The most sophisticated jet is now in service. It would amaze Wilbur and Orville. It flies fast, lands like a helicopter (heliocopter in their terminology), and carries ordinance. Plus, it is virtually invisible to radar. The Israeli Air Force recently used their F-35 in their intractable conflict with various Palestinian groups backed by either Hezbollah or Hamas and most likely Iran. But this is not the story of the F-35; rather, it’s the story of the Wright brothers, motive attribution, and the nature of intractable problems.
Orville and Wilbur wrote a book detailing their development of the first plane, and it reveals the trial and error methods by which they arrived at success in 1903. I don’t need to recount all the details they include in The Early History of the Airplane, but there are some steps they took that might be instructive for us.
Take the brothers’ problems in developing a wing. The brothers discuss how a multitude of variations in wing shape, thickness, and design affect the wings usefulness for flight. “The shape of the edge also makes a difference, so that thousands of combinations are possible in so simple a thing as a wing.”* So, the brothers admit, “We had taken up aeronautics merely as a sport. We reluctantly entered upon the scientific side of it. But we soon found the work so fascinating that we were drawn into it deeper and deeper.” And they tested, and tested, and tested.
But wing design with respect to air pressures wasn’t their only problem. Imagine that you are the brothers and that you want to use a propeller that is “suitable.” At the time, no one had invented one for horizontal flight, but propellers drove steam boats through water. “What at first seemed a problem became more complex the longer we studied it. With the machine moving forward, the air flying backward, the propellers turning sidewise, and nothing standing still, it seemed impossible to find a starting-point from which to trace the various simultaneous reactions…After long arguments we often found ourselves in the ludicrous position of each having been converted to the other’s side, with no more agreement than when the discussion began.” Eventually, they realized that “the propeller should in every case be designed to meet the particular conditions of the machine to which it is to be applied.”
Literally, the Wright brothers worked for years to understand the mechanics of flight, years of work that culminated in that first flight of 12 seconds. Acknowledging their initial limitations, the brothers write that the flight was “very modest compared with that of birds, but it was, nevertheless, the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in free flight….” Hardly an F-35, but there might not be an F-35 had the two not experimented and gambled their own lives on the safe rise and landing of their first plane.
So, what’s instructive for those of us for whom flying is merely a matter of choosing first class, business class, or coach? Trial and error isn’t the fastest way to achieve an answer, but it can work. Like the Wright brothers, anyone in a negotiation can find himself or herself in the “ludicrous position of having been converted to the other’s side, with no more agreement than when the discussion began.” Have you noticed that political arguments, when taken to the extreme seem on occasion to end in reversed positions with no resolution? Have you also noticed that with respect to common goals, neither opposing side is willing to admit that the other side makes valid points and agrees with many underlying tenets? Push something far enough to the Left, and it takes on the characteristics of the Far Right. Push something far enough to the Right, and it takes on the characteristics of the Far Left. But neither side appears to attribute compassion to the other side, even when they agree that they have a mutual problem.
The Wright brothers seem to have had “friendly arguments.” They were, after all, brothers, and they were after the same thing. When we look at the seeming intractable positions of Democrats and Republicans, Israelis and Palestinians, or any divided ethno-religious group, we don’t see the same cooperative banter that benefited the Wrights. The reason for the difference between the Wright brothers and Americans of one political party or another and those others caught in intractable conflict lies in motivation attribution and an unwillingness to try each part by trial and error. The Wrights found, for example, that wings appeared to work counter to intuition. So, they had to experiment, but they were willing to experiment even if the outcome meant that one brother was correct and the other was wrong. No doubt brotherly love played a role in their successful first flight.
In a study by Alan Waytz, Liane L. Young, and Jeremy Ginges, the authors spell out the differences between two people bound by brotherly love and parties separated by seemingly intractable positions. According to the authors, “American Democrats and Republicans attribute their own party’s involvement in conflict to ingroup love more than outgroup hate but attribute the opposing party’s involvement to outgroup hate more than ingroup love.”*
And that’s precisely what we hear in daily arguments by pundits and apologists. The problem is that in their intractable stances, neither group can produce a solution that will fly. So, the Israelis, for example, have acquired something that does fly, and fly very well; the problem is that an F-35 resolves a conflict to the satisfaction of only one intractable side. But this is not a judgment; it’s just an acknowledgement that motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate perpetuates intractable conflicts.
