Break every political argument down in our nation's history and it boils down to one question: What is the proper role of government?
Rarely does one need six degrees of separation to reach this central issue.
Our citizens have argued incessantly about government's role from the beginning via the Federalist Papers, fought a Civil War over the question, and continue to spew ugly rhetoric (again with the socialism label?) over just this one basic issue.
(You care about gay marriage? Well, let me interest you in a vigorous "Defense of Marriage Act" vs. "Full Faith and Credit Clause" debate, which, you guessed it, brings us right back to GO.)
I offer one person's reasoned take on this, our nation's perpetual pebble in the shoe. My short answer is that the people as a whole (although they are loath to admit it) have about the size of government with which they are comfortable. After all, it came from representatives government.
My goals: First, to explain how I see the differences between government and private enterprise. Although they are different, neither is inherently evil, but they both have a vital role to play. Second, to give my take on "the proper role of government."
THE PLAYERS
Both sides boast Nobel winners and celebrated thinkers who advocate each side. Free Marketers point to Milton Friedman as the final voice. New Dealers sing the praises of John Maynard Keynes. Laisse faire vs. New Deal. Roosevelt vs. Reagan. O'Reilly vs. Olbermann. Private business vs. Government regulation. There are plenty of statistics to fuel each side, thus insuring that neither can ever "win" the debate in a measurable sense.
An over-simplification of the two sides can be heard when listening to campaign talk or talk-radio -- that there are those who think government solves all and those who think it solves nothing. I am not sure where the majority stands, but I meet very few who feel government is the exact size it should be. That could be from a love to complain.
Although both sides hold to fallacies that I aim to debunk, only one side (the anti-government types) have chosen to take a no-compromise stance. I consider the strategy to be a feeble attempt to take us back to a time in which we no longer live. It also solves nothing.
THE DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT
Each part brings its own obstacles, efficiencies and strengths. The difference is in the moral imperative.
Many of the most vocal of a very agitated minority believe in the inherent incompetence of meddling government. National defense excluded, this school of thought essentially demands that government not interfere in anything (or at least a bare minimum). Although I feel safe saying none of them would advocate six-year-old workers in coal mines, their tolerance for government does not raise much further.
There is a feeling that government grew too large over the years and that only blatant attempts to destroy it as an institution will mitigate its further expansion. This assumes also that none of that expansion was necessary to accommodate the many changes inherent in technological advancements, population increase and any other change over the past two centuries.
(I would go into the Commerce Clause, its overuse and the resulting backlash against it, but I want a few people to finish reading this post).
The fallacy is that private enterprise is always preferable. Absolutist arguments really amount to casuistry, so I won't dwell on it.
My take is that the market is amoral. It is not immoral. It is also not moral. It is profit-driven, and, as a result, has allowed our economy to soar. The market is also absolutely not the hand of God - especially considering that the invisible hand likes to dunk us in the mud if left unchecked (see 1929-1938). The fact it can be mitigated at all undermines arguments of divine tampering.
But, although the drive for profit leads to some efficiency advantages and wonderful economic prosperity, the market is less capable of taking morality-driven initiatives and is prone to booms and busts.
This is why the health care debate has been labeled as a moral imperative by supporters of reform. Incentive for profit has absolutely led to higher rates of denials and searches for pre-existing conditions by insurance carriers.
As usual, when there is a hole unfilled by private business that leads to moral outrage, the government attempts to fill the gap without profit. The government acts for the betterment of customers deemed "unprofitable." We do not do this to make a profit, but because it is moral. It must be done with fiscal responsibilty, but it must be done. And, sometimes, that means a tax increase.
Allow me to reiterate that I do not believe private industry has no role to play or that it is anything less than crucial to our system. But it would be foolish to expect the market to account for morality. Government agencies foot the bill to save victims of hurricanes because no money can be made to offer that service privately. (Excuse me sir, but we just saved your family and helicopters aren't cheap... so where do I send the bill?). Still, tea-bag loving folks burn FEMA in effigy. (I am unsure how many of them live in hurricane hot-spots).
