On this post,
he starts out with a digression that speaks to the issue of cultural intelligence.
if different cultures progress through developmental milestones at different rates or not at all, then these aren’t universal laws of child development but facts about what skills get learned slowly or quickly in different cultures. In this model, development is not a matter of certain innate abilities like walking “unfolding” at the right time, but about difficult mental operations that you either learn or you don’t depending on how hard the world is trying to cram them into your head.
Most of the post concerns his suggestions for what might constitute mental underdevelopment. I was struck by this one:
I’m not sure whether the Post genuinely believes the Democrats are pro-crime by inclination or are just arguing their policies will lead to more crime in a hyperbolic figurative way, but I’ve certainly seen sources further right make the “genuinely in favor of crime as a terminal value” argument. And this doesn’t seem too different from the leftist sources that say Republicans can’t really care about the lives of the unborn, they’re just “anti-woman” as a terminal value. Both proposals share this idea of not being able to understand that other people have different beliefs than you and that their actions proceed naturally from those beliefs. Instead of saying “I believe gun control would increase crime, but Democrats believe the opposite, and from their different perspective banning guns makes sense,” they say “I believe gun control would increase crime, Democrats must believe the same, and therefore their demands for gun control must come from sinister motives.”
The idea is that seeing an issue from someone else’ point of view requires advanced development. People whose mental development falls short of that will end up making false characterizations of others’ motives. Some thoughts:
1. By this standard, Paul Krugman appears to be mentally underdeveloped, even though he would score well on most measures of intelligence. The same would go for many people who like his writing.
2. Along the three-axis model, you can predict what will happen if people are mentally underdeveloped in this way. A conservative, who is focused on the civilization vs. barbarism axis, will see others as driven to destroy civilization (“Barack Obama’s goal is to destroy America.” “Libertarians are nihilists.”). A libertarian, who is focused on freedom vs. coercion, will see others as driven to destroy freedom (“Progressives want to run the economy.” “Conservatives want to run your personal life.” A progressive, who is focused on the oppressor-oppressed axis, will see others as driven to support oppression (“Conservatives are racist homophobes.” “Libertarians only want to justify the power structure.”)
3. See also David McRaney on the illusion of asymmetric insight, in which we think we understand others better than they understand themselves. Maybe getting past this illusion is a step in mental development.
4. When I worked at Freddie Mac, the senior management worked with some human resources consultants to develop a set of operating principles for improving teamwork among employees. The most interesting principle was “assume positive motivation.” That is, whenever some expresses a point of view that differs from yours, don’t assume that they are trying to cause problems for you or for the team. Think about what positive, reasonable goal they might be trying to achieve.
What is interesting about “assume positive motivation” is how much effort it takes to do it. If you don’t believe me, try to spend a week incorporating this operating principle in every in-person and on-line encounter you experience.
It’s much easier to assume positive motivation in a business situation, where political considerations are usually a minor factor. In many cases, you can look back at decisions that were made and assess the results. In national politics, the results of any broad policy are much harder to discern and participants can argue endlessly about whether the policy was sound. I don’t think progressives are results-oriented, so they do not want to subject their policies to cost/benefit analysis. Good intentions trump other considerations.
notable article, tanx for publish. I agree with @Rich Berger
I like “assume positive motivation.”
One theory is that it’s mental development, but the trouble is, in my observations, I see plenty of people who exhibit all the signs of this level of cognitive development in their own profession or field of expertise. They are able to correctly apply a theory of mind, pass an ‘ideological Turing test’, show respectful familiarity with an opponent’s point of view and accurately anticipate counterarguments. People that argue in front of sophisticated referees for a living are a special sub-population, sure, but they are particularly adept at this task. And this is what lawyers do all the time.
And yet, when taking a step away from the things they know most about, they don’t seem to exercise this faculty at all in certain ideological and political matters. They don’t have to do it, they suspect it doesn’t pay off socially to do it, and so they don’t.
So, in that way, it doesn’t really resemble levels of development at all, unless one is going to make some hand-waving arguments about selective psychological regression or something, and who knows, maybe that’s possible.
But usually when we talk about levels of mental development we are talking about something that emerges as a permanent and irreversible feature under normal circumstances, after an individual achieves a certain level of maturity. That’s why we call them ‘milestones’.
You don’t pass the point of correctly guessing that someone else who doesn’t know about the skittles bag filled with pennies will think it’s full of skittles, and then suddenly and randomly lose this ability when it comes to guessing whether someone else will think that an egg carton is full of eggs. You’ve passed that milestone, and it applies generally.
