The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists - Bertrand Russell

Fix Your Mind: Start from Within

To fix politics, we start with where the problem resides, within ourselves, our own minds, the way we think and our own beliefs…

Thinking and Judgements

We must first begin understanding that our political judgements are not always made through rational thought and, almost always developed intuitively from inception.

Two modes of the mind compose the way we make judgements, much like a dual processor. System 1 is fast, unconscious, intuitive, and emotional. System 2 is slow, controlled, logical, and rational. Metaphorically, the systems can be represented as a Rider (System 2) sitting on top an Elephant (System 1). We like to believe that the Rider completely controls the Elephant but in reality “Rider’s control is precarious because the Rider is so small relative to the Elephant. Anytime the six-ton Elephant and the Rider disagree about which direction to go, the Rider is going to lose. He’s completely overmatched.” (Switch, Heath)

Very often we make judgements which originate through System 1 — as this thinking is easier and faster — and only later justify them with System 2. In other words, while the Elephant rambles thru the jungle, the Rider likes to reassure himself these are decisions he is making — though Rider can barely hang on.

As it relates to politics, we believe our understanding is complete and logical. We further believe that coming from this “reasoned” understanding that those who disagree with us must be illogical and misinformed. In actuality, we all came to our conclusions using the same heuristic systems (1 and 2) and subject to the illogical and biased thinking. And those who believe themselves immune to these biases are the ones mostly afflicted.

Book sources: Thinking, Fast and Slow, The Happiness Hypothesis, and Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard.

Biases

A non-exhaustive list of biases we hold that may warp our political thinking:

Belief Bias: the tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion.

Confirmation Bias: the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities

Survivorship Bias: the tendency to concentrate on the people or things that “survived” some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility

Halo Effect: a cognitive bias in which an observer’s overall impression of a person, company, brand, or product influences the observer’s feelings and thoughts about that entity’s character or properties

This guide just got a whole lot smarter.

The Law of Small Numbers: general bias that makes people favor certainty over doubt. As a result people have a tendency to believe that a relatively small number of observations will closely reflect the general population.

What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI): the tendency to assume that what you see is all there is, so we discount or ignore what we don’t know.

Book sources: You Are Not So Smart (and Thinking, Fast and Slow)

Morality in Politics

Take a few minutes and watch this video lecture by Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind.

Haidt studies moral judgments that brace political decisions and found that we all carry the same short list of moral values: Harm, Fairness, Authority, In-group Loyalty, and Purity (Liberty is later included). Now, how much weight we all put towards these various moral values does differ from liberal to conservative; but all these values have a societal purpose. Haidt goes on to say we evolved these moral frameworks to unite us into teams and divide us against other teams.

This moral/political “team” framework leads us to how we communicate with each other… often not at all. In the following video, CGP Grey talks about memes and political arguments within this team framework. Namely, messages, posts, and ideas that appeal to our emotions proliferate further and faster than those more reasoned and balanced. Angrier messages being the most effective at bypassing your System 2 thinking. People collect these ideas and spread them on, the angrier parts becoming more pronounced before it gets to you. As CGP Grey points out, people don’t endeavor to communicate with the others in “opposing” groups but rather talk within their own group about “how angry the other group(s) makes them” - producing an echo chamber of anger and distorted facts.

Next section is how we might fix this.

Additional Articles: Liberals & Conservatives More Alike Than You Think, Study finds moral equality between religious, nonreligious, 5 Brainwashing Tricks That Work No Matter How Smart You Are

Fix Your Communication: Interacting with Friends, Family, and Neighbors

We’ve all been there: you are conversing with a loved one or friend, or someone on social media, and you fall into talking about politics. You say what seems to be common sense and the other person responds with something that is completely “irrational” and “ill-informed.” You naturally present them of the facts and they dig in more, perhaps presenting their own facts. Things get heated, names are exchanged, and no one is closer to understanding or compromise. How do we change this?

Seek explanations not arguments

Naturally, as above, we believe if we simply educate someone of our facts, and point out where they are wrong, they will see their own stupidity and come happily to your side. This could be furthest from the truth. As explained in the video below, when people see facts that contradict their worldview the rational part of their brain shuts down.

The solution, mentioned in the video and supported by this study:

Ask the person to explain the policies in detail. Ask for a mechanistic explanation rather than general preferences. Have them walk you step-by-step thru their thinking. How do we get to the bad outcome they believe is caused by the policy implementation?

The benefits of this method is two-fold: 1) you have them question their reasoning without you directly confronting them 2) you might actually change your own mind listening them work through it. Ultimately, the study found that asking for a mechanistic explanation led to attitudes that were more moderate.

If you must argue, present it properly

When you need to criticize, employ what Daniel Dennett calls “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent”:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Fix Your Government: Policy Changes for the System

We’ve reached the last part of the guide and admittedly the smallest section. I could maybe sit for months and draft a comprehensive outline of specific policies and reforms to our government but that removes your voice from the process. Instead, government reform comes from all of us, of open minds, knowing we are biased and without perfect knowledge, listening to each other and finding some understanding. Only when we can see ourselves as not enemies but people with common problems, can we find policy and reform solutions.

With that said, here are some links regarding reforms worth reviewing.

Mickey Edwards in The Atlantic offers a six-step plan to fix Congress:

1. Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.

2. Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.

3. Allow members of any party to offer amendments to any House bill and — with rare exceptions — put those amendments to a vote.

4. Change the leadership structure of congressional committees.

5. Fill committee vacancies by lot.

6. Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.

Watch this short TED Talk on Campaign Contributions.

Check out NoLabels.org

I welcome to hear what you have to say!