Narrated Version:
PROBLEM:
Thucydides was an Athenian military general in the 5th century BC. He predicted that war between Sparta and Athens was inevitable because Athens was growing in power at a rate that threatened the dominance of Sparta. He posited that Spartan fear of Athens’s growth made military conflict inevitable. He was one of the first people to connect collective psychology to collective conflict (Thucydides, 431 B.C.E).
Graham Allison, in performing an analysis of different Thucydides traps occurring throughout history, found that 12 out of 16 Thucydides traps resulted in war. There have been criticisms of Allison’s methodology, but this gives us a rough heuristic for estimating the danger of these traps. All else being equal, this gives us about a 75% rate for getting stuck in the trap of violence (Harvard Kennedy School, 2021).
Many people have hypothesized that China’s growth is currently unsettling America, threatening to take away their spot as the world’s top superpower. Stories of Chinese aggression permeate the information landscape.
FACTORS:
If we were to try to delineate the factors that contribute to a Thucydides’ trap, I would be inclined to say, 1) perceived acceleration of the rising power, 2) perceived decline of the superpower, 3) rate of amplification of narratives, 4) the number of areas of contestation, 5) communication gap, 6) empathy gap, and 7) the value gap. The word “perceived” is important – often our actions are less connected to reality, but rather to our understanding of reality – that which we perceive. Given these factors, I would say that each plays a significant role in our current Thucydides’ trap.
Perceptions of the rate of the decline of nations can be manipulated by the media. But there are often cold hard economic facts on the ground that also mold these perceptions. Economic realities are not easy to change, but the role of media is more malleable. A Pew Research Center survey shows that Americans have a less favorable view of the Chinese than the Chinese do of us (Delvin et al. 2020). This might indicate a difference between capitalism driven media in America and state governed media in China. If it is not in China’s interest to go to war with the USA, China can forbid its media to produce anti-American narratives for popular consumption. The USA on the other hand, has less of a top-down power function for censoring negative perspectives on China. It very well may be the case that profit motives incentivize the propagation of negative narratives about scary foreign powers like China. The more ominous thought is the idea that it might be in the interests of the top 1% of American elites to war with China. If there is such a motivation, it would be easy for them to add incentives for anti-China narratives to an already energized industry.
In our age of social media technologies, amplification of narratives seems to be much more powerful than at any point in history. Since narratives producing negative emotions are more interesting than narratives that produce positive emotions, negativity is systemically incentivized. Our information technologies can spread these stories at a faster rate than ever, in ways that magnify our fears, anxieties, anger, outrage, frustration, and disgust, creating a feedback loop that entices more consumption of negatively valenced media. It is in a media company’s profit interest to magnify these human impulses. Our tech oligopoly should be asking itself – is our technology accelerating whatever Thucydides’ trap was already in existence? How much profit can be made when nuclear war begins?
The greater the number of intersections between the dominant power’s interests and the rising power’s interests, the greater the probability of conflict. At a minimum, we have conflicts with China over human rights issues within China involving 1) Taiwan, 2) South China Sea, 3) Hongkong, 4) Xinjiang Uighurs, 5) Tibetan Dalai Lama, and 6) miscellaneous religious freedom issues. There are also economic issues with intellectual property theft, technology theft, spying, child labor, slave labor, tariffs, manufacturing vulnerabilities, Chinese interference in US politics, Chinese economic pressure on American celebrities, and Chinese economic pressure on American company policies. China may have many areas of discontent towards America like American involvement in the Middle East, American bullying tactics, American information warfare, American trade policy, American CIA operations to incite rebellion within China. In my view, that is way too large a list of areas of contention to make for a healthy escape from the Thucydides’ trap.
In order to resolve conflicts without violence, communication is often key. Chinese is a language with a high barrier to entry, since the complex written style of their characters is ubiquitously intimidating. China’s insular culture, on average, gives them a lower amount of motivation to learn foreign languages for the purpose of friendship. This creates the perfect storm for a communication gap when neither group has a strong enough desire to put in the effort necessary to overcome the language gap.
A study out of the University of Toronto has shown the existence of a racial empathy gap (Kemick, 2010). When observing other races perform tasks, our brains don’t light up as much as if it were a member of our same race performing the task. Scientists have determined that the areas that fail to light up are the parts of the brain involved in motor function processing. Essentially, what should be happening is the brain trying to recreate the task observed by mirroring it in the motor cortex as a type of empathy. For some reason, the brain is less motivated to try to process the efforts of dissimilar races.
The value gap is often the source of moral differences that bubble up into ideological and political conflict. A common phenomenon of debate is the premature tendency of ideologues to conclude that they are correct before trying to fully understand the positions of their opponents. The purpose of the debate becomes less about finding truth and more about defeating an opponent’s worldview. This failure to try to understand another’s perspective is a type of empathy gap. But even if the empathy gap is able to be closed, that doesn’t necessarily mean that value differences can still be reconciled. For example, we may be able to understand the reasons why China lays claims to things like Taiwan and the South China Sea, but that doesn’t necessarily mean our values will align with theirs on those issues. I am inclined to think that the reconciliation of values requires intense communication from both sides, of the sort that comprises a dialectic – where both parties are acting in good faith with the goal of getting to the best solution together. This value gap may require discussion of the beliefs and epistemologies that form the foundation for value systems. Perhaps certain beliefs and epistemologies will have to be altered in order for a synthesis to emerge. This is probably the hardest part of the Thucydides’ trap.
