The Illusion of Choice: From Diet to Suicide

There is a seemingly compelling logic to the notion of personal human responsibility, particularly for the conservative way of thinking. When Tony Abbott, Australian Prime Minister, says that people are responsible for what they put in their mouths and no-one else, people nod compulsively. The same can be applied to the poor, drug takers, the jobless, refugees jumping on leaky boats and so on. Taking the cake for the most disagreeable case for personal responsibility though goes to Scott Morrison, Immigration Minister, in response to the asylum seeker ‘choosing’ to commit suicide. In absolving the Australian people of responsibility, he sagely pointed out that it was the asylum seeker who chose to overstay his visa. Apparently it is all about choice, and more about that later.

I have to admit to having had similar fleeting ideas when wearing my psychotherapy hat and working with patients who were making bad choices. How easy to simply say that they just need to decide differently, to choose more wisely. Luckily the moment is short, a burst of frustration that passes and we move on to more important things.

This is yet another example of humans attempting to simplify the complex. Instead of looking at phenomena in detail and getting all the facts, we find the easiest potential answer. Sadly it is often the wrong answer because of this oversimplification and because we base our answers on beliefs, our attitudes, fears and values rather than facts. Solutions such as criminalising drug taking, processing refugees off shore, removing welfare, having children and school teachers carry guns in schools (in the US of A), increasing fines, increasing gaol terms and the death sentence are all classic examples of failed solutions. A part of the problem is that the right answers are often counterintuitive despite overwhelming evidence of what works. Humans are not great fans of the facts.

With respect to responsibility of the ‘what you put in your mouth’ kind, the oversimplification forgets that in order to make a choice one has to have options. As a psychotherapist, it was my role a lot of the time to help people discover more options, then they can make a choice. Then it could be up to them to decide whether to do this or that. And sometimes they chose not to change: disappointing perhaps but clearly a matter of choice.

Maybe the options are not clear when one is caught in a trap, such as domestic violence or in a cycle of poverty. Perhaps a person is popping chips and lots of sugar into their mouth because they do not really understand the dangers and need more education. Habits are not so easy to break and are very enduring-even Prime Ministers have bad habits that they don’t change. Many habits are bad for us but when you can’t see past a wall of trees how can one imagine other possibilities? Governments can take a role in educating the public, providing options, without creating a ‘nanny state’-another compelling terms that captures the imagination of the unthinking. Governments can make enlightened policy based on the evidence. It’s called leadership.

Some behaviours are driven by chemical forces in our brain. Compulsive behaviour such as gambling and other addictions are of this ilk.  There are lots of others. This doesn’t mean the behaviour is acceptable, just that we need to think more carefully about how to change it and that choice is not as simple as it seems.

So to the Scott Morrison lesson in empathy for 2014. I wonder what options we left that refugee. Fleeing from a country that wanted to kill him, caught in the hopeless situation of endless detention, appalling conditions, and no future. I have worked with people who have wanted to kill themselves, and some who eventually did so. When one has lost all hope then there are no options. No capacity for choice.

Choice is not a simple matter. Like much of human psychological and social behaviour it is incredibly complex and needs complex solutions. Some of which may seem counterintuitive and illogical: especially to the conservative brain that tends to think in black and white.

The Conservative Mind and The Human Condition

Reading Cory Bernardi’s book, The Conservative Revolution, recently so I could write a  review, http://nofibs.com.au/2014/01/15/cory-bernardis-ideology-stewarthase-book-review/, stirred me for a few reasons. The chief of these was that it provided some fascinating insights into the conservative mind. Being a psychologist I am interested in minds, and this one is worth exploring.

Let me state from the outset that I am a fan of the thesis that humans are largely hard wired with a tendency towards conservative or to liberalism. I’m also a Darwinist, and I like to think myself to be a scientist. It is my belief that we should be clear about our biases although I hope that my bias towards science has a moderating effect the others. Mostly, however, I’m a pragmatist.

There is some evidence for the view that there is a conservative brain and there is, as Bernardi would call it, a ‘leftie’ brain. However, it has to be said that in politics at least, there seems to be a greater tendency towards conservatism than liberalism in these so called leftie groups. So I am uneasy with distinguishing too sharply between the idea of left and right in politics. Everyday life is a different matter and the main concern here.

