Writing in response to the recent US mid-term elections, Carey reflects on the widely expected division and refusal to cooperate that the press and experts are predicting for US politics now that Obama and the Democrat Party no longer have a majority in congress. However, he argues that although they might keep up an appearance of strong public disagreement, in reality, they are likely to work together fairly well, even agreeing on many issues. Carey's support are the findings of a variety of psychological studies which show that despite a built in tendency for humans to treat those not in the same group with bloody-minded cruelty, we also have a well-evolved set of traits that enable us to cooperate, and that the pro-social traits are the stronger. Carey's evidence includes a study which show how thinking of something that affirms positive values can make people "significantly more open to at least considering the case" that they would be expected to strongly oppose. For other evidence, Carey cites studies that show how people in close physical contact, such as politicians at the same table, tend to adopt the same behaviour and speech patterns very quickly, and that that can also contribute to relatively peaceful and productive discussion.
Initially, I liked Carey's article because although the idea he supports is surprising, certainly not the popular idea at the moment, it is apparently supported with solid evidence. But that led to some annoyance. Carey was writing for The New York Times, not an academic journal, so although he cited studies and sources, he did not give us the references we needed to follow them up. I was especially interested in the results he discusses about how easily recalling a positive memory can make us more likely to change our mind or favourably consider something we might be expected to strongly oppose. It took me a few minutes of Googling to find the 2007 study he was referring to, which was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and does indeed support Carey's argument (Cohen, et al.). Knowing how strongly Americans feel about the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, I was surprised when I read the results. Cohen and his colleagues found that even patriotic Americans could be brought to consider the idea that American government policy might have been at least in part responsible for that religiously inspired evil. If you're looking for something longer and more challenging, their 15 page article is well worth reading. Naturally, we would always both give the full and correct citation in our text and also include the full reference details in our references section at the end. Carey didn't even mention Cohen by name!
Apart from that annoyance with Carey's poor citing of sources, which is understandable in a non-academic source, his article surprised me yet again with its reminder of how little we often understand ourselves, specifically, what motivates us; I am sure that I'm no different to any of the people who took part in the studies that Carey cites. Also, I was reminded yet again of how important it is to always demand evidence when predictions are made about what will or will not happen in the world. No matter how "obvious" something might sound, if it's a prediction about what will happen in the world, the only solid evidence is what does actually happen. Plausible theories are pretty much worthless unless backed up by some solid facts.
Finally, the results that Carey reports led me to wonder how parliaments might be changed to make progress between opposing groups more likely. Perhaps if politicians from opposing parties were regularly forced to sit next to each other, at small tables, things would go more smoothly? What do you think?
__________
References
Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K., Bastardi, A., Hsu, L., McGoey, M & Ross, L. (2007). Bridging the partisan divide: self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93(3), 415 - 430. Retrieved November 9, 2010 from http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~d_sherma/cohenetal.jpsp.2007.pdf
This topic is difficult. When I read and explain myself, I tend to give a straightforward answer but it is far beyond my knowledge. I’m not sure about my response. If it’s not correct, please welcome to tell me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carey. Physical contact is a good link and solution in that context they can not speak directly. They can see and feel comfortable with movement of the hands, parts of body, or face in short distance. It helps the meeting works fluently and have accomplished.
The other thing I recall is the gesture theory that communicates among people by non-verbal language. People can express their feelings and thoughts. Even in the conference approves a proposal , this way can help it smoothly.
Namkhang,
ReplyDeleteThere was an article in the Science and Technology section of The Economist last week that might interest you. I resisted the temptation to cite it in my post, but it reports on some recent research about the power of gestures compared with verbal communication, and speculates on the possible evolutionary basis for the results.
"Gesture politics" is at http://www.economist.com/node/17358563?story_id=17358563
Politics is not my marjor and my country has one party only, so that the opposition between the parties does not happen. However, I do not know why I am interesting in politics.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the meeting of politicians from opposing parties will go smoothly if they have the same only one purpose that to help the country develop, even though they have differences strategy. When they have the same purpose_mean the purpose without self-interest, they will understand and respect each other. Beside that, they can do their best to get vote from electors in electoral campaign. They can explain their own strategy to the electors without denigrate other the parties' stratergy and the elector will be the one to choose which strategy is in need of that time. Moreover, the key man is the parties' leader. They need to have a good heart and justice in doing thing so they will lead their party in the right way.
This just what in mine mind when I read the article :)
I feel guilty. I never put much attention in politics in my country. I always have had the feeling that in Spain the two main politic parties behave as a couple of children fighting for a sweet.
ReplyDeletePSOE is the supposedly party that responds to a lefts ideology, and PP the one that believe in rights ideas. Actually, most of people think that both have a central ideology, with just a little differences; moreover, sometimes PSOE who is the one who governs nowadays behaves more of rights that lefts. For example, some of the last actions such as help financially to banks and construction companies who are the ones that have madden much more money in the last 10 years just because now the situation is difficult with a big crisis. Moreover, some people think that PSOE helped to some specific banks in witch it had big loans, and after that the banks forgot such loans. Yes, in my country there is corruption too.