GRASSROOTS STRATEGY:
Our modern media landscape is a complex phenomenon. It seems that often the interests of the rich and powerful impact the way media operate (Joseph, 2014). But media powers have been decentralized as new technologies make it easier for the average person to have a voice. The power of the people to impact the media grows every day. If we can arrive at a cultural solution at the grassroots level, perhaps that solution can be propagated into the media to solve factors 1 through 3 involving perception and propagation of narratives. Factor 4 his heavily connected to factor 7, in that our value systems govern how we feel about areas of contention. Factor 5 is linked to factor 6, in that we won’t have enough motivation to bridge the communication gap until we first resolve the empathy gap. So, to me, fixing the empathy gap is the necessary first step in kicking off a series of cascading changes in the culture that can shift us closer towards a peaceful reconciliation with China. Once we establish a culture of love and empathy for China, then we will be motivated to overcome the communication gap, which will lead us to having deeper and deeper discussions about the nature of our value gaps. Simultaneously, media organizations will be motivated to report the narratives more accurately since they can empathize with both sides. The more people develop empathy, the less likely they are to propagate harmful narratives.
POTENTIAL HELL:
Do you have children? Do you have nieces or nephews? Can you imagine children all over the world with beaming smiles, ignorant of the problems that may be coming their way? If you knew that war was coming to them – if you knew that they would have to fight in the deadliest war known to man; if you knew that they would suffer worse than you could ever dream; if you knew that there were beautiful and lovely people on both sides of the war; if you knew that these innocent children would one day have to be brainwashed to view each other as enemies and slaughter each other; what would you be willing to do to avoid such a fate for these beautiful children all over the world? What would you be willing to sacrifice to spare them from this disaster? What would you be willing to suffer in order to reduce their suffering? How much effort would you be willing to put in if you knew you could make a difference?
POTENTIAL HEAVEN:
Imagine that it was possible that – if a concerted effort was made by humanity, that we could resolve our tribal differences. Imagine a world that prioritizes love, empathy, and friendship, over villainization of the other? Imagine a world that prioritizes forgiveness and self-sacrifice over resentment and revenge. What if these principles were contagious? What if our good faithed effort to extend the hand of friendship could be reciprocated? What if friendship led to trust and deeper communication? What if all of our disagreements could be resolved through this deep and undying commitment to friendship? What if we could avoid the possibility of ever having a WW3 because we put in the effort to create bonds of love instead of hatred?
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
What if I told you that the path to world peace might be as simple as watching a Chinese TV show? Would you be willing to do it? If such a simple, easy, and pleasurable task could potentially trigger a "butterfly effect" that becomes the catalyst for a chain of reactions that pushes the world away from near infinite suffering, wouldn’t that be worth it?
If you aren't persuaded, be patient with me and we'll see if I can address your concerns further down. If you are already persuaded, then check out my blog post "The Philosophy of Chinese Dramas" for some tips to get you started - The Philosophy of Chinese Dramas (wixsite.com).
ANECDOTES:
I have been thinking that an easy way to cultivate a perspective of brotherhood with the Chinese is to watch Chinese dramas and connect with their humanity, culture, and morals via their stories. Something about watching a hero struggle through the vicissitudes of life draws up within us an emotional bond to them. We learn to see through their eyes, feel how they feel, and hope for the things that they hope for. This bond of love, even though illusory, most likely opens up new emotional doorways in our minds and hearts. If we can learn to love a Chinese hero, we might be able to find that same kind of heroic love for the Chinese people.
One individual who followed my suggestion to watch a Chinese drama was able to find it quite enjoyable despite some cringy moments that might be harder for American culture to accept. He told me that he agreed that the experience of watching a Chinese drama helped add depth to his understanding of the Chinese people. In watching the characters go through their stories, he was able to grow a deep emotional intimacy with the characters, in identifying with them, rooting for them, and admiring them. He admitted that before watching the show, it was harder to get a grasp on the Chinese culture. His understanding was limited to general group characteristics. But watching the show helped reify how similar the Chinese are to us in their basic humanity. The show added nuance to humanity in the way it shows a variety of Chinese personalities along the spectrum between good and evil. He confessed that it did a great deal for helping him develop the emotional capacity for feeling a type of brotherhood with the Chinese people.
RISK REDUCTION:
Realistically, watching a Chinese TV show is probably not enough to save us from our Thucydides trap. But it might be just relevant enough to help cause a series of cascading changes that leads to a cultural shift in the way we deal with China. If watching a Chinese TV show reduced the probability of WW3 by 1% would it be worth the effort? Even if we are destined to the inexorable fate of a WW3, perhaps inculcating a culture of love towards China will help reduce the amount of suffering caused by war-time atrocities when that sorrowful day arrives.
BIASED MODELS:
I view bias as the tendency to be inaccurate with respect to the truth, or the tendency to favor certain information channels, that corrupts your understanding of reality. Biases seem bad if they cause inaccuracies, but from our brain’s perspective, biases are our best attempt at getting to the truth with the least amount of effort. You could say that biases may have their utility - after all, if our biases are natural, there must be an evolutionary reason for them. Our brains are constantly trying to absorb information to build predictive models of the world. We want to predict the future as accurately as possible so that we can succeed in the world. But there is too much information for us to absorb and process. We must rely on biases to help make our lives easier and save our brain some effort. After all, the brain burns 20% - 25% of our energy. If we can save some energy by using biases as a crutch, we can be more efficient. People treasure their biases, because they have proven useful to them in the past. For example, if you learn a personality schema (whether color based, letter based, or zodiac based), you can convince yourself that this model is helping you understand the world better. These models become emotionally important to you since they have utility. If someone criticizes a model that you treasure, you will become upset. Why? Because we don’t want our models taken from us. We want to fight the temptation to give up on them, because without them we have to use our brain’s energy to develop a new model that might be of lower predictive quality. We need to be convinced that there is a superior model of the world available before we will feel comfortable dropping our old model for the world.