The fact that many will point to FEMA's failures as a hole in the argument simply drives home the point that agency heads must believe their departments are important and believe in the role that agency plays. Katrina was, in my view, an example of what happens when people who do not believe in the legitimacy of government or believe it to be inherently meddlesome RUN a government or agency. (Brownie, you did a hell of a job).
SIZE DOES MATTER
Perceived government inefficiency, and that of large private industry, can be attributed to size. Government is further hampered by legislative restrictions simply because moral imperatives come with strings and compromises. I get that. And, in some areas, government is less efficient. That is absolutely true.
Inefficiency is also a product of size. Ideological free marketers too often omit that very large private industries (insurance companies, for example) are every bit as inefficient as a government agency. Anyone who has had to contest a denied claim can attest to that. The idea that "government paperwork" will gum up the works is laughable in light of all the various forms currently needed. At lease government forms will be uniform.
The reason for inefficiency in government and large companies? People run both. The only way to run a big operation is by layering, bureaucracy, committees, etc. That will happen to any very large entity regardless of its status as private or public.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The debate is not helped by anyone who feels the government can never be a part of a solution. The debate is not helped by anyone who feels only complete government takeover will solve either. However, there is ample support for a public "option," which is a compromise. Democrats have pushed a rational solution to preserve private enterprise in health insurance while plugging the holes it has created. The opposition only offers an argument that nothing tainted with government stink can ever work.
So, what is the proper role of government? It's whatever needs to be done to make a profitable system honest and compassionate within the tolerance of the population. In the case of health care, government intervention is long overdue. And the argument that "government is not good at anything" is short on substance.
I know I will never convince the "ideologically certain" who may read this. However, it makes sense to me. I am inherently suspicious of "absolutist" arguments and that is what the tea-baggers bring.
In the meantime, real solutions with all options on the table are being considered. And that makes me happy.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Cognitive Biases
INTRO
A few posts ago I referenced cognitive biases. I have been very interested in this area of study lately, and I can't get enough of it. Specifically, I am interested in how cognitive biases influence how we all see the world.
One of the most important life lesson I ever had was from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. That book showed me that we have control of our enlightenment and the elasticity of our growth depends upon our willingness to confront our biases and be willing to change.
I understand paradigms to be the maps with which we view the world. That map changes all the time as our experiences within the world change. Our biases function as limitations to that map of the world. A bias against a particular idea creates resistance against any lesson or experience that may lead to a new or adjusted "life map" that would tolerate that idea. Thus, the map retains that limitation and remains narrow.
Every single person has biases of various forms. My goal for diving into this subject is twofold: 1) I want to learn about bias in an effort to overcome as many biases as possible to create as open and diverse a "life paradigm" as I can; and 2) I want to use natural biases within characters to create a story (eventually book?) that makes the reader truly and deeply understand the paradigm of each character.
BASIC IDEA
Cognitive biases are deviations of judgment that lead to rationalization, and may or may not be illogical. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas, and it leads to rationalization. In short, we are confronted with an inconsistency, which makes us uncomfortable, and we rationalize to create harmony. Our biases can sometimes blind us to the irrationality of a justification. At least that's my understanding.
The pattern I notice in my daily life has left me with the impression that cognitive biases drive much of our interactions with each other. The story I hear usually proceeds as follows: Person X is evil, manipulative, a liar, and is attempting to get away with unspeakable wrongs.
My experience is that, although no intentional lies are being told, those harsh judgments are almost never correct. Why? One bias or another creates a block to perception (the life map isn't moving as to that topic). The classic case is in the area of inheritance. Siblings are quick to accuse each other of robbing parents blind or not caring for that parent's well-being. Almost always, the answer is that both parties misjudged the intentions of the other. Why? Cognitive biases seem to explain most scenarios.
Most cognitive biases are more subtle and simply guide our perception of everyday interactions. And, not all biases are things to necessarily eliminate.
SPECIFIC BIASES
The specific cognitive biases that jumped out at me most are the following:
Anchoring: Disproportionate weight given to the first piece of information received. ("Bob missed one opportunity to help mom, and no amount of generosity or kindness can make up for it.")
Outcome Bias: The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the soundness of the decision at the time it was made.
Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm. (Politics, anyone?)
