 Thanks for joining us at Think Tech Hawaii, wherever you may be. Good afternoon. Good evening. Good day. We have the good fortune today of having with us retired judge Sandra Sims back from a wonderful mainland trip where she took in a number of historically important places in our civil rights history. We have David Larson, who's just finished a year as the chair of the American Bar Association, section of dispute resolution and who was July's distinguished panelist of the month for Think Tech. And Tina Patterson, who with David, that was part of one of the shows of the week on trauma. Yes. Encountering it, feeling with it, getting through it and recovering it from it. So lots of things to work with. One of the things that is in front of all of us in these times that we're confronted with lots of choices and a lot of those choices involve conflicts. And so if you think about which of the choices confronting you in your life involves conflict in ways that you have to deal with. Judge Sims, you want to start us off? What's something you're having to deal with or have had to deal with? That's involved some conflict in those choices. Boy, you alluded earlier to the trip that I took over the summer to some places in the south, which raised, was brought to mind some some really concerning conflicts about, you know, race and how we deal with our history. Went to the Selma to Montgomery Drive and to the to the Equal Justice Initiative Center that the museum in Montgomery. And it raised a lot of questions and concerns for me as to how we deal with the issues of resolving. If it is possible to even resolve our racial conflicts, because we can't move forward until we address the real issue. I think one of the things that was impressive about the center was the way Stevenson said we had to begin the discussion rather than talking about slavery and enslavement to talk about kidnapping and murder, because that's really what we were, you know, kidnapping from from those enslaved folks from Africa. And then doing what we did with that history and until we face that, it's going to be hard to move and I and I'm just still wrestling with that myself, just like, oh, my goodness, what do we do? How do we do this and how do we have these conversations with folks? And that's a really important insight because the history is not just slavery and enslavement, but human trafficking on a grand scale. They with abduction, with murder, with all the extremes of extreme levels of inhumanity. So what it's seeing and come coming face to face with that in these times mean for you. You're still talking about. OK, well, you know, it's it's it's kind of forcing us to really have to have somebody's conversations just recently. In fact, it was just the other day I was at a meeting and Crystal Kwok, who's who's a filmmaker at New Age, and she's done a film called Blurring the Blurring the Color Lines. And it has to do with her Chinese family that lived for many years in Mississippi, doing a business there. And she spent time going back there interviewing the people that lived with her near her family and looking at the issues of, you know, race and discrimination, how it applied in those days. This was like in the fifties. And it was quite an inch and it was. We had a tough discussion with some of the folks. It was kind of hard for some people to talk about some of the things that happened to them, but this is here. She's talking about, you know, anti. Anti Asian hate that's also part of that. And so it was really. It was really quite a discussion. I think what people came away from was that we in order to get through this, we got to keep talking about it. Tina, some thoughts, experiences. I'm going to take the thread that Sandra started a little further. This is it's an ongoing conflict for me. I am an elected official and I have applicants that come before me regarding land use development and there is ongoing conflict regarding existing communities, historical communities and what happens to that land and the narrative that we have regarding that land, whether it's recognizing that it's historical or recognizing the community that's currently present and getting their way in. So there's the challenge of being considered. Are we considering people with disabilities? Are we considering the demographics and the social economic lifestyle of those who live in that community? I have been struggling personally with the narrative of there's no such thing as gentrification in some communities. And I'm like and wanting to use other terms. Oh, it's displacement. It's gentrification and it's OK to say gentrification. But we also with the responsibility of saying it's gentrification. What are we going to do? And what is my responsibility and responding to those communities? I had an especially poignant email sent to me recently and the person flat out said and I I'm not upset. I'm the only African American on the planning commission in my jurisdiction. And the person said as a as a black woman. What are you going to do to help me? And some would say, oh, he's co-opting. But this person is also saying, I think you understand my plight. And of course, on some level, I do. You know, I have parents who one was a came from a family of land donors. And that land literally at one point, the decision was made to sell the parcel. And I won't go into reasons why the parcel was sold, but it was sold. And another side of the family that weren't landowners and just that land is power. Access to land, it's in land. And so, yeah, it's a struggle. And I made a decision that I would respond. So I went and sit once email me. I try to respond one. But to to it's my responsibility to find out what what's transpired. Why what's what is really going on? And sometimes it's people not understanding regulations and rules. Sometimes it's person understanding the regulations and rules and deciding that they don't apply. But it's it's it's up to me to find out and then see how I