COSTS OF BIAS:
Because we don’t have a better model for the world at hand, we will rely on our best available models too heavily. We will be blind to their inaccuracy. Our brains will stop expending effort to question the accuracy of our models. We might even use mental gymnastics to twist reality to fit our models. But this means that we have become committed to inaccuracies. If we have committed to being inaccurate, then we can develop a feedback loop of information inaccuracies that leads us towards extremist worldviews. Because of information acceleration, a small inaccuracy in your model of the world can corrupt the information you pay attention to, which further reinforces the narrative that you are already biased to favor (confirmation bias).
WAR ON BIAS:
I think that as a collective, we must declare a war on our inaccurate and irrational biases. As the truth becomes harder and harder to decipher, our desire to fight our biases must grow. Collective sense making is essential for collective decision making. As the stakes on our decisions grow larger and larger, we must put more effort into them. We can’t afford inaccuracies in a time when potential disasters linger about like timebombs all around us. Whether it be climate change, racial tensions, conspiracy theories, pandemics, nuclear proliferations, national rivalries, political revolutions, religious upheavals, signs of deep corruption, or AI regulations, we can’t afford to make the wrong decisions as a collective. We must be forward thinking. We must care about the truth more than our biases. If we let our biases win, then we as a collective might lose.
BIAS METRICS:
We should be constantly developing and using new technology to monitor bias as a collective. If it is measured, then people can become conscious of it and resist it easier. If people learn to become disgusted by unfair bias in media (on both sides), then people will naturally gravitate away from biased media, and sources of bias will lose market share. By changing the interests of the masses, we can change the trustworthiness of the information landscape. We can hold the media to higher standards of rigor.
CONSCIOUSLY TARGET BIASES:
In order to properly fight our biases, we must bring them out of our unconscious mind and into the realm of consciousness. We need to develop a routine in our minds that is constantly looking for evidence of our own biases. Once you have identified your own bias, then you must take action to fight it. If you have a bias against a certain religion / or lack thereof, you must consume media from the group you are biased against. If you have a bias against a nation, you must consume media produced by that nation. If you have a bias against a political party, you must consume media from their perspective. Only by listening to the other side can we develop empathy.
ONE-SIDED THINKING:
The easiest way to discover biases within yourself or others is when you notice that only one perspective is being laid out. If someone is able to articulate all of the ways China’s government is evil, but they are unable to steelman the Chinese position and explain things from China’s perspective – there is an inherent bias. If someone is aware of China’s sins but is unaware of America’s sins, there is a bias showing. If you only know the pros of religion and you don’t know the cons, there is a bias showing. If you only read media that criticizes the president, and never read media that defends the president, a bias is showing.
BLACK AND WHITE THINKING:
If you have polarized opinions, you might be engaged in black and white thinking (Shapiro, 2020. p. 23). Black and white thinking develops when one-sided thinking happens for too long. If you are fed an "American" perspective your whole life (never learning the Chinese perspective), you will most likely develop a black and white paradigm for understanding the Chinese as the bad guys and the Americans as the good guys. Life is NEVER this simple, so you need to learn to wake up from this mentality. Here is a quick run down of some facts to remind you that the idea that America is the innocent good guy isn't such a clear determination.
Before WWII was over, the USA
Turned captured Japanese soldiers against the Chinese communists (Blum, 2003, p.20),
Helped transport and mobilize over 500,000 Chinese nationalist troops (Blum, 2003, p.20),
Sent 50,000 - 100,000 US troops to fight the communists (Blum, 2003, p.20),
During the decade of US operations against China in the 1950s, the USA
conspired with Burma and Taiwan in launching military strikes on China even from the islands of Quemoy and Matsu islands (Blum, 2003, p.23),
launched CIA operations into China, admitting so two decades later after spies got caught (Blum, 2003, p.23),
attempted assassinations on Communist leader Chou En-lai (Blum, 2003, p.22, 99),
Between two decades of the 1950's and 1960's, the USA
registered many violations of Chinese airspace with unauthorized spy drones that were sometimes shot down (Blum, 2003, p.24),
leveraging Tibet against the Chinese by promoting Tibetan hatred for the Chinese, as Tibetan said ‘We only lived to kill Chinese," (Bageant, 2004),
supplying and funding Tibetan military operations against China (Blum, 2003, p.25),
trained 259 Tibetan terrorists in a secret training camp in Colorado, under the false pretense that USA cared about Tibetan independence (Bageant, 2004).
planned an almost genocidal attack on the Chinese on December 25, 1958 with the words "We had not killed all of the Chinese but would have if we had better communications between our forces and if the weather had not cleared" uttered by Tibetan leader Gompo Tashi after 200 men destroyed 500 Chinese quarters, many vehicles, and killed 550 Chinese soldiers (Bageant, 2004).
GREY THINKING:
The solution to black and white thinking is grey thinking. When people lack nuance they become extreme in their views and actually make the problem worse. Black and white thinking is blind to all the ways they are wrong and all the ways that they are contributing to their own image as a villain, despite seeing themselves as a hero. Once you enter grey territory, you have the more nuanced perspective to understand how to have empathy for others. Only with a transcendent perspective can we have the empathy to understand the gap between us and others in order to truly solve problems.
