Table of Contents

Political Behavior as an Emergent Collective Function of Human Organizations: Rigor & Imagination

“Rigor alone is paralytic death, but imagination alone is insanity.” – Gregory Bateson

This article aims to introduce a way of thinking about political ideas and behavior, focused very generally on what is commonly referred to as the Left / Right political spectrum in the Anglosphere (Some form of these concepts likely holds true in other cultural contexts). While we hypothesize that the complexity of political behavior is much more rich than a simple spectrum from Left to Right, this political dichotomy is a useful place to begin as it is an already generally apprehended concept in the collective zeitgeist of English speakers worldwide. The framework presented here views political tendencies through the lens of biological and evolutionary function, highlighting the adaptive values of leftists (imagination) and rightists (rigor). I make no claim for absolute accuracy or even empirical validity of the concepts, but propose these hypotheses as the opening lines of an important conversation that will continue to examine empirical manifestations to validate, refute, and ultimately refine these ideas. As a starting point, we could imagine a Hegelian dialectic of sorts, that there might be an optimum balance of imagination and rigor in a body politic that would result in a political dialectic in which innovation and adaptability are grounded in stability and order and a solid understanding of what has worked in the past.

Evolutionary Emergence of Rightist and Leftist Phenotypes

“Evolution must always, Janus-like, face in two directions: inwards towards the developmental regularities and physiology of the living creature, and outwards towards the vagaries and demands of the environment. These two necessary components of life contrast in interesting ways: the inner development–the embryology or “epigenisis”–is conservative and demands that every new thing shall conform or be compatible with the regularities of the status quo ante. If we think of a natural selection of new features of anatomy or physiology–then it is clear that one side of this selection process will favor those new items which do not upset the old apple cart. This is minimal necessary conservatism.
In contrast, the outside world is perpetually changing and becoming ready to receive creatures which have undergone change, almost insisting upon change. No animal or plant can ever be “ready made”. The internal recipe insists upon compatibility but is never sufficient for the development and life of the organism. Always the creature itself must achieve change of its own body. It must acquire certain somatic characteristics by use, disuse, by habit, by hardship, and by nurture. These ‘acquired characteristics’ must, however, never be passed on to the offspring…the individual body undergoes adaptive change under external pressure, but natural selection acts up on the gene pool of the population. The acquired characteristics do not become unimportant by not being carried in and passed on by DNA. It is still habits which set the conditions for natural selection…note this converse principle that the acquisition of bad habits, at a social level, surely sets the context for selection of ultimately lethal genetic propensities.” – Gregory Bateson, Time is Out of Joint (1978).

The evolution of human social groups has been shaped by ecological, social, and psychological factors, that give rise to diverse behavioral phenotypes. The concept of a phenotype encapsulates consistent patterns of behavior, emotion, and cognition jointly influenced by genetic and environmental (ecological and cultural) factors, evident across various situations and over time (but not necessarily fixed for the entirety of a human life cycle). When we say cultural, we are referring to an individual’s family’s rearing practices (developmental influences), the wider social group the family and individual belong to (the tribe during most of human history), and a wider society or social context defined by the relationship between one’s tribe and other tribes. Phenotypic patterns may manifest in distinct political behaviors and ideological leanings, with certain traits aligning more with conservative values, such as a preference for order and respect for authority, and others aligning with liberal values, like openness and a drive for social justice beyond one’s in-group. Such hypothetical phenotypes do not predetermine an individual’s political beliefs or behaviors. Still, they could be understood as a predisposition upon which unique individual life experiences and cognitive processes act to determine one’s political identity. Two prominent phenotypic tendencies that are recognized in many cultures but not necessarily understood as phenotypes seem to have emerged in human history are what we might term rightist (rigor) and leftist (imagination) phenotypes. Each of these has unique adaptive advantages and is influenced by different environmental and social conditions. While I have focused on imagining them at the individual level, It is perhaps more useful to recognize that these kinds of moral phenotypes exist and operate at the level of groups (whether families, tribes, religions, states, etc.).

Rightist Phenotypes: Rigor

The Influence of Scarcity and Warfare: In environments characterized by resource scarcity and frequent intertribal conflicts, rightist phenotypes thrive. Their inclination toward hierarchy ensures swift decision-making, essential during times of crisis.

Evolutionary Advantage: Quick, decisive actions and strong leadership in times of conflict or resource scarcity enhance group survival.
Leader Characteristics: Physically imposing, assertive leaders are preferred as they are seen as capable of protecting the group and securing resources.

The Influence of Localized Fitness: Multigenerational Adaptation to Place: Local adaptations by settled human populations, both genetic and behavioral, require maintaining tradition, order, and even locally adapted genetics to maintain fidelity across generations. Rightist phenotypes promote stability and adherence to established norms and avoid outbreeding.

Evolutionary Advantage: Conserving resources, ensuring group cohesion and reducing endogamy to retain locally adapted traits through rigid social structures.

Impact of Authoritarian Parenting: Fosters the development of rightist phenotypes, as they engender a need for certainty, structure, and clear authority.

