Democracy v. Human Nature
Note: The recent violence in our Capitol is being addressed by government authorities charged with doing their jobs according to their constitutional and legal obligations. I have neither the expertise nor the influence to help quell the seditious attitudes of Trump's more violent supporters. Instead, I will address how we can better align human nature with our democracy knowing there always will be ambitious people obsessed with power who would exploit weaknesses in human nature to become autocrats.
The Framers of the Constitution Were Wary of Human Nature
The framers of the Constitution took a strong position that the foundation of a durable democracy must accept human nature as it is, imperfections and all, and not attempt to change it. Thus, they accepted that a politician's self-interest could not be disregarded and we must assume decisions will be influenced by that self-interest. After all, the primary duty of our representatives in Congress is to serve the constituents who elect and re-elect them.
The task of creating a constitution was to design a government that matched self-interest to the politician's job with external controls in the form of checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution assumed politicians may or may not be ethical and would need external judicial oversight or discipline. To accomplish this, the framers carefully balanced the conflict between an individual's need for freedom against society's need for order and equality.
If you are elected to the house of representatives to represent farmers in a rural solidly red district in Georgia, you will have very different public positions and attitudes than if you were elected to represent a solidly blue congressional district in the bay area of California. The election of representatives depends on how well they align with their constituent's basic needs and partisan positions. That is an essential component of a democracy. However, all of us need to heed the power of an unethical manipulator to ensure our representatives are acting in our collective interests, not their personal ambitions.
The framers respected the need for flexibility to bend our democratic principles to fit unknown future conditions. As the Constitution was being formalized and amended, compromises would be needed to preserve the essence of our democracy. For instance, the northern and southern states disagreed on how slaves should be counted to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. The compromise to count each slave as 3/5ths of a whole person solved the problem at the time and remained in place for almost a century.
Many other parochial compromises altered the framer's original design of our democracy. For example, the electoral college was in part a compromise between allowing Congress to elect a president and a presidential election by popular vote. We live with these "temporary" compromises to the present day because partisan self-interests were served by exploiting them. This is not a flaw in democracy, it is embedded in human nature. To compensate we can either change the aberrant rules or fortify ourselves to protect our democracy from abuse by overcoming some basic flaws in human nature that were useful as we evolved but mislead us in today's world.
Beware Your Biases
I had not seriously considered the prospect of influencing human nature to protect our democracy until I met with a psychologist friend I had not seen in 40 years.
After the conversation with my friend, I wrote a blog post entitled "Is Your Doctor Making Poor Diagnostic Decisions"
Our conversation was about his research on confirmation bias (specifically, information distortion). Here are two pertinent excerpts from that blog post.
Last night, Helen and I met with a friend we haven't seen for 40 years. Jay Russo and I were colleagues on the UCSD faculty, he in the psychology department and I in the economics department. We both studied decision making as viewed from the perspectives of our respective disciplines. Jay has studied decisions made by physicians and the heuristics and biases that can lead to poor medical treatment.
Heuristics are useful instinctive reactions, "rules of thumb", common sense, intuitive judgments, or any other expedient way of making decisions with less than complete information. Unfortunately, without adequate information our cognitive biases can result in a poor decision. Much of the time, the consequences of a poor decision are minor. When decisions are critical, such as diagnosing a medical condition, the consequences can be devastating or even fatal.
During our conversation, Jay mentioned that he had recently completed a study of 101 medical diagnoses; 86 of those decisions likely were influenced by cognitive biases. In another study in which 26 doctors verbalized the diagnostic process, only 6 clearly avoided the pitfalls that can lead to misdiagnoses.
Hearing about these studies helped me reconsider a particular cognitive bias of my own. I had incorrectly assumed highly educated intelligent people typically make better more informed decisions than do uneducated or ignorant people (my academic arrogance, I suppose). During my conversation with Jay, I learned that doctors, some of the most educated and intelligent professionals in our society, vulnerable to misleading cognitive biases just as are those of my gardener or a homeless person on the street. This lesson and has crept into many of my blog posts and given me a more compassionate view of aberrant behavior.
