The next decider
The election isn't just a referendum on ideology. It's a contest between two modes of thinking.
By Jonah Lehrer October 5, 2008
FOR THE LAST eight years, America has had a president with an audacious approach to making decisions. "I'm a gut player. I rely on my instincts," President Bush has said repeatedly. It doesn't matter if he's making a decision about invading Iraq, the intentions of a foreign leader, or pushing ahead with Social Security reform: Bush believes in the power of his intuition.Critics have lampooned this aspect of the Bush presidency. Comedian Stephen Colbert regularly mocks the approach with his invocations of "truthiness," or facts that are only true according to the gut instinct of the president;
Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward writes in his most recent book that "Bush's instincts are almost his second religion." While Bush's supporters see him as unwavering and resolute, these critics describe a president who is reckless and impulsive, willing to ignore any information that contradicts what he's feeling.The irony is that the eight years of the Bush administration have coincided with a growing body of scientific research demonstrating the power of human instincts, at least in certain circumstances. In fact, some studies suggest that when confronted with a complex decision - and the decisions of the president are as complex as it gets - people often do best when they rely on their gut feelings, just as Bush does.
However, it has also become clear that listening to your instincts is just a part of making good decisions. The crucial skill, scientists are now saying, is the ability to think about your own thinking, or metacognition, as it is known. Unless people vigilantly reflect on how they are making an important decision, they won't be able to properly use their instincts, or know when their gut should be ignored. Indeed, according to this emerging new vision of decision-making, the best predictor of good judgment isn't intuition or experience or intelligence. Rather, it's the willingness to engage in introspection, to cultivate what Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, calls "the art of self-overhearing."
This new research is especially relevant during the 2008 presidential election, as Barack Obama and John McCain appear to have starkly different approaches to decision-making.
McCain has been working diligently to distance himself from Bush, but he proudly places himself in the president's decision-making camp. "I don't torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can," he wrote in his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For." "Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint." In recent weeks, many political commentators have blamed McCain's instinctive decisions for costly political miscalculations, such as his decision to briefly "suspend" his campaign.
Obama's advisers describe a candidate who strives to make choices that are methodical, deliberate, and depend on a wide variety of information. As former congressman and current federal judge Abner Mikva says, "In all the years I've known him, I've never seen him emotionally angry. . . . The emotions never went into the decisional process." This has led some pundits to brand Obama as aloof and detached, unable to relate to the feelings and frustrations of ordinary Americans.The election, then, isn't merely a contest between two political ideologies. The two candidates also represent distinct cognitive styles, turning Nov. 4 into a referendum on the best mode of thinking. In recent decades, this same story has tended to recapitulate itself along party lines, with Republican candidates, such as Reagan and Bush, endorsing a "going with the gut" approach and Democrats, such as Carter, Kerry, and Obama, attempting to demonstrate a more cerebral style.
The emerging consensus among scientists, however, is that both approaches are inherently flawed. While our instincts and emotions can be astonishingly prescient, they can also lead us to disaster. And a more deliberative style brings its own set of problems, such as losing sight of the most relevant information and even a debilitating indecisiveness.
While the candidates bicker about the best way to make a decision - McCain has attempted to brand Obama as an effete elitist, while Obama has stressed the riskiness of McCain's approach - both men agree that being a successful president requires prudent judgment. When you're leader of the free world, the buck stops at the Oval Office.
And so, in a sense, the election comes down to this question: When the White House phone rings at 3 a.m., what kind of decider do you want to take the call?
Read the rest of this interesting article.
No comments:
Post a Comment