Introduction - Document Parts
For all of you who have been following along here, I need a bit of help. As is my wont, I think best by writing and I've been thinking about this for some time - so I have written a lot. So . . . as is also my custom, this is the short version. The longer one is here, which has some research cited.
Our current form of democracy is based on the full participation of our citizens. They FEEL that they are represented, so they support the common decisions we make. The problem is that this form of government was constructed by and for old, educated, white, male, landowners of British cultural heritage. It barely worked at the start. It has had some major threats, and it currently feels like it is falling apart. People no longer feel that they are heard, that they are represented. They are no longer civil about the discourse needed to gain common purpose and commitment. This essay is a purely theoretical exercise in why that might be happening, and a prayer of how we might change that.
And, as always, this is a Work In Process. Weigh in, think, help me out here.
Rules for Politics and Life for Non Rational Humans
1. Humans are rarely rational.
We have a long tradition that says we are rational beings. You need to let go of that. This is Kahneman and Thaler and Haidt and many others. We can be rational, but it's a lot of work, and it is pretty rare. This is now accepted science. We have a "slow" brain, a "fast" brain, and an "emotional" brain - if not more.
2. Humans are mostly automatic.
Most of the "decisions" we make are automatic responses. We go with the flow, with the tribe, family, religion, team, moral value, with what "feels right". This is not a problem - it is just the way things are. There does not appear to be a way to "fix" this - we are what we are. There is good research on this.
3. We respond to others similar to the way we respond to music.
We need a way to "feel" how this works.The best analogy I have found is music. When you hear music, it moves you. It does something to your insides, it makes you feel and sense something. You cannot actually DO anything about that. You can't stop it, make it get better, make it go away. All you can do is turn off the music. Dance is very similar. When you dance, you become something different. You feel different, your brain goes somewhere else. There is some decent research on all of this. Our brains are super pattern recognition engines - well below our conscious control. Our brain is in charge - we are just the rider on the elephant.
4. Different humans respond to different music.
Again, by way of analogy, we each respond to music differently. Som people who have amusia - they cannot distinguish musical tones - they respond very differently to music. I had the good fortune to have a freshman highschool teacher who set me on the path to love classical music. I do not respond well to atonal music, or to "rap" music. Nothing positive happens inside of me. That music actually upsets me. There does not appear to be anything I can do to change that.
5. Humans have a biological propensity to very different personality types.
We are not all the same! Duh! As a type of one - me - I have absolutely NO IDEA how you respond to things. "Personality type" is probably not the best term, so feel free to suggest something better. What I mean is that each one of us responds to others in a somewhat different way. Some of us are a mix of these, but many of us have one dominant type. Some of this is cultural, but a lot is from our biology. Based on one scientific analysis and my personal observation, I think the biological "types" might be the following:
- Psychopath. This is not a sociopath. This person does not easily make empathic connections with others. They tend to be risk takers - fearless. When a problem or person is presented to this "type" they respond with a sense of critical analysis, but with little empathy. I put this one first, because I think it may be the only one empirically proven to have biological roots. See Dr. James Fallon on this one. We can detect this type with an MRI or an exam. They may represent about 5% of the population. Normal population studies only focus on sociopaths, so the population estimates are not useful.
- Narcissist. This person focuses almost exclusively on themselves. Their focus is on how they score, how they win. Nothing else matters. Many political leaders seem to be in this camp. You might have one in mind. Some research indicates that this type can be empirically identified.
- Tribal. This person is highly influenced by friends, family, team, tribe, whatever relationships they have. This is based on my personal observation. I know of no empirical research as yet. Tribal may be a strong term - another one could be "persuadable".
- Rational. This person tends to be sceptical of everything except empirical evidence. I think this is me, but I am not aware of a lot of research into this.
- Empathic. This type reads every person and every situation in terms of the emotional engagement called empathy. They FEEL for others. They continuously analyze how others feel, how they are related, how they respond to things. This is also from my personal observation - not empirically verified.
- Sacred. This person is so committed to a belief or set of values that they cannot brook any threat. It is difficult for them to even consider a different set of facts. The flat earth society is a good example of how this works. Many religious believers fall into this category with respect to their personal religious sect or group. We all probably have beliefs that are simply unquestioned.
- Organized. Otherwise known as OCD. This person must have things structured and ordered. Disorder or change is considered inherently dangerous.
- Others. I am sure there are others.
6. All of these "types" are NORMAL.
These are not illnesses to be cured, these are not disorders. There is a normal distribution of these people in our world. and they function fairly well. They are not ill, they cannot be held at fault because they have this automatic behavioral response. Think of the Myers Briggs personality definitions. That taxonomy is basically flawed, but still a useful analogy. All of these types survived our evolutionary process, so they contribute something beneficial to the species as a whole.
7. It is helpful to know which type a person is.
If you are "differently abled", it is very helpful for you and for everyone else to be aware of this. If you have a "super" power in one area, and a "disability" in another, both you and your teachers, friends and family will find it very helpful to know how you operate. A person who is color blind needs to be aware of that before they learn to drive. A person with dyslexia learns differently. A psychopath tends to do things with higher risk. A narcissist always tends to choose what is best for them. And so on.
8. Our personality types are self selecting into opposing tribes.
We used to feel engaged as members of the same nation, the same tribe. Given modern media and communications, we now "feel" that we are members of different tribes or subgroups based somewhat on our personality types - not on our rational choices. And our tribes are at war. The "other" side is fundamentally flawed and is owed no respect. They are "crazy". This is something from our cultural psychology. We have less supportive connections with different opinions, so any opposing view feels more like an attack.
9. Our political infrastructure was built for a small subset of personality types.
Our forefathers did not have neuroscience research at their command when they formulated our democracy. They had a long history of philosophical thought, but it was primarily geared to well educated male landowners with a British cultural background. What they built was risky, but it struggled along for a few hundred years. We have modified our government many times to enlarge democratic participation, and it has finally proven to be inadequate. Democracy is built on the premise that we all participate, so that as a result we all support decisions to further the common good. But we no longer "feel" that sense of commonality and support. Responding to the demands of the "tribes" our representatives rarely make decisions for the "common good". We have become a cauldron of civil unrest and tribal warfare.
10. We need a new political "framework" to support our understanding of how humans operate.
Majority selection of leaders by geographical district no longer makes us feel represented in a participatory democracy. We need another method to select leaders or make decisions that engages our different "personalities", or tribes, and can gain our common commitment. I think this is absolutely true - but I have no idea how we might accomplish it. We have created self selecting "tribes" called political parties on the national level, and that does not augur well. We have "irrational" people on both sides. We need some external structure or mechanism to "nudge" us all in the direction of the common good. We also need a formal statement of exactly what that common good is. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" just doesn't cut it any more. Hint: it is not "white power". That ship has sailed.
More Details on Our "Personality Types"
This is the longer part for the subset of us that read and retain fairly well. I am working on it.
You can find the full version here:
No comments:
Post a Comment