The new issue of Foreign Policy Magazine has an interesting essay by Daniel Kahneman, a former Nobel Prize winner in economics. In the essay Kahneman points to known factors in human psychology to explain why the hawkish view of a given conflict is usually viewed by leaders as more favorable than the more dovish or pragmatic view. It is interesting to consider the points he makes in light of many current conflicts around the world, including Iraq and the impasse between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
National leaders get all sorts of advice in times of tension and conflict. But often the competing counsel can be broken down into two basic categories. On one side are the hawks: They tend to favor coercive action, are more willing to use military force, and are more likely to doubt the value of offering concessions. When they look at adversaries overseas, they often see unremittingly hostile regimes who only understand the language of force. On the other side are the doves, skeptical about the usefulness of force and more inclined to contemplate political solutions. Where hawks see little in their adversaries but hostility, doves often point to subtle openings for dialogue.
As the hawks and doves thrust and parry, one hopes that the decision makers will hear their arguments on the merits and weigh them judiciously before choosing a course of action. Don’t count on it. Modern psychology suggests that policymakers come to the debate predisposed to believe their hawkish advisors more than the doves. There are numerous reasons for the burden of persuasion that doves carry, and some of them have nothing to do with politics or strategy. In fact, a bias in favor of hawkish beliefs and preferences is built into the fabric of the human mind. [Link]
This is interesting because most of us like to believe that before leaders make decisions they seek advice from a variety of smart people, reviewing all the facts, regardless of their preconceived notions. Many competent decision-making organizations even set up a red team/green team approach to pick apart opposing view points over major decisions. And yet, as many of us have seen, the use of force somehow ends up being the preferred course of action.
About 80 percent of us believe that our driving skills are better than average. In situations of potential conflict, the same optimistic bias makes politicians and generals receptive to advisors who offer highly favorable estimates of the outcomes of war. Such a predisposition, often shared by leaders on both sides of a conflict, is likely to produce a disaster. And this is not an isolated example.
In fact, when we constructed a list of the biases uncovered in 40 years of psychological research, we were startled by what we found: All the biases in our list favor hawks. These psychological impulses—only a few of which we discuss here—incline national leaders to exaggerate the evil intentions of adversaries, to misjudge how adversaries perceive them, to be overly sanguine when hostilities start, and overly reluctant to make necessary concessions in negotiations. In short, these biases have the effect of making wars more likely to begin and more difficult to end. [Link]
Take a look at the next excerpt and you’ll see that such psychological insight is quite applicable to blogs as well :)
Excessive optimism is one of the most significant biases that psychologists have identified. Psychological research has shown that a large majority of people believe themselves to be smarter, more attractive, and more talented than average, and they commonly overestimate their future success. People are also prone to an “illusion of control”: They consistently exaggerate the amount of control they have over outcomes that are important to them—even when the outcomes are in fact random or determined by other forces. It is not difficult to see that this error may have led American policymakers astray as they laid the groundwork for the ongoing war in Iraq. [Link]
I’ll admit it. When on SM I do suffer from an illusion of control. Maybe that’s why I can no longer function in the real world. I can’t ban people in the real world.
This essay will be especially interesting to consider in light of the coming decisions over Iraq, as well as Kashmir, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and the list goes on. Will the doves ever fly? Not if our brains have anything to say about it apparently.
NPR also has a good audio summary.