I have not idea what is happening in US or in Australia, but I have to say that in my country there is not any prediction of cooperation between the two parties. They always have played to criticize in the worst possible way each other. They just want to have the power and seems like the only one method to get it is try to disturb to the opposite party. It is obvious that this behavior just damages the country and the main damaged are the citizens. It is one important reason why Spain has been one of the most affected countries by the global economic crisis.
I don't know if the theories of Carey could help to improve the relationship between politicians in my country. Maybe it would help to put them inside the house of "Big brother" show and see how they react along one month living together ;D
Forcing opposing politicians to sit next to each other, at small tables, and things would go more smoothly.
ReplyDeleteWell, how about this picture ?
I don't understand why adopting the same behaviour and speech patterns would contribute to relatively peaceful and productive discussion? I guess they might pick up arrogant behaviors and the discussion would be relatively .... messy?
I agree that not citing the source (The Cohen one) is disappointing for readers. If I am interested by this article, I would totally want to know the detail, at least about what kind of positive affirmation that causes people to soften down on issues they tend to oppose because this piece of information is quite surprising.
Sorry, the picture is here
ReplyDeleteRoong makes a good point, and Carey is careful not to say that there is any guarantee of a peaceful outcome, which was sensible given the obvious evidence to the contrary. In his discussion of synchronised speech patterns, Carey does also note that the degree of similarity or difference can serve as a measure of how close or distant people are. One example he cites is that of the use of pronouns and other markers of language style by partners in a relationship reflects their degree of cooperation and mutual respect, so that, for example, the husband and wife poets Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes's language was most dissimilar when they were going through a tough time in their relationship (there were a number of tough times in that relationship), whereas the psychologists Freud and Jung's language shows high similarity when they were most actively collaborating before divorcing.
ReplyDeleteIt's my dream that both side of politicians can talk together with compassion and reconciliation in their mind. I hope that Carey's words will be true.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, as you have seen political problem in thailand, Carey's words are definitely wrong. The politicians and their supporter don't listen another side. They only argue about their opponent's weak points or the bad side. Moreover, They don't base their argumentation on fact, moral, and the right. They just think about their clan or their own benefit.
I totally agree with Ai. If all politicians have only the same one purpose that to do the best for their country not just considering only their profit, money and power, for sure the country will take off to be the best as it can.
Ai,
ReplyDeleteI liked your comment, but wasn't sure whether you think that opposition and argument between parties and persons, even heated argument and strong opposition, is a good thing or not.
Provided it's done from a desire to get at the truth, to find out what is the right thing to do, and how best to do it, I think that opposition and argument are very good things, and that multi-party political systems are therefore inherently better and more likely to be successful than single party systems. I don't think it's an accident that countries with a lot of healthy internal argument amongst opposing views and ideas (democracies) tend to do better than one party states.
What I don't like is when politicians oppose others not for any sound reason, but merely because they are the opposition.
And at good universities, there is healthy argument amongst teh academics. At my university, this got out of hand and the philosophy department ended up being split into two, who got along quite well thereafter apart from the two or three immature professors who continued to behave as the most childish sort of politician. They weren't the best academics in the department either, but because of their tenure, they could not be easily removed.
And that reminds me of a more famous occasion when philosophers let their passions get out of hand. On October 25, 1946, two of the most famous philosophers of the last century, Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, were debating at Cambridge University, the intensity rising, when, according to some eye-witnesses, Wittgenstein threatened to attack Popper with a red hot poker from the fire warming the room in the cold English weather. Fortunately, the equally famous Bertrand Russell was also present, and although he "so far has not spoken a word - takes the pipe out of his mouth and says firmly, 'Wittgenstein, put down that poker at once!' ... Wittgenstein complies, then, after a short wait, gets up and walks out, slamming the door" (Peter Munz, as cited in Edmonds & Eidonow, 2001). As Edmonds and Eidonow note, the significantly varying accounts by the eye-witnesses present at this exciting debate about the fundamental nature of philosophy give grounds for seriously doubting the value of such testimony and our own strong memories. Many of the people present at teh small meeting already were or went on to become famous philosophers themselves, although not in the same class as Popper, Wittgenstein and Russell, but their very clear and strong memories cannot all be correct; they were clearly not in synch.
References
Edmonds, D. & Eidinow, J. (2001, November 21). Wittgenstein's Poker by David Edmonds and John Eidinow. The Guardian. Retrieved November 11, 2010 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/nov/21/guardianfirstbookaward2001.gurardianfirstbookaward
I agree with Ai's idea (@November 10, 2010 10:30 PM) and OH's idea (@November 11, 2010 9:46 PM). If each politician has a same goal to help or develop their country, and their ideas base on the reason without thinking of their benefit, Carey's article will be possible. However, when Thai politicians have a meeting to make some decisions, it is hard to find solutions though they have the meeting without broadcasting because of their attitude. Mostly, their attitude is that opposing politicians are competitors and they think they should stop any work from opposing politicians to discredit them; therefore, finally, they cannot find the solution. Maybe, Carey's article is impossible in this case.
ReplyDelete