2007-03-01 - 9:15 p.m.

I made one of those newfangled "blogs" (mentioned below). You can visit it at oldgreedy.wordpress.com.

--

I'm thinking of starting to use a blog, mainly because I want it to be easier to make comments, and because I want to feel inspired to write more often. Maybe I'll have lots of short entries that I update more often, and maybe I'll try to get more people to read it, and chime in on whatever the topic is. I don't know. More to come.

I�m reading this fascinating book called �The Happiness Hypothesis.� It�s a borderline self-help/psychology book that goes the major themes of philosophy throughout cultures and compares them to how our brains are set up. For example, the conscious mind can be likened to a rider on an elephant. The elephant, which I suppose is something like the subconscious, is pretty much running the show, making decisions on its own, and the rider is along for the ride, playing an advisory role. And as I�ve learned from the last nonfiction book I read, �Guns, Germs, and Steel,� the elephant is apparently not a domesticable animal. But, come to think of it, it can be tamed, as Hannibal demonstrated, so maybe there is hope for us yet.

Anyway, another section talks about how we form opinions�basically we come to a snap judgment, and then try to think of or look for reasons to support them. Once we find enough reasonable opinions to support our ideas, we�re done. And though he hasn�t said it, I have a feeling that it�s the elephant, not the rider, who�s making the decisions.

How can you persuade someone to switch a position? You�re almost never going to do it by persuasion. There will never be some irrefutable piece of evidence that will persuade someone to abandon a core belief. They�ll just go looking for some new piece of evidence to support their position. And why am I trying to persuade this hypothetical person anyway? Probably not because it�s logical, but because it�s the direction my elephant is leading.

This model explains a lot about politics. Most of us are probably leaning one direction or another, for unconscious or unarticulated reasons, and we go searching for enough facts to make our views seem reasonable. I search for reasons that the Republicans are corrupt and the Democrats are not, and my father-in-law searches for reasons that global warming�s a hoax. Bush and Cheney search for reasons to believe the war�s going well. But really it�s our subconsciouses telling us what we believe. Republicans look for justifications to lower taxes, while Democrats try to explain why society needs social programs, when each would really believe these things if their reasons disappeared. I think we believe what we do for completely selfish reasons�because we want more money, or more safety. And we justify our self-serving motives by telling ourselves that what we want will be good for society too.

So how do I convince my father-in-law to agree with me? I wish there was some trick that would work when reasoning fails. But maybe it�s just as important to ask myself why I want to persuade him. Who�s to say my inner elephant knows better than his does?

But once you start to throw out evidence and reasoning as justifications for decision making, you can be paralyzed. What can any decision be based on but pure selfishness? Is there some rigid, objective system of decisionmaking that can be employed that does not allow one individual to make selfish decisions without realizing it?

Perhaps we have to raise someone to be wise, selfless, completely devoted to his country, and aware of the needs of all the people in the country, and put them in control. I suppose that�s what elections are supposed to do.

previous - next