Lizard Brains
Category: Politics...
Posted Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 08:40 AM [GMT-6]

Much to chew on in this short essay by Greg Knauss. His premise is that the "political divide" we continue to face is caused not by conclusions reached after rational consideration, but rather from emotional "sub-rational" responses emanating from our "lizard brains."

I don't disagree that emotionalism is part of the problem, but to chalk it all up to sub-rational reaction is to reduce human mental processing to a mere caricature of what is actually an incredibly nuanced and complex phenomenon. A call for dispassion and reason in political discourse is admirable -- who could argue against it? -- but it's a bit condescending to suggest that those traits are currently totally absent on either side of the debate.

In reality, there's no real rational/emotional dichotomy in the way we process information and reach conclusions. Instead, there's a spectrum...a gradient...and both characteristics come into play simultaneously or in parallel or in opposition or in reinforcement. The point is that's it's not a binary switch, on or off.

But the real problem is the presupposition that all ideas should be given equal consideration, and that the we reject those bad ideas because we're feeling, not thinking. The fact is that some ideas just don't work on any level -- rational, emotional or anywhere in-between.

Greg points directly to the internet in general, and to blogs specifically as a prime culprit in empowering this shift to lizard brain processing. Blaming the medium for the message is easy to do, but it doesn't really help in understanding and solving the underlying problem (and it certainly lets the MSM off the hook).

In the end, while the goal of a rational and civil political dialog is admirable, the suggestion that we can achieve it by eliminating emotion and feeling is naive and unrealistic. The best we can hope for is a little more balance.

[Link tip to A Whole Lotta Nothing.]