Not as rational as we think
I had a little insight about political decision-making while talking to my mom about Sarah Palin the other day. There's a whole book (The Political Brain) on the subject, which I haven't read but now now have on my list. My insight was hardly earth-shattering, but it was one of those moments when you really "get" something as opposed to just knowing it.
Mom and I were talking about Republicans' reactions to Sarah Palin. It seems that they are overjoyed to have someone "stick it" to Obama, and they seem more than willing to overlook her lack of experience (or to rationalize that those roughly ten years in Wasilla city government were really, really challenging). Here's a party that has been going on and on about Obama's "inexperience," but were more than happy to play up Palin's.
It says a lot about how all of us, regardless of party, make decisions about who we support and then project onto them the qualities that justify our decision.
And my visceral reaction to Palin helps me to understand the reactions of all those who don't get Obama.
I also saw something about language. We talk about the development of language as a critical, if not primary, milestone in our becoming human. But in talking to Mom I made the point that before we had language, we had to size up people we met in other ways: a more or less gut reaction based on what we could see; an emotional response to someone which motivated us to let them come closer or to keep them away. For a long time after we invented language, there must have been relatively few words, and language still played a minor role in sizing up others.
Millenia later, we've got an incredibly rich ability to communicate with those we encounter as well as those we'll never see. Correspondingly, we like to think that we really are making rational decisions based on something that can be objectively put into words. For most of us, we believe that's what we should be doing, so we make up a lot of reasons (words) to explain our decisions.
But when it comes right down to it, it's still a lot of lipstick on a pig.
UPDATE: Agreement from someone on the right.
Mom and I were talking about Republicans' reactions to Sarah Palin. It seems that they are overjoyed to have someone "stick it" to Obama, and they seem more than willing to overlook her lack of experience (or to rationalize that those roughly ten years in Wasilla city government were really, really challenging). Here's a party that has been going on and on about Obama's "inexperience," but were more than happy to play up Palin's.
It says a lot about how all of us, regardless of party, make decisions about who we support and then project onto them the qualities that justify our decision.
And my visceral reaction to Palin helps me to understand the reactions of all those who don't get Obama.
I also saw something about language. We talk about the development of language as a critical, if not primary, milestone in our becoming human. But in talking to Mom I made the point that before we had language, we had to size up people we met in other ways: a more or less gut reaction based on what we could see; an emotional response to someone which motivated us to let them come closer or to keep them away. For a long time after we invented language, there must have been relatively few words, and language still played a minor role in sizing up others.
Millenia later, we've got an incredibly rich ability to communicate with those we encounter as well as those we'll never see. Correspondingly, we like to think that we really are making rational decisions based on something that can be objectively put into words. For most of us, we believe that's what we should be doing, so we make up a lot of reasons (words) to explain our decisions.
But when it comes right down to it, it's still a lot of lipstick on a pig.
UPDATE: Agreement from someone on the right.
Labels: being human, election2008
posted by michael at 11:39 AM
Subscribe to this RSS feed
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home