense to sacrifice themselves when the person says go on without me save yourselves or don't be a hero there saying I know you intend to and can try to go on with me or save me but that is only going to cost you your life or cost us the mission it's why the person dangling from below loosens their grip cuts their line for the sake of everyone else so Jonathan holding out his hand is much more consistent with this interpretation than a purely a necessary sacrifice Jonathan is saying I know you're going to rush out here Clark but that's not going to save me it's only going to jeopardize you your mother your secret and possibly the whole world okay so were left with Clark's statement which is pretty powerful and I previewed this last episode the Clark might be an unreliable narrator when explaining what happened but we've accounted for importing expectations outside the film and for Jonathan holding up his hand what about Clark saying I let my father die because I trusted him the most obvious interpretation is that Clark is saying he could have saved his father if he didn't trust him however I think there to alternative interpretations the first one is that he's doing what we've been so careful to guard against this entire episode which is to have hindsight bias Clark considers what he knows now and the abilities that he has now and he's judging himself back then as he is today and there's a certain rationale to that arguably nothing stopped him from ever flying except trying so Clark might be bearing some of the same sort of false guilt of that Batman has occasionally indulged in order to find Spiderman condemning himself for knowledge that he couldn't possibly have had the time and is a little support for this when Clark tells Martha that he thinks that they were worried about his secret getting out and she corrects him that they believe that the world would recognize the beauty of his secret however I think that's just Clark defaulting back to his secrecy training I do believe that there is a persistent wait to Jonathan's death but I don't think Clark was saddled with a guilt complex at least not one where he holds himself directly responsible instead I think there's another interpretation which is similar to what authorized family members may say in an end-of-life scenario when someone is terminally ill saying that you let them die doesn't imply that you had the power to save them from that illness what it means is that you could have taken measures but you didn't to me Clark is in saying that he knows for certain that he could have saved Jonathan but he's saying that he didn't even try he let what was happening happen and part of the intentional ambiguity of the scene is that he may never know if he could have say Jonathan or done it without revealing his secret the strongest support for this interpretation is how Lois reacts if Clark is saying that he could have saved his father but didn't that something difficult the sympathize with an arguably something to be reasonably horrified by get if Clark is saying that he let somebody go in an impossible situation that's a sympathetic situation for Lois at least to me it seems pretty clear that Clark at age 17 didn't have the power or the experience to easily and invisibly save Jonathan without consequence it's not a power that they established at that point in the film really at any time in the film either and many critics might recognize that and concede that point but then they argue the Clark still could have saved Jonathan in a matter that was plausibly deniable in other words Clark didn't have to use blindingly fast speed he could've just run out there a shade faster than humanly possible and done something to say Jonathan and there's definitely merit to that idea Clark could've doubled Jonathan's running speed without necessarily forcing people to conclude he was alien and he would've reached Jonathan before he was swept up but then what remember that Clark couldn't free himself to act in till Jonathan was just a little over 10 seconds from being gone having Clark set off any time earlier is unfairly assuming information abilities he doesn't have like knowing how much time is left being able to overcome his own training sooner and faster so he might be up to plausibly reached Jonathan in time but he would be up to carry Jonathan back in time not without resorting to speeds that would kill him now if Clark was at the peak of his powers first in their limitations and experienced with the dangers of tornadoes and how to survive them well beyond what a 17-year-old kid would know in 1997 He Might Dr. his arms into the road and pin Jonathan to the ground cover him with his own body to keep Jonathan from being swept away to reduce the risk of getting hit by flying debris unfortunately even that would not be enough if I have here with a now a decidedly got the official medical examiner the fourth the cause of death for every one of the 24th active the door as many had her brain injury is expected to sort think that's a thought a lot about something as six is something to talk about Java basically this is a situation surrounding the original thought is much as this is where the line is the press that philosophy more of course this level of speculation is absurd because Clark is 17 the last time he used his powers was when he was 13 he has absolutely no experience in dealing with tornadoes he's in a heightened emergency situation and he would have no idea what to do even if you reached his father in time many critics fantasize about Clark getting caught up in the tornado and flying off the Jonathan later explaining their survival is just one of those crazy things and while that's a possibility and miracles can happen that's heavily leveraging our future knowledge that Clark can fly against the Clark who can't even conceive of such a thing even after Clark is told he can fly it took in more than one try to get it in the meantime Jonathan could get ripped away from him struck by flying debris was succeeded by the wind speed so this is more of an unfair idealized pipedream than a practical possibility to reasonably judge Clark against will finally there's the argument that Clark could a simply revealed his powers and not cared about the witnesses and rescue Jonathan and