Evolutionary Advantage: Adaptation to a predictable, though perhaps harsh, social environment enhances survival.

Leftist Phenotypes: Imagination

Abundance and Interactivity: In contrast, leftist phenotypes flourish in environments of abundance and extensive interaction with other social groups.

Evolutionary Advantage: Promoting diversity, innovation, and adaptability, essential for thriving in dynamic and resource-rich environments.

Adaptive Social Structures: Leftist phenotypes contribute to less hierarchical, less fixed in structure, and more inclusive social structures that encourage cooperation, shared decision-making, and collective well-being.

Evolutionary Advantage: Enhancing group resilience through shared resources and mutual support.

Valuing Diversity: Exposure to different cultures and ideas fosters a preference for inclusivity, tolerance, and change.

Evolutionary Advantage: Creating a flexible, adaptive group capable of navigating complex social landscapes.

Continuous Adaptation and Maintenance to Maintain Fitness

The ongoing tension and conflict between these rightist and leftist phenotypes within social groups drive a balance, ensuring that the group remains adaptive and relevant to its changing environment. This balance acts as a form of generational feedback, aligning the group’s behaviors and structures with the ecological and social conditions it faces.

Rightist Phenotypes: Provide stability, order, and rapid response to immediate threats, ensuring the group’s survival in challenging times.
Leftist Phenotypes: Foster innovation, diversity, and adaptability, preparing the group to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Together, the proportion of these phenotypes in a human group contribute to a dynamic equilibrium, with the prevalence of each shifting in response to environmental cues and internal group dynamics. This ensures that the group maintains a delicate balance between preserving its core identity and structure (rightist rigor) and adapting to new challenges and opportunities (leftist imagination). This dance of adaptation and preservation may be crucial for the long-term viability and relevance of human social groups.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), developed by Paul Sabatier, provides a comprehensive analysis of policy-making, differentiating between organizational values, which guide an institution’s objectives, and individual values, representing personal beliefs of members within. This framework is a parsimonious explanatory model that reduces the complexity of policy change, emphasizing how institutional cultures and individual agency shape outcomes. Analogously, the concept of political phenotypes—rightist and leftist—offers a similar multilevel perspective on individual inclinations relative to political ideologies. A rightist phenotype with left-wing ideology may bring a structured, assertive, and loyal approach to progressive causes, illustrating the interplay of intrinsic traits with chosen beliefs. Conversely, a leftist phenotype aligning with right-wing values might advocate for conservative policies through a collaborative, inclusive lens, framing their stance in terms of justice and fairness. The phenotype concept adds a level of nuance to understanding personal characteristics and ideological affiliations, in the same way that the ACF adds nuance to individual beliefs and organizational imperatives, enriching our understanding of political behavior.

Modern Manifestations of Rigor and Imagination in Political Behavior

Rigor: Rightist Tendencies

Preservation: Maintaining stability and order through established hierarchies, traditional values and highly selective membranes, making it hard for outsiders to come in, or insiders to go out.
- Biological Function: Safeguarding the group by adhering to tried-and-true strategies, minimizing risks.
Nationalism (a form of tribalism, can likely occur at multiple scales from family, ethnicity, religion, etc.): Fostering a strong identity and cohesion within the in-group.
- Biological Function: Enhancing group solidarity and cooperation for mutual defense and resource allocation.
Hierarchy and Order: Upholding social structures that provide clear roles and expectations. Also an efficient way of dealing with free riding.
- Biological Function: Creating an organized and predictable environment, optimizing group functionality, reducing free riding catastrophes with too many parts, and providing constraints necessary for counter-entropic (ententional) properties of life.
Individual Effort within a Social Framework: Valuing personal contribution and responsibility while recognizing the importance of social roles in ensuring group success.
- Biological Function: Promoting self-reliance and resourcefulness, contributing to the group’s resilience.

Imagination: Leftist Tendencies

Inclusivity and Equity: Advocating for the integration and equitable treatment of outgroup members, and a permissive membrane allowing new group members from outside to come in, and members from inside to explore outside.
- Biological Function: Enhancing genetic and cultural diversity, leading to increased adaptability. There are additional functions for equiity in small groups to enhance outgroup competition.
Social Reform: Pushing for changes in traditional norms to improve collective well-being.
- Biological Function: Facilitating innovation and adaptability in response to changing environments.
Collective Well-being: Prioritizing policies that benefit the larger group, often through redistributive measures.
- Biological Function: Promoting the health and viability of the group, ensuring resource allocation for all members.
Adaptation: Embracing change and new ideas to better suit the evolving landscape.
- Biological Function: Enabling the group to navigate and thrive in diverse and changing environments.

By recognizing and understanding these biases within the framework of rigor (rightist tendencies) and imagination (leftist tendencies), we can appreciate how these political behaviors function as emergent collective responses to varying environmental and social challenges.

