Immigration and Discrimination

The great Islamic historian and philosopher of the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun, who can claim to be the father of social science (and also incidentally the progenitor of the Laffer Curve), advanced the theory that the success of human societies is governed by asabiyyah, feelings of goodwill within a group. Societies without asabiyyah, or the wrong level thereof, will tend to descend into strife and turmoil.

Freedom of movement will be successful, therefore, when there is already group-feeling between the migrants and the host community. It can also work when institutions exist that allow such group-feeling to develop, but because that takes time, the scale of migration is a major factor: too much migration too quickly will inevitably be problematic.

In the case of Windrush, goodwill towards the host community was certainly present amongst the migrants - after all, many of them had served the Empire in the military in WWII - but was sadly unreciprocated by many in the host communities, resulting in tragic history of unbelonging.

It therefore makes sense to prioritise migrants for whom mutual fellow-feeling already exists, which is why the idea of CANZUK free movement is generally popular across Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK, if less so in the latter. It especially makes sense, simply on the grounds of balancing the numbers involved, for the UK to prioritise immigrants from countries to which Britons themselves are likely to wish to migrate, inevitably being the English-speaking nations.

There is, however, a certain type of person for whom any sort of favouritism when it comes to immigration is complete anathema. For them, it is offensive and smacks of racism; any discrimination (in the word's old-fashioned sense, when it had positive connotations: to discriminate used to mean to be discerning) is discrimination (in the more modern negative sense of the word, implying bigotry). They get upset, for example, by Andrew Lilico talking about who we should consider to be "us". They really don't like the idea of CANZUK free movement being given priority over EU free movement.

Such people are likely to agree with George Monbiot's universalism, considering patriotism to be racism; their feelings of goodwill are directed at a global level. They are not Leninists but Lennonists: they imagine a world without countries, with nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. As Professor Jonathan Haidt explains, such people tend to follow the Unconstrained view from Thomas Sowell's Two Visions of Human Nature.

The Unconstrained Vision is that human nature is malleable and can be improved, perfected even, if social conditions are improved: anything would be possible if artificial constraints placed on human being can be removed, and so people must be freed from the petty tribal loyalties that cause mistrust and war.

The Constrained Vision, on the other hand, sees that humans need external structures constraining them to behave well, including laws, institutions, customs, traditions, religion and nations. These constraints are built up slowly and organically by communities, but they can be destroyed quickly by radical reformers who don't understand their value.

If you have the Unconstrained Vision, you're not going to want to give priority to migrants who you consider to be privileged, especially not white people from rich countries, such as the CANZUK nations. No; you'll want to prioritise the under-privileged. You'll reason that the removal of constraints will lead to better human beings both amongst the migrant and host communities.

What, however, if the Constrained Vision is actually closer to the reality of human nature?

Even when migrants are positively disposed towards the host community, could they all too easily, simply out of ignorance, disrupt customs and traditions that promote asabiyyah? And what happens when large groups of people are imported that have their primary fellow-feelings not at the universal level but directed towards entirely different groups, with little if any fellow-feelings towards the host community, nor indeed towards other migrants? Could that not be a recipe for trouble?

The thing is, though, that those with the Unconstrained Vision, because of their expectations of perfectability, are constantly being disappointed by the faults they perceive amongst their fellows. They are typically not slow to take umbrage at people with alternative viewpoints, and quickly withdraw their fellow-feelings from those by whom they are offended, even to the point of seeking shelter within safe spaces.

They form themselves into tribes based on antagonism, excluding and othering those they dislike, then they seek ascendancy and try to flatten their opponents. So much for their universalism.

Going back to Ibn Khaldun, it does seem that the combination of migration, identity politics and social media is corrosive towards asabiyyah within nation states. No wonder goodwill is so sorely lacking and that we are in such a mess.

Toryphobia

I have a theory that the values of the majority, and quite possibly a substantial majority, of the British public (especially Somewheres - see the Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart) are broadly in line with those of the Conservative Party, especially the One Nation Tories as embodied by Theresa May.

