When you encounter someone you find difficult to understand, you label him/her as 'being irrational' and everything easily makes sense.
Kids will be kids.
Boys will be boys.
Kim Jong Un is a fat dictating king
Putin is an evil dictator
Trump is an unwitting salesman
While we may settle for this kind of easy explanation in daily life, that will not get us far in the road to truthseeking (AKA graudating from grad school). Neither does it give us good dissertation topics.
Long story short, we must be extra prudent before dismissing someone as 'irrational.'
'Irrational' may result from either of the two scenarios: 1) one is misguided and misinformed(unintentional) 2) one chooses to look irrational(intentional). Often times, we assume the first scenario and neglect the possibility of the second.
For instance, for President Trump,
As far as he is promoting a profit-based world order in lieu of a norms-based order, whacko image works. Redesigning trade agreements; Increasing price tags for US forces overseas; people may think Trump is doing all this because he is someone who cannot calculate long-term soft power losses but only things that are materialistic. But what if this neo-isolationist policy was beneficial to America in both short and long term? Amidst a sudden change in international policy of the US that is bound to drain the US of its soft power, what if Trump is the one absorbing all the blame, and the rest of the United States does not lose much reputation or trust, all the while enjoying the short-term material gains from Trump's deal renewals? President Trump's coarse, undiplomatic image leads people to easily put Trump as the one to be blamed. With some media reports where the public can see misalignment between Trump and the Cabinet (e.g. the resignation of Secretary of Defense Mattis, or Secretary of State Tillerson) This belief is reinforced. In the grand scheme, Trump's supporters (presumably white working class) get more jobs, Trump gets the blame but still wins the office, Trump's domestic dissenters are neutrally affected from this equation, so it is a win-win-status quo. I would say this is a pretty fair deal. To top this off, the world loses trust towards Trump, but rather less to the rest of the United States. (see graphic below)
For China,
China had been largely underestimated by other nations by 1990s.
To fix this commonly-made fallacy, I will look into the unnoticed benefits of 'seeming irrational,' whereby people(mostly politicians), at times, choose to be irrational because of the unspoken, sweet, secretive benefits.
So, what makes people want to choose irrational over rational? What factors cause a society to have this tendency?
It is a result of hyper-connected, and hyper-compartmentalized trends in information flow. Compartmentalized communications system influences people's thoughts. Rightists are reinforced with rightist thought, Leftists with leftist thought, and so on.
---미완
시간이 흐를수록, 세계화는 국제적인 양극화를 (다극화를) 촉진하여 분열을 야기할 것임.
아시아 국가간의 경쟁,
국가 안에서 정당의 양극화
가족간 소통의 부재
왜? 이익집단이 있기 때문이며, 그 이익집단과 함께 집단이기주의를 하는 것이 더 이득이기 떄문이지.
결국에는 국가체제도 이익-driven의 원칙 아래 분열될 것이며,
사회계약은 다시 작성될 것임. 국가는 안전을 제공하고 시민은 세금을 주는 체제가 아니라,
내 이익을 대변하는, 내 생각이 유사한 사람들끼리 모일 것임. 국가 국경을 초월할 것임. 이 다양한 이익단체들은 한 지형에 공존할 것임. 그게 새로운 사회계약.
국가는 개인에게 보이지 않는, 체감하기위해서는 시간이 걸리는 안전을 제공해 주지만,
이익단체는 단기적인 눈앞의 이익을 가져다줌. 사람들은 눈앞의 이익을 더 좇으려 할것임.
경기 활성화 -> 장기적 가치 투자 -> 이타적 정책 지지
경기 악화 -> 단기적 가치 투자 -> 개인이익 지지
Kids will be kids.
Boys will be boys.
Kim Jong Un is a fat dictating king
Putin is an evil dictator
Trump is an unwitting salesman
While we may settle for this kind of easy explanation in daily life, that will not get us far in the road to truthseeking (AKA graudating from grad school). Neither does it give us good dissertation topics.
Long story short, we must be extra prudent before dismissing someone as 'irrational.'
'Irrational' may result from either of the two scenarios: 1) one is misguided and misinformed(unintentional) 2) one chooses to look irrational(intentional). Often times, we assume the first scenario and neglect the possibility of the second.
For instance, for President Trump,
As far as he is promoting a profit-based world order in lieu of a norms-based order, whacko image works. Redesigning trade agreements; Increasing price tags for US forces overseas; people may think Trump is doing all this because he is someone who cannot calculate long-term soft power losses but only things that are materialistic. But what if this neo-isolationist policy was beneficial to America in both short and long term? Amidst a sudden change in international policy of the US that is bound to drain the US of its soft power, what if Trump is the one absorbing all the blame, and the rest of the United States does not lose much reputation or trust, all the while enjoying the short-term material gains from Trump's deal renewals? President Trump's coarse, undiplomatic image leads people to easily put Trump as the one to be blamed. With some media reports where the public can see misalignment between Trump and the Cabinet (e.g. the resignation of Secretary of Defense Mattis, or Secretary of State Tillerson) This belief is reinforced. In the grand scheme, Trump's supporters (presumably white working class) get more jobs, Trump gets the blame but still wins the office, Trump's domestic dissenters are neutrally affected from this equation, so it is a win-win-status quo. I would say this is a pretty fair deal. To top this off, the world loses trust towards Trump, but rather less to the rest of the United States. (see graphic below)
For China,
China had been largely underestimated by other nations by 1990s.
What can be deduced from the case is 1) intentional or unintentional, irrationality brings benefits to the subject, 2) since it brings benefits, some may pretend to seem irrational.
To fix this commonly-made fallacy, I will look into the unnoticed benefits of 'seeming irrational,' whereby people(mostly politicians), at times, choose to be irrational because of the unspoken, sweet, secretive benefits.
So, what makes people want to choose irrational over rational? What factors cause a society to have this tendency?
It is a result of hyper-connected, and hyper-compartmentalized trends in information flow. Compartmentalized communications system influences people's thoughts. Rightists are reinforced with rightist thought, Leftists with leftist thought, and so on.
---미완
시간이 흐를수록, 세계화는 국제적인 양극화를 (다극화를) 촉진하여 분열을 야기할 것임.
아시아 국가간의 경쟁,
국가 안에서 정당의 양극화
가족간 소통의 부재
왜? 이익집단이 있기 때문이며, 그 이익집단과 함께 집단이기주의를 하는 것이 더 이득이기 떄문이지.
결국에는 국가체제도 이익-driven의 원칙 아래 분열될 것이며,
사회계약은 다시 작성될 것임. 국가는 안전을 제공하고 시민은 세금을 주는 체제가 아니라,
내 이익을 대변하는, 내 생각이 유사한 사람들끼리 모일 것임. 국가 국경을 초월할 것임. 이 다양한 이익단체들은 한 지형에 공존할 것임. 그게 새로운 사회계약.
국가는 개인에게 보이지 않는, 체감하기위해서는 시간이 걸리는 안전을 제공해 주지만,
이익단체는 단기적인 눈앞의 이익을 가져다줌. 사람들은 눈앞의 이익을 더 좇으려 할것임.
경기 활성화 -> 장기적 가치 투자 -> 이타적 정책 지지
경기 악화 -> 단기적 가치 투자 -> 개인이익 지지
댓글
댓글 쓰기