Working with Tribal Minds
Arnold Kling has a fabulous essay in The American today. Kling, a libertarian economist, read The Righteous Mind closely and has understood it perfectly. He accepts the idea that our tribal minds make it hard for us to reason well, and then he tries to figure out what we can do to improve matters. Here is a brief summary of the essay, in Kling’s own words:
What I take away from Haidt is the hypothesis that our capacity to think about moral and social problems evolved from an ability to rationalize our actions. Thus, our capacity to rationalize our moral and political beliefs is much greater than we realize; conversely, our capacity for detached reasoning about moral and political issues is much less than we realize. The fact that we rationalize more readily than we reason helps to sustain political polarization.
Political polarization is unfortunate for at least two reasons. First, there are some issues, notably the unsustainable fiscal path of the budget of the United States going forward, which require compromise.
Second, the environment for political discourse is very unpleasant. Rather than try to engage in constructive argument, partisans make the most uncharitable interpretations possible of what their opponents intend.
In the remainder of this essay, I propose some techniques to check this tendency toward extreme partisanship. I think that adoption of these would improve the atmosphere for political debate.
The first is to take opposing points of view at face value, rather than attempt to analyze them away reductively. A second proposal is to police your own side, meaning that one should attempt, contrary to instinct, to examine more critically the views of one’s allies than the views of one’s opponents. The third proposal is to “scramble the teams” by creating situations in which people of differing political views must work together to achieve a goal requiring cooperative effort.
I agree with Kling’s three proposals. I think one can accept my thesis that one’s opponents arguments are generally post-hoc rationalizations, while still accepting that these rationalizations offer moral arguments that your own side should try to understand. As for policing one’s own side: I think this would help each side in the long run, by helping it to make better arguments that might appeal to non-partisans. It’s very hard to do, especially in the thick of battle. But any team that allows terrible arguments to go unchallenged routinely discredits itself in the eyes of outsiders. Scrambling the teams is the best idea of all. At CivilPolitics.org, we believe that strengthening interpersonal relationships is among the best ways to open minds and improve political civility.
Thank you Mr. Kling!
“I think one can accept my thesis that one’s opponents arguments are generally post-hoc rationalizations, while still accepting that these rationalizations offer moral arguments that your own side should try to understand.”
If you get a chance to answer.
When you refer to tribal minded “morals” I take it you are referring to evolutionarily developed sensibilities which might or might not accurately reflect the evolved organism’s present “interests”; and not to anything that may be imagined to be right or wrong in some transcendent sense.
If then, certain evolved moral sensibilities do reflect a given or particular individual’s interests, what role in adjusting behavior, other than an instrumental one directed toward realizing the end the individual may want, has reason to play?
Does instrumental reason guarantee, assuming an accurate calculation of forces, that it is better to compromise to one’s loss, than to demolish the opposition?
Are you for example suggesting that environmental – i.e., technological changes – have obsoleted the accuracy of the innate sensibilities to such an extent that it has changed the nature of an individual’s self-interest itself?
Let me put this in extreme, but I hope not offensive, terms. Is there any objective criterion that determines that a toleration act is a strategy necessarily – in some moral sense – preferable to a St Bartholomew’s Day?
O:K. First, I was very intrigued by this hypothesis (after watching a couple TV interviews with the author). However, the more I think about it, the more I believe that while the hypothesis is applicable to “the masses,” it is not so for those in the upper echelon politically or intellectually – or those who are disenfranchised by the whole political process. While the latter has no impact, they are malleable, and prone to this phenomena. The upper echelon is far more capable of REASONING through the political & religious pitfalls of rationalization and evaluate both their own, actual self-interests, as well as, the larger impact on society. My guess would be that a simple study of the changing political views of the educated / intelligient would substantiate that they have evolved further than that of “the masses” and it is due to the lack of brain power or education which impedes a broader world view prevalent in “the masses”. I think the problem lies with those in power positions ( politically or economically) who know full well the rationalizing of “the masses” and plays it. Abuses their status for political or personal gain. With that said, the solutions proposed would bear no fruit because it assumes the actions are unintentional – when they ARE intentional. Which means that this hypothesis only explains why our political discourse is so abysmal, not how to address it. I think the answer is Walter Cronkite. Meaning, as a society, how can we promote a source / reference that will truely deliver an unbiased presentation of the truth – the cause & effect of certain political postures. Meanwhile, curbing the disingenuous rhetoric through regulation of political funding (and reinstatement of the Equal Time rules), strengthened & penalize within a new ethical bar, and changing the terms and conditions upon which one can run for office (i.e. disallowing a person to run for office while holding another elected office would stymy career politicians & promote sincere public service). I know these solutions are pie-in-the-sky – but that’s only because they don’t exist and the powers-that-be don’t want them to exist because they are so good at their rhetoric, now.
I completely agree with the hypothesis, though. It explains so much, particularly why people vote against their own – real -best interests.
(Again, I’m not “highly educated” so this whole topic might just be over my head – so, consider the source when you evaluate it.)
In using the word “tribal” one should be very careful. Our words are watched by our elders.
Many Nations of Federaly recognized peoples of Turtle Island, (what many call the U.S.A.) can be unintentionaly hurt by the unthoughful use of this word. We as The First Peoples of Turtle Island belive very strongly in an individual “walk” (path taken by each person in their life).
Use of the word,”tribal” may have some meaning if you mean every individual looks out for the well being of his/her Nation as a whole. Food,shelter,etc. If this is not the intent of this word that is used in this story, then it is wrong.
Just like the words,”going off the reservation”, is very hurtful. This is used time and time again, with out any thought. This phrase makes us think no one is Ever to leave a cage.
We are not caged. We are individuals with indepent thought, needs. Therefore we will act as individuals. However, we will continue to look after the needs of those less fortunate and all of the people that are in our family unit and even the very extended family unit.”All our Realtions”.
” As for policing one’s own side: I think this would help each side in the long run, by helping it to make better arguments that might appeal to non-partisans.”
Do you have any proof for this assertion? Because it seems like an example of what Matt Yglesias calls the pundit’s fallacy (“the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively”). At best, I think you could say evidence is mixed on this one–there are many instances where maximalism and intransigence have been winning strategies. For instance, the GOP has essentially taken gun control off the table; on the other side, insistence on maximum equality (as opposed to pushing for half-measures like civil unions) has led to success for gay rights campaigners.
I’m willing to accept that Kling’s propositions would improve the quality of our political discourse. I’m less convinced that adopting them would help me achieve my political goals; and I’m openly skeptical that doing so unilaterally will help me.