The thing that stops a lot of people actually voting for the Conservatives is what I have called "Toryphobia", the irrational fear of the Conservative Party, a term I don't recall seeing anyone else using, although I can't believe that I have actually made it up myself.

As a former sufferer myself from Toryphobia, I believe I can speak with some authority on it. On my 18th birthday, within the first term of Margaret Thatcher's premiership, when I was naive, idealistic and frankly embarrassingly foolish, I swore 2 things to myself: that I would never sing the National Anthem, and that I would never vote Conservative. Needless to say, the first of these resolutions lasted less than 5 years or so, but it took 20 years for me to summon the courage to break the second. And that is despite being able to admit to myself before I was 25 that, although I didn't like Mrs Thatcher (and I never did reconcile myself to her while she was PM), I would be comfortable with a Conservative Government led by, say, Michael Heseltine (in hindsight, what an excrutiating thought!). Indeed, I effectively voted tactically in both 1987 (SDP-Liberal Alliance) and 1992 (Labour) for the candidate less likely unseat the incumbent Tory MP. It was only when the Conservatives were out of office, at my 5th General Election, after my worldview had changed fundamentally due to co-founding a small business, and consequently ceasing to take the Guardian as an economy measure, that I finally felt able to vote Conservative. Even so, that was primarily in opposition to the Blair Government: despite being slow to adopt political wisdom generally, I was at least quick to see through Blair!

Anyway, the point I am illustrating is that quite of lot people have invested themselves emotionally in being anti-Tory, and it takes quite a considerable effort to turn that around. It is still the case that I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually join the Conservative Party, but that is partly because I value my own independence too much: I don't want to be part of a political tribe.

People really are quite groupish (as explained by Professor Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind) - on the whole, they don't tend evaluate the policies of the parties dispassionately, but make decisions emotionally, and therefore they tend to vote along the same lines as other people they think of as "us". The problem with the Tories, especially those like David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson, is that to most people they give the impression of being "them".

Working class Somewheres historically have therefore tended to vote Labour for tribal reasons, and have continued doing so out of inertia, even while the Labour Party itself has been captured by Anywheres, and its values have drifted further and further away from its traditional support base. At the last election, however, it seems clear that many Somewheres are no longer prepared to continue to support Labour, but because they are so emotionally invested in Toryphobia, they haven't switched parties, but have simply not voted at all.

Of course, Brexit changes things substantially, and it is becoming clearer to Somewheres that the Anywhere-dominated parties no longer represent them. Along with being led by the Somewhere-friendly Theresa May, does this mean that many will now finally be able to overcome their Toryphobia?

The Righteous Mind and the delusions of the intelligent

Having mentioned The Righteous Mind in the first post on this blog back at Christmas 2014, and having followed Professor Jonathan Haidt on Twitter ever since, I have to confess that I never actually got round to getting a copy of the book. This situation was rectified at Christmas just gone (2016), when I was given it as a present, and so I have finally started reading it. This is what I have learned so far (and I have only made it a short way into chapter 4), mixed in with one or two thoughts of my own.

Firstly, humans are not so much rational beings as rationalising ones - we are driven by emotion and intuition, with our reasoning faculties being used to justify our feelings, and only rarely being involved in decision making itself. In general, we are motivated not so much to seek the truth but to confirm that what we have already decided is right, even when it isn't.

This means that once we have made up our minds about something, we are not going to be swayed by facts nor by reasoned argument. So I have been completely wasting my time trying to change the views of my leftist friends on Facebook with respect to the merits or otherwise of socialism, for example (or at least as far as they are concerned - others with less strong opinions who were perhaps flirting with socialism might have been influenced). The only people who are affected by reasoned argument are those who are naturally open minded, those who have yet to make their minds up either way, or those who are particularly motivated to seek the truth (such as myself! I hope...).

Secondly, we strongly desire the affirmation of our peers. We value reputation much more highly than truth (which incidentally explains why those who progress to the top in their chosen career are not necessarily the ones who are the most competent at their jobs, but the ones who are best at convincing their superiors of their value).

