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]
<
p>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]
<
p>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]
<
p>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.
<
p>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.
This almost seems like a continuation of your post on free-will vs. pre-determination. Is the “illusion of control” something like the illusion of will?
BTW-I highly doubt that you “no longer function in the real world”. 🙂
This explains why so many people waste buckets of time on relationships that continually produce conflict without peaceful resolution as well. Keep hope alive and all.
rationality is bounded. one problem psychology has is that humans think they “know it all” because of their intuitive psychology, so it is really hard to get people to take the isnights of cognitive science seriously.
I don’t think this applies to Indian government. We always try to take the dove route.
Former Nobel Prize winner? Did they take his away? 🙂
I think it was Hegel who said – ‘Minerva’s owl flies at dusk’ … we comment on stuff with the benefit of hindsight. We have NO idea if a particular course of action will prove to be the right one later (we may use our common sense, but war .. well do we have enough data points?) – if it fails we label it as an ‘escalation of commitment’. If it succeeds – well, the hard work paid off.
And if you look up all the biases Kahneman and others have listed … it will be difficult to do anything at all. The hot hand phenomenon in basketball, for example, is considered a bias; but it is also possible that due to the cheer from the crowd, the player gets in the zone, in the flow.
Our only hope is the entrepreneur who takes action will be compassionate, and kind to other animals.
Personally, I’m a Dove by day and a Hawk by night.
Extrapolating from numerous arguments I have had with friends and enemies I would argue that if politics at higher levels were played in a similar way to more local politics (home, office, school etc..) then stating arguments in a fact based and technical manner has a far greater potential than rhetoric based on lines of country, ideology. this is to be expected since attempting to state a case in terms of “democracy is superior therefore…” or “our system is superior therefore…” has not the slightest effect on an representative of the other side whatever that may be provided they are fully convinced of the validity of their position. the hawk view in these cases then prevails as the final arbiter at closing any such argument. I would also argue that the concept of “loss of face” is vastly different depending on the culture and that more than anything leads to unilateral policies. It seems even politicians are not immune to “loss of face” and a hawkish approach is seen as a silver bullet for it. Let it not be said that I am a naive idealist – only that I am with Plato in arguing that those who rule should be the philosophers:-) hmmm…makes me wonder what fact based position would have convinced Saddam to give up his misguided opposition to the worlds number one hegemony? Perhaps consulting Bejan Dharuwalla and being given an accurate forecast of his impending doom?
I agree.
I happened to pick up a hard copy of the previous issue of FP (Nov/Dec). In the FP memo-“ How to save the Neocon’s” by J. Muravchik he states that Bush has to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office. The article goes on to say we need a “global circle of intellectuals and public figures who share a devotion to democracy”. Ahmadinejad scares me. However I don’t get why we [America &Co.] still maintain that democracy = I love USA? If one man, one vote always equal love for America why do we still have the electoral college? A cynical part of me thinks that’s just the cover story (fight for democracy)- the real story is the original story–it’s all about the limited resources and making sure we have continued access to them.
Because democracy doesn’t = “I love the USA”. Democracy = a government based on popular sentiment. Given the current popular sentiment in much of the world, that certainly does NOT translate to waving American flags. As we’ve seen in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and even Turkey.
I dearly hope that this kind of research will encourage hawks to pause a minute before accusing those of us who are actually willing to step back and ask for evidence or proper logistical planning before engaging in military action of “hating our country”, etc…
But I doubt it.
Neal:
Do you have any links to show hawks accusing doves of “hating our country?” I know Ann Coulter did this, maybe Sean Hannidy, but anyone else?…the more prominent the better.
In fact, as far as I can tell, doves like to question the patriotism of hawks. Here’s some examples via rich lowry:
Teresa Heinz Kerry: “creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits”
Wes Clark: “I don’t think it’s patriotic to put on a flight suit and prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier looking for a photo op,” he railed. “We have a president of the United States who did not do his duty to take care of America. If you’re patriotic, you do your duty.”
“Kind of crazy. Not patriotic. Not smart. I don’t think it was a patriotic war. I think it was a mistake, a strategic mistake, and I think that the president of the United States wasn’t patriotic in going after Saddam Hussein.”
“He simply misled America and cost us casualties and killed and injured America’s reputation around the world without valid reason for doing so. It’s not patriotic; it’s wrong.”
4.Howard Dean said that Attorney General John Ashcroft “is not a patriot.”
I look forward to your counter-examples.
India has been ‘tagged’ pathologically ‘dove’-ish country. And as regards Kashmir,I don’t see any country that would: 1.Pull back troops from the land fought hard & right..and go to UN to resolve the issue. 2.Do nothing about the largest refugees within ones own country ( Kashimiri Pandits). 3.Earn independence – the Dove ka Baap way – a.k.a non violence. ……. the list goes on.
Its a foregone conclusion in India, amongst the populace..that India tries to please everybody (both domestically & Internationally)…doesn’t have spine…and is one useless DOVEish country.
To take Iraq, North Korea,Iran, Cuba and Kashmir in the same breath does not sound right. Replace Kashmir with the beacon of fredom..the US of A. It might sound better.
Imperial President
Bush Renounces Smears, But Will Cheney, Rove and Mehlman Follow?
Bush’s patriotism smear
Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Bush’s Critics
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Calls Out Lynne Cheney For ‘Sniping At My Patriotism’
Nice try KarmaByte. I notice you didn’t provide any examples of offending quotes but allow me to review the links.
2.This is a DNC site, I’m not interested in what Dems think are examples of their patriotism being questioned, but in the actual words.
3.Greenway’s piece has no examples of patriotism being questioned, the worst here is Jean Schmidt stupid “coward’s cut an run” which she apologized for.
Nothing objectionable in Rummy’s comments. Accusing Dems of being neville chamberlain’s is not questioning their patriotism, just judgement.
Apparently Lynne Cheney thinks it’s wrong to run tapes of terrorist shooting american soldiers. This is arguable, but I think she crosses the line when asks wolf if he wants america to win.
So some pretty good examples, but nothing that justifies talk of a new McCarthyism. After all, falsely accusing someone of being a McCarthyist is itself McCarthyism.
What makes you so sure the hawkish position is not the most pragmatic one?
I don’t think I went there (nor did Neal). That’s your ghost.
Bush and co have been pretty good at PR and pretty successful at pushing their policy using hawkish tactics, but not in implementing those policies. They just don’t like being questioned.