DEHUMANISATION:
One of the most abominable forms of bias is the dehumanization of a whole group, because of what it can lead to. In Germany, leading up to WW2, the Nazis referred to Jews as rats (Smith, 2011). In China, during the Hongkong protests, the Hongkongese were referred to as “cockroaches” by the CCP state media (Lim, 2019). We should be on the alert for signs of extreme bias and try to root them out as early as possible before they take sway in the culture. Seems like the only way atrocities can be committed is if first the target group is vilified and dehumanized. I think it should be illegal to compare a group to something that is pestilent in nature, and therefore metaphorically implying that the group is worthy of extermination.
CATASTROPHIZING:
One of the most toxic aspects of our political debate is what Jonathan Heidt called catastrophizing in his book, The Coddling of the American Mind. Catastrophizing is basically the idea of applying a slippery slope logic to a certain behavior, essentially concluding that the foreseeable result of said behavior will be catastrophic. Even worse, the person guilty of catastrophizing will often conclude that the person performing the behavior knows that they are causing a catastrophe, and therefore they are morally guilty of said catastrophe that has yet to occur, and merely exists in their imagination. Common examples of this are the idea that certain speech is dangerous because it might be offensive to some people, and those people might commit suicide, and therefore the person speaking is morally responsible for systemic murder. In identifying “dehumanizing” speech as abominable, I don’t mean to imply that we should utilize a catastrophizing approach to dealing with it. I don’t think that we should impute the sin of “intent to commit genocide” to every person who uses offensive metaphors. But I think we should all learn to recognize it and call it out for what it is – unacceptable dehumanizing speech.
LEVELS OF BIAS:
Spiral dynamics (similar to integral theory) proposes a hierarchy of worldviews that arises through the evolution of a cultural zeitgeist. Each color represents a different style of worldview (integral theory changes up the colors a bit, but type of levels). Depending on our level of collective cultural development, a culture might have a net bias along one of these levels within the hierarchy. Individuals within the culture might be at different stages of consciousness and worldview, but the majority worldview is what drives policy. I am relatively new to integral thinking, so I might be off in my assessments, but the following is my best attempt to explain the flow of the evolution of human thought along the integral hierarchy - Xenophobia within Integral Theory | TranscendentPhilosop (wixsite.com).
BIAS ASSESSMENT:
Based on the spiral dynamic chart of biases, you might be able to measure the media you consume in relation to these biases. Do you like to read articles expressing how dangerous China is? Perhaps that is because your most archaic threat detection biases are being stimulated. Do you really want to have a bias to view the “other” as dangerous? Or maybe you like to consume information articles that express all the weird things Xi Jinping is doing – highlighting how different the Chinese are, or how mysterious they are. Do you really want to develop that mystical bias though? Or maybe you like to watch YouTube videos that show how easy it would be for the USA to defeat China in a war. Perhaps this is exposing some tribal biases at the red layer? Alternatively, maybe you like to investigate all the horrors committed by Mao Zedong. Perhaps you like to read about the CCP’s abuses of different groups. This might be signifying to you that you have a religious/authoritarian bias to view the “other” as evil. What about if you like to pay attention to economic news in Asia? Maybe you are interested in trade laws? Perhaps you have a modernistic bias to look at China through the lens of money and opportunity. And if you like to consume information about Asian-American issues, the rise of anti-Asian hate, and the history of discrimination against Asians, perhaps you have a postmodern bias guiding your epistemology. When it comes to an integral bias, you may find yourself paying attention to media that discusses China’s role in combatting global warming or addressing AI issues. Yet, to me, it would seem that most media does not frame China like a potential partner – a fellow stakeholder in world issues. This is a problem - the integral layer of our culture seems to be very weak and underdeveloped. Finally, if you consume Chinese-friendly media, you might be developing a bias to view the Chinese as our brothers and sisters. The question we should be asking ourselves is – what type of bias do we want to develop?
ACCURATE BIASES:
I think the answer to this question is – we want to develop a bias that is as accurate, rational, and fair as possible to empower us with the right amount of perspective to pursue collective wellbeing in an optimal way. Developing an accurate bias might mean consuming information from every layer of spiral dynamics. Developing an accurate bias might mean trying to balance the media you consume by consuming an equal amount of American perspective as Chinese perspective. Developing an accurate moral bias would mean trying to integrate all of that information under the guiding moral principle of viewing the “other” as a brother. The nature of brotherhood implicitly communicates an important moral attitude – the idea that we care about them, that we are invested in them, and that their wellbeing is connected to our wellbeing.
ACCOUNTABILITY:
But brotherhood does not imply that we should be apathetic in the face of offenses committed by our brother. Just because someone is your brother doesn’t mean they get a free pass to commit crimes. It doesn’t mean you have to cover for them. A true brother holds his brother accountable for his crimes – because holding your brother accountable is the only way to help him be better. Brotherhood means that, to the extent possible, we are committed to reconciliation, forgiveness, and togetherness in the long run. Brotherhood means that before we decide to fight, we try every possible means of resolving our conflict in more peaceful ways.
HARMFUL BIAS HEURISTIC:
The more you villainize a country/group, the more you need to consume their own media (from their perspective) to counterbalance your negative bias, help you develop a more nuanced perspective, and generate empathy.
BIBLICAL WISDOM:
If we look at the Bible through an evolutionary lens, we expect to see the philosophies in the Bible evolve over time in a way that corresponds to evolutionary game theory. Integral theory is another lens through which we can view the wisdom contained within the Bible. For example, one might expect lower levels of consciousness to be present in the earlier time periods of Biblical development, and higher elements of wisdom in later parts of Biblical development. In the following sections, I will show how much of the Old Testament is based around tribal ideas of revenge, hatred, genocide, and tit for tat punishment of the wicked. Then I will also show how the New Testament has a bias for higher stages of development including, forgiveness, love, brotherhood, reciprocity, and no-strings-attached benevolence. Check out this forum post to see some examples of the evolution of morality from revenge-oriented tit-for-tat towards forgiveness-oriented tit-for-tat - Bible on Revenge and Forgiveness | TranscendentPhilosop (wixsite.com).
