"We'll Obliterate Them!" - Clinton/McCain Vs Obama. Social Psychology Know's Who's Right...

[quantass]

For the minute the media has moved on past Rev Wright (a shame many people are so trusting and easily influenced by the media's provocation) and moved on to real issues like the differing stance of the two democratic candidates on the holiday gas tax and foreign policy (in particular Clinton's comments on Iran and obliterating them).

I found an interesting psychology study conducted back in 1962 by Morgan Deutsch and Robert Krauss. It's a relatively short read but i think gives us all some insight into who's approach to Iran (and other foreign affairs) is better.

Here's a snippet:

An award-winning social psychology experiment reveals why we often fail to bargain effectively with each other. This deceptively simple experiment examines the effect of two vital aspects of bargaining: threat and communication.

...

As a result the trucking game has clear implications for real life:

* Cooperative relationships are likely to be much more beneficial overall than competitive relationships. Before you go 'duh!', remember that increasing proportions of the world's societies are capitalist. Deutsch and Krauss's experiment clearly shows the friction caused by competitive relationships, such as those encouraged by capitalism. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, I'm just saying competition isn't always good. This simple fact is often forgotten.

* Just because people can communicate, doesn't mean they will - even if it is to their advantage.

* Forcing parties to communicate, even if they already have the means to communicate, encourages mutually beneficial outcomes.

* In competitive relationships, communication should be aimed at increasing cooperation. Other methods will probably create more heat than light.

* Threats are dangerous, not only to other's interests, but also to our own.

The full article: http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-to-avoid-bad-bargain-dont-threaten.php