Cognitive biases in culture wars

I've one reaction to the culture clash between the west and Islam - include me out. This is big think. And big thinking is bad thinking.
The first problem is that glib generalization leads us to think that there are clearly defined and demarcated cultures.
Put it this way. Both my dad and grandad had convictions for handling stolen goods. Does this mean fencing is part of my culture? If not, why not?  What proportion of people must believe or do something (and how strongly and how closely to me) before it becomes part of my culture? And over what group of people do we define a culture? Why does it make sense to say that I am part "western culture" rather than "economists' culture" or "Leicester culture"?
These vaguenesses mean we take a pick-n-mix approach to defining culture. For most of you reading this (and me), I guess, "western culture" means liberalism more than it does imperialism and slavery.  But is this just a self-serving bias?
Another bias in the clash of cultures is the group attribution error. Anong "us", bad people are exceptions. Among "them", wrong 'uns are representative of the general group.
So, to westerners, the soldiers who beat up Iraqis are exceptions. To Muslims, they are typical. To "us", suicide bombers are representative, whereas to Muslims, they are exceptions*. Few bother to ask: is the percentage of UK and US soldiers who beat up Iraqis statistically significantly different from the proportion of Muslims who are suicide bombers?
This bias is reinforced by another - the salience heuristic. We over-react to salient, available, information, and under-react to obscure information. To westerners, the everyday  civilities of friends and neighbours are salient , whilst the brutalities of far-away soldiers are less so. And suicide bombings are salient, whilst the civilities of ordinary Muslims are less so. To Muslims,  it's the other way round.
There's a third bias - outgroup homogeneity bias. "We" are diverse; "they" are homogenous. This reinforces our ability to regard brutal soldiers or imperialism as outliers within the rich variety of western culture, but to see all/most Muslims as fanatics. And, again, vice versa for Muslims.
Now, I'm not saying here that there is "cultural equivalence" between westernism and Islam; I don't know what that means.
Still less am I denying that some values are worth defending. I think liberty should be extended, even though many westerners - including our rulers - seem to think otherwise.
All I'm saying is that it's very hard to think clearly about big issues - especially when you don't even try. Which is why I prefer to think about smaller, provincial things.   
* Yes, these are woeful generalizations.I express them thus for illustrative effect of likely differential dispositions, not 100% accuracy. 

Comments

[Phil]

Re fencing, Leicester etc: one logical error you missed out was the ecological fallacy. Carry on.

[The Pedant-General]

Chris,

Whilst the majority of your post is very sound, this is not:

"Another bias in the clash of cultures is the group attribution error. Anong "us", bad people are exceptions. Among "them", wrong 'uns are representative of the general group.
So, to westerners, the soldiers who beat up Iraqis are exceptions. To Muslims, they are typical. To "us", suicide bombers are representative, whereas to Muslims, they are exceptions*.

* Yes, these are woeful generalizations.I express them thus for illustrative effect of likely differential dispositions, not 100% accuracy. "

The difference is not the percentage or whether we regard the outliers as exceptions in the slighest. It is to do with the status accorded to them.

"We" condemn soldiers who beat up civilians. We treat these outliers/exceptions as unacceptable.

In marked contrast, the Muslim exceptions/outliers are lauded as martyrs, as exemplars.

Indeed, the group attribution error would appear to be in direct contradiction to the way in which you have applied it: "we" regard homicide bombers as exceptions: "They" - or at least their most vocal leaders - regard them as the norm to which all should aspire.

You should read the Norm today: he links to this epic speech:
http://www.kerenmalki.org/Valencia_Conference_Feb06.htm

Money quote:
"To dismiss this depressing chain of events by calling it a difference of opinion over definitions is to miss the point. There is an actual, practical life-and-death question here which we, assembled here in this hall, are uniquely placed to answer: Is it ever legitimate to target women, children and other noncombatants? For nations comprising some 30 per cent of the United Nations [the OIC], the answer – tragically, astonishingly - is yes."

[Katherine]

You seem to have rather fallen into the same traps yourself, Mr Pedant-General.

[Maynard Handley]

"We" condemn soldiers who beat up civilians. We treat these outliers/exceptions as unacceptable.

Who is we? There is a fraction of US society that condemns them; there is a larger fraction (Bush was re-elected) that ranges from willing to ignore them to glorifying them. Fox News explains every day how this behavior is quite acceptable. The military has made only potemkin attempts to punish those involved in this behavior, has made no attempts to punish those who authorized it, but has made aggressive attempts to make sure it stays hidden. Might I remind you about certain photos that were published in the Australian press only a few days ago? It certainly looks like the latest Supreme Court justice is pretty much OK with this behavior.

As far as I can tell US behavior is 100% in line with what the post said --- including the various justifications for how whatever happens on the US side that doesn't look that great is an unfortunate error, or was the result of unacceptable provocation, or is necessary in pursuit of a higher truth or whatever today's excuse happens to be.

[CB]

Hmm, not sure how a congress vote of 90-9 against using torture equates to a vote for errant US troops, still less the prison sentences handed out to the Abu Ghraib troops, regardless of what Bush himself has (wrongly) asked for.

Similarly of course one can't say that there is widespread, or even a significant level, of support for suicide bombers and the organisations that create them. What support there is (Hamas in Palestine for example) seems to be borne out of this 'culture clash', where people feel they have to choose a 'side'. Personally my 'side' is that of democrats (small d) and secularists (regardless of faith) throughout the middle east and the west. I want what they want, a free society where they can worship Islam if they wish and I can not if I wish. How to accomplish it is, of course, a more complicated point.

[jamal]

This is true. But it is still a two way street.

Some will use such a view and innovate their own ideas which has proven to be a downfall for Islam and the progression of Muslims. Other will use it to avoid taking any action in helping themselves and others to assist Islam and the progression of Muslims.

A thoughtful peice I have read recently and actively promote is a Pre-Khutbah speech available at Brand New Malaysian, which concludes;

"Struggling for the Victory of Islam would entail an outright, unapologetic challenge to this global hegemon, though this struggle cannot and will not be secured unless and until Muslims learn to work with other communities. Here lies the truth that many of us have failed to realise or have not been able to admit: The Victory of Islam's universal values untimately depends on humanity as a whole, and not Muslims alone."
http://www.brandmalaysia.com/movabletype/archives/2005/12/farish_a_noor_w.html

I consider it a must read for Muslims. In case that site goes down, it is also available at my blog.
http://opinionated.blogsome.com/2005/12/29/what-is-the-victory-of-islam/

[El Cid]

Nice article.
I could nitpick, but broadly speaking I agree with you.
You sound like an ex-City type with lots of time on his/her hands. Or maybe you're on gardening leave?

[jamal]

nah, sick leave at the moment. 4 days off with suspected bird flu. Back on monday!.

[jamal]

^^ i now realise that comment did not refer to me!