GAME THEORY:
Game theory is the body of study around which strategies help players win games. Game theory has been applied to evolutionary contexts to discover if certain behavior patterns were more successful in an evolutionary environment than others. Evolutionary biologists often posit that evolutionary game theory can explain our moral impulses and intuitions as evolutionary strategies to maximize our success. In computer run simulations, they can develop different type of “robots”, “non-player characters”, or “programmed personalities” that mimic humans in their behaviors. Programmers can design these robots to have different moral codes.
One popular moral code is termed the “tit for tat” strategy. Under tit for tat, the unit always takes revenge on perceived offenses and always reciprocates perceived altruism. Tit for tat morality is the idea of “If you are good to me, I will be good to you. If you are bad to me, I will be bad to you.”
In a variety of computer program simulated experiments, tit for tat morality has consistently performed well as a reliable strategy in simulated social environments (Axelrod, 1984). While tit for tat might not be perfect, it can sometimes be improved by adding a programmatic element of "forgiveness" to the strategy to remedy lost cooperation due to miscommunications that turn into negative feedback loops under normal tit for tat. Chris Bateman summarized the most robust version of tit for tat morality containing 1) niceness - never be the first to betray others, 2) vengeance - punish those who betray you, 3) forgiveness - don't continue negative feedback loops indefinitely, and 4) non-envious - don't try to compete with others (Bateman, 2007).
It would seem that the integral theory perspective on the evolution of cultural morality is trying to level up our game theoretic morality. This process of leveling up the quality of our moral intuitions is shown in the Bible as well. The Old Testament has a bias for a crude version of “tit for tat” morality that mostly focuses on revenge. As people get wiser in their moral intuitions, the New Testament displays a more robust version of “tit for tat” that includes forgiveness, niceness, and a lack of envy.
The most important think about adding the element of forgiveness is its ability to end cycles of revenge – classic blood feuds. In an age when information is harder to navigate, when truth is buried in lies and misconceptions, when bias guides epistemology, and when flimsy narratives guide morality - miscommunications and misunderstandings are very likely. Miscommunications are the traps that lead to tit for tats strategic failure – a cycle of revenge. Only by evolving a more generous game theoretic strategy can we avoid these downward spirals.
BEAUTIFUL SOULS:
Ever since I was 18, I started studying Chinese in preparation for an LDS mission to spread Mormonism to the Taiwanese people. I had a wonderful experience in Taiwan where I was able to connect with the locals, learn their culture, and see the goodness in their hearts.
As a missionary in Taiwan, I found was that many Taiwanese were sincere and patient. Many would be willing to sit by the side of the road and talk with me about religion for a whole half hour. Many would respond with smiles and love instead of frustration. Strangers would see us missionaries sweat on our bikes and secretly deliver drinks for us. Old ladies exercising at the park would share their fruit with us every morning and let us do exercises with them. The members would invite us into their homes and treat us to family dinners. The members would serve us without a second thought. Sometimes the Taiwanese people would share with us their deepest fears and their greatest desires. I met an old man who loved me like a grandson. I met mothers who treated us like sons. I met brothers who treated me with the sincerity of comradery. I was touched by their love. I was touched by their kindness. I was touched by their hospitality. I learned to love Taiwan with all its virtues and flaws, just like a parent loves their child. It was an unconditional love. Taiwan was my baby. I had invested all of my heart into serving it. I just wanted the best for it, no matter what that was.
Since then, I have left the church and become an atheist. But all along, Taiwan has always had within a special place in my heart. I have been concerned over the Taiwan-China conflict for a long time. I would absolutely hate to see Taiwan destroyed in the process of acting as a battlefield between China and the USA. There are so many beautiful souls in Taiwan that the thought of their suffering brings me great angst.
CHINESE CULTURE:
After leaving the LDS church I began dating a Chinese girl. This was mostly my first exposure to Chinese culture, other than that of the Taiwanese version of Chinese culture. I learned of the deep nature of their cultural ethic of reciprocity, most likely inspired by Buddhism. The root of this ethic seems to come from the idea of karma – if you do good, good will return to you; if you do evil, evil will return unto you. They applied this principle to their relationships, whether romantic, familial, or business related. If you gave a family member a gift, they were obligated to return a gift of equal to or greater value, or suffer a karmic debt. I can’t find the source, but I remember a Buddhist quote that goes something like “If you do a pound of good unto others, others will return more than a pound of good unto you, and as you continue this cycle of returning a greater goodness for each pound of goodness you receive, you will grow closer in your bonds as you develop a relationship like a well springing forth everlasting goodness in this life and lives to come.” I found this to be an awe-inspiring quote that motivated me to want to invest more into my relationships with people in the hope that they could grow into something deeper and more beautiful.
I found that many Chinese actually tried to implement these ideas in their lives. They have a strong culture of gift-giving. They try to put a lot of effort into figuring out what would be the perfect gift for someone based on their interests. They are not shy about spending money on gifts for others because they know that the receiver will spend an equal or greater amount of money and effort in returning the favor with a gift in the future. These cycles of gift-giving connect them closer and closer in their relationships. Instead of worrying about wasting money on a gift, they treat it like an investment. Instead of trying to be cheap and save money, they try to work harder and smarter so they can afford to invest in their relationships.
