Rational Decisions and Politics – or NOT – A Proposal

Rational Decisions and Politics – or NOT – A Proposal

You are Now Less Dumb

I’ve been reading a little gem of a book, You are Now Less Dumb, by David McRaney. He also wrote You are Not So Smart, which I also like. He takes psychological research and turns it into stories and narratives that are very understandable and readable. If you liked Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, you will like these. Kahneman is the scientist, and McRaney the populist, but the information they provide is priceless. Jonah Lehrer does similar work.

Why Are we ALL So Stupid?

As McRaney points out, we are not so smart. I have been puzzled for some time with how “stupid” people seem in the mass. I mean really stupid. As a people, as a country, as a crowd, we make absolutely idiotic and stupid decisions. Recently a consultant for the Affordable Care Act was severely criticized for saying that the electorate is basically STUPID. He was not polite, but he was right. As a whole, as a crowd, we, the American public, are making totally STUPID decisions. We hold irrational beliefs, we do DUMB things.

We Make Emotional Decisions

The good or bad of that is that this has basically always been the case. It is how human beings are wired. We are not wired to make rational decisions – we are wired to make emotional decisions. It’s a genetically evolved, rapid decision making framework that stood us in very good stead when we had to avoid the tiger in the path, or the enemy with the spear. Our irrational brain, our emotional one is great at quick decisions. The rational part, the slow brain, does work – but it takes a long time, and it takes a lot of effort. We can do it – but we have to be well rested, not threatened, and calm about it. You don’t find that atmosphere much in topics that relate to important decisions, such as those around politics, economics or religion.

Now, if your irrational self chooses to NOT believe what I have just said here, I am not sure what I can do about it. You are opting to NOT believe a set of rational facts and research. I can point you to the books, to the research, but even if you read it – which I very much doubt – facts which are opposed to your basic beliefs only tend to reinforce those beliefs. Honest – it works that way. Psychologists call this the “backfire effect”, or the “self defense” mechanism, or “identity protective cognition”.

See: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/self_defense.pdf.

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cognition  or
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=fss_papers

If Offered Facts Contrary to Our Belief that Reinforces Our Belief.

The basic mechanism here is that we have a defensive reaction to anything which threatens our sense of self, our identity, or our membership in a group. Here is a bit of a long quote from the last reference listed above – p.8.

Group membership, it has been shown, “can affect how people process information about nearly all categories of stimuli in the social world” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 504). Individuals tend to adopt the beliefs common to members of salient “in-groups.” They also resist revision of those beliefs in the face of contrary factual information, particularly when that information originates from “out group” sources, who are likely to be perceived as less knowledgeable and less trustworthy than “in group” ones (Mackie & Quellar, 2000; Clark & Maas, 1988; Mackie, Gastardoconaco & Skelly, 1992).

Identity-protective cognition is one proposed mechanism for this set of dynamics. Individual well-being, this account recognizes, is intricately bound up with group membership, which supplies individuals not only with material benefits but a range of critical nonmaterial ones including opportunities to acquire status and self-esteem. Challenges to commonly held group beliefs can undermine a person’s well-being either by threatening to drive a wedge between that person and other group members, by interfering with important practices within the group, or by impugning the social competence (and thus the esteem-conferring capacity) of a group generally. Accordingly, as a means of identity self-defense, individuals conform their appraisals of information in a manner that buttresses beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups (Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000; Cohen, 2003; Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey & Ross, in press).

When offered information which is contrary to this sense of self, this opinion or belief, we tend to reaffirm our belief and hold it even more tightly. So, we have Republicans and Democrats, atheists and believers, Christians and Muslims, creationists and evolutionists, global warming disputants, and the like with no way to really communicate. If one side offers information or factual research to the other side, it just provides another argument in support of their firmly held belief.

We believe things because our group does, or our identity requires us to as a defensive mechanism. And no amount of contrary facts or information is going to dissuade us. What – you don’t believe that? Well, what can I say – that is the proof of the pudding.

How Do We Get Out of This

My question is, how the heck can we get out of this? How did we get out of it in the past? If it were not for Martin Luther, we would probably all still be in some form of the Holy Roman Empire or a similar monarchy, and think that the earth was the center of the universe. There would have been no enlightenment, no scientific method, no industrial revolution. But we did break with that past – albeit with considerable difficulty. Quite a few very creative humans lost their lives in that struggle. The cost today is still counted in lives lost in the religious wars, and in billions of dollars of squandered resources, and in the ultimate threat to the planet itself when global warming becomes too great to stop.

There HAS to be a way to persuade our irrational selves about the FACTS that we clearly know from modern science. Our advances in psychology alone indicate that we CAN figure this out. How do we get that into the popular opinion?