The competing theory is that it’s simple bias when one is committed to the proposition that one’s priors are so obvious that no reasonable, good, smart, and honest person could deny them, and so anyone that does so simply must have wicked motives or mental defects.
If you allow for the possibility that your opponent is being reasonable in favoring a contrary point of view, then that necessarily implies that you are being unreasonable if you are fully and completely committed to a contrary point of view, without any allowance for the uncertainty in, or error of, your position. Since people want to signal absolute certainty and confidence, but also want to deny being unreasonable or dogmatic about it, then anyone who disagrees must either be making or mistake or evil.
So it’s not that these people haven’t reached a level of mental development, it’s more that they refuse to accept the validity of the outcome and function of that capability in these circumstances.
Something like this, yes.
In the same way that behavioral economics pits people against their intertemporal selves, so too does this “mental underdevelopment” idea pit the maximally empathetic intelligence self against the guy attributing evil to his opponent’s arguments.
That latter guy is the lazy self, and is encouraged to reveal itself in times where the backlash is minimal.
Not only is it hard to do, you will be surrounded by people not doing it.
I think it is somewhat easier for those who think differently to recognize inconsistencies in others views, but I doubt that any are capable of making sense of their opinions, for if they really made sense, they would be yours. So, for example, non conservatives recognize an inconsistency between being against abortion but ignoring fertilization clinics which result in far more destruction of life. They can see how belief in the sanctity of life could lead to the former even though they may believe in bounds to those beliefs but can’t rationalize inconsistencies beyond that. The conclusion is always that others just haven’t thought it through and are missing something. It is much more difficult if not impossible to believe they considered but rejected what seems intuitively obvious to themselves.
I think the counter-comment to this line of thought is that politics, political-economy, and media mind-share, are more like war than business.
In business, it’s often the case that everybody actually has positive motivations, and everybody in a company or transaction may well be acting in good faith. If for no other reason than they expect to interact with the same entities again soon, and their reputation matters.
In politics (or any “war” model) ANY COMPETENT ACT of the opponent is by definition *sinister* – because it is a means for the opponent to win (which is by definition disaster) and for the opponent’s supporters to gain the upper hand over the candidate’s supporters.
People conducting high quality debates in front of skilled or even merely skeptical referees (judges, juries, debate monitors, publication review boards, senior management in companies) who use the “total war” mindset often find themselves sanctioned/fired/assigned to mailroom duty in Elbonia.
Politicians, eco-political commentators, etc. who behave this way end up holding elected office, or get paid a lot to write a blog for some media outlet, etc.
This is the way my circle of friends tends to view it. They are under no delusion of having much insight into the major political issues of our time. They are much more like troops.
The idea certainly resonates. Keep in mind, though, that “seeing an issue from someone else’ point of view requires advanced development” only establishes that advanced development is *necessary* not that it *sufficient*. Consequently, we might forgive those lacking developed (e.g., children) for simply being unable to adopt another point of view. For others, we are left with lack of effort or willful misrepresentation.
Regarding Krugman, I have no doubt he could understand opposing views if he had any interest in doing so. Regarding his readers, I think they are simply engaging in entertainment; no one reasonably expects us to “look at the other side” when watching a movie or television drama, so I would not expect anything more here.
It’s hard to tell how much of the problem is people being incapable of seeing things from others’ perspectives vs strategically refusing to do so. Certainly in the case of Krugman, I don’t think the problem is that he is unable to see things from a different perspective (a perspective, that, in many cases — e.g. minimum wage — used to be his own), but rather that he, like his buddy Brad DeLong, has decided that treating opponents unfairly and uncharitably is the best, most effective way to *win*.
I came here to say something similar. “On the bright side, he may be inauthentic!” But on the other hand, if he did have empathy, could he be so Machiavellian?
Great post, but I do agree with the above commenters that, at least for some, it’s strategic. It’s not that they’re immature, it’s that they’re actively trying to silence the opposition. I don’t think those who occupy the minority position can afford to take the malicious angle though.
We see this with people who want to change the way economics is done. They lay out arguments but are typically treated to silly ad hominem (“They just can’t do the math” or “They just have an ax to grind”) and misrepresentation of their positions.
In my workplace we have a principle “Seek First To Understand” (not to be confused with STFU).
You say:
“By this standard, Paul Krugman appears to be mentally underdeveloped, even though he would score well on most measures of intelligence. The same would go for many people who like his writing.”
Does that last line go for Mark Thoma?