Posted on 01/11/2007 11:32:40 PM PST by america4vr
Why are hawks so influential? The answer may lie deep in the human mind. People have dozens of decision-making biases, favor conflict rather than concession. A look at why tough guys win more than they should. . National leaders get all sorts of advice in times of tension and conflict. But often the competing counsel can be broken down into two basic categories. On one side are the hawks: They tend to favor coercive action, are more willing to use military force, and are more likely to doubt the value of offering concessions. When they look at adversaries overseas, they often see unremittingly hostile regimes who only understand the language of force. On the other side are the doves, skeptical about the usefulness of force and more inclined to contemplate political solutions. Where hawks see little in their adversaries but hostility, doves often point to subtle openings for dialogue.
As the hawks and doves thrust and parry, one hopes that the decision makers will hear their arguments on the merits and weigh them judiciously before choosing a course of action. Don’t count on it. Modern psychology suggests that policymakers come to the debate predisposed to believe their hawkish advisors more than the doves. There are numerous reasons for the burden of persuasion that doves carry, and some of them have nothing to do with politics or strategy. In fact, a bias in favor of hawkish beliefs and preferences is built into the fabric of the human mind.
Social and cognitive psychologists have identified a number of predictable errors (psychologists call them biases) in the ways that humans judge situations and evaluate risks. Biases have been documented both in the laboratory and in the real world, mostly in situations that have no connection to international politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
Because we be BAD.
Well if it is in the fabric of the human mind, then why do doves exist to give advice at all? Please, hawks win because "the world is governed by the aggessive use of force" as Rush would say.
If there are any aggressors at all, then there have to be hawkish people to stop them because dovish people are, well,....dovish. By the author's own admission, no one listens to doves, so why is dialogue even an option?
We must harness the power of embryonic stem cells to pacify the mind of the theo-con.
/moonbat mode off
Hawks eat doves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.