afterwards it would of been no big deal just like the bus rescue ended up being no big deal and for the sake of argument let's say Clark could have say Jonathan if you revealed his powers something that I'm not sure that the critics understand is that there absolutely is merit to this argument and that's exactly what Clark is struggling with and that's why he's telling the story what if people learned that he was out there Lois what do you think however I think the critics are far too quick to assume that there will be no consequences and that the bus rescue proves that now again Jonathan and Clark didn't sit down to a careful deliberate calculation of risk rather this is simply to show that the critics didn't if they don't distinguish this scene from the bus rescue so how is this scene different from the bus rescue we talked about this way back in episode 13 somatic in a retracted too much but in short with the bus incident there are a handful of witnesses who are all children they were all from small bill they all owed Clark their lives and apparently in small bill people openly confront you with gossip and the ascribe the situation to the divine with the tornado were talking about absolute strangers and adults with no allegiances towards Clark his family small bill God note afterwards they be stranded their cars were damaged and gone they would be stuck with the witnesses for hours Clark doesn't have flight yet and he can't meaningfully runaway because he'd have to leave Martha Hankin Jonathan but the witnesses could still point the finger at them and the authorities would follow-up with their inquiries a phenomenon that occurs in front of two dozen unconnected strangers ceases to be an urban legend and becomes an incident to be investigated okay let's wrap this up quickly with our last question number seven why did Clark abide by that so the critic is pointing out that even if Jonathan didn't want Clark to rush out that doesn't mean the Clark had to respect that decision he could still – out and try to do something I think we've already answered this between last episode in this episode basically this was the logical psychological consequence of Clark's upbringing and their conversation in the station wagon Clark was primed to obey Jonathan in this moment and it was an inaction filled with uncertainty I can argue white might be futile or not utilitarian for the people there for the sake of the planet but none of that is really relevant because it wasn't how Clark may that choice he was relying on Jonathan's determination and conviction and how he lives with that and how it affects him we covered in our next episode we talk about Clark from ages 17 to 33 and the creative criticisms and intentions behind the scene obviously we didn't tackle every conceivable criticism of the scene but we exhaustively covered about as much as I'm willing to do and hopefully more important than any specific arguments you might've picked up you learned in approach to analyzing breaking down criticism into elements and then testing those elements while next time we'll figure out what the point of this whole scene was let's just quickly sum up what we've covered we embraced knowing what you don't know and uncertainty by covering the Dunning Kruger effect and the imposter effect we saw the importance of humility and the confidence of Clark's parents and how were all vulnerable to cognitive bias we showed how the justice system is meant to arrive at fair judgments rather than biased ones provided a framework for evaluating decisions by using a reasonable person we learn how fair judgment of a reasonable person includes there circumstances such as under an emergency doctrine and we learned how fair judgment has to account for the reasonable person's knowledge such as following the prevailing wisdom of 1997 even if wrong when compared to today's knowledge we learn how people are bad at making decisions in emergencies making it hard for experts to know how to streamline advice for panicking people we covered how fair judgment avoids succumbing to hindsight bias we clarified that a conceivable outcome is not a certain one and the importance of recognizing the rationality of others irrespective of your own personal feelings for example whether you consider a pet family or not and we backed up the love of dogs with neuroscience and learned about the tragic tale of Toby on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge we showed how the standards of care reflected in Man of Steel are exhibited in real life we learned how real emergency decision-making is not careful deliberate rational and we learn how loss aversion makes us prone to making risk yet how both these things are necessary traits for her heroic altruism which doesn't make sense otherwise we showed how a true utilitarian calculus considers imperfect information and not just the advantages of doing something but the disadvantages of doing that thing as well as the cost and benefits of alternatives we briefly revisited priming and reminded ourselves that Clark is a 17-year-old minor we again remember that people aren't strictly rational actors and that emotional stakes are relevant to reasonable decision-making and illustrated the point with a moral dilemma and we learned that when faced with hard choices we tend to rely on her history or default choice we broke down the scene and learned the Clark was going to act but explained why he didn't we've revisited and dismantled the assumptions that Clark knew that he was invulnerable they could of invisibly save Jonathan without issue and that he could've done anything had he reached Jonathan and the Jonathan's fears of exposure were unfounded we sympathized the common misconceptions of Clark's powers Jonathan's raise hands and Clark's statement and then proposed a more plausible reconciliation finally we were reminded that will fast and easy judgments are understandable that doesn't take them fair just good or write the fact that something requires interpretation explanation doesn't mean failure it means that it has get to explore and is worth getting right okay I think I've rambled on long enough this is Dr. awkward your DC cinematic universe apologist signing off CNX time that answers by the and all all their and their of answers