I then go on to tell them about studies where people attacked for their beliefs become more entrenched in their positions.
The current form of argument in our culture--by politicians, on Twitter--doesn't convince anyone. In some cases, it is more likely to drive people toward another group or party or simply into a state of "I'm so tired of bullying" indifference.
Along the same lines, I have always found the "and then we confront the villain with the villain's misdeeds and the villain collapses in apologies" approach in fictional mysteries completely unbelievable. Not that it can't happen. The murderer's resigned and exhausted confession at the end of Christie's Murder in Mesopotamia is entirely believable. But murderers who either go right on justifying themselves or right on denying the obvious are far more common.
What makes the scene so great is that the wife is not a demure passive wilting flower. She's a strident, outspoken woman who simply won't believe that her husband was unfaithful (even though he clearly was).
Law & Order offers a fantastic episode, "Denial," in which a husband arranges for a hit on his wife. He then tries to call off the hit, but she is shot anyway. She ends up in the hospital where she eventually dies after several weeks.
The American version naturally circles around a legal issue, namely the rights of the individual (a DNR) versus the rights of the state to complete its legal case.
The British version, however, is pure Greek tragedy. The wife is played by Juliet Stevenson. She is a judge. Her love and pride and guilt compel her to protect her reputation and her story about a husband who does, in fact, love her. An educated, strong, confident career woman, she resists the burden of evidence for the sake of what she "knows" and believes. It isn't necessarily love that compels her (though the final scene between husband and wife is harrowing) but the need to cling to the story that makes sense to her.Why are pundits and "I know the story of other people's lives" theorists so successful?
I suggest because the story (whether it be conspiratorial or not) of "here's what's going on/here's where everyone stands/here are all the answers" is terrifically compelling and stabilizing. As Chris Stirewalt states in an article from May, "The myth [that everything is bad because the people in charge screwed up] is persistent for many reasons, including the human tendency to
blame external forces for our misfortunes, but also because the people
who think they are in charge want to believe they have that kind of power. Even if you’re a screw up, you’re a screw up with clout." In addition to clout, I propose that the same people are seeking constancy: "You're a screw up with a secure role in the world."
Even toddlers prefer negative attention to no attention at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment