Letters to the Editor

• The Issue of Cognitive Development--Pt 2

  [Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  [cont] Applied to geopolitical reasoning, the framework of integrastive complexity yields:

  Table K-1.4

  Integrative Complexity

  Applied to Geopolitical Reasoning

  A person reasoning with a low level of integrative complexity would tend to:

  • Construct stereotyped images of ingroup and outgroups.

  • Attribute collective properties to members of the groups.

  • Argue in simplistic terms about geopolitical problems, only drawing conclusions from one relevant dimension.

  • Reject the need to consider the perspective of the counterpart in geopolitical conflicts.

  • Derive preferred solutions to geopolitical problems from an exclusive ingroup perspective.

  • Be highly susceptible to the values, opinions, and strategies adopted by perceived ingroup authorities.

  • Be unable to take a critical stand on conventional ingroup values.

  • Take ingroup values for granted, and regard them as universal and inherently right in a moral sense.

  • Attribute great importance to rigid boundaries separating inside from outside.

  • See solutions to geopolitical problems in either/or terms (win-lose).

  A person reasoning with a moderately low level of integrative complexity would tend to:

  • Recognize that an outgroup has a right of existence and a right to have a different perspective.

  • Reason in either/or terms, or in terms of compromises.

  • Be unable to think creatively about developing integrative solutions to geopolitical problems.

  • Be unwilling to consider non-conventional ideas about solutions to geopolitical problems.

  • Reason and act strategically in order to gain advantages in strategical games (orientation to bargaining).

  A person reasoning with a moderately high level of integrative complexity would tend to:

  • Be able to consider the perspective of the counterpart in geopolitical conflicts, and to calculate with the mutual influence and reactions from both parties.

  • Be prepared to reconsider conventional strategies and solutions in the light of new information.

  • Be interested in the perspective of the other party in conflicts in order to arrive at reasonable solutions.

  A person reasoning with a high level of integrative complexity would tend to:

  • Explore many different points of view before making decisions about strategies and actions.

  • Have differentiated and flexible images of ingroup and outgroups.

  • Take many different dimensions of the relationship between ingroup and outgroups.

  • Have a high level of tolerance for diversity.

  • Search for creative solutions to geopolitical problems.

  There's a lot of information packed into these tables, but one thing should be quite clear: folks like Ledeen are operating at low, or at best moderately-low levels of integrative complexity. (Most of the time they do not "Recognize that an outgroup has a right of existence and a right to have a different perspective.") Their view of liberals, as well as Iraqis, Muslims and all other "others" is extremely stereotypical. They go through the sorts of arbitrary inversions that Glenn has pointed out in this essay in part because they cannot conceptualize anything more nuanced.

  In their view, the only way to bring democracy is through war--because the Iraqis are inherently incapable of gaining it any other way. Thus, since liberals are opposed to wars for democracy, they must be opposed to brining democracy to the Iraqis. Therefore they must think the Iraqis are unworthy of democracy. Therefore they must think the Iraqis are untermenchen. Therefore liberals must be racists. Every step of this "logic" depends upon thinking in very narrow terms--narrow precisely in the sense captured by the integrative complexity contrsuct.

  A useful analogy for thinking about stage of cognitive development generally (including levels of integrative complexity) is in terms of added dimensions. The low integrative complexity thinker is thinking in just one dimension, the moderately low thinker is thinking in two dimensions, and so forth. The first reason this is useful is that one cannot perceive a higher dimension from the perspective of a lower one. The second reason this is useful is that connections are commonplace at higher dimensions which are impossible at lower ones. A third reason is that added dimensions create intermittent positions that cannot be perceived at lower dimensions.

  All these reasons come into play when we examine the flawed logic of folks like Ledeen and the rest of the neocon crowd. When it comes right down to it, they literally cannot understand what folks like us are talking about. It's not because they're stupid. Cognitive development is not the same as IQ. But the cleverest thinking in one dimension is simply no match for ordinary common sense in three.

  From the perspective of integrative complexity, I think two things are clear:

  (1) Any successful resolution of the problems we face in the Middle East depends upon thinking at the highest level of integrative complexity. That is the only place that solutions can come from.

  (2) In order to implement solutions that are arrived at on the highest level, we need a significant cadre of actors who are at least functioning at the next-highest level to play leading roles within all the different factions of substantial size.

  In short, there is simply no point in arguing over whose 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, or even 3-dimensional plan is best. Only a 4-dimensional approach is adequate to the problems that we face. But the main thrust of the neocon discourse--and the mainstream media that continues to follow it--is to keep us forever stuck at the 1-dimesional level. The attempted demonization of Nancy Pelosi shows how intensely they attack even a modest foray into 2-dimensional thought.

  Permalink Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:09 PM