Conservatives, argues researcher Philip Tetlock of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, are less tolerant of compromise; see the world in ‘us’ versus ‘them’ terms; are more willing to use force to gain an advantage; are ‘more prone to rely on simple (good vs. bad) evaluative rules in interpreting policy issues;’ are ‘motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from traditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders….’ [citations in original].
Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche ́s and stereotypes….[citations in original] *
Obviously, these strategic choices/short-cuts have their benefits, given how often research and a quick glance at your favorite news source confirm they are utilized. But just what are those benefits beyond the short-term? Is there a point when there’s a realization that facts ignored in order to cut down thinking and deciding time is actually not the best option? Reality will not alter consequences for those arriving first at the decision-making line.
In a world and period of time far less complex and conflicted as we find ourselves in today, those approaches might have had greater utility over a longer period of time. But in our modern world with its complexities, intertwined relationships, and a near endless list of needs, dismissing consideration of those components suggests a lot of our best interests are being shortchanged. That’s not a good thing, for those inclined to hike the shorter routes.
Of course, some continue to benefit a great deal more than others. Attacking partisans from the other side without actually addressing the points of contention and the different perspectives offered by each side is effective in quashing debate, but I’m not convinced that’s actually a good thing for any of us after today. Since the general public doesn’t appear to be on the receiving end of nearly enough factual information to aid them in making reasoned decisions on the more contentious topics [climate change; tax policy; health care, to name a few among many], keeping everyone agitated and antagonistic is occupying a lot of emotional and intellectual capital better utilized to find common ground.
So there’s that….
No one likes to lose, and contributing points for one’s team offers many emotional, cultural, and psychological advantages. In our increasingly polarized system of governing [and conversing], few are inclined to walk the line between arguing for your side no matter what on the one hand, and considering that perhaps the “opposition” might have a valid point or two on some of these seemingly intractable public disputes on the other. If “Beat The Clock” is the decision-making objective, then that’s a fine tactic. But if “Best Decision” is the decision-making objective, then that’s not-so-fine a tactic.
More easily acknowledged than are solutions, of course. That’s all the more accurate given that there is no magic pill to heal these frustrating and senseless “We’re Right They’re Not” policy discussions—such as they are. [Or is it more accurate to state the disputes as a “We’re Right, They’re Left” approach?]
Stepping away from the cultural and political arenas and into our own personal and professional lives, do we approach matters where clear-cut agreement is lacking with the same “cling[ing] to the familiar; arriv[ing] at premature conclusions; impos[ing] simplistic cliche ́s and stereotypes; (good vs. bad) evaluative rules” efforts? I’m sure we’ve all done just that on more than a few occasions! Anyone find that to be a winning formula on even an occasional basis in disagreements—mild or not—with co-workers; employers; spouses; family members; group members; friends?
I doubt I’m unique in stating that that strategy is almost never a winning formula! So why are we employing it in matters where the consequences of our failure to find common ground and move us all one step forward carry the potential for so much more long-term harm?
Is it worth contemplating the fact that blind reliance on chosen spokespeople or leaders—who, on one side certainly, seem to be doing a lot more agitating than problem-solving—without taking time on our own to consider why those tactics are the norm shouldn’t be our default choice? What might actually happen after today if that remains the default choice?
The more we take time to listen to other perspectives with no obligation to do anything more than just that, the more we might surprise ourselves to realize that the bottom line for almost all of us is a lot more peace and genuine shared prosperity than we’ve been lead to think.
Adapted from a recent blog post of mine
* Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition by John T. Jost Stanford University; Arie W. Kruglanski University of Maryland at College Park; Jack Glaser University of California, Berkeley; Frank J. Sulloway University of California, Berkeley. Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375