can support or educate, but also knowing that this is going this is going to continue to happen. And I think when we as we're looking at as we continue to look in the space that civil discourse can make the difference and it does make the difference. We see it in other jurisdictions. I'm constantly looking at the work that Lonnie Schoeler is doing in the Austin area. There's work that is being done in Oregon. There's been some work that a gentleman by I know by the name of Mike Brown is doing in Chicago and underlying it is that discourse. It's not saying, oh, you know, what do you know? It's not the gentrification isn't happening. It's, you know, here's what's going to happen. And here's what we what we can do to support. Or unfortunately, we're not going to be able to support that request, but we're going to be able to do this instead. And it's about the allowing the community to feel heard, to feel that their concerns have been addressed, or at least they have some type of outcome. I'm going to pause there because I know I could go wax on about this. And we haven't heard from David yet. Yes, that's that's a big one. David, I guess that's my cue of. So so a couple of things you don't have these days. I don't think you have to look very far to find some conflict, because we're in a period where there's pretty historical polarization. And there's a lot of conflict going on. Kind of a very immediate conflict, I'm feeling is that, as we all know, a lot of the trigger laws regarding abortion are coming into effect right now. And I'm somebody that believes women should have the right to choose what's going to happen with their bodies. So I'm sympathetic to the one in three women who within a few days will have abortion prohibited or severely restricted. And so I'm thinking about what could I do to assist them to do what I do to embrace and and preserve what I think is a fundamental right. And the conflict I'm feeling is that some of these state laws have language that says anybody that that facilitates or assists anybody in achieving or pursuing abortion can be criminally prosecuted. And that there's a lot of vagueness and uncertainty with that. And I'm kind of struggling with so what if I wanted to support an organization that is going to make it possible for women to travel to Minnesota, for example, that doesn't have those kinds of restrictions or Illinois or New York or California, what what are the limitations on what I can do? And what is the and how real is that threat? I mean, would I if I financially supported one of those organizations or volunteer time, am I really going to be prosecuted criminally in a court in Texas? So I'm kind of struggling right now with with with the landscape. What will I be able to do and how far will I be able to go? So that's that's one conflict. I'm kind of a professional level. And then the other conflict I'm struggling with a little bit is Chuck alluded to an earlier show about trauma where I talked about a recent home invasion I had where somebody broke into her home when we were home at at about 10 o'clock at night on a Friday night by throwing a lawn chair through the window and coming into our house and came into the house. And we were about at that point about five feet away. And the police were on the scene and came through the broken window immediately afterwards, but then a then a brawl ensued. And we're going to have to replace our kitchen floor and repaint the house and patch and sand the living room floor to overcome all this damage. But fortunately, the person didn't get to us. And I live in a state which is a gorgeous state. And 10,000 likes really worth it. 11,000 of hunters, a lot of outdoors people. And they're telling me that you need to get a gun. And I've I've always been uncomfortable with guns and I'm not a I think there's too many guns and people are saying, you know, this happened only by the grace of God, because when again, this person, we are five feet away. When this guy came through the window and he was violent, two officers couldn't restrain him. We waited till bench at 14 police cars, 20 officers in our house on the guy was out of control, but he wasn't able to get to us, even though it was a few feet away. So I've got friends saying, this is it, you know, this is not hypothetical anymore, you have to get a gun. And, you know, we live in an area where where we're a little bit isolated. So, you know, I'm thinking about that, but I'm still my inclination is there's got to be another way. I don't really want to get a gun just because I feel that that's inconsistent with what I preach. So I'm struggling with that a little bit and with some of my friends to say that I know that I know this happened and it was really frightening and dangerous, but I still want to think if there's an option here that's short of doing that. So on a personal level, I'm struggling with with that choice right now. That's a tough question, David. That's a really, really tough question. I know when I was on that when I was on the bench and Hawaii has pretty restrictive gun laws in at that time. And I think it still is the case, you know, to get a concealed weapon from it, from it was quite a detailed process, but a number of judges were able to do so. And and for a long time, you know, my husband was kind of almost consistent that I get we didn't have anything happen, but that I get that concealed weapons. I mean, I'm not used to going to a lot with you, David, but at the same time. Yeah. But what I've done and I don't know that it would make a difference. And I always have the thing in the back of my head that if I have the gun, I probably freak out and do something worse to not make a better situation or panic or do something that was not really responsive to the, you know, to that one on one situation that everybody says, yes, if you had a gun, you could do this. And I keep thinking if I had a gun, I probably still freak out. I don't know. And yeah, there's a lot of