Before we get into a true discussion, I thought it would be useful to lay out a few definitions defined in chapters two and three of I'm Right and You're an Idiot:
Advocacy Trap: A "trap" we find ourselves in when "we come to believe that people who disagree with us are wrongdoers" - it "causes us to become locked into such a foe stance that we lost sight of our purpose" - prevents us from "[collaborating] to solve global or systemic problems" because it makes us treat one another as enemies
Stance: A term revolving around the "attitudes we hold toward another person or group" - it also "allows us to describe others as friend or foe, from bosom buddies down the spectrum to bitter enemies"
Cognitive Dissonance: "A state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent" - it "keeps us committed to our beliefs - especially beliefs that we have acknowledged publicly, that we have a commitment to or that we have invested time, effort and money into maintaining"
Justification of Effort Phenomenon: A phenomenon that "explains why people who invest in a project that tanks will generally find a way to defend that mistake rather than face the alternative" - involves the idea that with "the more time, effort, money, and public face we attach to any of our decisions, the harder it is to say...'I really should've changed my mind'"
Naïve Realism: "The built-in bias that we are not biased" - "allows people on two sides of any issue...to each think that their view is the only reasonable one"
--
With these definitions out of the way, I want to first discuss the idea of advocacy traps. This term is first mentioned in chapter two of I'm Right and You're an Idiot. When reading through this chapter, I found myself chuckling at how ironic parts of it were. For example, we read that "to escape [the circle of blame created by the advocacy trap], an advocate needs to stand up and walk away." My train of thought immediately went to politicians - I, for the life of me, cannot imagine seeing a politician standing up and walking away from an opposing viewpoint. Instead, my mind immediately sees the politician staying seated and beginning what will eventually turn into a disrespectful screaming match. In other words, I found this "solution" to the negative impacts of advocacy traps to be extremely unrealistic. Sure, this may be a reasonable solution for the general population; however, I truly doubt that the advocacy traps found in politics can ever be appropriately resolved.
Take a look at the image below:
Although this is a photograph, showing only one moment in the discussion of Trump and Biden, it is clearly not a respectful discussion.
However, while we're on the topic of Trump and Biden, if you watched their presidential debate you will most likely agree that it was a discussion far from respectful. This ties into another concept from chapter two of I'm Right and You're an Idiot: "But people who monitor their attitudes toward others, and don't allow resentment to boil up, can actually hear what others are saying." From just skimming through the mentioned debate, it is very clear that neither Trump nor Biden had any intent to truly listen to what the other had to say. Through constant interruption, mockery, and overall disrespect, both Trump and Biden showed viewers an excellent example of advocacy traps: neither man wanted to put their own beliefs aside in order to truly hear what their opponent was saying. Not only does this show the idea of advocacy traps, but it also shows the negative impact these traps have on public discourse.
Lastly, Trump and Biden show an example of a previously mentioned term - "stance". Because of their predispositions toward each other, their debate was doomed from the start. If these men didn't have such negative stances towards one another, perhaps their debate may have been, at least, a bit more productive and respectful.
--
The next idea I would like to discuss is that of self-justification and cognitive dissonance.
I feel that, in politics, the concept of self-justification is extremely prevalent. We read that "people with the highest self-esteem have the most trouble accepting the evidence that they made a wrong decision, did something harmful or are holding an outdated belief." Due to the high self-esteem that I assume politicians have (due to their need to be "pleasing to the eye" and their habit of being the center of attention), I feel as though self-justification is a massive issue in politics. Politicians can be considered people who find a good self-image a necessity. To support my claim of its prevalence in politics, I'd like to mention the following quotation from chapter three of I'm Right and You're an Idiot: "[Self-justification] is a self-protective, unconscious mechanism that allows us to keep our self-image intact." In other words, I believe it to be a crucial aspect of a politician's survival in the world of politics. If a politician's actions, words, or views proved to be incorrect, they may feel as though they have no other choice but to lie in order to protect how other politicians and citizens view them; however, they may not necessarily be aware that this is what they're doing because of self-justification's "unconscious" manner.
Something that may be a decent example of self-justification is the video of Sean Spicer that we watched in class. If you need a reminder, the video can be found below:
This, I feel, is an example of both Spicer's self-justification, alongside his self-justification of Trump's part. Spicer can be seen defending Trump's claims regarding the crowd size at his inauguration. Although we may assume that he knows that he's blatantly lying about these facts, there's a good chance that he has genuinely convinced himself that these "facts" are the truth - through the constant repetition of his defense, Spicer is showing his ever-growing need to protect both his and Trump's self-image.
This may be a stretch on my part, so let me know if you think my example is relevant or insufficient.
--
Finally, I'd like to pose a few questions:
1. Because of how prevalent we know advocacy traps are, do you think that you occasionally, or frequently, fall victim to them? Are advocacy traps something that you come across more often than not? How do you escape them or, if you don't, how do you think you could?
2. Do you think that you fall victim to the concept of self-justification? Do you know that you do? What do you think the solution is to recognize this occurrence? Is there one?
I really like how you incorporated all of those terms from "I'm Right and you're An Idiot" (again, I don't know how to do italics in the comments) into your discussion. I think an advocacy trap is very easy of all into, especially when we have been trained to "fight for our own voices" or "independence." This ideology forces to think that our own beliefs are correct, forgetting that there are other beliefs out there as well. Although I feel like I am more willing to listen to the other side, I definitely have moments where it is hard to understand someone's perspective. I think the best way to "escape" an advocacy trap is to just allow yourself to listen to others while also attempting to provide your own insight int other matter. That might prove a challenge in itself, but the more we can progress, the better.