Chinese also apply this karmic principle to their dining habits. Instead of the somewhat cold and unfriendly culture of splitting the bill in America, the Chinese often compete over who gets to pay the bill for the group. It is seen as an honor to get to pay for everyone. Magnanimity and generosity are virtues they try to express in groups. In fact, they are so passionate about this that often someone will pretend to leave the table for the restroom, but instead they secretly find the cashier and pay for the table in advance so that no one can compete with them for the opportunity. In their mind, they probably see this as investing in good karma. If these are good friends, they will remember your generosity and pay for your bill next time. If they never return the favor, then that is a signal that maybe they aren’t a good friend, and this can be a signal to stop investing in that relationship.
Karmic principles also seem to apply to parent-child relationships. Parents often try to invest in their children. They work hard to have enough money to get their children into the best schools. They financially support their children well past adulthood, sometimes even helping their child buy a house. The parents have faith that they can rely on their children for retirement. When parents become old, it becomes time for children to repay the karmic debt and take care of them in their feeble years.
I will never forget the time when my ex-girlfriend’s Chinese parents came to America to visit us. They were very genial and warm to me, even though I was a foreigner and marrying their daughter to another country, culture, and race wasn’t the most comforting idea to them. Every night her parents would put a lot of effort into cooking a nice Chinese meal for the four of us. Then we would chat over some wine and discuss a variety of topics. Her father treated me like a son, challenging my alcohol tolerance and discussing the deeper topics of life. One night will always stand out to me in particular. We were discussing the history between America and China. He gazed off into the distance as if his mind was wandering through time and he said, “You know Seth, in World War 2, Japan was really beating us up badly. It was you Americans who came to our defense at that time. We will never forget the sacrifices you Americans made to help us at that time. We will never forget our American brothers who died for us.” It was a very poignant moment for me as I realized that there must be a deep yearning in the hearts of many Chinese to embrace the opportunity for brotherhood with America. But since WW2, and the rise of Chinese communism, they have been treated more as an enemy than a brother – having to face the brute strength of the American military in both the Vietnam and Korean wars, and constantly watching out for CIA sabotage operations.
I have found that Chinese seem to have a 5000-year perspective on history, whereas Americans seem to only have a 300-year perspective on history, since each of our nations has existed over different scopes of time. From the perspective of American history, the Kennedy assassination was a long time ago, relative to 300 years. But for the Chinese, British offences against China 200 years ago still emotionally resonate within them as if they happened yesterday, since from a 5000-year perspective, 200 years ago isn’t that long ago.
A lot of conflict can come from different frames of reference. If one person has a long memory of all the offenses the other person has committed against them, then they will think their attitudes are justified. If someone has a short memory with little understanding of how they have offended someone, they will feel that negative attitudes against them are unjustified. If we incorporate biases into how we remember offenses, we will further warp our understanding of reality. If we only remember the list of offenses others have committed against us, but forget all the times we have offended others, we will be creating a black and white worldview that paints us as the good guys and them as the bad guys. But this worldview is fundamentally inaccurate. When we start to fight our biases and become educated on how we have offended others, then we can enter “grey” territory and understand that this isn’t about how one team is good and the other team is evil. This is about how we are all one big human family, and we need to learn how to communicate properly and treat each other better so we can cooperate in the long run.
While living in Taiwan for my second time, between 2016 and 2018, I had the privilege of becoming friends with a group of Chinese students that were studying in a Taiwanese university. It seemed like, despite the fact that Taiwanese are incredibly friendly to foreigners, there is still a lingering feeling within foreigners of being a little bit like outsiders in Taiwan, so it becomes easy for foreigners of diverse countries to band together in friendship since they share their “outsiderness” in common.
These Chinese friends treated me like family. We played together, ate together, even filmed videos together for fun. There was nothing unique about their nationality that would stop them from treating me like family. Again and again, whether it was the Taiwanese or the Chinese, the spirit of brotherhood and familial love came naturally for us. This constantly inspired me. If it was possible to generate familial love at the individual level, why would it be impossible to generate familial love at the national level? What stops our nation from becoming a best friend nation of China and Taiwan?
TRANCENDENT LOVE:
Familial love is a powerful thing. The way I like to define transcendent value is anything that we would be inclined to value more than our own lives. When mothers love their children, this often becomes a transcendent love when the mother is willing to risk their life for their child. When the man is willing to risk his life for the woman, this love has become transcendent. Similarly, I believe that love between nations can grow to transcendent levels. Once love grows to the depth of brotherhood, we will be willing to die for our brothers, even if they are a different race.
BROTHERLY CONFLICT:
But what happens when my brothers decide to fight each other? What happens when I love my Chinese brethren and would be willing to die for them, but I also love my Taiwanese brethren and would be willing to die for them as well? If the Chinese decide to invade the Taiwanese, what is someone like me to do? I think it makes sense when we put it into the context of one brother bullying another brother. Just because I love my brother doesn’t mean I can standby and do nothing while he harms my other brother. Loving your brother means holding them accountable and helping them on the path to treating their brother properly, even if that requires unfriendly measures. Tough measures can be an expression of love because we want to help our brother live up to their true potential. But there is a difference between engaging in tough measures out of love rather than enmity. It is much easier to accept punishments when the context of love is understood. But when animosity is the motivating factor, the lesson will never be learned, but rather a cycle of revenge will begin.
EVOLUTIONARY CONFLICT:
In studying evolutionary psychology, I learned from Robert Sapolsky that different species have different game theoretic strategies. Tournament species (like gorillas) are oriented around competition. These competing males try to become the strongest male around so they can get all the women. This competition makes it impossible for gorillas to work together as a team with each other. Their sense of “family” is very narrow. Pair-bonding species on the other hand focus on a cooperative strategy. The males are less focused on becoming the strongest male, and more focused on having the biggest chain of cooperation. Genders are less dimorphic, so the males are more similar to the females. These pair-bonding species (apes) have a greater scope for their definition of “family” which means they can form large groups of apes to perform raiding parties, engage in tribal warfare, and even genocide against neighboring tribes. The neurotransmitter “oxytocin” is the chemical that allows us to form deep familial bonds of love, but this chemical is a dangerous double-edged sword because oxytocin increases our hatred of those who are threats to those we love. With brotherly love comes the ability to hate those outside your circle of brotherhood.
