If it's an idea, how can you have one before you think it? If it's the result of something "noted" or perceived, how does it become fixed in the brain, as it apparently does, before it become conscious and a concept is formed? More important, how does it happen that preconceived notions come to direct behavior--behavior that more often than not turns out to be wrong and even self-destructive?
I'm asking these questions in the context of the hypothesis that people who refer to themselves as conservatives or neoconservatives seem to be, in my perception, particularly prone to acting on the basis of preconceived notions which, upon closer reflection, are often not borne out by experience. And yet they persist. Indeed, once you become aware of them, they seem to be very wide-spread (if polling is accurate and the Republican party base in the U.S. is made up of notion-driven conservatives, then it's about 20% of the adult population).
During the 2008 electoral campaign, it occurred to me that both John McCain and the man he hoped to succeed in the preeminent leadership position on the face of the earth are both instinct-driven individuals. Indeed, it was John McCain himself who spurred that insight by asserting in a campaign advertisement that Barack Obama's instincts are bad. It led me to ask, "in what way Mr. McCain?" and to hypothesize that he, or whoever wrote the script, actually considers being instinct-driven and non-reflective a positive. And, indeed, Mr. Obama himself eventually observed, albeit without overtly differentiating himself from Mr. McCain, that he likes to think before he acts.
Since instincts reside in the basal ganglia, where habitual behaviors (things we do automatically, without thinking) reside and, like an expert driver, the pilots of jets come to rely on their instincts to manage such a complex machine, it seemed logical that McCain, the fighter pilot, would consider the more nimble responses of the instinct-driven to be a positive; and the lack thereof a negative attribute. What seemed to be left out of consideration and what seemed increasingly evident in Mr. McCain's campaigning was the total absence of thoughtful reflection--i.e. thinking things through and evaluating results based on experience.
All of which has led to the current hypothesis that modern day conservatives are instinct-driven people who, perhaps out of habit or some physiological quirk, which inhibits the link between the basal ganglia and the thinking (executive function) of the brain, simply don't think before they act. That is, though they are fully capable of processing information and their memories are not impaired, there's no feed-back loop to inform and change their habitual behavior which, when it comes to social interactions, often comes out as reflexively negative.
Why are conservatives so antagonistic?
Presumably, being lodged in the most primitive (ancient) part of the brain, the instincts are mainly aimed at self-preservation--i.e. keeping the organism distant from danger and focused on sustenance. Which is actually what the instinctual responses, historically identified as the seven deadly sins (wrath, sloth, lust, greed, gluttony, envy and pride) in man, would promote in the state of nature where the individual has only himself to rely on. Which, in turn, suggests that the ability to form social connections is an add-on that's lodged in the cerebral cortex, the part of the human brain that's expanded and promoted an increase in the size of the human head to a size that many a pelvis can't accommodate--i.e. giving birth has become a laborious process because the human brain has gotten too big. Which might well account for some antagonism on the part of adult humans towards off-spring, in general, and the products of so-called "difficult births" in particular. Of course, there's no way to tell if conservatives are antagonistic out of a sense of self-preservation in response to the initial post-natal perception that their existence was not entirely welcome. There is a suggestion in studies of premature infants that, as a consequence of their incubation, some significant percentage exhibit social deficits as they grow older. It is also possible that perinatal asphyxia, which affects between 2 and 10 newborns out of a thousand, in a modern medical system where such records are kept, may be responsible for what appears to be a disconnect between the basal ganglia and the cortex. In other words, the conservative fixation both on the reproductive process and the anxiety about self-preservation may have a physiological basis. They are pro-life because at the very beginning, they felt threatened. And they're antagonistic towards women in general because they perceive themselves to have been unwanted and to have maintained their very existence through their own efforts.
Preconceived notion or prejudice?