Collective Confirmation Bias

I would like to coin the term Collective Confirmation Bias as a cognitive distortion that manifests in groups, influencing their interpretation of information in a way that aligns with their shared values and beliefs. The left and right are both susceptible to collective confirmation biases, where groups operate under shared assumptions that their perspective is the universally applicable truth. These biases shape how each group perceives human nature and collective action. Collective confirmation bias is a cognitive and social phenomenon where a group of individuals, sharing similar beliefs or ideologies, collectively reinforce their own views while dismissing or underappreciating external or opposing perspectives. This bias can occur in various settings, including political groups, religious communities, or even within professional circles. Members of the group tend to seek out, interpret, and remember information in ways that affirm their pre-existing beliefs, creating a feedback loop that solidifies these views over time. This process can lead to a distorted perception of reality, as the group becomes insulated from contradictory evidence, and can contribute to polarization and the entrenchment of extreme viewpoints. Crucially, collective confirmation bias hampers the group’s ability to engage in critical self-reflection, adapt to new information, and make balanced, well-informed decisions, ultimately affecting the health and functionality of both the group and the larger society in which it operates. It is essentially a collective Bayesian lock-in: identity-weighted evidence processing inside homophilous networks produces posterior rigidity and policy hysteresis. Field evidence shows that cross-exposure to opposing views can backfire under certain identity-threat conditions, which fits CCB’s mechanism (though exposure effects are context-dependent).

Looking specifically at the Collective Confirmation Biases of Leftists and Rightists, we find the following:

Imagination-Driven Bias: Harmonic Convergence Fallacy

Definition: The belief that deep down, everyone values (outgroup) altruism and collective (outgroup) well-being, projecting one’s own values onto others.
Biological Basis: May stem from a heightened focus on social cohesion and adaptability.
Impact: This can lead to unrealistic expectations about the efficacy of progressive policies and a misunderstanding of conservative motivations.

Rigor-Driven Bias: Selective Solidarity Fallacy

Definition: The presumption that out-groups are fundamentally self-interested and different, impeding the recognition of potential common ground with genuinely altruistic and cooperative groups.
Biological Basis: May originate from an instinct to protect the in-group and maintain social order.
Impact: This bias can obstruct bipartisan cooperation and deepen divisions, as it dismisses the possibility of shared objectives across diverse groups.

Problems that might be solved through greater understanding and acknowledgement of CCB

We stand to gain many benefits by acknowledging, understanding, and moving beyond Collective confirmation bias. Here is a laundry list of contemporary problems that might be solved with greater understanding of collective confirmation bias. It contributes to Polarization and Partisanship. People become entrenched in their beliefs, unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints. This leads to extreme partisanship, where policies are supported or opposed based on political affiliation rather than merit. Politics becomes a zero-sum game, with each side viewing the other as an enemy to be defeated rather than a partner in governance. It results in Misaligned Priorities. Policymakers may ignore or dismiss scientific evidence and expert advice if it contradicts their pre-existing beliefs and a tendency to favor policies that appeal to base instincts and biases rather than those that would lead to long-term, sustainable solutions. It produces Ineffective Policies. Policies may be designed with a narrow focus, not taking into account the diversity of needs and perspectives within the population. Policies may lack flexibility, as acknowledging the need for change could be seen as admitting fault or weakness. It Erodes Public Trust. When policies are seen as serving one group’s interests over another’s, it erodes public trust in institutions. A belief that the system is rigged or that policymakers are out of touch can lead to cynicism and disengagement among citizens. It results in Delayed Action on Critical Issues. Collective confirmation bias can contribute to denial or downplaying of scientific consensus, leading to delayed action on critical issues. Policies to address social inequalities may be stymied by biases that underestimate the severity of these issues or blame affected populations. Interventions in global military conflicts that are inconsistent and ideologically bipolar, with poor assessment of factual evidence, lack of recognition of the rights and grievances of all parties, and double-standards regarding human rights abuses. It results in Resource Misallocation. Resources may be allocated inefficiently, directed toward policies that align with biased views rather than those that would yield the greatest benefits. Certain areas in need of attention and investment may be neglected due to biases in policy prioritization. It results in Impaired Decision-Making. Collective confirmation bias can lead to groupthink, where dissenting voices are silenced, and decision-making is impaired. It also leads to a tendency to favor policies that yield immediate benefits, even if they are unsustainable in the long run. It Contributes to Social Divides. Policies may inadvertently (or intentionally) exacerbate social and economic inequalities. Certain groups may feel alienated or underrepresented, leading to social unrest.

In conclusion, collective confirmation bias reveals the distortions that can arise when there is an imbalance in the adaptive values of imagination and rigor. By acknowledging these biases, groups can strive for a more accurate and empathetic understanding of different perspectives, fostering unity and constructive dialogue. Identifying and addressing these biases promotes a more accurate, balanced, and cooperative political discourse, crucial for the thriving and adaptability of human organizations, institutions, and states.

Explore Our Research and Initiatives

Politics as Emergent Collective Functionality: Balancing Rigor and Imagination at the Group Level and the Dysfunction of Collective Confirmation Bias in Western Political Systems