Heuristics and cognitive biases will always be with us but we can make better decisions for ourselves and others if we practice critical thinking as discussed in Jonathon Haber's book with that title. Haber argues that the most important critical thinking issue today is that not enough people are doing enough of it. He goes on to say, "...it might even be said that critical thinking is vital to the survival of a democratic society."
As the term suggests, critical thinking is critically evaluating your own thinking and beliefs. Shakespeare understood this, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Here are some examples of critical thinking.
1. Look beyond the obvious. The best doctors consider alternatives to their initial diagnosis and ask what would disprove rather than confirm their diagnosis. [An excellent summary of the five most common heuristic pitfalls leading to an incorrect medical diagnosis is here.]
2. My Opthamologist's daughter is just entering grammar school. When she shares suspicious information with her dad, he asks, "is that fact or opinion?" They work together to verify the information. She and her friends are becoming quite proficient at critical thinking at a very young age. Educators are beginning to build the concept into the early school curriculum (here). Programs like this can have a lifelong positive influence on young people growing up.
3. I draft my blog posts as if my facts and opinions are sound. Then I fact-check all the important information in sources that are reasonably unbiased such as the eight sites listed by the Berkeley Library (here). Finally, I examine the intentions and interests behind the sources of information. On average, I modify about 10 - 15% of what I write today because I am initially misled by my preconceived positions, incomplete knowledge, and veiled personal biases. I am much less often misled now than when I started this blog five years ago. I have become sensitized to the problem and try to stay alert to critical thinking.
4. The following exercise was performed by a classroom of high school students studying critical thinking.
“For the assignment, which featured both group discussion and individual writing, students watched political ads released by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The class watched each ad multiple times, with equal exposure, and had a discussion on a handful of close reading topics: what the ad said, what the ad might have left unsaid, and how the ad was constructed in terms of tone and direction. Afterward, students used the ads and what they learned during class to provide evidence to support their claims and write an argumentative essay…”
Critical thinking sensitizes us to both the benefits and abuses of our cognitive biases. Emphasis on abuses has exacerbated our present partisan divide. The nation's two major political factions (pro- versus anti-Trump) have become increasingly violent and hostile since the 2016 election. Research blames much of our partisan hostility on three deepening changes in our political environment:
1) the self-sealed information bubbles enabled by the internet and partisan channels -- anyone who desires fake news can get fake news, and more or less exactly the fake news that they prefer;
2) intensified in-group bias towards one's chosen political party and increasingly fierce hostility towards others; and
3) Trump's exceptional ability to manipulate his loyal supporters and to appeal to pervasive human biases.
We have increasingly replaced reason with emotion-driven heuristics to make political decisions. At the same time, our political proclivities are reinforced by confirmation bias, the Dunning- Kruger effect (overconfidence), and in-group bias, rather than knowledge about a subject and logical judgments.
We Can Moderate Our Political Hostilities
Aberrant human behavior is the fuel waiting for the flame. Our Constitution and all of its amendments, judicial interpretations, and layers of large and small governments are today barely adequate fire suppressants. We need to turn our attention to diluting the fuel with critical thinking Here are a few ways critical thinking is being integrated into our educational institutions and businesses.
1. There is a growing number of school programs building critical thinking into the grammar school curriculum. There are organizations today doing the same and they need support and opportunities to expand. Here is an excellent summary of some of the programs being used in K-12 education. And here is a list of 25 of the best resources to share with teachers at all levels of education.
2. A Master of Arts in Business Education at Rider University emphasizes critical thinking in its program.
3. Six benefits of critical thinking in daily life will motivate you to make it your own practice.
4. Training in critical thinking gives you the skills to avoid reinforcing biases perpetuated by the pervasive slanting of information on the Internet. Try using Google to find, "reasons to drink coffee" on the website Healthline. You will get a long list of nutrients, praise for its antioxidants, and how it improves brain function. Next, do the same search with one word added, "reasons not to drink coffee" and you will see reasons never to drink coffee. The two conflicting answers are in the same article but the search takes you to areas of the article that confirm your inferred bias for or against drinking coffee depending on how you phrase your search.
The more people who become aware of their biases and the uncountable ways they are reinforced through critical thinking, the more stable will be our political processes and the more durable will be our democracy.