I used to think that social antagonisms, especially those shared by a particular cohort or group, were induced, if you will, as a sort of low cost/no cost social glue--that people intent on keeping a group together found it convenient to rely on, often baseless, antagonisms towards some other group to create a social bond--i.e. the "common enemy" syndrome. Indeed, although the victims of such unwarranted antagonisms consider themselves unique and special by virtue of the exclusive behavior that's almost always associated with the antagonism, the reality is that unwarranted antagonisms can be found just about everywhere. They don't need to be fomented and are quite capable of springing forth on their own. Which suggests that cohorts of shared antagonisms are as likely to be created after the fact, as intentionally formed up--perhaps as haphazard as fandoms, though not random. Definitely instinct-driven.
That the instinct-driven assemble into groups seems rather obvious. That their behavior is not well thought out seems equally obvious. What seems less obvious is that, although the group is presumed, both by the participants and outside observers, to direct behavior--i.e. groupies are other, rather than self-directed--in actual practice that's not necessarily true. Groupies or groupers, as I've defined them before, being self-centered, only follow orders when doing so serves their self-interest. And therein lies a problem. To the extent that self-interest, rather than being based on real-life experience, arises from instinct-driven preconceived notions aimed at protection and self-preservation from non-existent dangers, any actions responding to what are essentially mis-perceptions are more than likely going to produce a detrimental result. Which is really ironic, when you think about it, and sad, since what conservatives want more than anything is to avoid being wrong. So, in the long run, if self-preservation wins out, they end up not doing anything at all. Which is how we arrive at the party of NO.
In the mean time, however, these instinct-driven self-referential, but lacking in self-awareness and, therefore, unconscious of other people's interests can do a lot of damage. While the antagonism they perceive in others is a figment of their own imagination, the retaliatory mechanisms of modern warfare accessible to their finger tips are incredibly destructive, as the relatives of millions of innocent dead can readily attest. This, unfortunately, is not hypothesis; this is fact.
Disproportionate?
As Representative Alan Grayson of Florida has recently observed, the U.S. in Afghanistan is targeting a fourteenth century civilization with eighteenth century tactics and twenty-first century hardware. Talk about disproportionate warfare. But, the reason it's a disaster isn't primarily because millions of innocents are killed prematurely. The disaster lies in the fact that a giant is waging war against itself--not just its imaginings, but its own members. In Richard Engel's Afghanistan:Tip of the Spear, the first casualties suffered by Bravo Company 126th Infantry in the Korengal Valley are caused by U.S. bombs and just last month the Air Force had to shoot downone of its "assassination by remote control" Reaper drones.
Accidents happen, but what else should we expect when warfare is disproportionate and the combatants, if not imaginary, definitely unequal? And, ironically again, the disproportion is not in the giants favor. He's in combat with himself without even realizing it.
U-2 pilot flies first combat sortie
Posted 10/14/2009
by Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski
....
Capt. Peter J. Gryn is a U-2 Dragonlady pilot on his first deployment from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., home of the famous plane that flies above 70,000 feet.
....
Because of how high the Dragonlady flies, pilots are able to capture signals and imagery intelligence on a scale like no other, said the squadron commander, Lt. Col. Kirt Stallings.
"U-2s map the battle space for combatant commanders at every level," said Colonel Stallings, a Houston native. "On a tactical level, we talk directly with troops to let them know what's ahead of them down the road. At the strategic level, we get the information leaders need so they can make better educated decisions."
Who's there to battle with at 70,000 feet? Moreover, there's nothing a U-2 can do to equalize the disproportion between people, who know from first-hand experience--by having been bombed, having their houses destroyed and digging their families from the rubble--exactly what they are fighting against, and people who only imagine terrorists hiding in the tree line or behind every rock and send missiles to "take them out." Don Quixote's giants were definitely less self-destructive. Twenty-first century preconceived notions are much more likely to be deadly.
***********
Addendum:
Yesterday's diary by gchaucer2 on Maureen Dowd's column prompted a rather lengthy comment from me and this diary is sort of an extension.
I have to admit that my own brain seems to sometimes come up with ideas on its own. Perhaps it's just a lack of irrational antagonism that makes the difference. And that may just be a consequence of having lived with someone for whom antagonism (along with envy, greed, and a certain indolence) was a constant, apparently for her entire 98 years.