Yesterday in resonse to a diary "Do conservatives and liberals think differently?" which was posted by by plf515 (see link below the fold) and generated a lot of interesting discussion, I made this comment:
People who are afraid of change have a simple way of explaining events "out there". They must have a model for cause and effect that is simple (direct cause): A causes B. The real world is complex. Causality is almost never that simple. There are multiple causes and networks of causal entailment (complex cause). The direct cause world model is a construct and has no way of being verified. Complex causality has been successfully modeled in a verifiable way. The result is that progressives and others having a complex cause world model fear change and complicated explanations far less than those with the direct cause model. They are more in touch with the incomplete nature of their world model due to the need for lots of data to make sense of things. Therefore they seek out new information constantly. The direct cause model is shaken by new information that might threaten the simple model with information showing that things are really complex.
and had some responses that make me want to say more.
This diary is inspired by yesterday's diary . Do conservatives and liberals think differently? which was posted by by plf515 and generated a lot of interesting discussion. I do research trying to understand complex systems using the science I practiced for 45 years as a starting point. I say that because the science I was taught did not give me the tools I needed to do the job. Central in what was both needed and lacking was a framework for understanding why we had certain points of view and often stuck to them so stubbornly. The answer to that question revealed a lot more. There are two major sources for the synthesis I have made, namely George Lakoff and the late Robert Rosen. Both have written volumes and those volumes are replete with insights about this question. I want to share some of what I learned here.The idea that we have a world view should not be strange to anyone. The real difficult part is to identify that world view and then to understand why you have it. By asking that "why?" I have already opened a big can of worms. The act of introspection that allows it to be answered in a meaningful way is not a trivial enterprise. Here's a way of getting there. First we will all agree that things seem to happen for a reason. The trick is to come up with a useful and reasonably accurate picture of why things are happening. Actually, Aristotle gave us the tools for doing this a long time ago and Robert Rosen put them into a modern context. George Lakoff used similar reasoning to distinguish conservative and progressive ways of thinking, or world views.
The central idea here is that we construct models to answer the "why?" question. Most of the time we are not conscious of doing this, but, nevertheless we do it all the time. The nature of the models we construct depend on a deeper belief structure or a world view. This acts as a framework for the construction of each model. Each model gives us a reason for things that happen around us or a "cause".
The framework for assigning cause to events is a system of thought or a world view. The two extremes for doing this are the direct cause world view and the complex cause world view, the latter being the systemic cause Lakoff introduced expanded in terms of Rosen's complex cause using his ideas about complex systems.
Before we proceed it is important to acknowledge that these are stereotypes. As in any example based on stereotypes there probably is no one who fits it as laid out here. The point is that real people are mixtures of these and other components. Our purpose is merely to use this technique to get a handle on what we see around us.
The crux of the matter is this. The world view built on direct cause is a simple one because there is a template, a "one size fits all" explanation for almost everything. This explanation may manifest itself in different forms but it is used again and again. With this world view, it is not necessary to go running around for new models or ways of explanation that differ significantly from the template. In fact, it is important to avoid any new information that may threaten the foundations of this scheme. The scheme has one major flaw for exactly this reason. It is impossible to avoid two major threats to the efficacy of this way of living in the world. The first is that there arise situations that are both important and are not easily explained by the template. Second, if the adherent of this world view is not careful, information may "leak" through the carefully constructed defenses that challange the very foundations of the whole scheme. Both of these situations are very apt to produce fear and certainly require the adherent to cobble together more of this house of cards to get by the threat. Of course, the new constructs only serve to weaken the whole structure and we are describing a form of viscous cycle. I think we all have seen examples of people caught in such a web of their own making and the unhappiness and, often, meanness it can produce.
The complex world view begins by recognizing that there can be no "one size fits all" template and even if this makes one a bit less secure than one would like, the situation can not be changed. Therefore people who have excepted this reality about the world around them are hungry for new models, new data, and are willing to modify their belief structure to some extent, if the new stuff requires this. After having successfully operated this way for a while, new information and change are not only not threatening but clearly seen as necessary for survival.
If there is validity in this analysis it should have some suggestions about how to proceed in dealing with this very significant difference in stereotypes. George Lakoff's discussions of framing and causality offer some suggestions, but if you stop with his analysis I think some things are left out. Clearly, his ideas about framing have validity. Given this expanded analysis, two important questions arise. First, does framing work equally well in both world views? I think not. It is more effective if the framing can be matched with the one size fits all template. Second, how do we reframe someting for a person with the simple world view without causing fear and defensiveness? Lakoff's approach, as I understand it, is to hope that reframing will at least be effective for those people who use a mix of the two world views. This is like aiming political arguments at people who seem to be independents. Since we do not know what mix of the two views these people are using, there is some risk that the fear response will override the desired reframing in too many cases.
The picture gets far more complex if you buy my story about the link between direct causal reasoning and the vast world of reductionist/mechanist science. Those of us in the relatively new (Rosen began talking about this 50 years ago, but few understood him. The big surge in complexity science came much more recently) field of complexity science are in a parallel struggle within science to the struggle between conservatives and progressives in politics and social issues in general. What we have learned within the realm of scientific discourse is that framing indeed does make a difference. Whenever possible, our colleagues will reframe what we propose in another way that fits nicely into their direct cause world view. This might be a warning to all of us. The problem may be much larger and go much deeper into the human psyche than we have realized. This is not to discourage anyone but to alert everyone that the task is larger than meets the eye. Only by discussing these matters openly can we hope to create a setting in which the reality of the complexity of our world stops being a threat and turns into a challenge for survival instead. This part of the blogosphere is certainly one very important contribution to the solution