More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
by
Arnold Kling
Read between
March 17 - March 18, 2018
In politics, I claim that progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are like tribes speaking different languages. The language that resonates with one tribe does not connect with the others. As a result, political discussions do not lead to agreement. Instead, most political commentary serves to increase polarization. The points that people make do not open the minds of people on the other side. They serve to close the minds of the people on one’s own side.
I call this the three-axes model of political communication. A progressive will communicate along the oppressor-oppressed axis, framing issues in terms of the (P) dichotomy. A conservative will communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis, framing issues in terms of the (C) dichotomy. A libertarian will communicate along the liberty-coercion axis, framing issues in terms of the (L) dichotomy.2
The three axes allow each tribe to assert moral superiority. The progressive asserts moral superiority by denouncing oppression and accusing others of failing to do so. The conservative asserts moral superiority by denouncing barbarism and accusing others of failing to do so. The libertarian asserts moral superiority by denouncing coercion and accusing others of failing to do so.
I encourage readers to adopt slow political thinking, which means seeing an issue from a number of angles rather than along just one axis. In contrast, fast political thinking means settling on a single axis to frame an issue.
In my view, Trump opened up a new axis. He accomplished that by appealing to people who differ from those with whom I am most acquainted. Some have termed this new axis populist versus elite, or outsider versus insider.
What learning the other languages can do is enable you to understand how others think about political issues. Instead of resorting to the theory that people with other views are crazy or stupid or evil, you may concede that they have a coherent point of view. In fact, their point of view could be just as coherent as yours. The problem is that those people apply their point of view in circumstances where you are fairly sure that it is not really appropriate.
to the extent that we might like to see discussion lead to improved understanding, our political debates are frustrating and endless. Each tribe expresses itself along its preferred axis. As a result, we talk past one another rather than communicate. Moreover, we have a tendency to demonize those with whom we cannot communicate. Rather than consider that they may have a reasonable point of view, we come to believe that they are our opponents along our preferred axis. Thus, if you are a progressive focused on the oppressor-oppressed axis, you may come to view conservatives and libertarians as
...more
With motivated reasoning, when we explain phenomena, we focus on what we want the cause to be. The philosopher Robert Nozick jokingly referred to this as “normative sociology.”12 For example, what accounts for the high incarceration rates of young African American males? A progressive would look to racism in our justice system and society as the cause. A conservative would look to high crime rates as the cause. And a libertarian would look to drug laws as the cause.
I believe that it is not a coincidence that as religious sentiment has weakened, political sentiment has strengthened. There remains an instinct to divide the world between a highly principled “we” and an amoral “they,” and political beliefs can serve that purpose. Moreover, just as people used to be able to quickly identify coreligionists by their use of distinctive expressions associated with a particular faith, I think that people today can quickly identify political allies by listening for arguments that employ their preferred axis.
David McRaney, author of the blog You Are Not So Smart, describes this as the “illusion of asymmetric insight.” Describing a series of experiments conducted in 2001 by researchers Emily Pronin, Lee Ross, Justin Kruger, and Kenneth Savitsky, McRaney writes the following: The results showed liberals believed they knew more about conservatives than conservatives knew about liberals. The conservatives believed they knew more about liberals than liberals knew about conservatives. Both groups thought they knew more about their opponents than their opponents knew about themselves.20
to truly pass the ideological Turing test, you would have to be aware of other dispositions that differ among progressives, conservatives, and libertarians. I believe that one can discern differences in attitudes toward human nature, history, science, technology, and markets. Progressives believe in human betterment. They see nearly unlimited potential for humans to improve materially and, more important, morally. Conservatives believe in human weakness. In biblical terms, man is “fallen.” The dark side of human nature will never be eradicated. It can be tamed only by social institutions,
...more
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
One of my prescriptions for slow political thinking is to try to avoid telling yourself, “I’m reasonable, they’re not.” Instead, I would suggest the following rule of thumb. The only person you are qualified to pronounce unreasonable is yourself.
Philosophers refer to this as the problem of naïve realism, meaning that each of us naïvely believes that our perspective is real, even though different perspectives contradict one another. Psychology professor Matthew D. Lieberman explains the consequences of naïve realism. If I am seeing reality for what it is and you see it differently, then one of us has a broken reality detector and I know mine isn’t broken. If you can’t see reality as it is, or worse yet, can see it but refuse to acknowledge it, then you must be crazy, stupid, biased, lazy or deceitful. In the absence of a thorough
...more
If we want to shift from motivated reasoning and instead attempt to de-center and to be objective, then we have to resist the inclination to give critical scrutiny only to facts and analysis that threaten our beliefs. We should give some benefit of the doubt to contrary evidence. Moreover, we should be as eager to poke holes in analysis that speaks to our dominant heuristic as we are to poke holes in contrary analysis.
I have proposed a conceptual distinction between fast political thinking and slow political thinking. I believe that complex issues demand slow political thinking. Instead, the three languages of politics play a prominent role in motivated reasoning, which narrows our minds, producing friction, anger, and frustration with those with whom we disagree. The three languages let us reach closure too readily, so that we lose sight of the ambiguity that is often present in difficult political issues.
I believe that most difficult political issues are sufficiently complex that they cannot be understood fully using just one heuristic. If that is the case, then we probably will be much wiser if we can detach ourselves from our preferred language. In addition, treating people who use other heuristics as reasonable is likely to prove a less stressful and more productive way of approaching politics than treating the other heuristics as heresies that must be stamped out.