Irrational escalation: The tendency to make irrational decision based upon rational decisions of the past (even if inapplicable) or to justify actions already taken.
Confirmation bias: Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceptions. (Again... politics).
Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to allow group consensus to influence personal decisions.
I am sure every single one of these sounds familiar to anyone reading this. That's because we all have biases.
FRANKLIN
The difference (and this I take from Franklin) is how we deal with biases. Some cement those biases into place and never move them, question them or second-guess. For anyone willing to take hold of those biases, however, those biases can be mitigated. (Mitigated, not eliminated).
Franklin distinguished between biases and pillars of morality, and I want to be clear that attempts to mitigate biases does not mean anyone should alter morals necessarily. Morality questions should always be examined, but pillars such as honesty and integrity are parts of our life map that remain unmoved during "paradigm updates."
Often, biases are most visible from outside when a person is faced with defending a possible mistake. All of that person's cognitive function will focus on justification for the sake of defense. It's natural and inevitable. We will leave out the bad and emphasize the good. It happens. It just does.
In my story, I plan to create a character who who used a specific logic to success many times in the past. That same decision-process will then be utilized to failure at a crucial moment. The subsequent rationalization will ignore the inapplicability of the logic that led to past success.
NOBEL-WORTHY EXAMPLE
Perhaps the most blatant surrender to bias comes in politics. Take, for example, the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Tell me if any of these arguments sound familiar:
1) This award is bogus because he hasn't done anything to deserve it! Euros are liberal and they prop up other liberals like Al Gore.
2) This is just sour-grapes by the far-right and a baseless slap at the President. It was well deserved and to argue otherwise is just politics.
3) He just got it for not being George W. Bush. (not as partisan, but seems to me to be equally biased... possibly toward scepticism. This option is also just funny.)
Number one shows an inability to give credit and seems to freely and loosely embrace a convenient world-wide conspiracy when much more rational and believable arguments can be made. It also shows no willingness to ever be happy for any success of the Obama administration. Number two dismisses the legitimate questions NOT raised by number one. Number two conveniently leaves out the genuine confusion many people felt at the outcome... especially since Mr. Obama is currently making a decision regarding troop levels. Number three, as explained earlier, makes me laugh because I have a deep-seeded bias against W and take pleasure in occasionally indulging in it. I have a bias, sue me.
In all seriousness, politics provide such stark examples because it is an exercise in outrage and exaggeration. My bias would be to defend President Obama, but when I force myself to even it out (as best I can), I came up with this mitigated version of my bias:
This award did seem out of the blue. I think it is a very good thing that the world considers our leader to be a force for peace, whether earned or not. I think this could prove to be a booster to the "cult of Obama" argument. I do think President Obama has changed our tone to the world in favor of cooperation. I also do not think he has accomplished anything specific that led to an actual cessation of violence or a measurable increase in peace.
I was tempted to say that both sides failed to consider that the other side's beliefs are genuinely felt. However, upon consideration of biases, they may just be stubbornly held.
IN THE END
As I stated in my 2007 post, "Examined Life," efforts to improve matter. But, I now think equal effort should be made to understand each other. That's what I've been trying to do lately. That, and to write a good story.
A few posts ago I referenced cognitive biases. I have been very interested in this area of study lately, and I can't get enough of it. Specifically, I am interested in how cognitive biases influence how we all see the world.
One of the most important life lesson I ever had was from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. That book showed me that we have control of our enlightenment and the elasticity of our growth depends upon our willingness to confront our biases and be willing to change.
I understand paradigms to be the maps with which we view the world. That map changes all the time as our experiences within the world change. Our biases function as limitations to that map of the world. A bias against a particular idea creates resistance against any lesson or experience that may lead to a new or adjusted "life map" that would tolerate that idea. Thus, the map retains that limitation and remains narrow.
Every single person has biases of various forms. My goal for diving into this subject is twofold: 1) I want to learn about bias in an effort to overcome as many biases as possible to create as open and diverse a "life paradigm" as I can; and 2) I want to use natural biases within characters to create a story (eventually book?) that makes the reader truly and deeply understand the paradigm of each character.
