However, we only do it well when it comes to our own personal adversaries. When we think about the enemies of a larger group that we belong to (such as nation, religious denomination, political party and the like), we fail miserably at this task. Shortly after 9/11 happened and we were thinking about why the hijackers did what they did, all we could come up with was "because they are evil and they hate us and they want to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people." How accurate can that be? No one is a villain in their own narrative about themselves. No one (except maybe bona fide clinical psychopaths) ever thinks they're evil and that what they want is to bring pain upon innocent people. And yet when we think and talk about the enemies of our nation (religion, party, whatever), that's how we see them. We think they're evil, or stupid, or both. We think of them as some sort of monsters, and that's why we refuse to try to simulate their minds--after all, they're nothing like us. And don't think this mechanism is present only in extreme circumstances such as wars or terrorist attacks. The mundane, everyday political debate is ripe with such thinking. Take healthcare. When Republican supporters are discussing Democrats' proposals, and vice versa, they are almost never discussing the actual proposals but instead some haphazard straw man constructions that make the other side look ignorant and callous.
Depending on context, we can be either reasonably good, or completely and utterly disastrous, at the task of simulating other people's minds. The reason for it is fairly simple. In the context of strategic situations you find yourself with other people, what those people do matters to you directly. Therefore, being able to think like they think gives you an advantage, because it helps you predict their actions, or deceive them, or assure them of your good intentions, whatever the need may be. In the context of large group conflict, what the members of the other group are thinking does not matter to you directly. What matters to you is signalling loyalty to other members of your group, and this can be done by showing bias against the other group. If you start trying to really understand how terrorists think, your fellow group members will not like it very much. After all, if you're trying to understand them you must assume they're at least a little bit similar to us, and that's a dangerous thought if you want to be perceived as a group member in good standing.
Last thought: this bias is of course only present in ordinary group members; group leaders are by and large free of it. That's because leaders have direct stakes in group conflict; to them, group conflict is really personal conflict. Donald Rumsfeld may have been saying that terrorists attack us because they're just evildoers who hate freedom and want to destroy the American way of life, but I'm certain that was not what he actually thought. That was just talk for the masses.
Okay, so here we are, conscious of the fact that some people talk to the masses, and in fact, pointing to a specific example. But nonetheless, like many things, pointing it is not enough to change it. Assuming many people can see the distinction, why does it still hold?
ReplyDeleteSo, here's Obama, bigthink.com/ideas/18490, saying, over and over again, that politics, as it has been played, is all about tactics, and strategy and what will make [us] and [the other side] look a certain way. He's then making an appeal, in this case directly to Republicans, but indirectly to everyone(!), to actually work together and stop the drama of politiking as much as possible so we can get things done. As a quick example: he thinks that when we state certain things about the other side that are harsh politically minded rhetorical tricks (Obama's x is really a bolshevik plot), it actually binds our hands later becuase we cannot be seen working with such a person. It seems to me that President Obama is sincere in this recent pitch, and his ideas for moving forward. He's literally going to speak to the enemy about how he (and they) posture and frame!
ReplyDelete(Or, he is posturing and framing one level deeper himself, which is part of the whole probably, but not the whole of the whole, I think.)
I disagree about Obama's sincerity in this respect. In fact, I don't think that when making these pronouncements he is talking to the Republicans at all. He's really talking to his Democratic constituents. He already knows that Republicans will reject his pitch, so the only reason he's making it is so that he can late tell his voters: "Look, I tried to make them work with us but they slapped me in the face." This tactics isn't anything new, either; in fact, it was used by pretty much every President who didn't have a commanding majority in Congress.
ReplyDeleteWhat sets Obama apart is that he is exceptionally good at appearing to be honest. I think that's because he's much smarter than your average politician.
So you don't think Obama can simultaneously be sincere (as in, he will attempt to work with leading republicans because he knows he needs their support to some degree) while shoring up his "honesty" credentials? More broadly: is it possible for Obama/politician to ever actually be sincere in this regard, or are they all strategists and tacticians so long as they think of getting their offices back in the next election cycle (a point Obama noted many times as unessential for some modicum of progress in the here and now)--?
ReplyDelete