there's a lot of reasons not to because or to make a difference. You have to have it with you all the time, basically, because when I think about what happened, there was no time to go get the gun. Right. They're right in your they're right there in your face. So there are only seconds. So you write. So you have to have the gun with you all the time in your home. You know, that that's certainly problematic. So I think there's a number of reasons not to do it. Kind of what you were alluding to. A lot of accidents happen with guns where, you know, maybe you got kids over at your house and God forbid that they get into the gun, but maybe they could, you know, if you're keeping it close by for these emergencies because something like this could happen. And well, that means that maybe it's accessible. And that certainly would be a concern. You know, you would hope to God that you don't ever have any kind of emotional outrage or incident where your judgment's impaired and you turn to a gun to kind of resolve your dispute. Hopefully that would never happen to us. But it does happen to people and your tolerance. Yeah, if the gun's there, you know, rather than using your words or even using your fists, sometimes people use the gun. And that's another reason to be concerned about the presence of that weapon. So, yeah, it's a very serious decision. And one I've been thinking about ever since that break in. Yeah. Wow. Wow. That's a tough one. So where does that take us? What? What are the conflicts that we're really weighing here? Is it between Second Amendment right to bear arms, no matter what? Is it personal safety? Is it simply the risk of having a gun that has to be both accessible and loaded on an immediate basis and available not just to you, but anyone else who might come across it in that setting? Yeah, I don't see it so much as second. I'm not a, you know, against Second Amendment. And I don't necessarily view it as being an unlimited right to carry weapons at all time. There certainly are some limits that can be placed on and their limits are. And I'm OK with that. I think for sometimes for folks like me, it kind of. The conflict is not so much the Second Amendment as it is my personal views about gun ownership and the dangers of having a gun in certain settings. And my sort of personal philosophy about that, I think that may be more of a conflict than just I don't believe that anyone, you know, that's not what I believe. People certainly have the right to do that. But it may conflict with some of the values that I hold. You know. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm feeling at that internal conflict. It isn't about what are the boundaries of the Second Amendment. It's about so this is what I've been preaching my whole life. Now, can I can I suddenly be a gun owner and still be true and consistent to what I've been preaching? I'm not sure I can. You know, I don't know if that's so inconsistent with what I've always valued that even when I've experienced this, I would still I could still justify moving in that direction. And so that's what I'm struggling with. And and and you could. I mean, I I know some folks that have actually dealt with what you're dealing with and I won't kind of publicly go and say what they've done. But that was that was the same kind of a conflict. It's like this is something I'm not personally ever advocated. And here I am in this situation where, my goodness, I'm kind of forced to to make the call to make a decision. It's not an easy decision. They've made their decision and it's a scary. David, I agree with you and Sandra, I agree with you. It's not an easy decision. I've said this on the show, so I don't mind repeating it. I am a firearm owner and it was because of a member of the public deciding that my personal time was the time for them to vent. And I have not prior to that, I was not in favor of people. I thought it was fine if someone had a firearm and owned one. You know, of course, there's great responsibility. And as you indicated, David, you know, having the gun locked up or having access when I got my when I underwent my training and I got my license. Maryland had a did not allow for concealed carry, except for under special circumstance. And I understood that my firearm was primarily for self-defense. And as you indicated, David, if someone broke in, is that gun going to be by you? You know, is it going to or is it locked up in a safe and thinking about all that? Or if someone were to visit and they happened up on it, you know, what would I do, but also traveling? And I have friends, I have colleagues that they're not they are in concealed carry permissible states and one person in particular has told me, you know, I have my firearm in my my vehicle, can't do that in Maryland. But the Supreme Court ruling recently has changed all of that. And so now it's a matter of, you know, we've got our public safety saying, you know, the floodgates can now open for people who previously couldn't get the concealed carry permit now get it. And I have to ask myself, do I really want it? Do I really need it? Because it it changes, it completely changes the narrative. Oh, yeah, just home self-defense. It's as you indicated, both of you indicated, do I want to carry this with me and have this firearm with me in my car? And of course, you know, the ammunition is supposed to be in one compartment and the firearm and then they're supposed to be together. They're not supposed to be together. But it opens all of that that conversation. And right now I've been, you know, I've had friends texting me, what are you going to do? I'm not doing anything. I need to mull this over because it now that level of. That that that that level of liability has so significantly increased if I were to move forward with the concealed carry. So I definitely understand what you're saying, David. And I applaud you for being true to who you are and how you feel. And if your answer ends up being no, be