Why we overreact
John Stossel offers some useful perspective in his column The Sky’s Not Falling. His point of view is that using the terms “Crisis” and “Disaster” regarding the credit situation is a bit of an overreaction and may be motivated by an inclination to impose regulation on the free market.
I value this point of view in much the same way I appreciate libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul. They play an essential role in a deliberative process by asking if doing nothing is better than doing something. I wish folks like them had been more persuasive when arguing that doing nothing would have been a far better choice than invading Iraq. And likewise lowering taxes on the wealthy. But sometimes reasonable people conclude that some intervention is appropriate to head off what they believe is an avoidable tragedy: shifting towards renewable energy, Universal Health Care, a compromise on immigration policy, and even regulations on the financial industry to minimize recklessness that would result in global recession.
But unfortunately reasonable pleas for thoughtful adjustments go unheard for reasons as understandable as too many other emergencies going on, or as sinister as special interests like the Oil industry swapping global health for an advantage for their stockholders. And when the opportunities for small corrections are passed we are increasingly faced with bigger and bigger challenges with fewer and fewer incremental remedies. It is possible that we may soon pass the point when failure to correct climate change will endanger the wellbeing of our grandchildren.
So sometimes reasonable people just have to “overreact” to get the attention of those not looking ahead on the road. Those people who are too preoccupied with short term material rewards at the expense of long term health and survival. This may be one way of explaining the dramatic surge in Democratic voter registration and donations. Many more of us passive moderates have finally decided we have to overreact.
4 Responses to “Why we overreact”
I like this take on overreaction.
The danger of overreaction is seldom overreaction per se,. It''s locking into irreversible paths due to overreaction. The amount of cautious deliberation before acting at all ougtht to depend, to a considerable degree, on the degree of irreversible consequences, not all risk equally.
The Iraq war did not take irreversible consequences into account enough.
On the other hand, experiments with ethanol, while having produced some negative results, are not irreversible. Risk of that order is acceptable to me, beacuse even where ethanol fails, it's an object lesson in what needs to be adjusted or done differently
This is where the damaging effects of special interests play a huge role.
Their influence interferes with flexibility at every stage: the pre-action deliberative process, the execution of a plan of acton and the change of course when results aren't what was expected.
Making every issue into a political attack weapon rather than a difference of opinion doesn't help either.
Stossel says it's not a crisis because it's not as bad as the worst economic depression in history.
Maybe it didn't get that bad because the government intervened to prevent it from getting that bad. Certainly the Treasury Department took unprecedented steps.
Maybe if you're not overreacting, it's because you're not paying attention.
Two points:
I agree with your conclusion, but also think it's a big reason why we swing to “extremes” and are constantly trying to be something different immediately instead of asking the best route to get there.
The article is a typical one that doesn't really analyze the situation at all to come to its conclusions. The irony is that the people I've read that are most pessimistic are the libertarian types and they are calling for extreme measures (like totally changing how everything is done) since their view is that we are at a crisis of historical proportions because we've overreacted to all the little blips in the last 60 years. I have to say I find their exhortations pretty convincing.
Mikkel:,
RE: “…constantly trying to be something different immediately instead of asking the best route to get there.”
It seems to me you are skipping over the main theme presented in the post.
It didn't advocate for immeidate swings to extremes. In my reading,,it addressed the issue of: how long do you just keep on asking questions while ignoring a growing problem.
Noting in life is a dead certain prediction about the future, so if we insist on it, we'll just stay stuck and allow the problem to overwhelm us.
I'm befuddled by your warnings about extremism while simultaneously admiring the libertarians' call for extreme measures of change. Isn't that self contradictory? Is it possible to be a conservative (as it relates to change) and a revolutionary (as it relates to libertarianism) at the same time?