BASIC IDEA
Cognitive biases are deviations of judgment that lead to rationalization, and may or may not be illogical. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas, and it leads to rationalization. In short, we are confronted with an inconsistency, which makes us uncomfortable, and we rationalize to create harmony. Our biases can sometimes blind us to the irrationality of a justification. At least that's my understanding.
The pattern I notice in my daily life has left me with the impression that cognitive biases drive much of our interactions with each other. The story I hear usually proceeds as follows: Person X is evil, manipulative, a liar, and is attempting to get away with unspeakable wrongs.
My experience is that, although no intentional lies are being told, those harsh judgments are almost never correct. Why? One bias or another creates a block to perception (the life map isn't moving as to that topic). The classic case is in the area of inheritance. Siblings are quick to accuse each other of robbing parents blind or not caring for that parent's well-being. Almost always, the answer is that both parties misjudged the intentions of the other. Why? Cognitive biases seem to explain most scenarios.
Most cognitive biases are more subtle and simply guide our perception of everyday interactions. And, not all biases are things to necessarily eliminate.
SPECIFIC BIASES
The specific cognitive biases that jumped out at me most are the following:
Anchoring: Disproportionate weight given to the first piece of information received. ("Bob missed one opportunity to help mom, and no amount of generosity or kindness can make up for it.")
Outcome Bias: The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the soundness of the decision at the time it was made.
Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm. (Politics, anyone?)
Irrational escalation: The tendency to make irrational decision based upon rational decisions of the past (even if inapplicable) or to justify actions already taken.
Confirmation bias: Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceptions. (Again... politics).
Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to allow group consensus to influence personal decisions.
I am sure every single one of these sounds familiar to anyone reading this. That's because we all have biases.
FRANKLIN
The difference (and this I take from Franklin) is how we deal with biases. Some cement those biases into place and never move them, question them or second-guess. For anyone willing to take hold of those biases, however, those biases can be mitigated. (Mitigated, not eliminated).
Franklin distinguished between biases and pillars of morality, and I want to be clear that attempts to mitigate biases does not mean anyone should alter morals necessarily. Morality questions should always be examined, but pillars such as honesty and integrity are parts of our life map that remain unmoved during "paradigm updates."
Often, biases are most visible from outside when a person is faced with defending a possible mistake. All of that person's cognitive function will focus on justification for the sake of defense. It's natural and inevitable. We will leave out the bad and emphasize the good. It happens. It just does.
In my story, I plan to create a character who who used a specific logic to success many times in the past. That same decision-process will then be utilized to failure at a crucial moment. The subsequent rationalization will ignore the inapplicability of the logic that led to past success.
NOBEL-WORTHY EXAMPLE
Perhaps the most blatant surrender to bias comes in politics. Take, for example, the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Tell me if any of these arguments sound familiar:
1) This award is bogus because he hasn't done anything to deserve it! Euros are liberal and they prop up other liberals like Al Gore.
2) This is just sour-grapes by the far-right and a baseless slap at the President. It was well deserved and to argue otherwise is just politics.
3) He just got it for not being George W. Bush. (not as partisan, but seems to me to be equally biased... possibly toward scepticism. This option is also just funny.)
Number one shows an inability to give credit and seems to freely and loosely embrace a convenient world-wide conspiracy when much more rational and believable arguments can be made. It also shows no willingness to ever be happy for any success of the Obama administration. Number two dismisses the legitimate questions NOT raised by number one. Number two conveniently leaves out the genuine confusion many people felt at the outcome... especially since Mr. Obama is currently making a decision regarding troop levels. Number three, as explained earlier, makes me laugh because I have a deep-seeded bias against W and take pleasure in occasionally indulging in it. I have a bias, sue me.
In all seriousness, politics provide such stark examples because it is an exercise in outrage and exaggeration. My bias would be to defend President Obama, but when I force myself to even it out (as best I can), I came up with this mitigated version of my bias:
This award did seem out of the blue. I think it is a very good thing that the world considers our leader to be a force for peace, whether earned or not. I think this could prove to be a booster to the "cult of Obama" argument. I do think President Obama has changed our tone to the world in favor of cooperation. I also do not think he has accomplished anything specific that led to an actual cessation of violence or a measurable increase in peace.
