Elephant or rider? intuition or reasoning? reaching the "other side" w/o argument...

There is an interesting new book, which Jeff Walker, introduced in an earlier blog, was kind enough to send me, "The Righteous Mind"; Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.  Haidt's earlier "The Happiness Hypothesis" was very successful.  Both books draw upon cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary anthropology and contemporary psychology.  Haidt is  provocative as is the book; it will cause some "discomfort" for each/all, but IMHO, it gives many useful insights for "reaching the other side" in our increasingly polarized world.

As we face complex situations fraught with divergent and polarized views, we wonder about how to proceed, with "cognition" or "emotion".     

Jonathan Haidt
NYU

Cognition is the processing of information from our psychological processes.  This includes "higher" cognition such as conscious reasoning and "lower" cognition, which includes sensory processing and memory retrieval.  If we look closely, we see that our emotions are not "simple" or "clean" - they quickly associate with cognition as sensory input is processed.  Sound arrives, is processed/heard - analysis starts quickly w/the brain deciding if this is an important/dangerous/useful sound and then if it should be discarded, or attended to.  This may be followed by physical changes to support flight-or-fight behaviors, like increasing heart rate, etc.  Emotion turns out to be inseparable from information processing.  

The distinction then is not between cognition and emotion, but between "intuition" and "reasoning"; whether "reasoning/secondary consciousness" leads, or "intuition/primary consciousness" does.  There is a huge difference in processing capability of these two consciousness as shown at left. 

Secondary consciousness
atop primary consciousness

This can also be visualized as a "rider" and an "elephant".  The "rider" is "reasoning, secondary consciousness"; the "elephant" is "automatic, intuitive, primary consciousness" including emotion.  The elephant ran the show, alone, successfully for a long time, evolutionarily, with an operating system with many upgrades that was exhaustively "field tested".  

When language came along 200,000 years ago, "secondary consciousness" manifested w/the ability to process symbols.  It is our beloved "I/ego/the rider", with its charming non-stop, self-referential "blah, blah".  

George Armitage Miller
Princeton

Secondary consciousness developed as the graphical user interface (GUI) for primary consciousness for problem framing, planning, analysis and reporting.  However, secondary consciousness can only handle  7 +/- 2 discrete items at a time, across all cultures, languages, etc.  This was discovered by cognitive psychologist George Armitage Miller, whose paper is one of the most highly cited in the history of psychology.  

The elephant did not create the rider on a whim.  Like the line in the movie, "Hannibal", "it seemed like a good idea at the time".  It does many useful things like making/recalling memories to create possible scenarios for the future.  This enabled the elephant to make better decisions to achieve pleasure and avoid pain (well, that was the plan).  It also helped in learning new skills and technologies, like FB and bungee jumping.

Our species, the most social primate with huge neocortical real estate devoted to "social issues", was in dire need of a "spokes(wo)man" for the elephant.  No other primate has this need as you'll never see two chimpanzees carrying the same log; no other primates have the ability to organize large groups to do anything (good news/bad news).  Chimpanzees, as discussed in the "non-dual awakening - evolutionary step backwards? or next step forward?" post, do not even have a language, so what could a "spokes(wo)man" say?  

Unfortunately, the spokes(wo)man rider doesn't even know what the elephant is really thinking.  Therefore, the rider's  #1 job is fabricating after-the-fact explanations for what the elephant did and discussing what it might do next.  (Much like "What the congressman really meant to say was...")  Once we had language and could gossip, "reputation" determined whether we were "in" or "out" of the group (and whether we survived); the rider became a full-time public relations firm.    

Another factor in discussions w/the "other side", is that we make first judgments rapidly, and are very reluctant to change our minds, or to gather evidence that might challenge those judgments.  The founder of experimental psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, formulated a doctrine of "affective primacy", the small flashes of feeling that prepare us to make our "approach or avoid" decisions.

These affective reactions, faster than emotions, "set up" the emotions through "affective priming" which gets the elephant to lean left or right.  Feel what just reading "joy" or "sinful" feels like and how fast it is...Within 200 milliseconds we like or dislike something without even "knowing" what it is.  This activates the amygdala to trigger an emotional reaction before the neocortex can even process the event.  (LeDoux, J.  1996, The Emotional Brain).  Almost everything we look at triggers that tiny flash of affect.  Additionally, the more times we see something, the more we like it; it's obviously not dangerous as it didn't hurt us last time.  This "exposure effect" is a basic principle of advertising.

When looking at political candidates, Alex Todorov of Princeton found that folk make "competence judgments" in 1/10 of a second.  Within the first second of meeting another person, the elephant begins to lean, which significantly influences what happens next.  Intuitions come first.

David Hume

Therefore, as far as "reaching the other side" w/o argument, which do you think would be more useful;  a) have the riders argue with each other "logically", or b) realize that the elephant is really in charge and appeal to its emotion/intuition?  Well, as the famous 18th century Scottish philosopher, David Hume (cool hat, David) stated:

      And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.  

If you want to change folk's perspectives, talk to their elephants.  Use your intuition, not your "rational" mind.  Avoid direct confrontation. Convey respect, warmth and openness.   Develop "social persuasion" before you attempt "reasoned persuasion".

Unfortunately, our "righteous minds" in an argument shift rapidly into combat mode.  As Jonathan Haidt says "The rider and the elephant work together smoothly to fend off attacks and log rhetorical grenades of our own...impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the team, but no matter how good our logic, it's not going to change the minds of our opponents if they are in combat mode too."

If you can't somehow develop the ability to feel the other person's point of view, you'll never change their mind.  Additionally, if you really do feel their point of view, your own mind may change as well.  "Empathy is an antidote to righteousness...it's very difficult to empathize across a moral divide."  (Haidt).   Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

Talking to the elephant
not the rider at the
Great Temple of Thanjavur

Talk to the elephant first.  If you ask folk to believe something that violates their intuition, they will try to find a way out, a reason to prove you wrong, and will normally succeed.  It is possible to change the elephant's disposition.  The rider is not a slave, but more like an advisor.  The elephant will listen to "reason" through interactions with others, especially friendly others.