August 30, 2004

We make our decisions and we stick to them - a social psychologist talks about cognitive dissonance. [first link LAtimes, reg req'd]

[slashdot/slashdot works for the LA times link.] I thought twice about posting this, as I did not wish to start just another US election discussion, but I was just sent this by email by a social psychologist friend, and it struck me as more important than simply a discussion of current American politics. He received it through a social psychology email list, with the following introduction from the author (which also addresses a couple of different soc-psych issues):

"Colleagues, Our world, it seems, is a mammoth social psychology laboratory. Here, for possible class discussion use, are some examples of connections between social-personality psychology and current events. 1) Seeking to understand how good American soldiers could brutalize Iraqi prisoners, Phil Zimbardo has noted their parallel in social psychological experiments in which decent adults, corrupted by toxic situations, have demeaned and brutalized hapless victims. In these studies, as at the Abu Ghraib prison, evil has been less a matter of a few bad apples than of social forces that can make a whole barrel of apples go bad. 2) The Senate Intelligence Committee, citing another social psychology principle, reported that "personnel involved in the Iraq WMD issue demonstrated several aspects of group think: examining few alternatives, selective gathering of information, pressure to conform within the group or withhold criticism, and collective rationalization." 3) Research on "group polarization" has been invoked to explain the growing chasm between red and blue counties. (The percentage of landslide counties
posted by jb 20 years ago
  • ...wow so this explains the world's inability to apologize when they're wrong... cool
  • jb: I know this is off-topic, but you don't have any contact info in your profile. Could I get more information about that social psychology mailing list? Thanks.
  • Decision-making is, for any reasonably intelligent person, a difficult process. For a situation of even moderate complexity, the number of inputs to consider is staggering. We all use a variety of heuristics to narrow the data sets used for decision-making; these heuristics are, of course, uniquely biased by the individual's previous experiences. We tend to see the fewest number of choices possible -- choosing among four options, for example, is exponentially more difficult than choosing among two. Seeing a decision as a choice between "this" or "that" (the two-party system, for example) is a way of simplifying the decision-making process. When you can see "this" or "that" as your only options -- two distinct and opposite choices, even when they are not necessarily opposed -- you can make a firm decision. Eliminating the "grey area" introduced by extra choices is enormously important in reducing cognitive dissonance. Once a decision is made, there is usually no un-doing it, and so, really, there is no advantage to incorporating new data into the schema related to the decision -- "gee, if I had known, I would have..." does nothing but provoke regret. No one likes to regret. Our aversion to cognitive dissonance keeps us sane. If we all ran around seeing the grey areas and choosing among dozens of subtly different options all the time, nothing would get done. If we regretted every decision we made as our datasets increased after the fact, we would be frozen by fear.
  • Excellent post. DoubleThink isn't just a government practice; it's becoming our cultural norm.
  • trey - Weird - you don't see my email on my profile? Of course, it could be a while until I check it. I'm actually not on the list - it was forwarded by a friend who is a grad student, soon to be post-doc in social psych. You could try looking around the webpage of the American Psycholocial Association.
  • uncleozzy: I'm afraid I don't understand your comment that "If we regretted every decision we made as our datasets increased after the fact, we would be frozen by fear." How can being willing to change one's mind in the face of new information stop one from acting the first place? No one has suggested that you should not act for fear that you might find out it was a bad decision, but instead talking about the ways in which we would rather lie to ourselves rather than talk about how we were wrong. As well as how we seem to prefer leaders who never admit mistakes over those who do (and this reminds me of the vilification of Jimmy Carter, who's greatest sin was to say that he had made mistakes, and would try to correct them. Truely a man too good for power.)
  • Not only do we prefer leaders who never admit their mistakes, we don't know that's what we prefer. People regularly express their desire that leaders would be more honest, open and apologetic for their failings. Then vote against the ones that do just that. Some cuts from a Google News search performed just now, absolutely in no way showing cognitive dissonance within both Bush's statements, and the reporting of the story: Bush: 'War on terror cannot be won' ic Wales, UK - 7 hours ago President George Bush has acknowledged that he does not think the war on terror can be won, but said it would make it less acceptable for groups to use ... Bush: US cannot show weakness in war Washington Times, DC - 51 minutes ago ... Monday. Bush told NBC's "Today," the war on terror would likely not be won in the next four years. "I don't think you can win it.". ... Bush declares 'beginning of the end' for terrorists The Times (subscription), UK - 4 hours ago ... We cannot show weakness ... The 58-year-old Texan has made the war on terror the centrepiece ... anger over Iraq as demonstrators staged a massive anti-Bush rally here ...
  • How can being willing to change one's mind in the face of new information stop one from acting the first place? Because you have made the "wrong" decision. Whether it was right at the time or not, many -- most? -- people have a very difficult time coming to terms with this. I'm not talking about exceptional cases, people who can manage many choices or see multiple angles or use all the data they're given -- these are, in my experience, exceptions -- but average people of normal experience. Saying, "I made the right decision based on the information I had, but new information indicates that I was wrong" is difficult. Being wrong -- even for the right reasons -- is not what people instinctually prefer in their leaders.
  • From homunculus' link: "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive." - Dick Cheney This was supposed to be an example of his devious but clever rhetoric, but when I heard it my immediate reaction was 'what?! That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week!' Apparently, when he said it out loud, his audience laughed. I guess that speaks volumes about the intelectual callabre of the kind of people who go to see Cheney speak. More quotes that should be persuasive to Cheney supporters: "America has weathered more diplomatic crises than any of us wishes, but not one of those crises was resolved with tact." "I've been in more elections that I'd have liked, but not one of those elections was won by being popular." "I've moved house more times than I wanted in my life, but not one of those houses was selected for its good location and pleasent living acomodations."
  • Yes, war is juuuust like a diplomatic crisis, an election, and moving house. Way to bludgeon "us" [ugh] with "our" [double ugh. or ugh-ugh, if you prefer] intelectual callabre [counter-snark].
  • .006?
  • .000000000000134 caliber. (α particle.)
  • Yes, war is juuuust like a diplomatic crisis, an election, and moving house. Sorry, no, I guess I wasn't clear enough on the analogy. The article is about Cheney's rhetoric, and that's what I was responding to. The writer seemed to think that this was a really cool rhetorical construction, and I was using it in different contexts to point out how really dumb it was. All those statements follow the same rhetorical format as Cheney's: (a) something bad (to different degrees), (b) statement affirming that it is bad, (c) disavowing the most sensible way to get past the obstacle. Tact is the best way to solve a diplomatic crisis. Popularity is necessary to win an election. Liking your new house makes the wrench of moving a lot easier. Just like winning wars is kind of difficult when you're not sensitive to many, many different factors. When Cheney says it, it goes by so fast that it almost seems like c naturally follows a and b. But when you use different values for a and c you can see how the logic doesn't work at all. Oh, and (a) yeah, war is a lot like a diplomatic crisis actually. I know you were just throwing it in with that other, non-related, stuff but still. ; (b) didn't you find that Cheney quote really, really dumb? I mean we shouldn't be sensitive while fighting a war? Really?
  • The joke is a pun on the various meanings of "sensitive." No, I didn't find it particularly stupid. /can't get the image of a Rasta Tirpitz out of my head
  • The pun is not stupid - it's deceptive. Falling for it, that's ...well, that's why people vote the way they do.