Can you explain your argument? It sounds like you're implying "If you had more information, you would reach a different conclusion," but what you're really saying is "If you were subjected to different emotional pressures, you would ignore evidence and come to a new conclusion."

I mean, if a judge is deciding a case against Philip Morris, and has all of his retirement money in Philip Morris stock, he's going to see things differently -- but it's not going to improve his decision.