Quote:The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer— and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.
I was re-reading D. Dennett’s "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a little while ago so I saw this in a more basic evolutionary way and I think rosborne has put his finger on an important point:
Quote:But in many cases the issues are complex. Compared to the volume of information out there, people have very little direct experience. Almost everything we know beyond the world we touch with our fingertips comes from other sources which we must choose to trust or not. But trust is an emotional thing. So most of the information we deal with in our lives is tinged with a dose of subjective emotionalism
I would bring it down a level, below emotions. Emotions could be viewed as what Dennett would refer to as an evolutionary "Good Trick". I would submit that our "emotions" are something we inherited from way back from creatures considered too primitive to be recognized to be any where near our ancestors (but they are), like, say, Lobed fin fish. In the real world quick actions are preferred over those less quick; blow on an animal's eyes and they blink. Noxious stimuli, such as extreme heat, produces a quick reaction response designed (by natural selection) for the good of the individual and the species. A small quick moving shadow will cause a herd like flight reaction in pigeons, but not every quick moving small shadow is a hawk. Better safe than sorry though.
We as humans have developed these reactions but also have built upon them to develop a decision mechanism that allows, in combination with real time environmental conditions, to make quick and dirty decisions that are necessary for survival. When you think how difficult and time consuming making decisions can be, these mechanisms allowed a way to avoid the "analysis to paralysis" problem. Soldiers are trained and drilled constantly and repeatedly so as to respond instinctively to battlefield situations--taking time to "think" during the heat of combat can be deadly. Perhaps emotions are the descendants of these "Quick and Dirty" mechanisms.
But emotions are still crude decision tools. They are based on past experiences combined with limited short term knowledge and assumed generalities. But how does this explain humans? How do we explain such vile reactions when discussing such things like politics or religion? Why do such reasoning and thinking beings behave so? Because we are not such beings. We feel we are intelligent and logical. That's half right, but anyone that has taken a course in logic or logical thinking is quickly disabused of this.
So, our first reaction to controversial or threatening ideas is emotional and without true thought. It is a primitive brain response not much more nuanced than a spinal reflex initiated by us touching a hot stove. It takes self restraint and this is not a basic animal instinct. This must be learned. Academic training is one way to this end but obviously not necessary. After all, one must remember all those great thinkers of the past that never went to Harvard or Yale.
Yes, the issues are complex, but I think people must want the facts and analytical explanations. Hopefully, we humans will evolve away from emotions and ideological xenophobia but we can't depend on that to free us from political tribalism. More tolerance would be good but, again we should not hold our breath. Villains are defined by our heroes but our heroes are not always correct.
JM
(I have long been in issue-oriented professions that do perhaps make some concepts more familiar than might be apparent to those who deal with more absolutes.)
