Yes, time can significantly distort how we judge war—both in terms of perception and moral assessment.
The argument that Israel is condemned because it acts slowly and with restraint touches on a real psychological and media phenomenon. Here’s how time plays into that distortion.
Duration Bias reminds us that we often overvalue the length of an experience rather than its intensity or meaning, while the Paradox of Restraint shows how holding back can actually amplify value and desire. Together, they reveal a fascinating tension in human psychology—sometimes, doing less or shortening an experience can leave a stronger, more lasting impression. It's a powerful insight for anyone designing content, relationships, or even life goals.
This article opens the door for a much-needed debate on how we evaluate justice in war—not just in real time, but through the lens of history. How do we ensure that our judgment isn't just reactive, but principled? And in an age of information saturation, is time distorting our sense of proportion, or simply exposing the complexities we’d rather ignore?
This is a compelling and provocative argument—one that rightly challenges how temporal perception influences moral judgment in war. The idea that duration can be conflated with cruelty is particularly worth examining. In a media-saturated world, where attention spans are short and outrage moves at the speed of a headline, a protracted military campaign can appear more brutal simply because it lingers in public view. In contrast, swift and shocking violence—like terrorism—can recede into the background, paradoxically seeming less monstrous over time despite its often indiscriminate nature.
While a cautious approach can sometimes prevent losses, relying on biased time perceptions rather than objective assessments can weaken strategic effectiveness. In my opinion, duration bias is generally a liability in warfare, where timing and adaptability are key to success
While a cautious approach can sometimes prevent losses, relying on biased time perceptions rather than objective assessments can weaken strategic effectiveness. In my opinion, duration bias is generally a liability in warfare, where timing and adaptability are key to success
An act’s duration can skew our moral lens—prolonged campaigns appear crueler than swift atrocities. In judging war, we must weigh intent, proportionality, and outcome, not just the clock.
Thank you for sharing details explanation
Yes, time can significantly distort how we judge war—both in terms of perception and moral assessment.
The argument that Israel is condemned because it acts slowly and with restraint touches on a real psychological and media phenomenon. Here’s how time plays into that distortion.
Duration Bias reminds us that we often overvalue the length of an experience rather than its intensity or meaning, while the Paradox of Restraint shows how holding back can actually amplify value and desire. Together, they reveal a fascinating tension in human psychology—sometimes, doing less or shortening an experience can leave a stronger, more lasting impression. It's a powerful insight for anyone designing content, relationships, or even life goals.
Waw. Very nice. Thanks for sharing.
Welcome.
This article opens the door for a much-needed debate on how we evaluate justice in war—not just in real time, but through the lens of history. How do we ensure that our judgment isn't just reactive, but principled? And in an age of information saturation, is time distorting our sense of proportion, or simply exposing the complexities we’d rather ignore?
Very informative post.. Thank you for explaining it so beautifully. I really liked the post.
Very informative post
This is a compelling and provocative argument—one that rightly challenges how temporal perception influences moral judgment in war. The idea that duration can be conflated with cruelty is particularly worth examining. In a media-saturated world, where attention spans are short and outrage moves at the speed of a headline, a protracted military campaign can appear more brutal simply because it lingers in public view. In contrast, swift and shocking violence—like terrorism—can recede into the background, paradoxically seeming less monstrous over time despite its often indiscriminate nature.
Really interesting how you framed antisemitism as adaptive. Make me wonder if this also explains shifting forms of racism elsewhere..
Interesting as always.
Thank you Jacob
While a cautious approach can sometimes prevent losses, relying on biased time perceptions rather than objective assessments can weaken strategic effectiveness. In my opinion, duration bias is generally a liability in warfare, where timing and adaptability are key to success
While a cautious approach can sometimes prevent losses, relying on biased time perceptions rather than objective assessments can weaken strategic effectiveness. In my opinion, duration bias is generally a liability in warfare, where timing and adaptability are key to success
An act’s duration can skew our moral lens—prolonged campaigns appear crueler than swift atrocities. In judging war, we must weigh intent, proportionality, and outcome, not just the clock.
Thank you for this
Thank you for this
Very good information
Thanks for sharing