A common theme on Robin Hanson's Overcoming Bias blog is that we often do things for reasons other than we think or say we do. Of course, this idea isn't new. Paul Ricoeur coined the phrase "the hermeneutics of suspicion" to refer to a similar tendency in the works of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud (see Leiter 2004 for a recent overview). And Hanson himself draws on much research in psychology and economics to support his claims.
Once one comes to believe that our true motives are often hidden, it's easy to feel smug and superior. "Oh, you think that's why you did it? Wrong. I know why you really did it." In the past, I occasionally noticed and felt annoyed by this smugness in people enthralled by the works of, say, Foucault. Now, having come to find many of Hanson's points convincing, I sometimes notice the same smugness in myself.
While the idea is roughly the same, my reaction when "Continental" philosophers propound it, and when Hanson propounds it, is very different. Why is that? The idealistic explanation is that Hanson's reasoning is based on sound science, and I – enlightened being that I am – recognize this. The cynical explanation is more tribal. I already share some of Hanson's interests and views, and consequently it's much easier for me to identify with his claims.
In reality, I think there's some truth to both explanations. It does seem very plausible to me that Hanson has more robust science (e.g. evolutionary and social psychology, signaling theory) to back his claims up. At the same time, shared background and terminology makes it much easier for me to understand him.
But perhaps I'm just fooling myself?
No comments:
Post a Comment