Politics is Hazing and Why It's Time to Put Away the Attack Ad Horses and Bayonets

 

The research suggests that people may hold extreme policy positions because they are under an illusion of understanding — attempting to explain the nuts and bolts of how a policy works forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know as much about the policy as they initially thought.

 

One of my favourite topics, this, because it's so important to social function (or dysfunction, as the case may be).

 

Political operatives tell each other that politics is a blood sport and therefore, one must be tough and aggressive to win.  The ability to take the heat is supposed to prove fitness for governance, or some such.

 

Do we put prospective CEOs or Board Members through personal insults and public humiliation in an effort to prove their leadership value?  Would anyone even think that would be a useful exercise?

 

Do we encourage hazing in university, because the trial-by-fire approach builds team spirit and reminds participants they're part of the tribe?  No - we have categorically decided that hazing is detrimental and at its worst, incredibly harmful.

 

Do we put newlyweds through shivarees to remind them not to get too caught up in their wedded bliss, because they're still part of the tribe?  No - that would be invasive and offensive.

 

Do we encourage bullying in schools as a way to foster thick skin among students?  No, because that leads to mental illness and suicide.  Unless of course, you're Christie Blatchford.

 

There are only two human endeavours where it is considered acceptable to dehumanize and bully/haze/harass/abuse opponents - war and politics.  The desired outcome of war is to beat the other guy, not to build a cohesive society that builds strength through diversity.  Politics is the same thing - tribal warfare that uses different tactics to accomplish essentially the same goal.

In war, who's right and who's dead depends on who reacts faster.  The same holds true of politics.  Reaction is a limbic action that is pre-programmed and happens instantaneously, meaning you don't consciously think about it - you shoot first and ask questions never.  You have to be reactive, because if you're not, you're dead.  If a member of the tribe is acting up, you beat them down to maintain traditional order.

 

Which is exactly what happens with extreme policy positions.  Strength and aggressiveness is synonymous with right - the other guy can't be right, because if they are, then you're dead.  But pistols at dawn doesn't work in a dense social framework; it leads to reactive blood feuds like you see in Afghanistan.  And, as we're seeing with the very predictable revolt against Harper, you can't beat down your tribe forever; not even the threat of violence is enough to accomplish that any more.

 

The very reason why people have developed the capacity to commit sociology and think rationally in the first place is because society depends on it.  As tempting as it is to view the world through binary lenses of good and evil, society is a complex system; you can't change or remove one cog without consequences for the whole machine.

 

This is why education, communication, social-emotional learning and structure are so crucial to social functioning; our schools understand this and our private sector is beginning to wrap its head around the consequences of doing this poorly.  Politics, maddeningly, keeps heading in the opposite direction.

 

Slowly, painfully we are pulling back the curtain on our own ignorance and expanding our ability to see around the corner; politics, that aggressive hold out with its ancient institutions poorly suited to modern realities, is a laggard, holding out.

 

Social evolution works the same way biological evolution does - that which fails to adapt doesn't survive.  Which is why it's time for our political people to put away their horses and bayonets and start committing a bit more sociology.  

 

Give up the illusion, folks, and stop boxing at shadows.  The real world is dying for you to catch up.

 

Extreme Political Attitudes May Stem From an Illusion of Understanding (Amanda Mikulak)

 

One of the great, tragic paradoxes of our age - the most aggressive people, the ones most likely to seize positions of influence through charm and confidence are among the least likely to really know what the hell they're doing.  Yeah, they make money and build brand, but they leave a trail of corpses in their wakes.  Oops, must be their fault, carry on.

 

They will, of course, disagree with me.  They'll say that avoidable problems like Ipperwash, Walkerton, Project Orange, ORNGE, vikileaks, "political truths", fired domestic workers and hired foreign workers and any political scandal ending in "gate" are mistakes that other people make, not them. 

 

Yeah, well my grandpa was a bomber pilot and he always told himself it would be someone else who got shot down, but that's not how it worked out, did it?

 

Politics is tribal - it pushes us into us and them categories and tricks us into emotional positions which we then delude ourselves into believing are fact-based. 

 

Until we become conscious of this fact - that we are, each of us emotional creatures that must work to be factual, we're trapped.

Extreme Political Attitudes May Stem From an Illusion of Understanding

Related Topics: Attitude, Causality, Decision Making, Judgment, Policy, Political Psychology, Psychological Science, Thinking

Having to explain how a political policy works leads people to express less extreme attitudes toward the policy, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

The research suggests that people may hold extreme policy positions because they are under an illusion of understanding — attempting to explain the nuts and bolts of how a policy works forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know as much about the policy as they initially thought.

Psychological scientist Philip Fernbach of the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado, Boulder and his co-authors were interested in exploring some of the factors that could contribute to what they see as increasing political polarization in the United States.

“We wanted to know how it’s possible that people can maintain such strong positions on issues that are so complex — such as macroeconomics, health care, foreign relations — and yet seem to be so ill-informed about those issues,” says Fernbach.

Drawing on previous research on the illusion of understanding, Fernbach and colleagues speculated that one reason for the apparent paradox may be that voters think they understand how policies work better than they actually do.

In their first study, the researchers asked participants taking an online survey to rate how well they understood six political policies, including raising the retirement age for Social Security, instituting a national flat tax, and implementing merit-based pay for teachers. The participants were randomly assigned to explain two of the policies and then asked to re-rate how well they understood the policies.

As the researchers predicted, people reported lower understanding of all six policies after they had to explain them, and their positions on the policies were less extreme. In fact, the data showed that the more people’s understanding decreased, the more uncertain they were about the position, and the less extreme their position was in the end.

The act of explaining also affected participants’ behavior. People who initially held a strong position softened their position after having to explain it, making them less likely to donate bonus money to a related organization when they were given the opportunity to do so.

Importantly, the results affected people along the whole political spectrum, from self-identified Democrats to Republicans to Independents.

According to the researchers, these findings shed light on a psychological process that may help people to open the lines of communication in the context of a heated debate or negotiation.

“This research is important because political polarization is hard to combat,” says Fernbach. “There are many psychological processes that act to create greater extremism and polarization, but this is a rare case where asking people to attempt to explain makes them back off their extreme positions.”

In addition to Fernbach, co-authors include Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School; Craig R. Fox of the University of California, Los Angeles; and Steven A. Sloman of Brown University.

For more information about this study, please contact: Philip M. Fernbach at philip.fernbach@gmail.com.

The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Anna Mikulak at 202-293-9300 or amikulak@psychologicalscience.org.