Science shows that (i) politics is mostly driven by human social and cognitive biology, while political, philosophical, religious or economic ideology is relevant but secondary, (ii) humans routinely distort facts and common sense to make the world we think we see fit with our personal morals, personal ideologies and universal human biases that we got from evolution, and (iii) most of our perceptions, thinking and beliefs about politics are driven by our unconscious minds, with conscious thinking mostly functioning to rationalize or justify what we unconsciously need (not just want) to believe whether our beliefs are true or not. We rarely consciously seek anything that undermines what we need to believe.
Over time, that understanding of human biology and politics sank in and internalized. That led to understanding why political rhetoric generally stopped making sense. Politics was significantly based on false facts and beliefs and heavily biased common sense. When reality didn’t fit personal morals and ideologies, it was distorted to make it fit. When a reality presented to us fits personal belief without distortion, it is usually accepted without question. No wonder liberals and conservatives agreed on almost nothing and rarely or never convinced each other of anything, even the truth of objectively provable facts.
That’s what was nuts. The nonsense of politics now made sense. Balance was restored to the universe. Well, at least my universe.
That new understanding also led to the realization that it might be possible to partially rationalize politics relative to what we have now by adopting a political ideology that directly contradicts the unconscious human tendency to distort reality (facts) and common sense. How effective an anti-bias political ideology might be, or even if it was possible to test it on a national scale, is not knowable without trying the experiment. Perfection in any political ideology isn’t possible based on laws of the universe (2nd law of thermodynamics) and human biology, but those barriers don’t necessarily bar something at least a little better.
As explained before, one version of a social and cognitive science-based ideology can be on three core morals or political principles, (1) less biased facts, (2) less biased common sense, and (3) an “objectively” defined conception of the public interest. Once the ideology was articulated, it was trotted out with enthusiasm and tested for people’s reactions. The response of enlightened internetizens was almost universal, often vehement, rejection and attack. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, independents and anyone else who cared to join the ferocious onslaught did so with mucho gusto. In retrospect, that nearly universal hostile reaction should have been expected.
Oh well, live and learn. The universe was unbalanced again.
Religious attacks: Some years ago, Bill Nye the Science Guy debated evolution with a lead advocate of the Young Earth Theory, Ken Ham. Some observers thought that was a nutty thing to do because Science Guy was arguing geological and other current science, while Young Earth Guy was arguing contemporary evangelical Christian faith. As predicted, Science Guy and Young Earth Guy just talked past each other. One observer argued that there were two completely different debates going on. This was not a debate over anything resolvable or even testable between the two mind sets.
After digesting the fact of near-universal rejection of the science-based pragmatic, three-morals ideology, a social and cognitive science-based reason became clear. Discussing or debating modern social and cognitive science-based pragmatism, however it is posited, with liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians or whatever is essentially no different than Science Guy debating evolution with Young Earth Guy. Political ideology is a matter of religion, not science. Because perfect knowledge is impossible, there necessarily must be some faith in believing in any political ideology, social and cognitive science-based or not. Some social scientists explicitly put politics on the same cognitive footing as religion, e.g., Johnathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.”
A social and cognitive science-based pragmatic ideology can fundamentally differ from standard “subjective” political ideologies. Such pragmatism might very well lead to less bias in facts and common sense. But that’s all beside the point. This is about a sort of religious faith. When liberals, conservatives and all the rest attack pragmatism or each other, they are in essence defending their own personal political ‘religion’.
If pragmatism is to ever gain a foothold, it will come from generational change from people who come to reject politics as usual but also reject the ideologies that have got humanity, including America, to where it is today. One ray of hope is that, if nothing else, social and cognitive science-based pragmatism does make testable hypotheses about its performance relative to other ideologies.
An oddity is that since pragmatism in't concerned about what ideology label a preferred pro-public interest policy choice is given, it could very well end up more or less aligned with liberalism, conservatism or some other ideology. In that regard, pragmatism is an agent (mind set) that’s free to support or undermine any existing ideology on any given issue.
With the basis of the opposition now reasonably explained, the universe is once again in balance. Well, at least my universe.
B&B orig: 10/12/16
No comments:
Post a Comment