We can therefore be persuaded to change our minds to keep in with people that matter to us. Shame can be a powerful motivating force, but only from members of our in-group - trying to shame someone from outside of our own tribe is much less effective, and indeed can be counter-productive.

I came across this in my twitter feed recently:

If you want to correct error, critique your in-group - they should be receptive to what you say. On the other hand, if you want to gain status, critique your out-group - your out-group will ignore you (or worse), but your in-group will love it. 

This explains the phenomenon of virtual-signalling, so prevalent on social media, and also explains group-think amongst experts. Also, this implies that protest marches are a less than effective way of making your case, and much more likely to harden attitudes than to win converts.

Thirdly (and I was gobsmacked by this), because we make decisions with our gut-feelings and are heavily influenced by our peers, intelligent sophisticated and well-educated people are no more likely to be right about complex political issues than dim and ignorant people. Indeed, because they are more intelligent, they are much better at finding reasons for justifying what they already believe and so better at deluding themselves into thinking that they are right, even when they have it completely wrong. Even the best-informed of us can reach the wrong conclusions when they don't question their underlying assumptions.

All of which means, assuming that I have understood it correctly, that not only is the point that Michael Gove made about experts ("the people of this country have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms, saying that they know what is best, and getting it consistently wrong") perfectly reasonable, but also that what he was mistakenly thought to have meant, and for which he has been widely and unfairly derided, that experts in general can't be trusted, is not even in itself particularly unreasonable! That doesn't mean that experts are necessarily wrong, but the ones to trust are those who adopt a scientific approach, being sceptical and self-critical, and we should be wary of those who display no self-doubt.

Anyway, on the plus side, I am feeling much more well disposed towards people with whom I disagree politically (ok, perhaps not towards Social Justice Warriors). After all, in some ways they can't necessarily help not being able to see when they are wrong!

Everyone should read this book.

Knowing you're right

Having started this blog 2 years ago, and not made much progress since, I have finally been inspired with an idea for a new post - this might have to become a biennial tradition of making a post on Christmas Eve, even if it is probably the worst time of year to get people to read it!

It's been an interesting couple of years since my original post:  

http://goodwillpursuivance.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/goodwill-and-peace-to-all-men.html

What I said then still seems to me to be just as relevant, if indeed not more so.

It has been particularly dismaying for me to see the way in which Remainers dismiss those who voted Leave in this year's referendum as xenophobes and "low information voters". Does it really take such effort to understand other people's viewpoints? It is such a shame that more people are not aware of John Stuart Mill:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

Anyway, I came across this on someone else's Facebook page (a friend of a friend), maybe a couple of months ago:

"I'd like to suggest that the failures of progressive liberal democracy to capture the public imagination around the world can be blamed at least partly on the perils of knowing you're right.

The danger of knowing you're right is that it can relieve you of the responsibility to argue your point of view. If you're right, then surely you just have to state your position clearly enough and people will realise it's the correct one. It would be unseemly or even dishonest to have to resort to selling your point of view to the public.

More dangerously, if you're so obviously right, then any reasonable person would agree with you. A corollary is that anybody holding an opposing view must be either evil or stupid; so there's no need to try to understand their viewpoint, let alone engage in any kind of debate. So you can sit in your Facebook echo chamber, sharing stories about how nasty the other lot are and feeling smug that they are wrong and you are right.

Unfortunately, voters do not take kindly to being told they are stupid. When vast numbers of citizens decide that their interests are best represented by populist right-wing politicians and start voting in droves for Brexit and UKIP (or Trump or Wilders), it is not good enough to dismiss those politicians as simply evil and, by implication, dismiss their voters as mean, selfish or half-witted. To do so merely confirms to those voters their view that the "liberal elite" is totally out of touch with their lives. Of course, no one person can directly understand the experiences of everybody in a country: we all live in our bubbles of varying sizes. But the least we can do is to acknowledge that other people's bubbles look very different from our own, and what seems an obvious choice to us does not necessarily seem obvious to everybody.

This is not to say that being right isn't important: it is vitally important, but it is no longer enough."