I think that the Chinese have a well-developed ability to harness oxytocin to develop brotherly love among their own citizens. But the danger is when the Chinese government sends them messages that they should interpret Westerners as threats to the people they love. The Chinese government can hack into their love of their families and weaponize it against the West.
INWARD FOCUS:
I have always felt that I should live my life in a way that is so visibly noble and good, that any negative gossip about me would be promptly debunked merely by a quick observation about the way I live my life. Developing this philosophy has allowed me to never suffer the anxiety of wondering what others think of me. If others are fed a negative narrative about me, I would hope that getting to know me would immediately solve that problem. And if the way I live doesn’t immediately debunk any negative gossip, perhaps I deserve those negative impressions for failing to live as nobly as I aspire to.
Perhaps similarly, we as Westerners need to raise the standard for how we carry ourselves about in our international behavior. Perhaps we need to look inward at our own hypocrisies, contradictions, and mistakes and try to rectify them first. Only when we have set the example for noble foreign policy can we lead by example. Only when we set a stellar example can our behaviors immediately debunk anything that the Chinese government wants to tell their people in order to villainize us. So instead of focusing on how evil the Chinese government is, we should focus on how we can live in a way that is noble beyond reproach, so that the Communist party has no ammo with which to besmirch us.
"The fact that 'compersion' such a uncommon word in English is actually a problem culturally" - Daniel Schmachtenberger
COMPERSION:
Compersion is the idea of being happy when others are happy. This is probably one of the most healthy virtues we can develop. It is the positive version of empathy – feeling sad when others are sad. When we truly view others as family, their happiness and sadness become tethered to our own. This means we look for solutions that benefit the group rather than just one side of the group. If we as a nation work on developing compersion, we will be in a better place for solving the great global problems that the future will bring.
RECIPROCITY:
One of the fundamental elements of cooperation is the principle of reciprocity. As tit for tat morality suggests, just as we have an evolutionary instinct to get revenge on those who harm us, we also have an evolutionary instinct to respond positively to others who are good to us.
When I was a teen, I found myself stuck in a negative relationship with a sibling. It seemed obvious that we had developed a cycle of revenge, each offense being responded to with an equal to or greater offense. I was frustrated by this downward spiral of negativity. A lesson in church about the principle of reciprocity rang true to me. I realized that I could try an experiment in reciprocity to fix my relationship. It was connected to Jesus’s admonish to return good unto those who commit evil against you. I could choose to respond positively, nicely, and kindly to my sibling any time they lashed out at me in negativity. Obviously, I had already become a villain in the mind of my sibling. But if ever time they were mean to me, I responded by being nice to them, I figured that would start to debunk the narrative in their mind that I was a villain. The more I repeated this pattern, the stronger it would become. Eventually my sibling would realize that they were wrong in viewing me as a villain and would feel obligated to stop being mean to someone who was noble enough to never take revenge. This experiment with my sibling took a few weeks and a couple dozen instances of returning good in exchange for evil. But it eventually worked. The downward spiral of negativity was cured.
I think similarly, our relationships with other countries can be this way. If we have a history of negative interactions with China, it is easy for them to frame us as a villain in their mind. Each time we do something, they can interpret what we do in the most negative way possible because of this villain narrative. But what if we collectively decided to end the downward spiral in our relationship? What if we collectively decided to return good for evil? What if we decided to treat them as brothers, even if they treated us as villains? What if our outstretched hand of patience and love could eventually touch their hearts? What if the way we expressed our love to them was so palpable that it could instantly debunk any narrative that we are the villains? What if our deep desire for friendship could be reciprocated? What if a deep commitment to being good to them could create a cycle of positivity in which they feel a karmic debt to also be good to us? What if this cycle of positivity could create a deep and everlasting friendship between two of the most powerful nations on earth? What if the Thucydides trap could be replaced by world peace?
RED LINES:
I once had a discussion with an anti-China hardliner who said - "I don't want to soften towards China, because I feel that they need a spanking." People seem to have a fear that animosity is necessary to develop the emotional momentum to punish those who deserve punishing. But in the context of a family, this is the most inaccurate conclusion that could be made. When parents discipline their children, animosity never needs to be the motivating factor. It is very easy to allow your love to motivate the disciplining of your child. Life is dangerous. A child who makes ignorant mistakes can harm their own wellbeing. A parent is obligated by love to teach their child to not harm their own wellbeing. This may require short-term pain that mitigates long-term pain.
What parents often do is establish red-lines for which behaviors will not be tolerated. These rules help educate the child on the proper path of development. Perhaps parents might make a rule – “No hitting”. When the child hits another child, the parent must make sure that their child suffers consequences so they can learn how important this rule is for their future wellbeing.
Similarly, in geopolitics, we need to communicate our red-lines effectively. We need other nations to understand that there are certain behaviors that are unacceptable, even when committed by loved ones. They need to know what the consequences are so that everyone can develop in a healthy way together.
