Attribution

Attribution is studied in social psychology. It has to do with how people view the motivations of others. In other words, what does John thinks motivated Fred when Fred kicked John's dog. Two broad categories of motivation are "internal" and "external." If Fred kicked the dog because he's a bad person who hated John because John has such a nice dog, that's an internal motivation. It's something within Fred that motivated him. If he kicked the dog because the dog bit him, that's an external motivation. He kicked the dog because of something outside of himself, i.e. the dog's attack. Americans are much more likely to attribute internal motivations than are some other societies.

The above information comes from The Psychology of Human Behavior, lecture series from The Teaching Company, taught by Professor David W. Martin, professor of psychology at North Carolina State University.

What follows are my thoughts:

A big difference between liberals and conservatives when we quarrel over foreign policy is that conservatives attribute internal motivations to people, while liberals tend to attribute external motivations. A liberal is more likely to believe that people are all basically the same, and external factors shape their actions. A conservative is more likely to think that anybody who does not like him is a bad or evil person who is only motivated by a desire to cause harm wherever and however he can.

Thus an Iraqi fighting against the Americans is defending his country if you are a liberal, but he's a crazed terrorist if you are a conservative.

Look at W's rhetoric. Everyone he doesn't like is an "enemy of freedom," or "just hates us because we're free," or "envies what we have." In W's view these are bad people who would cause as much harm as they can regardless of the historical context (assuming W could understand such a concept). If you attribute internal motivations to your enemies, war is the only way to deal with them. And W's supporters are likely to be those people who buy into the belief that our enemies are motivated by internal factors. Such people cannot consider the possibility of external motivation because they have never studied the historical context of other cultures and so these do not exist for them.

A liberal, being inclined to attribute external motivations, is more likely to look at the historical context and think about approaches that take historical context and present reality into account. I.e., Why did this person do that, and what can we do to change the conditions that led to his actions?

But liberals and conservatives are operating under such different paradigms that in the national debate they just talk past each other, as we see constantly here in FHOP.

 

There's also the fact that for nearly a century the West has imposed and supported despotic dictators on the Arabic world after defeating them in a world war for commercial control over the world. We have seen to it that the people of the region have no say in the affairs of their own government. And for slightly over half a century we have supported Israel in an ongoing conflict that has left countless innocents dead.

When you kill people, their surviving loved ones will hate you forever.

Conservatives see only the present conflict, and they see their enemies as evil people who want to kill us for no reason but their own evil hearts. Liberals are able to comprehend that the conflict has historical roots, and that we are paying now for a century of oppression.

And so we talk past each other, which was really the point of my original post.

As for people's attitude toward violence as a way to solve their problems, I am an atheist, but I have more respect for the teachings of Jesus than most Christians do! There's an irony!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 23 2006, 12:46 AM) [snapback]365958[/snapback]</div>

Before WW II the area now in dispute was part of the Ottoman Empire. For the most part, the three major religions lived side by side and more or less got along together.

You assume that if we got out of their countries and their lives and allowed them to govern themselves and allowed them to do what they like with their oil, that they would still want to kill us. I think they'd be too busy straightening out their own affairs to give us much thought, except as a customer for their oil.

Yes, when I read Jesus's words, I conclude that he was a pacifist. Most Christians reject Jesus's words in favor of Paul's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 23 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]366102[/snapback]</div>

Taken in the contest of Jesus's attitude toward money, I take his reply to have had the tone of "Shove Caesar's money up Caesar's a$$."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 23 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]366102[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I remember the Khmer Rouge. I was draft age (and refused) during the Vietnam war. Remember how the Khmer Rouge came to power? Cambodia had a neutral government under a prince whose name I cannot spell, but which was pronounced [see-ha-nook]. On the advice of Henry Kissinger, Nixon ordered the "secret" and illegal bombing of Cambodia, which destabilized and toppled the prince, who the U.S. managed to replace with a puppet who was too weak to hold power, and the Khmer Rouge took over.

As so often happens, a bunch of genocidal maniacs comes to power after the U.S. topples a neutral government, thinking we can control a puppet. We do it over and over. And then we insist that we need to go in and take out the maniacs. In order, of course, to replace them with another weak puppet who will do our bidding until he's replaced by more maniacs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 23 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]366102[/snapback]</div>

Not specifically regarding pacifism, but Paul said that governments are instituted by god and that people have an obligation to serve and obey their government. I don't believe Jesus ever said such a thing, and I don't believe he believed such a thing. I know Christians who believe that Jesus's entry into Jerusalem was an attempt at a nonviolent overthrow of the Roman government.

Of course, according to Paul's words, Saddam Hussein was put in power by god and deserved respect and obedience. Likewise all the other governments of the world, whether we like them or not. Including loony George III, who our founding fathers rebelled against, in violation of Paul's edict. Fortunately for anyone who thinks our form of government is better than Britain's, the founding fathers were not Christians. Personally, I think the parliamentary system is more democratic than ours.