I heartily agree with this, but I'd like to amplify on it - and take it in a slightly different direction.

Knowing that you are right is in no way a good thing. 

It is, of course, a ridiculous point of view. It is simply impossible to be sure – the world is far too complicated a place for anyone to be able to have anything even approaching sufficient knowledge; you only need to look at complete inability of macro-economists to predict the future to see that. 

In fact, the sensation of knowing that you are right is a trick that your brain plays on you – we are all psychologically predisposed to believe in our own righteousness. To make matters worse, we are all subject to confirmation bias – we interpret facts so that they are consistent with what we already believe, and then ignore the inconvenient ones that conflict.

In my view, this actually means that those people who believe they are right are more likely to be wrong – they stop questioning their underlying assumptions, which might well prove to be erroneous. Idealists are particularly bad in this regard – you are more likely to arrive at the truth by being pragmatic. 

Unfortunately, it seems that people want to be proved to be right much more strongly than wanting to arrive at the truth – which is why we have such current problems in political discourse, which I guess is the point that the author of the text I've quoted above is trying to make.

My own theory is that things are getting worse as Western society becomes more and more post-Christian – those with a Christian upbringing are admonished against self-righteousness, and are thus more inclined to be able to see the points of view of others, and being able to do so makes the world a much more civilised place!

On that note, I'd like to wish all my readers Peace and Goodwill - not to mention merriment - this Christmas and a hope that New Year will see more people behave pleasantly towards those with whom they disagree.

The country in which I want to live

Leading up to and in the aftermath of the general election, a number of my leftist friends stated their views about the sort of country they want to live in, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to express my own values.

Primarily, I want to live in a country in which people treat their fellow citizens with toleration, decency and respect; in which there is no place for self-righteousness, sneering condescension and approved hatreds; most of all, one in which no-one tries to impose their values on others.

I want to live in a country in which outcomes are more important than intentions.

I want to live in a country in which citizens feel engaged in the political process, and in which they feel they have control over their own lives.

I want to live in a country in which people take responsibility for themselves as much as they can, but also actively assist those less fortunate than themselves.

I want to live in a country which deals with its problems instead of kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with.

Fundamentally I want to live in a country which builds prosperity for the long term, but shares the proceeds of prosperity as widely as possible.

As one of my friends put it:

I want to live in a country where people with ambition, drive and talent can do well, and climb to the top. But I think it's right that once they're there those people - and the businesses they run - reach down and help to pull up those who are struggling.

The irony seems to be lost on her, but is there a better definition of One Nation Conservatism?

"Goodwill and Peace to All Men"

If this blog were to be widely read (unlikely in the extreme - indeed, if anyone at all reads it I shall be pleasantly surprised), I'd be fairly confident that someone would take offence at my use of archaic language in the title of the blog and accuse me of sexism. I have, however, chosen my language deliberately, in an (albeit oblique) attempt to illustrate the point I am trying to make.

If I could wish for just one Christmas present it would be for there to be more goodwill in the world (and particularly the UK) between political opponents, with some attempt at understanding alternative points of view. Is it really too much to ask for people to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and to try to interpret the comments of others in the spirit in which they are made?

Is anyone else out there as dismayed as I am by the amount of self-righteousness in modern day public discourse? And the rush to judgement without taking into account the context in which remarks are made? After all, what is the difference between premature judgement and prejudice?

Curiously, I'd been pondering the theme for this (my first) blog overnight, when I read a piece this morning (see link below) by Daniel Hannan MEP: his description of the "Lily Allen Tendency" demonstrates what I'm on about far more eloquently than I could ever hope to do myself.

Even if (indeed, especially if) you, like myself, are yet to be completely convinced by Mr Hannan's faith in the workings of the free market, this has got to be worth reading for its insights into human nature.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/12/daniel-hannan-mep-how-to-prove-to-the-left-that-were-pro-the-underdog.html

Perhaps I should have put Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, on my wishlist to Santa!

http://righteousmind.com/

Merry Christmas - and may I wish peace and goodwill to everyone, without exception.

And in the New Year, could we please be just a little more pleasant to each other?