Like most human traits a person sits on a conservative-leftie continuum and can either be at the extremes on either end or anywhere in between. Those at the extremes will almost certainly not change their views, no matter what the issue. There will be some who will vacillate between a conservative view and a liberal view depending on the topic: these swingers are in the middle. Even some clear liberals will have a leaning towards being conservative on some issues. Genetic predisposition is modified by experience. And, as we have seen repeatedly, and especially during the last couple of years in Australia, it can be mediated by the opinions of others-the influential, the media and our politicians.

Conservative thinking has a habit of appealing to what I will call the human condition. That is, our predilections to behave in particular ways. The notion of simplistic solutions is a good example. As Daniel Kahneman points out in his book, ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’, our natural tendency is to accept simple explanations and adopt simple solutions even for complex issues because it takes less effort. If we have to think deeply about issues we tire easily and experience stress. We are hard wired to seek simple solutions. You are probably shaking your head in disbelief but there is a ton of evidence to show that this is true. One result of this tendency is that we are easily manipulated by the media and politicians. For centuries, before mass communication we were manipulated by gossip, things we were told, particularly by those who have influence over us in some way: people we admire or those with power for example.

One example of simplistic thinking is the way in which refugees or asylum seekers were demonised by the Murdoch-Abbott consortium in recent times. Let me also add, for a balanced view, that the solutions offered by the Rudd and Gillard Governments were no better. The Australian people bought into the negative and wholly simplistic campaign. ‘Turn back the boats’ is a simplistic solution to a complex humanitarian problem that will have repercussions for Australia for years to come. It is also a racist position but more about that later. We like to think we are a fair-minded, liberal people, but this has been shown to be untrue. We have a conservative mind that is tied up with our human predilections.

Another example is that most people support the idea that throwing people in gaol is the cure for bad social behaviour, even though it has been shown repeatedly not to be a deterrent. Conservative minds are more likely to stir up public opinion in favour of harsher sentencing and are usually successful because it appeals to our need for simple solutions-even if they don’t work. The death penalty, even though most don’t support the idea, is another fine example of conservative thinking. The same can be said for the ‘war on drugs’. Most people support the idea and are easily stirred up to agree with the notion that drug takers should go to gaol. But the science shows that this approach is counterproductive. We know that drug taking, if treated as a health issue and decriminalised, becomes less of a social and criminal problem. But this is counter- intuitive to what we like to believe. There are many other examples of the way in which we are capable of irrational thinking. Kahneman provides a number of examples if you'd like to look further. We are a very irrational species despite what we like to think.

Stereotyping is perhaps the most common form of ‘thinking fast’ or short- circuiting opinion making. Humans are extremely good at this and, like fast thinking in general, stereotyping makes sense from a biological point of view. It saves time and energy that can be used for more important survival activities. Our propensity to stereotype enables us to be easily manipulated by others including the media and politicians. The media, in fact, deliberately use certain, often emotional, words and phrases in text and headlines to get us to think in a certain direction. Recipients of welfare, the poor and socially disadvantaged, refugees (read illegal immigrants in the right type of newspaper) and, of course, indigenous people are easily stereotyped in negative terms. Women are similarly treated, although mostly in more subtle ways.

Humans are naturally racist for, again, good biological reasons. It takes careful thought and effort for us to overcome this tendency, and many do. However, the marginalisation of indigenous people and immigrants in Australian society, is ongoing, despite the best efforts of the more enlightened. As I mentioned above, the refugee issue is largely a racist issue and racism, for the time being, has won.

The conservative mind taps into this human predilection and appeals to people to marginalise minority groups. The conservative mind believes in survival of the fittest, a white, patriarchal society based on a historical past, that what happens to us is the result of personal responsibility, laissez-faire economics, and the cult of the individual, beyond that of community. Couple this with a Christian moral code (although many conservative minds are not Christian) and the conservative mind wants faith to intersect with political policy and to guide societal behaviour in areas such as abortion, homosexuality, single parent families, same sex marriage, and surrogacy, for example.