I was tempted to say that both sides failed to consider that the other side's beliefs are genuinely felt. However, upon consideration of biases, they may just be stubbornly held.
IN THE END
As I stated in my 2007 post, "Examined Life," efforts to improve matter. But, I now think equal effort should be made to understand each other. That's what I've been trying to do lately. That, and to write a good story.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Random thoughts
... I recently finished Fyodore Dostoevsky's classic novel Crime and Punishment. It's a great read and I recommend it to anyone. Unlike most authors today, Dostoevsky really dives deep into the psyche of his characters. It has been a real education for my current short story project.
Although I enjoyed reading the book, older styles (and translated works especially) can make for some difficult reads. I probably spent five times as long reading this book as any others this year.
Still, the story was brilliant, the ending simple but meaningful and the characters were deeply thought-out.
I will be reading Brothers Karamosov before the end of the year. Some have called that book the greatest novel ever written. It's sub chapter titled "The Great Inquisitor" is famous, although I only know that it involves the Spanish Inquisition and Jesus.
I am most interested in how the book deals with the different paradigms of five characters who experience the same event. Dostoevsky's writing can be an acquired taste, but his characters are brilliant for their depth. I plan on taking some time to learn from the master while preparing my own story.
... I am currently reading The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown, or as I've come to call it "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." I enjoy the book because it's like watching a movie, it's fast-paced and it is interesting, but it's really the same formula without much change from his previous books. I guess the ending will tell for sure, but right now, I've seen this movie before. Most important, this book was a must-read after slogging through Crime and Punishment.
... The Denver Broncos are 4-0 and, God help me, I don't know if they are any good or not. The offense is horrible, but the D is really good. They are trying to reel me in, but I remain sceptical until I'm sure they aren't just setting me up for a stomach punch.
... It's too bad college football was cancelled this year. It would have been nice to watch CU and UVA try to make runs at the Big 12 and ACC. (THE WHOLE SEASON WAS CANCELLED!!!! I'M ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE!!! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?)
... I've been listening to a lot of the Beatles lately. I can't say why... I just do this from time to time. I've been watching a lot of youtube clips. Fun stuff. I think it started when I read a Rolling Stone article of why they broke up and that spiraled into fascination with the older days when they were on top of the pop world.
In fact, here's a great old clip from their last live performance as a group.
Although I enjoyed reading the book, older styles (and translated works especially) can make for some difficult reads. I probably spent five times as long reading this book as any others this year.
Still, the story was brilliant, the ending simple but meaningful and the characters were deeply thought-out.
I will be reading Brothers Karamosov before the end of the year. Some have called that book the greatest novel ever written. It's sub chapter titled "The Great Inquisitor" is famous, although I only know that it involves the Spanish Inquisition and Jesus.
I am most interested in how the book deals with the different paradigms of five characters who experience the same event. Dostoevsky's writing can be an acquired taste, but his characters are brilliant for their depth. I plan on taking some time to learn from the master while preparing my own story.
... I am currently reading The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown, or as I've come to call it "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." I enjoy the book because it's like watching a movie, it's fast-paced and it is interesting, but it's really the same formula without much change from his previous books. I guess the ending will tell for sure, but right now, I've seen this movie before. Most important, this book was a must-read after slogging through Crime and Punishment.
... The Denver Broncos are 4-0 and, God help me, I don't know if they are any good or not. The offense is horrible, but the D is really good. They are trying to reel me in, but I remain sceptical until I'm sure they aren't just setting me up for a stomach punch.
... It's too bad college football was cancelled this year. It would have been nice to watch CU and UVA try to make runs at the Big 12 and ACC. (THE WHOLE SEASON WAS CANCELLED!!!! I'M ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE!!! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?)
... I've been listening to a lot of the Beatles lately. I can't say why... I just do this from time to time. I've been watching a lot of youtube clips. Fun stuff. I think it started when I read a Rolling Stone article of why they broke up and that spiraled into fascination with the older days when they were on top of the pop world.
In fact, here's a great old clip from their last live performance as a group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)