"He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t"

[bloom]

July 24, 2006
He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t

By DANIEL GILBERT

<snip>

After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.

That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.

The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.

In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.

The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24gilbert.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

_____________________

He also says, "Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs."


Another thing I wonder after reading this - is if there isn't some sort of odd balancing concept that countries get into - where the aggressor downplays his actions because he is only using 10% (or something) of his stike capability. And thinks to himself that he is being "easy" on his target. I expect that wife abusers (people with disproportionate power) might rationalize themselves that way - the same as countries.