I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE, WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING
Imagine this: You are watching CNN. The host has two guests arguing about illegal immigration. The guests are touted as experts in their field and their credentials would prove that: one is a Harvard graduate; the other from Princeton. Both have the same degree. Yet somehow these two equals in their fields are able to have completely opposite views and argue them passionately. They both have the same data on the number of illegals in the country.
How is it then that when presented with the same data that two people can disagree while being so similar? It is simple. Normative vs. positive statements.
In economics (the most logical of all pursuits) breaks down all statements and ideas put forth into one of two categories: normative or positive. Understanding these will help to better understand what people are really arguing about.
A normative statement is one that is based on emotion and has no relation to numbers, facts, statistics, or data. It is a person’s statement on anything really that is based on their own thoughts and feelings. A normative statement cannot be quantified or studied. It cannot be correct in and of itself. It is generally not an acceptable way to support ones ideas either. An example of a normative statement: “There are too many illegals in this country”. Or “We should do more to help poor people”. Or this fun gem “The rent is too damn high!!” These statements are all based on a person’s individual beliefs. They cannot be proven nor disproven with numbers. How many is ‘too many’ illegals? How much is ‘do more’? How high is too high?
A positive statement is one that is solely based on numbers or quantifiable data. It is a statement that is correct regardless of opinion. Positive statements exists separate form any creed, color, gender, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Positive statements are what actually prove arguments and are useful in public and private discourse. Some examples are “1.2 million babies are aborted each year in the United States”, “The position of running back in the NFL is comprised of 99% black men”, or “The rent is 68% higher than the national average”. These statements ignore what is right and wrong. These statements actually inform others and are what we need more of.
So, how can our pretend Harvard and Princeton graduates have the same data and disagree so vehemently? Normative beliefs. One feels that illegals are hurting the country; the other feels we should do more to help them. Both can say that there are 12 million illegals in the U.S.
Why does any of this matter? Because the media uses these to make us react in the way that best sells air time or issues. We are told the normative statement and then given the positive statement that supports that feeling. This is a HUGE problem because numbers never lie but people do. And people can dig deep enough and long enough to find the positive statement they need to support their normative one.
It is important for us to be able to distinguish between a normative and a positive statement. Politicians use the normative to get your vote. They say sweet things to convince you that they can help. We like hearing sweet things. But the sweet things can’t be added, can’t be subtracted, or analyzed.
It is my humble hope that we we gather together to discuss and debate on what is going on and what needs to happen, we do so positively. Lets leave our heartfelt exclamations out of it. It is almost impossible for a human to remove their emotions from their words and actions, but for us to come together to really make things better, we need to bring our facts to the table and discuss the merits of those.
I know you really care about what you care about otherwise you wouldn't care.
Nice! I really appreciate the distinction that you make between positive and normative statements. It really does explain how two equally educated people can have such different opinions about something.
ReplyDeleteI do think that emotions have a valid place in logical arguments because they're often closely intertwined with moral values, which I think should be our guide in every endeavor. The best logical arguments for morality of which I know were written by Immanuel Kant, but even then, the lack of emotion in his conclusions makes it so that taking his philosophy at face value feels incomplete. We like to feel that people are moral toward us or others not just because it's logical because it's heartfelt. That, I think, is where Aristotle's emotional take on virtues comes in; almost every emotion can felt too little or too much, resulting in immorality, but the perfect middle is always a virtue.
To put that into what you were talking about, I think that saying "We should help more poor people" may come to our minds after an evaluation of numerous positive statements about economical and social differences between the rich and poor around the world. This could be argued logically, but it has value as a normative statement, too, as long as it doesn't tip to the extreme of "too much"--such as, perhaps, pulling an unjustified Robin Hood by forcefully taking the honestly-earned property of some to give it to those who may have no inclination to get themselves out of a situation in which they would rely on the good will of others. (Isn't that the problem a lot of people have with expanding welfare these days--helping those who grow dependent and will no longer even try to help themselves? That reminds me, I would recommend the book The Glass Castle if you haven't read it.)
The point I'm trying to make is that while I think positive statements certainly needed to be considered independently of normative statements to begin with, normative statements to have some value in helping us decide what to do with those positive statements. Emotions can vary widely on the same subject, but when tempered by positive statements, the two can work together to guide us toward effective moral solutions to our problems. It's easier said than done, but that's what I think.
Shli,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to this post. That says something about what I wrote and says even more about you.
You are absolutely right in that emotions have a place in logical arguments. Without them we would become a robotic people making decisions that are heartless and cruel, yet logical. It is because of the normative viewpoint that people are motivated to do what ever it is that they do. We help other people because it makes us feel good and we feel it is right, not because it makes sense.
My main...goal was to try to convince people that the normative viewpoint has dominated the discussion for so long, that when anyone tries to bring up the numbers, they tend to be shouted down.
Looking at the passing of the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) there were so many numbers being thrown out and so much confusion (and there still is) but the main narrative heard was "This is good and it helps people so lets pass it now and figure it out later". The feelings overtook the numbers and now we are still trying to figure out just what exactly will happen. ( I plan on writing a post about healthcare soon. Stay tuned).
You are right that a normative statement backed up by the positive is needed. "There are 30 million starving children in the United States and that number is too high" is a beautiful example of the two views melding together. We have a specific number that can be verified followed by a feeling based on that number. The problem is when people let their emotions rule and then cherry pick the numbers to make their case.
If we as a people could just infuse our public dialogue with a little more of the positive viewpoint and temper our emotions, I think we will be better off.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read this.
Laters!