<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>kind regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Todd</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa@newpaltz.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mailto:waluk@earthlink.net href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">G. Reinhart-Waller</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial>>> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative<BR>dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,<BR>a threat to shared assumptions that define a group<BR>against another.<BR><BR>This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience <BR>reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal <BR>or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you <BR>feel is apparent. This I need to hear!<BR><BR>Gerry</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>