If we decide that our Chinese brothers are not allowed to bully our Taiwanese brothers, then we can make it very clear what the consequences will be. Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent further violence and the abuses of the rights of the weak. In war, often the soldiers are trained to hate the enemy to make it easier to kill them. I don’t know how I feel about this. In general, I feel like this isn’t a healthy approach, but I’ve never fought in a war, so I don’t feel fully qualified to critique this approach. But I think that if we understand that it is okay to use violence to stop one brother from hurting another brother, we can have a synthesis between loving our brothers and warring against our brothers.
But if our nation decides to engage in an unjust war – a war that villainizes the Chinese and goes beyond merely protecting our Taiwanese brethren, I will feel that our nation has betrayed the principles of justice. Under these circumstances, I would rather die in the hands of my Chinese brethren then fight an unjust war against them. You can draft me if you wish. But I won’t fire my gun unless it is to protect my Taiwanese brethren on their soil.
CHESS:
Imagine you have been able to successfully time travel back to the year 1900. It’s early in the 20th century and World War 1 hasn’t happened yet. All the horrors of the 20th century are on their way. You’ve got a couple decades to do your best to see if you can change the timeline. What’s working for you? You have a knowledge of what human nature can be like in its worst ways. But you also have a knowledge of what human nature can be like in its best ways. In pitting the better angels of our natures against the demons of our natures, it becomes a chess game to see if our angels can win this time around.
Now realize – we are at the beginning of the 21st century. We are still playing the same game. We can extrapolate out what risks the 21st century brings based on our knowledge of human history. You have a few decades to try your best to help the better angels of our nature win against the demons in the 21st century.
If we want the future to be better, we must be like chess players. We must think decades into the future. It’s scary because there are many unknowns and lots of dangerous twists and turns. There is no guarantee we will win. But we have to try our best – because the lack of our best effort means that the future will be worse than it might have been had we tried harder.
Ideas are the chess pieces. There is a reason religions and political parties want to spread their ideas – because they instinctively know that that is the way to win the game. But the think is, the chess game we are playing is multidimensional. There is a political chess game going on that increases division and hate. But there is also a meta-chess game being played – a game that no longer views things in black and white, with heroes and villains, but rather, under the meta-chess framework, the division between the “black team” and the “white team” is the enemy, and the unity between teams is the goal. In a normal chess game, progress is measured by destroying your enemies and gathering your allies – zero sum in nature. In the meta-chess game we must play, progress is measured by the conversion of enemies into allies, a positive sum game.
The last thing I want to see is beautiful and lovely people on both sides of a chessboard pointlessly aiming their weapons at each other, causing each other immense suffering, merely because they lack the ability to understand each other.
In the beginning I mentioned the following factors influencing our Thucydides' trap - 1) perceived acceleration of the rising power, 2) perceived decline of the superpower, 3) rate of amplification of narratives, 4) the number of areas of contestation, 5) communication gap, 6) empathy gap, and 7) the value gap. What if the best chess move we can make at this time is to increase our love for the Chinese by connecting with their stories? Perhaps this love will help us solve the communication gap, the empathy gap and the value gap. Once we have a proper frame of mind for communicating with the Chinese, then we can amicably resolve each area of contestation. And when we truly love the Chinese, we can have the compersion to be happy for their success as they rise in power, because we view their success as our own success. Then it wont really matter if we decline. The Chinese will be more willing to learn from us when they see that we are a loving partner in the world. Our love for them will debunk the "villain" narrative that they have created and will open the way for positive communication. As we learn how to love our enemies, they will be forced to love us back by virtue of their innate instinct for reciprocity. Check out my blog post - The Philosophy of Chinese Dramas (wixsite.com) for more information on how to make this next chess move.
REFERENCES:
Mayer, T., Disdier, A., & Head, K. (2006). Exposure to Foreign Media and Changes in Cultural Traits: Evidence from Naming Patterns in France. Public Choice & Political Economy eJournal.
Willnat, Lars. (2002). Perceptions of Foreign Media Influence in Asia and Europe: The Third-Person Effect and Media Imperialism. International Journal for Quality in Health Care - INT J QUAL HEALTH CARE. 14. 175-192. 10.1093/ijpor/14.2.175.
Joseph, T. (2014). Mediating War and Peace: Mass Media and International Conflict. India Quarterly, 70(3), 225-240. Retrieved August 7, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/45072817
Ford, Thomas. (1997). Effects of Stereotypical Television Portrayals of African-Americans on Person Perception. Social Psychology Quarterly. 60. 266. 10.2307/2787086.
Kemick, April. (2010) Human brain recognizes and reacts to race, UTSC researchers discover. Retrieved 10/7/2021 from http://ose.utsc.utoronto.ca/ose/story.php?id=2135
Smith, David. (2011). 'Less Than Human': The Psychology Of Cruelty. Retrived on 10/15/2021 from https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human
Lim, Louisa. (2019). If Protests Are an ‘Infection,’ What Is China’s Cure? Escalating rhetoric reveals how seriously Beijing views the unrest in Hong Kong. Retrieved on 10/15/2021 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/opinion/sunday/hong-kong-protests.html
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved on 10/15/2021 from http://www.eleutera.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-Evolution-of-Cooperation.pdf
Bateman, Chris. (2007) Tit for at. Retrived on 10/15/2021 from https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2007/06/tit_for_tat.html
Shapiro, Jeremy Ph.D. (2020) Finding Goldilocks: A Solution for Black-and-White Thinking. Retrieved 10/11/2021 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thinking-in-black-white-and-gray/202005/finding-goldilocks-solution-black-and-white-thinking
Bageant, Joe. (2004). CIA’s Secret War in Tibet. Retrieved on 10/11/2021 from https://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm?fbclid=IwAR10RN-TTBvm9xFEYXCOHISgx75DyIVhSl6Gn2NzcXQzji1e0_kPmaLMNhM+
Comments