Attribution bias creates political stagnation
With partisan divisiveness intensifying with each passing election cycle in America, stagnation becomes a more acceptable, even inevitable reality, both with regard to specific issues and general societal advancement.
As American college students preparing to enter the work force with more technological tools and resources at our disposal than any other group of individuals in the history of the world, it is our obligatory duty to at least attempt to understand why young people rarely listen to each other politically. We cannot begin to develop a solution to this obviously problematic status quo until somebody takes this step of attempted understanding.
At least one of the major sources of this consistently intensifying, isolated polarization that is infecting political progress is the simple fact that people no longer trust one another’s intentions. This idea could raise the question, “Why should we?”
The all too obvious fact is that this distrust is mutual. Therefore, it is innately preposterous and ultimately unnecessary. This distrust of intention is entirely unfounded precisely because it is ubiquitously consistent across party lines.
A psychology term known as “attribution bias” is frequently referenced in many foreign policy circles. This same concept exists and at higher levels today than it ever has with regard to partisan politics.
Judging the intentions of one another, whom one may completely disagree, as negatively intentioned is a distasteful, naïve practice from which progress cannot hope to be achieved.
The vast majority of human beings are well-intentioned. The same can be said of the vast majority of politicians. No American-elected representative intentionally strives to destroy America or lead the country into ruin.
While this may seem like an obvious statement, surprisingly, many Americans either have not spent much time in thought regarding intention and do not consider the good intentions of politicians, or they simply don’t believe politicians are well-intentioned. The latter condition is, unfortunately, a drastically misunderstood fallacy.
Generally speaking, elected representatives are all well-intentioned and want what’s best for the country. They differ ideologically based on their varying approaches to policy solutions. This affects the way they go about making decisions in office. Those who advance agendas that result in a negative consequence are simply ignorant of the character of their work. While the results of policymakers’ decisions may be nefarious, their intent almost never is.
While most politicians and bureaucrats are well-intentioned, some of the worst consequences in history have resulted from the best of intentions and the clichéd road to destruction is paved with them. It’s important, however, to understand that most people do have good intentions in mind when they make decisions.
Understanding why people hold the opinions and make the decisions they do is crucial to possessing a comprehensive perspective of individual stances on any particular issue at hand. So the next time an opportunity arises to interact with someone with a differing opinion, question their judgement, their reasoning, their understanding of the issue at hand and even their knowledge generally before even thinking about judging their intent.
