THE POLITICAL PERILS OF THE RISKY SHIFT
On the 18th of May I attended a lecture called ‘Defending Politics: Why democracy matters’ at an event called Words in the Park, and while I found the lecture by the speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow and author Matthew Flinders thought-provoking, I think Matthew Flinders explanation for the sheer hatred and mistrust directed at those in public office, that voters have become “democratically decadent” in the west, is too simplistic a notion. I have been studying the social-psychological phenomena known as risky shift (or choice shift). And as a result, I can see that it can apply to political issues and concerns.
Risky Shift is responsible for many occurrences throughout the globe: from bizarre fashion statements, to girls fainting at boy band concerts, and the cult of celebrity. To the far more serious concern of western Muslim radicalisation.
Risky shift causes those that are acting as a group to take greater risks, and make stronger or more extreme decisions than a sole individual would have taken independently. In numerous studies, the possibilities of negative outcomes were shown to be more feasible than the positive outcomes but being part of a group made test subjects indifferent to reality. In other words, thinking collectively can put people at greater risk of making disastrous mistakes which they might not have made by themselves. Further to this point, risky shift causes the attitudes of those within a like-minded group to intensify - a marked difference can be noted almost straight away; and if the group continue to converse together on a frequent basis, a permanent shift of attitudes from mild to more hard-line will be noted.
Scenario:
Gary has some mistrust of Tory party policy intentions: he feels that some of their policies may disadvantage the poor, and though he’s not fully aware of the facts to be truly sure if his feelings are actually valid; he thinks that there is a possibility that the Prime Minster may come from a too privileged a background to want to help a struggling working class man such as himself (his mother has bad memories of the poll tax which was the ruin of many in the 1980s – this is the seed of his initial mistrust). In fact, due to latent envy – not fully appreciated by Gary – he has begun to dislike David Cameron … after all the PM has had everything Gary wishes he could have had growing up, including a first class education (something fundamentally lacking with state schools, I should know, I left school not being able to read or write properly, and so I’m entirely self-educated through sheer grit and determination!).
There are four other men - Ian, Peter, Paul and Danny - who have a similar perceptive to Gary: they all go to work at a new factory which has recently opened. Their work is hard, and they all feel underpaid for the many hours they put in. While working together they find things to moan about as a means of bonding (like most people, they have a strong desire to conform and to be accepted by others): a popular subject soon becomes governmental policy and David Cameron. Being busy men that work hard and long hours they don’t have much time to think about politics on a deeper level; but moaning about the government has become a great way of redirecting genuine feelings caused by work dissatisfaction. And like many people, they long for an easy-fix solution to their ills.
Over the coming week’s one of the men, Danny, expresses more and more extreme opinions about the Tory party to gain a higher approval rating with his work mates. In turn, so does Ian, Peter, Paul and Gary. What started off as a way of redirecting frustration due to job dissatisfaction has now turned into a solid unyielding conviction held by all five of the men - the Tory party are “the nasty party” and everything is their fault! Like go with like: they friend people on Facebook (and talk to others on and offline) who share their perceptive – and so the risky shift continues to intensify.
What happened to Gary? Well, due to group polarization he doesn’t simply hold some misgivings about Tory party policy intentions: he now firmly believes that the tory party have deliberately evil intent to punish “the lesser classes”. David Cameron isn’t possibly out-of-touch: he is wilfully out of touch; laughing in the faces of the poor! Which is, of course, an entirely irrational perceptive - the PM is not an insane dictator - no sane MP, from any side of the house, sets out to cause harm to the masses for pure self-gratification. Whether you are Labour, Liberal or Tory, it’s important to stick to the facts, look for evidence, beware of your own prejudices (someone poor can be just as prejudice as someone rich - class prejudice works both ways), mix with others with different perspectives (and allow them to constructively challenge yours), so not to become a hapless victim of risky shift!
And please remember: politicians are humans too, and as Matthew Flinders rightly points out “people get the politicians they deserve”. If you don’t want a leader that breaks promises, and lies to your face that they can make it all better, go for the party with more realistic goals and objectives: for no party can offer the world and actually give it to you. Transforming society is a slow process, much like evolution, and we all have our own part to play in achieving a better and fairer society.