*Waytz, Adam, Liane L. Young, and Jeremy Ginges, “Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict.” PNAS, November 4, 2014, Vol. 111, No. 44, 15687-15692.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/44/15687.full.pdf
Orville and Wilbur wrote a book detailing their development of the first plane, and it reveals the trial and error methods by which they arrived at success in 1903. I don’t need to recount all the details they include in The Early History of the Airplane, but there are some steps they took that might be instructive for us.
Take the brothers’ problems in developing a wing. The brothers discuss how a multitude of variations in wing shape, thickness, and design affect the wings usefulness for flight. “The shape of the edge also makes a difference, so that thousands of combinations are possible in so simple a thing as a wing.”* So, the brothers admit, “We had taken up aeronautics merely as a sport. We reluctantly entered upon the scientific side of it. But we soon found the work so fascinating that we were drawn into it deeper and deeper.” And they tested, and tested, and tested.
But wing design with respect to air pressures wasn’t their only problem. Imagine that you are the brothers and that you want to use a propeller that is “suitable.” At the time, no one had invented one for horizontal flight, but propellers drove steam boats through water. “What at first seemed a problem became more complex the longer we studied it. With the machine moving forward, the air flying backward, the propellers turning sidewise, and nothing standing still, it seemed impossible to find a starting-point from which to trace the various simultaneous reactions…After long arguments we often found ourselves in the ludicrous position of each having been converted to the other’s side, with no more agreement than when the discussion began.” Eventually, they realized that “the propeller should in every case be designed to meet the particular conditions of the machine to which it is to be applied.”
Literally, the Wright brothers worked for years to understand the mechanics of flight, years of work that culminated in that first flight of 12 seconds. Acknowledging their initial limitations, the brothers write that the flight was “very modest compared with that of birds, but it was, nevertheless, the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in free flight….” Hardly an F-35, but there might not be an F-35 had the two not experimented and gambled their own lives on the safe rise and landing of their first plane.
So, what’s instructive for those of us for whom flying is merely a matter of choosing first class, business class, or coach? Trial and error isn’t the fastest way to achieve an answer, but it can work. Like the Wright brothers, anyone in a negotiation can find himself or herself in the “ludicrous position of having been converted to the other’s side, with no more agreement than when the discussion began.” Have you noticed that political arguments, when taken to the extreme seem on occasion to end in reversed positions with no resolution? Have you also noticed that with respect to common goals, neither opposing side is willing to admit that the other side makes valid points and agrees with many underlying tenets? Push something far enough to the Left, and it takes on the characteristics of the Far Right. Push something far enough to the Right, and it takes on the characteristics of the Far Left. But neither side appears to attribute compassion to the other side, even when they agree that they have a mutual problem.
The Wright brothers seem to have had “friendly arguments.” They were, after all, brothers, and they were after the same thing. When we look at the seeming intractable positions of Democrats and Republicans, Israelis and Palestinians, or any divided ethno-religious group, we don’t see the same cooperative banter that benefited the Wrights. The reason for the difference between the Wright brothers and Americans of one political party or another and those others caught in intractable conflict lies in motivation attribution and an unwillingness to try each part by trial and error. The Wrights found, for example, that wings appeared to work counter to intuition. So, they had to experiment, but they were willing to experiment even if the outcome meant that one brother was correct and the other was wrong. No doubt brotherly love played a role in their successful first flight.
In a study by Alan Waytz, Liane L. Young, and Jeremy Ginges, the authors spell out the differences between two people bound by brotherly love and parties separated by seemingly intractable positions. According to the authors, “American Democrats and Republicans attribute their own party’s involvement in conflict to ingroup love more than outgroup hate but attribute the opposing party’s involvement to outgroup hate more than ingroup love.”*
And that’s precisely what we hear in daily arguments by pundits and apologists. The problem is that in their intractable stances, neither group can produce a solution that will fly. So, the Israelis, for example, have acquired something that does fly, and fly very well; the problem is that an F-35 resolves a conflict to the satisfaction of only one intractable side. But this is not a judgment; it’s just an acknowledgement that motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate perpetuates intractable conflicts.
*Waytz, Adam, Liane L. Young, and Jeremy Ginges, “Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict.” PNAS, November 4, 2014, Vol. 111, No. 44, 15687-15692.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/44/15687.full.pdf
RSS Feed