The conservative mind, particularly that associated with the Christian church and the more so the Roman Catholic variety, are anti-science. The climate change issue is an excellent, but not sole, example. Humans do not like change and we don’t like fear: both make us very uncomfortable. So, we eagerly accept the conservative message that everything is all right, that we don’t need to worry, that the scientists have it all wrong. It means we can rest easily in our beds with no need to do some difficult things. No need to change our lifestyle and habits, pay for our profligacy, some uncertainty. Conservative minds don’t like change and neither do most people, so we are easily swayed despite the strong science, by single alternative and comforting views: it’s called cognitive dissonance, if you’d like to read more about it.

Humans are self-interested. Yes, we are community minded but only in as far as it protects our interests, our family, our off-spring. Belonging to a group is essential to survival. We are capable of acts of selflessness, although altruism is based on reciprocity and kinship. So, when we are asked to accept some changes to our lifestyle because we need to shift from fossil fuels, we baulk. Taxing the mining industry can easily be turned into a big ogre by simply talking about the threats to jobs, energy costs and the economy in general. Humans are easily spooked by change and by a risk to our standard of living, our self-interest. The conservative mind believes in a laissez-faire economy. One in which anything goes to promote big business. It is survival of the fittest. And the conservative mind knows how to manipulate the human need for self-interest.

It needs to be said that there is nothing wrong with these human predilections. They are based on reasonable biological drives and it has not been that long since we were running around in the swamp in small tribes trying desperately to survive in a harsh environment.

But a civil society exists because people can think through things like stereotyping, racism, issues of disadvantage. It can only exist when we stop taking the simple option and recognise that complex problems need complex solutions, that may not be easy to undertake: that there my be some pain. For us to have a civil society we need to go beyond the gossip, to seek out the facts and check sources, to eschew media that manipulates, to challenge what we hear and see, and to be prepared to change our point of view. It needs us to go beyond our natural tendencies, to not necessarily buy-in to the conservative mind.

Wisdom is the capacity to overcome our natural drives and instincts, to think carefully and compassionately, to challenge ourselves.

When ideology and informed decision-making collide: The Galileo Effect

The 2013 Gonski educational reforms were arguably one of the most important policy achievements in Australian education since the Dawkins reorganisation of higher education in 1988. Certainly they were critical to the future of school education in this country. For the uninitiated, the reforms were the result of the deliberations of a politically bipartisan and highly informed panel. While their findings were far reaching, the central focus of the reforms was about equity and a national funding model that would ensure greater educational equality for our nation’s young. The former Labor government implemented policy based on the panel’s findings at the end of their term in office this year. Largely the funding model has been accepted by most states including those with non-Labor governments such as NSW.

Yesterday the new Liberal (this means right wing in Australia for any international readers) Federal Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne announced, to all intents and purposes that these reforms would be scrapped after the first year of funding. This, despite a commitment before the election that the reforms would be accepted, although this sort of back flip on pre-election promises is normal in politics around the world, so no surprises there. There is a case I think for something like a pre-nuptial agreement to be applied to politicians in the event that they don’t keep their vows!

What was really disturbing though, is that when questioned Pyne said that the Gonski reforms had nothing to do with equity, which is exactly what they were about. Worse though was that when pressed he said that he did not believe that equity was a problem in education in Australia.

Making decisions on the basis of beliefs rather than facts is indeed part of the human condition and well known in mainstream psychology. But one would expect better from our leaders. Or should we? They are human after all.

So, leaders are just as prone to make decisions based on ideology than they are on the findings of an expert panel with access to all the facts and information in their decision-making process. Leaders then can ignore all that and let ideology rule.

As well as education, this government has already waged war on scientific establishments and funding in its short term in office, shutting down many peak bodies or reducing their capacity. Human influenced climate change, despite the evidence, does not exist for this government-presumaby it is God's will. Is it no surprise to find that the leader, PM Tony Abbott is an apparatchik of the Catholic Church and has as his mentor Cardinal Pell, an extremist. It’s the Galileo Effect.

You would think that we could choose people to lead us who are better than this.

