Rational analysis

I am becoming increasingly driven to flights of frustrated fury by claims of 'calm rational reasoning' supporting a particular opinion. And by 'opinion' I mean the irrational selfish insecure bias dressed up as informed opinion by people who can find a way to interpret their meanness as a rational evidence-based response to the world before them.

Some points to consider:

• Is our conscious mind the captain of our ship? Can we assume that our conscious thoughts and decisions are sourced and analysed with pure fully informed reason, with adequate knowledge of circumstances and consequences?

- The evidence suggests not at all. We are driven by our biology and the vast amounts of our brains that don't get used in conscious thought. It is a bitter pill for people who like to think they are in control of their thoughts and actions. On a meaninglessly superficial level - indeed we do exercise some control, but anything requiring a rational thought process will end up with the same result no matter how you try to dress up your clever rationality. This of course cannot be tested scientifically without a time machine.

• In the absence of rationality how are we to respond to a complex world that requires us to make decisions, and where we like to opine to those who will listen (or read)?

- A book by Malcolm Gladwell called 'Blink' suggests that we should rely on an informed intuition. However, Gladwell's conclusion relates to the gut feeling of experts in their field of expertise - on something that is knowable. Unfortunately the crystal ball world of public policy is rarely afforded the circumstance where the impact of policy instruments and their outcomes is truly knowable. Sometimes history will provide some clues, but often not.

The Northern Territory Intervention is a case in point of how public policy was driven by rationality, itself driven by hidden prejudice - hidden to those supporting the actions - not to the victims of the policy. And yes, they are victims. Reports have highlighted that the meagre health improvements in the populations targeted are so heavily outweighed by the catastrophic social, emotional and spiritual damage to these societies that this intervention will be remembered as another vile attack on indigenous populations by heartless ignorant colonials.

Rationality from the minds of the social and cultural elite is a futile tool in devising strategies to assist indigenous populations. Intuition by an expert is most likely the answer (the rational case will of course follow as it would for any course of action). The key to developing this expertise is to spend time listening and learning from the people themselves - not a three day visit to remote townships for a round of consultations. This will take time and thought and energy. And for those to be given in adequate quantities the policy makers must care enough. But that care is often quashed by rationality.

What are you afraid of?

As reported late last year, and now published - brain structure is predictive of political tendency in over 70% of subjects tested (n = 90).

Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12, 231-242 (April 2011)

The key findings were that those deemed most conservative (self identified) had larger amygdalas (the part of the brain associated with the fear response and aggression). Whereas those who considered themselves more progressive had larger anterior cingulates (the area of the brain used for problem solving and dispute resolution).

The main question is the chicken-egg dilemma. Did environmental factors shape political views thus moulding the brain, or was the shape genetically determined?

Either way, the findings add weight to my ever increasing body of evidence that demonstrates that conservative politics (social and economic) is driven by fear - not by a transparently rational evaluation of objectives and instruments. I use the word 'transparent' because the fear drive is so insidious in conservative politics that it's role in shaping (often aggressive) responses is mostly denied.

Further - it is this hidden motive that creates the belief that 'progressives' have a hidden agenda of their own. To paraphrase someone wise "we see ourselves in the world" and "we hate ourselves through other people".

So the next time you think Tony Abbott might have a point or decry the need the for a price on carbon (come on, it is triple bottom line accounting finally), or even having a moment of introspection evaluating your political tendencies - be honest with yourself - what are you afraid of?