Thursday, October 9, 2008

Objectivity and politics ...

In Charles Krauthammer's recent piece he argues: "Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not."

Really? So, how does he justify Sarah Palin and John McCain smiling blithely and egging the crowd on as the crowd shouts, "Kill Him! He's a terrorist! Off with his head!" and various racial epithets? Well, he doesn't, of course. In fact, conservatives are apparently bewildered by the media criticism of Palin, and argue that both sides engage in this type of rhetoric. Really? No sign of such hate spewing from the other side, at least not as far as anyone covering the Obama campaign can tell.

However, while I jump to condemn him, might I also be permitted to recognize that Mr. Krauthammer is the victim of one or two common human failings (you can read Daniel Gilbert's book 'Stumbling on Happiness' for a a more humorous explanation of these).

The first fallacy is how we accept and reject information. Rationalists may believe that they are like Mr. Spock, absorbing information, evaluating it with an unprejudiced eye, and then reaching a conclusion. They may believe it, but they would be wrong.

Experiments suggest that human beings generally evaluate the worst characteristics when rejecting something, and the best when accepting. So, to Mr. Krauthammer, the relevant information about Obama is the worst things about Obama, i.e. every dubious association he has ever had, his lack of experience, etc. In contrast, the relevant information about Sarah Palin are the best things about her, i.e. her ability to connect with people, be positive, and be tough. Sarah Palin is experienced because she has "executive experience" a standard by which she has more experience than John McCain. Obama is not because he has only been a community organizer, college professor, state legislator and US Senator. The point is those who support Obama can't see what Mr. Krauthammer sees and vice versa, because they have already formed their judgments and are actually seeking only confirmatory evidence, and are dismissing the non confirmatory evidence. In some cases, in experiments, people with opinions are physically incapable of seeing the evidence that does not conform. Admit it, you have sometimes turned away from information because you didn't agree with it. We all have. That's why it is so hard to be objective.

The second fallacy has to do with how those preconceived notions and judgments are formed. There is no comprehensive theory that explains how that initial judgment is formed, but we do have a lot of concepts that explain some of it. I won't attempt to go through all of them, but let me touch on a couple.

We tend to believe things that are repeated often. It's the entire basis of advertising. Say something over and over again and after a while it feels true.

The other is that we make implicit associations that are based on unconscious frameworks. For instance, in test after test, people of all races have been found to unconsciously associate African American with criminal behavior. Even African Americans tend to exhibit this bias.

The fact that you have implicit assumptions or a biased framework does not in itself lead to overt racial bias. However, it makes you predisposed to believing adverse information. Couple that with frequent repetition of that information, and a complete lack of interactions where the counterpoint is effectively presented, and very soon you may actually exhibit overt racism. Now, if you actually worked with someone or frequently interacted with someone, over time, you'd come to realize that a lot of the opinions were wrong. However, it would not necessarily eliminate the framework nor replace the opinions of others. The unconscious view of the world is surprisingly resilient.

Mr. Krauthammer's inconsistency in evaluating Palin when she commits transgressions at least equal to Obama's, suggests that he is victim to one of the most common fallacies of human behavior - i.e. he is seeking confirmatory evidence. Was this driven by race? I don't know. Was this driven by the frequency with which conservatives sling mud against Obama? Again, I dont know. However, it would be surprising if Mr. Krauthammer's prejudice wasn't, at least in part, affected by race and his constant association with people who repeat his views.

However, turning from Mr. Krauthammer to the campaign strategies, it is clear that both campaigns are using these fallacies to their advantage, Obama has systematically rebranded McCain as a Bush clone, helped along in no small measure by McCain's erratic lurch to the right. Meanwhile, the latest vehement attacks by McCain and Palin against Obama linking Obama to Bill Ayers seem designed to exploit the implicit unconscious racial bias, which they hope to reinforce through repetition.

Here's the question - to what extent has Obama reinforced his image so that people will tune out McCain's allegations? To what extent is racial bias so deep seated that it could change people's opinions with just four weeks of mudslinging? To what extent can Obama blunt the attacks by tying McCain to the economic crisis and Bush? We will soon know the answers to some of these questions.

No comments: