The Harding effect and reason.

One of the things that I have hinted at over the last couple of days is that those of the left are in a spiritual war with those of Christ, because they see us as evil.

Not misguided, nor ignorant, although we are accused of that: but evil. For they see the progressive movement as correct, right and true: holding the Whiggish history, for it is in rebellion against both the liberal and Marxist forms of this: not realizing that in doing this they are moving towards a sure and fervent a worship of their identity and caste as any Hindu or National Socialist.

But this is not rational: it is visceral. It is based on feelings. SSM added this to a comment on her post about Betty Friedman’s inchoate rant that is the foundation of “second wave” feminism. It is worth noting that her politics have changed — as they should, with experience — but when young were driven as much by emotion as anything else.

My political evolution:

Childhood – What are politics? –>

High School – What are politics? Ew, you mean there are actually people who want to kill unborn babies? I’m against those people! I must be one of those Republicans. Or whatever. –>

College – If I’m a feminist, I’ll be one of the cool kids and I won’t have to feel so guilty about some of the poor life choices I’m about to make. And d@mn, that guy from the socialist Revolutionary Workers League is HOT. I think I might be a socialist, whatever that is. –>

20s/Graduate School – I cannot be a socialist anymore because I am in graduate school and will soon have to get a real job, where I hope to make lots of money. I will be a liberal democrat. That Bill Clinton, there’s just something about that rapscallion that warms my heart! –>

30s – Now I have quit my job to have babies and we are living on one income. Hey, why the freak do they take out so much money out of my husband’s check for taxes? Welfare for single mothers? You mean my husband’s money is going to support some other chick’s kids? Nuh-uh. Who hates taxes the most? OK, I’m a libertarian. Hey, and they like guns, too! *winning* –>

40s – I do not wish any longer to associate with these dope-smoking libertarians who seem to think that social chaos is perfectly fine so long as they have their personal property rights. Now, who is advocating for genuine authority and order? Monarchy? Anarchy? Are you people nuts? Am I really supposed to read 10,000 word-essays on this stuff? Well, okay.

At this point, I pretty much understand every point on the political spectrum because I’ve been every possible political orientation. On the other hand, women shouldn’t vote, so it really doesn’t matter.

Which brings me to what is best called the Harding effect. The urban myth here is that Harding was selected because he looked presidential. He did not have the qualities of a president: he could not lead, but he looked good, and he could read a script. And he was ineffectual.

A bit like this bloke. He looks good, and can give a good speech. But he had no track record, and he is ineffectual.

The Harding effect is an example of us using patterns of thinking or habits to approximate reason. Most of the time the man who is able to stand upright, look after himself, has credentials and can speak with expertise is competent. But sometimes he is faking it: however the only people who will be faked are those who want to be.

An equivalent is using this couple to promote charities. Mr Pitt is handsome: Ms Jolie is beautiful. They use their glamour (and their acting skills: both are quite good at their craft) to make money, and to promote charities they support. The latter is generally a good thing, and I have no doubt that they are sincere in this. But one of the reasons they got this support is that they were recruited into these roles when they were famous and, like SSM’s socialist leader, HOT.

For in this fallen world we cannot reason purely. We are not a pure creature of rationality — in fact we call people who are like that socially inept, and hold them either in pity, contempt, or like that comic creation Sheldon Cooper, as the fall guy for jokes. We work by habits, by short cuts: the Harding effect is a hack of these.

To a certain degree, one must appreciate the subtlety of these mental habits. It seems as though everyone is provided with practically the same mental habits, with some variations on strength and weakness of a sense between individuals. These heuristics work well enough to get individuals with very low IQ’s through life with an appreciable rate of success. An 80 IQ individual will never write a profound theoretical dissertation, but he is still capable of learning to operate complex machinery and programs, and to adapt himself to an incredible variety of social situations that require spontaneous integration with the group. Our minds act with more intelligence than we are consciously capable of expressing. The thing is, the majority of our brainpower is happening in the unconscious, directing reflexive processes and trying to procure the answers to the queries given it by the conscious.

The brain approximates reason, for approximation proves adaptive. The approximation of reason, however, is not the same as pure reason. This makes our reference to “pure reason” curious; whence our conception of it? How can we approximate the idea of a non-approximate form of thought? The task appears to be one of purifying approximate reason with nothing but itself.

Well, this society is falling, and in our decay we have drawn up the teachings that allow one to analyze and approximate reason behind us. The academy should be teaching the Greats: for the classical Greats were Plato and Aristotle; Cicero, Pliny and Josephus — read in the original — as was Augustine. One was expected to have Latin and Greek (which is why most science in the enlightenment, most theology, was written in Latin — everyone understood it). One was expected to practice self-discipline. The Stoics were held up as exemplars — which is a tradition that probably predated Augustine.

Modern Greats (or Politics, Philosophy and Economics) required that one read the writers and the philosophers of the Enlightenment, particularly the Scottish economists, the German Philosophers, and noted the pernicious influence of the French from Rousseau to Sartre.

Now they are all called “Dead white males” and suspect.

But this should not be so. We are called to discipline. For we can reason but imperfectly: but we are to be in a relationship with Christ, who stands in our place and has claimed us as his own.

Because we are not called to live by our glands, by what feels good, or following whomever looks glamourous or desirable, but instead for Christ.

Romans 12:1-8

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect.

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function,5so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. 6We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; ministry, in ministering; the teacher, in teaching; the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader, in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness.

There is a place for reason in Christ. For we need to carefully consider what our role is. Most of us are not going to lead: most of us will follow. For to lead in Christ is to be accountable for many, the serve many: only those who can do this without neglecting their own children and their own spouse should be allowed into this position.

We need to kill the apex fallacy — that all people are like the elite.

The are not. The elite are far more screwed up: require far more hand holding and psychological support. (Have a few drinks with any psych nurse or doc who has trained in LA. Many if not most of these stars, these successes, who are seen as glamourous, are severely damaged, and very fragile).

Instead we need to soberly account for who we are and what our role is. As a father, as a professional, as a layman: as a wife, as a mother, as a worker: if our job is licit (and yes, that includes most acting) we can do it to God’s glory, and make good out of it. But that requires three things: the use of reason to account the risks and benefits; returning to prayer so that God will guide us and we will not be blindsided by our habits; and a sober realization of our flaws, so that we avoid places where we are limited,and question our resilience.

Otherwise we will be played as surely as a needy woman in a pickup bar, or her male counterpart at Hooters. For there is more than one hack that is based subverting cognitive shortcuts that are usually adaptive.

_________

I don’t really think, by the way, that this happens in NZ. Our parliamentary system is brutal, and tests people fairly harshly before they get the confidence of their party and are allowed to lead.