However, under the best of circumstances, human nature will ensure a very large portion of today's voters will remain hostile and partisan differences will keep many of us separated into warring in-groups. Most nations will never be at peace with their enemies. Our nation will never be free of hostile in-groups.
But we don't need a nation full of like-minded people to have a secure democracy. We need enough critical thinkers of every political persuasion for our democracy to function without fear of insurrections and the nearly certain future attempts to replace democracy with autocracy.
Two Heuristics Dictators Love to Exploit
Unless you have a background in psychology or familiarity with the subject the label "affect heuristic" may seem odd. Think of it as your "gut feeling" about a person, an opportunity, a visceral reaction, an intuition, or feeling "vibes" knowing very little about the situation.
This heuristic was a powerful weapon in Trump's political arsenal. Trump employed it to energize his base with optimistic promises and visions of a bright future. He also used it to repulse those who disagreed with him and make them fearful of criminals and rapists crossing our borders. In general, Trump used it to unite his loyal supporters and to vilify his chosen enemies. As a result, our gut feelings largely fell into two categories: you either hated Trump or loved him.
Con artists and effective salesmen refine their "affect appeal." There are training programs on how to use the affect heuristic to persuade people. And some people like Donald Trump have a talent for using the heuristic exceptionally effectively. People with this talent make good reality TV hosts, draw devoted enthusiastic crowds, attract large congregations, build cults, and sell lots of products at county fairs. Trump's most adamant supporters feel ecstatic at his rallies, are energized by his promises to remove restrictions on guns, or feel a loss of freedom when told to wear a mask in public. People believe Trump's lies just because he is, well, Trump; they are affected by their positive feelings about him. Others hate Trump and are repulsed by most everything he says or does. There are few if any feelings shared between the two groups.
Trump bonded together tens of millions of followers who believe his promises, lies, and delusions, using the affect heuristic bolstered by its amplifier, the availability heuristic which acquired its name from how readily a consequence of a decision comes to mind. Immediately following the 9/11 attack, air travel fell 20% due to the availability heuristic. The horrific image of the World Trade Center attack instantly came to mind for many people who considered taking a flight.
Trump is an expert practitioner of the art of creating images using the availability heuristic. From the beginning of Trump's presidency, immigrants were repeatedly referred to as"criminals" and "rapists" triggering fearful images of dangerous people entering the U.S. Hillary Clinton was taunted with the chant "lock her up" triggering images of her behind bars imprisoned to punish her criminal behavior. Trump, like the most feared dictators around the world, is a skilled user of this availability heuristic.
Trump used the availability heuristic to implant desirable outcomes in the minds of people he wanted to energize. He painted images of a white America becoming great again, building walls to secure our borders, and peaceful suburban neighborhoods free from the threat of racial integration. Much of Trump's appeal was his promise to recreate a peaceful America that existed in the past but was lost in the eyes of neglected workers who once had secure jobs and promising futures.
Combined, the affect heuristic and the availability heuristics are not only powerful, they are particularly difficult to ignore; they are durably etched into one's mind triggering strong emotions that displace reason and knowledge.
You can help yourself avoid making bad decisions by understanding and practicing critical thinking. Remain alert to your biases and critically examine your political decisions. One effective technique to make critical thinking a habit is to dig deeper into your current attitudes and consider contrary opinions from the perspective of those who hold them.
For example, if you believe Democrats want socialism, rely on credible sources to dig into the technical definition of socialism and examine the various ways people use the term both correctly and incorrectly. What exactly are the problems with, and benefits of, socialism. Do the same with capitalism. It takes effort but examining one example thoroughly will be enlightening and alert you to the importance of critical thinking in general.
In keeping with my own advice (and I am more liberal than conservative), I searched for information about how some of the most conservative people in our nation felt about Biden's inauguration. I found an article that portrayed the reactions of people in a Georgia community nearly 90% of whom voted for Trump over Biden in both elections.
The article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides an interesting perspective. I recommend reading it and putting yourself in the shoes of the people being interviewed. You likely will not change your own views but will see glimmers of hope that democracy can prevail as human nature meanders down its many diverse paths.