Running a nation on “emote control”
Here’s a press release describing a recent article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review about the affects of emotion on national policy. The authors describe the two systems in the brain that are involved in decision making: the emotional system (which they call “emote control”) and the evolutionarily newer deliberative system. The emotional system is quicker but less flexible; its adaptive value lies in the way it helps us respond quickly to threats and opportunities. It’s the default system that our brain uses; the slower but more versatile deliberative system is called on in new situations or at times when the best response is not immediately apparent. The authors say that in politics and foreign policy decisions, people in government tend to use the emotional system rather than the deliberative in situations with a strong element of fear or anger (e.g., the threat to this country from terrorists). Not all emotions or emotional goals or rationales are bad, of course, but the point is that both systems, the deliberative and the emotional, need to work together for effective decision making.
This highlights something that bothers me about the way American politics works: all it seems to take is a buzz word or a sensitive issue, fairly or unfairly presented, to bring about a knee-jerk response from voters and politicians alike, regardless of the true effects of their choices. And, as this press release concludes, politicians are sophisticated at pushing people’s buttons and manipulating them emotionally. This is nothing new, of course, and it’s bothered me for years, but it seems more prevalent these days. In particular, I’ve seen several analyses, including thia article by a clinical psychologist about how Bush uses fear and intimidation to manipulate people. What’s the point of having a more sophisticated brain structure that permits rational thought about long-term consequences if we collectively let ourselves be dragged around by our hind-brains?