I think we all fall victim to self-justification. It is hard to realize that you're wrong, so we find it easier to become defensive over our own beliefs rather than admit that we made a mistake. The best way to understand that you are making a self-justification is to realize that you're feeling defensive over your beliefs and are trying to protect them. If we simply acknowledge that we are angry over the matter, then we could change how we respond to the matter instead of using self-justification.
1. I think that in the age of visual and immediately gratifying media, all of us are not immune to advocacy traps. Because I try to always think of the other party with sympathy and put myself in their shoes--a family member could have passed, they could have trauma, or just a bad day, etc,-- I don't often fall victim to advocacy traps, since I often feel ridiculously guilty just for making the other party upset in the first place. I'm a total self-blamer, but even I've fallen into this trap sometimes. For me, the other side becomes a bad guy when they know they're being selfish and choose that path always, anyway, indicating their lack of empathy or worldliness. To escape the trap, we have to sit down both parties (an experience I've had before) and set high-running emotions aside. Give the other party a sincere, non-generic compliment. This works really well! It's a great way to see the other party as more of a respectable person and escape profiling them into your enemy.
In terms of self-justification, I'm such an indecisive person that I often choose a path and regret it when it's too late. I almost stuck with a career path that would have made me miserable with eight more years of education post-college, but that was the first time I actually caught myself before I fell down that hole! I changed focuses a little later than ideal, but the solution for me was to write down a list of pros and cons for the path I was following, and because the cons outweighed the pros, I decided that it was okay, albeit a little embarrassing, for me to backtrack on my choice and start a different path.
I think the best way to escape all of these biases in general is to simply think about others and yourself more often as friends. Be a friend to yourself, and adopt that stern voice that tells you that you were wrong--like a friend would--if you're under self-justification. Similarly, instead of having enemies and being defensive, remember that few people are actually evil or malevolent, so jut treat them like a friend, as the novel said. (Just give them some respect and trust that their motivations aren't evil).
A joke (that isn't even funny) I spent way too long figuring out how to make in photoshop. Look at this man. This is Noam Chomsky. He appeared in chapter 8 of I'm Right and You're an Idiot in which he offered insight regarding the institutional nature of problems within corporations. He explained that companies are hyper focused on short term gains and are unconcerned with anything happening outside the market. Except, of course, politics. Companies will spend hefty amounts of money to ensure that laws and policies do not hinder them and/or directly benefit them. But I am not really here to talk about all that; I wanna talk about the man, the myth, the legend: Noam Chomsky. So here is the only first section: its all Noam. This class marks the third time I have encountered Noam between my studies at BSU and Ivy Tech, and I sincerely doubt it will be the last. My first encounter with Noam was in an Anthropology course I took at Ivy Tech. Turns out Noam has a lot to ...
I really like how you incorporated all of those terms from "I'm Right and you're An Idiot" (again, I don't know how to do italics in the comments) into your discussion. I think an advocacy trap is very easy of all into, especially when we have been trained to "fight for our own voices" or "independence." This ideology forces to think that our own beliefs are correct, forgetting that there are other beliefs out there as well. Although I feel like I am more willing to listen to the other side, I definitely have moments where it is hard to understand someone's perspective. I think the best way to "escape" an advocacy trap is to just allow yourself to listen to others while also attempting to provide your own insight int other matter. That might prove a challenge in itself, but the more we can progress, the better.
ReplyDeleteI think we all fall victim to self-justification. It is hard to realize that you're wrong, so we find it easier to become defensive over our own beliefs rather than admit that we made a mistake. The best way to understand that you are making a self-justification is to realize that you're feeling defensive over your beliefs and are trying to protect them. If we simply acknowledge that we are angry over the matter, then we could change how we respond to the matter instead of using self-justification.
1. I think that in the age of visual and immediately gratifying media, all of us are not immune to advocacy traps. Because I try to always think of the other party with sympathy and put myself in their shoes--a family member could have passed, they could have trauma, or just a bad day, etc,-- I don't often fall victim to advocacy traps, since I often feel ridiculously guilty just for making the other party upset in the first place. I'm a total self-blamer, but even I've fallen into this trap sometimes. For me, the other side becomes a bad guy when they know they're being selfish and choose that path always, anyway, indicating their lack of empathy or worldliness. To escape the trap, we have to sit down both parties (an experience I've had before) and set high-running emotions aside. Give the other party a sincere, non-generic compliment. This works really well! It's a great way to see the other party as more of a respectable person and escape profiling them into your enemy.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of self-justification, I'm such an indecisive person that I often choose a path and regret it when it's too late. I almost stuck with a career path that would have made me miserable with eight more years of education post-college, but that was the first time I actually caught myself before I fell down that hole! I changed focuses a little later than ideal, but the solution for me was to write down a list of pros and cons for the path I was following, and because the cons outweighed the pros, I decided that it was okay, albeit a little embarrassing, for me to backtrack on my choice and start a different path.
I think the best way to escape all of these biases in general is to simply think about others and yourself more often as friends. Be a friend to yourself, and adopt that stern voice that tells you that you were wrong--like a friend would--if you're under self-justification. Similarly, instead of having enemies and being defensive, remember that few people are actually evil or malevolent, so jut treat them like a friend, as the novel said. (Just give them some respect and trust that their motivations aren't evil).