Introduction
There are two fundamental problems that are manifested in essentially all human beings.
Before jumping in, it does bear noting that these opinions are mine. They have been formed over years of reading but I don't claim scientific support.
You may find that some of the arguments posed here are incomplete. Suggestions are solicited. My email is at the end of this page.
Why Write This
This does not go without mention: I do not pretend to be one of the very few that have discovered something and now shout it to the world. Rather I propose to bring the issue to the front of more people's minds. I hope that some or maybe many readers will consciously, at least occasionally, bring these concepts to the front of their minds and exert a bit of effort in applying them to our political and personal lives.
Jumping to Conclusions
Neuroscientists and probably other scientists have developed methods to monitor the human brain and detect many things about how we think. One of those things is that we make our decision long before we have all the facts. Implicit in this is that we make many if not most of our decisions with our emotional brains rather than the rational parts of our brains.
I strongly suspect that this was an asset in early human development. When there was a crisis, such as we detected, or even just suspected, that another predator was evaluating us as a meal, we had to act immediately. We had little to no time to ponder the situation and select from a menu of possible reactions. When we were a bit too slow to react, we were something's lunch and were no longer able to contribute to the genetic pool and have any descendants.
Things were much simpler then: He who hesitates is lost.
In todays world, we very seldom face those consequences. However, the fight or flight portions of our brains are difficult to retrain. We still retain those circuits that make immediate decisions.
Things are much more complicated now than many thousands of years ago. Now we are much better off when we ponder the choices for a bit before deciding. We change the previous slogan of: He who hesitates is lost, to something a bit less than a slogan but more accurate: He who hesitates is more likely to be right.
But to a large part, we seldom do that.
The second of the two problems compounds the first.
Side note: We really like our slogans. Even whey that are not entirely accurate, and even quite misleading, we do like them. I find that to be a problem.
Reluctance to Change
Return again to prehistoric times and our very early ancestors. For this let's be clear that I refer to the times before we developed a comprehensive spoken language. We were not able to tell anyone what happened to us yesterday, or even just a few minutes ago. We could not pass on specific knowledge to our offspring. We could teach them only by demonstration.
This means that we were not able to convey the concept of: That action that I, or someone else, just performed was wrong and for this reason. That was not possible.
Given that concept, the paramount need was to appear that we are correct. As a male, if most of the other members of the tribe think I am right in my behavior, that is what counted. Being right counted only for the immediate life and death situations. Appearing to be right was paramount in all the other situations.
The conclusion is that being able to change one's mind was not high on the list of things that helped us acquire breeding rights. Consequently, that is an attribute that is not foremost in our abilities.
If you disagree, watch young children who have learned a game with one specific set of rules. Then see what happens when a newcomer suggests a change. In most cases, either the newcomer adapts to local rules or is simply excluded from the local games. The children don't want new ideas, and generally and almost always don't want new ideas from an outsider. Republicans tend to think of Democrats as outsiders while the reverse is also true.
The result is that we are very reluctant to change our minds.
Put Them Together
When we put those to concepts together, we can see that changing the way we do things can be extremely difficult. Even if you disagree with my reasons, I think you can agree with the basic conclusion.
Here is one example from my personal past. I was a Lockheed Martin employee at Kennedy Space center in the years 199 to 2002. We were working on a new launch control system for the Space Shuttle. The project was proceeding slower than expected and was eventually canceled. Near the end, there was significant talk about some of the difficulties that the team faced. One concept mentioned by multiple people was that we could have worked much faster had we been able to ignore most of the demands of those already on the launch team, those with actual launch experience. Time and time again some of those people made it clear that <this task> must be done exactly <this way> and that would not hear of any changes. When presented with unassailable facts those people would say words to the effect: Well, that's just not right, it must be like <this>.
(Please read that with a heavy emphasis on the word "must.")
To be sure, there were many times when their experience provided valuable knowledge that could only be obtained by experience. There were very many more times when they just did not like change and would not hear of any alternatives.
Your Position
I now ask each reader to consider where you stand with regard to the stated positions.
Do you agree that these problems are part of human nature? If so, then you are probably the type of person that will try to reserve judgement until more evidence has been obtained and reviewed. You will probably be more likely to change your position in the event you discover an error in your thinking. We need more people that take that position.
I strive to be a put and keep myself in this category. There are some realizations to be considered.
Regardless of how many read this and agree, there will probably be many more that never give these concepts a first thought, much less a second thought, followed by a change in behavior. Those of us who do recognize these problems must consider all those that do not. They are large in number. They vote. They must be reckoned with.
I do not know how to best deal with this situation. I ask the readers who might know to deeply consider this problem and develop some possible plans of action. Create your own web sites of blogs and post them. Attend political gatherings and apply your concepts.
Regardless of what you do, we, the entirety of these United States, truly need your brainpower applied to this problem.
Flip Flopping
This is a problem with two distinct sides of the coin: Those that do flip flop, and those that change their position but are accused of flip flopping.
The Flippers
There are probably several categories of Flippers. The most obvious are those that take a position based not on the facts, but on the number of people that hold that position. They don't have a solid position backed up by evidence and fact. The might have researched the topic, but probably not. They take a position because it is expedient, because they perceive that the majority of their constituents subscribe to that position. Public opinion can shift quickly so these people's positions will shift just as quickly.
As a consequence, these people will tend to flip flop.
The Falsly Accused
This category is problematic. I will write more soon.