Why Julia Was Stalked

In a recent talk to the Victorian Women’s Trust Julia Gillard, former Australian Prime Minister, said that we don’t really know why there was such an ugly reaction to having a female Prime Minister. On the contrary, I think we do know although I’m not sure people will like the rather confronting answer.

I’m not often taken to psychoanalytic explanations of human behaviour but in this case I am going to dabble a little in an effort to understand a deep and unconscious part of the human psyche. This is not uniquely Australian but this phenomenon is waning in other parts of the world, where here it continues to erode female participation.

From a sociological point of view it is pretty clear how women are viewed in Australian society. One does not need to be a Hugh Mackay to see that women are poorly represented in the boardroom, the senior public service and in government. The Abbott ministry is a fine example of how we value women. The lack of parity in women’s wages, the still contentious issue of paid maternity leave and the stand of an all male clergy denying women the right to abortion, are all continuing examples of female inequality and the myth of egalitarianism. And this is more apparent for the conservative mind that doesn’t like change, preferring instead the status quo, the natural order of things.

The denigration of women is still a national pastime in the conversations that men have between themselves about women, through rape, proliferation of pornographic sites, the use of women in advertising and modelling, the sexualisation of young girls, scantily clad pom-pom wielding women on football fields and in bikinis in the ring on fight night. The list could go on. The underpinning theme is that women are sexual objects, they are weaker than men, second-class citizens.

The denigration of a female prime minister was an extension of this understanding of women in society. Having a female prime minister created an awkward conflict in the minds of men and women alike. Our social idea of what women are and should be clashed with having a women in the highest office in the land, our leader. This conflict resulted in what psychologists call projection in which we project our turmoil outwards on to others to deflect it, to make it the fault of someone else. This mechanism is common in daily human life and reduces our stress and anxiety. The result in this case was blame, an outpouring of anger outwards as we try to cope.

But there is more to the explanation.

Scratch the surface of Australian society a little more and we find that women take more responsibility for housekeeping then men, even if they have a job. They are more likely to shoulder the major burden of child rearing, even while working full time. Most women are exhausted by having to take on two roles as well as sharing in bread winning. While this is getting a little better it is clear that men still have a better deal of family life than women. Many women view their husbands as the ‘additional child’ in the family who needs to be cared for and nurtured in the same way as the other children. He is free to go to golf or play cricket, have a hangover and suffer in bed, and have a few at the pub while dinner is being cooked or the good wife is child minding.

The bit about projection above may have been a bit uncomfortable and I’m sure there is still some head scratching about that explanation of some of our behaviour. But this next bit is likely to be hard to take.

Humans are raised in households, as they have been for many centuries, which are male dominated. As I mention above women shoulder most of the burden of housekeeping and child rearing, even while having to work. There is a clear delineation of duties. Mum tends to be the disciplinarian, the person who brings everyone back to reality after playtime, they get things done such as bath time and teeth cleaning. Mums make the kids eat their broccoli and brussel sprouts. Dad tends to be, still, a more playful character, more fun. And because he is not involved so much in child rearing, a welcome diversion. It is evident to children that Dad is meant to be in charge.

Even more interesting is the way in which, still, boy children are given an easy path through childhood than girls. Boy children are feted, sometimes very subtly and not even consciously. Boys will be boys and have far more freedom than girls, who are loved and nurtured but expected to be far more passive and watched over rather than let loose.

So, it is my contention that while we love our mothers dearly, there is also a sense that they have their place, that they are meant to be present, to be nurturing. For some there will also be resentment, often hidden deeply below the surface, for those moments when we were force-fed the broccoli or when her love was not immediately available. And, of course, a mother’s disapproval is hurtful: we want her attention and love all the time, unconditionally.

A female prime minister, for some people, will cause even more conflict. They may harbour deeper resentment than normal and this is an opportunity to express it in what appears to be an acceptable way. Some may be confused, unable to deal with what is a huge ambiguity for them and respond with anger at their turmoil. This coupled with the social view of women inherited from the middle ages, of which Ditch the Witch is a powerful metaphor, enables people to express their anger openly.

In short, for some, Julia was a convenient, justifiable target. Sadly, those that stalked her may never understand what motivated them. Even more saddening is that Australia in the twenty-first century could be so psychologically immature.