One on One Conversation Technique

The only thing I have seen that purports to help here is in a one to one discussion. Argument does not work – ever. It just pushes the other side to deepen their convictions. What does seem to work somewhat is mutual exploration. If you can establish a relationship of trust with the other person, you can then explore with them their own ideas and beliefs. If they explain them to you, in a trusted relationship, without threat, it does appear that they CAN get to a place where they are somewhat rational about the information they can accept. It is NOT easy – I have NEVER managed to move anyone to share my beliefs about the deity or the wave nature of the universe – or even about the “free market”.

I think the mechanism here is the relationship of trust creates a safe place to explore things that might be seen as threatening. Creating that trust relationship is key, and that is also not a trivial undertaking.

I also wonder if it is even possible for any individual to acquire such a sense of self that they can be independent of the opinions of their group, or of the need for their own opinions to be valid. I would like to think that I have arrived at that pinnacle of mature sense of self – but how the heck would I know? And how does anyone ever get there? I taught Steven Covey’s 7 Habits for 10 years. That helped me a bit. I am pretty sure that if we put that basic curriculum in every grade school, we would have a lot less problems when those kids are adults. The course gives you the sense that you are in charge of yourself, that you are capable, and it teaches tools for communicating with others.

Self Esteem Priming

There is research that indicates that if you PRIME people to a more positive image of self, they are then more open to considering information which is counter to their beliefs. The simple exercise of having people reflect on positive past experiences seems to open their minds to opposing ideas. One study had participants read an article on capital punishment. One version of the article presented research and facts in favor of capital punishment, while another version took the opposite tack. Each participant was given the version of the article which was counter to their established belief. The control group had no preconditioning. The other groups were primed by asking them to describe 3 or 4 personal experiences where they felt very good about some personal skill or value. The control group reacted as expected – they did NOT change their beliefs. In the other groups, more people reported that the article had changed how they saw the problem – in both directions.

The research also indicates that this works in negotiation. If both sides are primed with self-worth ideas, then they are actually more open to considering compromise with the opponent. The good news is that the priming, the focus on self-worth does not prime someone to simply accept the information presented. Rather it appears to enable them to make a more objective evaluation of the information presented. Who can argue with that?

It also appears that a single session of self-affirmation can have long term effects when coupled with an educational experience. The increase in self-esteem appears to remain. This experiment involved educational sessions about the danger of unprotected sex, and measures to reduce exposure. The affirmed individuals reported later that their positive activities in response to the training continued at a higher rate than the control group.

One has to be careful here. If the affirmation that is given touches on the issue at stake, it can cut the other way entirely. Subjects who were primed to consider themselves as not being prejudiced were much more likely to engage in prejudicial actions. The same was true for high moral values and ethically questionable actions. Too much of a good thing, etc.

Application to Real World Problems

OK, so how would this work in the real world? Well, we could require our elected officials to complete 2 days of self-worth classes, and then put them together with the other side for 2 days of mutual trust building before we let them meet and govern. I think that might actually work. M. Scott Peck said as much in his book, The Different Drum. He cites many cases where the parties spent 3 days just getting to know each other, before they attempted any negotiation.

But how do we get warring groups in Ukraine and Russia together, or Isis Islamic Militants and the people they are killing in order to “convert” them. Just how would that work? Israel and Palestine? Personally, I would be happy if we could get the two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, to stop calling each other names.

Start With the Kids

Bottom line – I don’t think there is any way out of this problem for our adult society. We need to start with the kids. We need to raise children that have enough self-esteem that they do not feel attacked when presented with information that is counter to their beliefs and values. With enough self-esteem, they can evaluate the information rationally, and we can get on with growing the potential of human kind. We need unthreatened, mature adults running things.

A Modest Proposal

Here’s my proposal. We might start by electing only mature adults to public office. But how do we do we determine who the mature adults are? My simple minded rule for this is:

Vote ONLY for people who offer constructive ideas. NEVER vote for anyone who offers criticism of their opponent, especially if they do not offer a real, positive alternative. It is simply too easy to criticize, and it indicates a juvenile approach to problems.

What we need is a simple minded acronym or expression that becomes a “meme” that people will remember when they watch the millions of dollars poured into political advertising. If the news media would pick this up – someone beyond Jon Stewart – we might actually be able to make some progress here. Which one of these do you think might work?

• Adults offer ideas, children call each other names.
• Name calling is for children.
• Be an Adult, offer an Idea, not a criticism.
• Only idiots only criticize.
• Negatives do not move us forward.

And if you don’t like any of those, give me a better one.

It’s a thought. I’m just saying . . .