OK with it. And if your answer is end up, yes, you know, that's your that that decision is ultimately yours and if people give you a hard time about it, that's on them. And I like that idea of that that expression or characterization of mulling it over when it's a difficult decision and kind of expanding this whole idea of impossible problems or intractable problems trying to reach solutions. I was actually reading some articles about neuroscience and making the distinction between prefrontal cortex reasoning, which is when you focus and you you plan and use kind of your executive mind that sometimes you keep going back to that and you feel like you can't reach a solution. And I was reading from an article by a physician, Allison Escalante, who was saying that well, back right at the turn of this century, Washington University School of Medicine identified the default mode network in our brain that actually doesn't engage until you're at rest. And that's the creative part of your brain in contrast to the prefrontal cortex and that sometimes when you have difficult decisions, what you need to do is is step back from it and engage this other part of your brain, the more creative part of your brain. And the suggestions are do things like step away from the problem and just start doing an automatic task like driving your car on a route you are familiar with or full laundry or just do something to turn your immediate mind away from the practical tax and and you might engage this other default mode network of your brain and suggesting that daydream and daydream is different than than meditation and meditation can be kind of focused or saying, no, don't do that. It's just let your mind wander. You know, even if you fall asleep, that's OK, because that part of your brain can engage when you're sleeping. So as I'm thinking about difficult decisions, I'm thinking about that, too, that maybe my default mode network will help me out with coming up with a kind of creative solution. And we see that a lot in our work, in your judge work, in your conflict resolution work, the thinking fast, thinking slow, Daniel Kahneman, the wonderful Archite that he said forth there. How do you make that work for you? That thinking slow, the more complex decision making. Yeah, when you raised that, David, about doing it that going into that approach, is this a distinction to be made between the decisions, the tough decisions that we have to make on a personal level and those that we do on a professional level. And I think there's a whole different exercise at play, even tough, professional decisions. We have a process for that. And it's that way of its detachment, is what we get. We're able to do that, particularly as, you know, with legal training. That's a part of it. But when it becomes personal, so intensely personal, what David is talking about, that's that's where the that's where the hard part. I mean, that really is. I don't know, I don't have an answer. I said that there's an exercise that's an exercise that you can engage in. I don't know if it'll get you the answer. Will it? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, one thing in terms of, you know, what can you do? As I reflect on decisions and moments in my life previously, I know this has happened. And I could think of instances where I've left an issue and I'm doing something else because I couldn't think of an answer and something like pops into my brain. When I'm not focusing on the issue that that's at hand. So one thing I'm thinking about is can I can I be proactive by engaging this restful part of my brain? Can I be conscious about carving out space where that part of my brain can be activated? And again, that's the idea is that I'm not going to focus it and concentrate it. I'm just going to free it up. But it can be proactive in providing opportunities for that to happen. And I'm not sure I've been very good at that in the past, although I think it's happened kind of organically and it's led me to some good, yeah, maybe thinking about how I can carve out space for for that to happen. Well, that's a great place for us to wind up in our last minute. Any final thoughts on what works best for you to make a really careful, deliberative decision in a tough choice situation? Tina. I love the term of the default mode network brain because I have utilized it and not known it. It's the it's the moment in the garden where I'm deadheading my roses and all of a sudden the problem has been resolved. Sometimes it's I've got a client who's asked me a question and I'm trying to resolve it. And as I'm pulling out the mixer or I'm putting the vacuum cleaner away, all of a sudden the pieces come together. Now, there's also the other side of it where the default network brain, as David mentioned, kicks in at three a.m. in the morning and reminding myself to remember it when it's time to actually get up. But I agree with you, David. And sometimes it's not a concerted focused effort. It just happens. You know, people you hear people often say this idea came to me in the shower. And it's the answer that they've been to the question they've been mulling over. So I I'm glad to know there's a term for it. And I have utilized it and I hope to utilize it in the future. I agree. I didn't know there was a term either. So yeah, get to do that. So one thing that's helped me is that what we haven't mentioned is community when I've had a difficult decision to reach out to a community I trust could be familial, could be friends. But but that kind of outreach has helped me with difficult decisions. Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's a great to kind of wind us up here today. Folks, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. Hopefully these thoughts on conflicts, how to reason through them, tough choices and how to make them will be of some help to come back and join us in a couple of weeks. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechawaii.com. Mahalo.