The Price of Loyalty to the Tribe

Imagine generations ago, a member of a tribe realized that praying to the god of irrigation didn't make any difference but actually digging trenches from the nearby river did. He even worked out when the trenches should be dug and when they should be closed off, who would do the work, and how much this predictable irrigation would increase crop yields. This benefit would of course make the tribe healthier, support more children so the tribe became larger, and make this irrigation pioneer one of the great men in the tribe.

But of course his great insight was just as likely - perhaps more likely - to have left him alone on the plains, ostracized from the tribe for questioning the beliefs that held the tribe together.

Innovations might make life better but being in the tribe makes life possible.

It's kind of a miracle that anyone has the courage to speak out. Because being right is a consolation prize when you're standing out on the plains, facing the lion alone.

Once Upon Time (1998), Republicans and Democrats Had Nearly Identical Views on Climate Change. Then it Became Political

Up until 1998, Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to believe that climate change resulted from human activity and was already having an impact.

And then it became political. A decade later, Democrats were almost twice as likely to believe that climate change was real.

As it turns out, Democrats aren't smarter or better educated than Republicans. Nor are Republicans more scientifically inclined than Democrats. Randomly select a member from either party and you're about as likely to get someone who couldn't explain their way out of a rain storm. Or for that matter, about as likely to give you a cogent argument based on science. (Note that actual scientific experts, however, are not divided on climate change. I'm making a point about the average layman, the voter who can swing an election.)

Once climate change became political, though, it became a matter of identity, of being in the club. If you have lots of Republican friends, it becomes increasingly awkward to argue for climate change. By contrast, if you hang out with Democrats, it is hard to argue that climate change is not such a big deal.

I think its true that - outside of scientists, philosophers, and prophets - very people seek truth at the expense of alienating friends and family. Most folks would rather hang out with actual people than be alone with ideas or facts. It's peer pressure that seems as likely to shape our beliefs as an objective look at the facts. And now the argument is not scientific: it's an attack on you and your group. To change your belief might mean alienating you from your peer group. That's tough to ask of anyone, unless your peer group is fellow scientists, philosophers, and prophets.

[Last note: the Gallup numbers since 2008 haven't changed much. It's now 79% probable that a Democrat will belief in climate change. Republicans are unchanged at 41%.]

Policy Failure Is a Failure of Empathy - Musings, Part 1 in a series

It might be that all policy failure is simply a failure of empathy.

Tribes have emerged in America and it is becoming more difficult to create public policy because these tribes spill across traditional geographic boundaries. It has become more difficult to create the cohesion needed to, say, reduce poverty or create public works programs that engage people in something like the common good.

It is unlikely to occur to people who can’t relate to each other to even formulate public policy that suggests a common fate. And yet it is becoming more impossible to escape one another.

Empathy may not be an act of compassion. It may be that empathy simply shows awareness. We are all in this together.

Globalization and Tribal Nation

Since 1989, the NFL's revenues have grown by more than 6X, to over $6 billion a year. Major League Baseball and the NBA have also steadily grown, fueling in turn a sports reporting and analysis industry that has benefited companies like ESPN, Fox Sports, and the major networks.

What has driven demand for sports? I think it's obvious that we're wired to want "us vs. them" situations - to take a side in a conflict. We want something visceral, something engaging, something that smacks of violence and tribal warfare. The problem is, in a world increasingly global where former enemies (or at least those we didn't care about) are now trading partners, there is a dwindling opportunity for such situations to arise in the natural world. Gone are the days before the birth of agriculture when 15% of the population could expect to die in physical conflict. Such situations are gone, but the genes that helped us to survive this period are not.

Into this void of the modern age stepped professional sports, offering us a fix for our tribal impulse. We have an us vs. them. We have conflict. We have clear winners and clear losers. And, thanks to stadiums and broadcasting, the experience of a few can be shared by many, the vicarious thrill and frustration packaged for easy consumption by those of us whose daily lives are not the sites of any great drama or such clear rules and score keeping.

In an age when abstract, global dynamics define our lives, and vague goals define success or failure, professional sports gives us a means to feed those parts of our psyche that felt most at home in kilts or loin clothes, a time of tribal chiefs and the ability to see one's community around a single camp fire. 15 to 40 men on the field or bench, success clearly defined and important, outcomes decided in the space of hours rather than decades. It's a chance to feed one's inner warrior without the risk of blood shed. It's modern sports.

Professional sports - making the world safer for primal impulses.