#241: Time Inconsistency, Thought-Terminating Clichés & Interpretative Dominance
3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on the Betraying Mind
I. Time Inconsistency
The problem with unexpected guests is that they arrive unexpectedly. And then you realise you have nothing to offer them. The Horror! So you go to the supermarket to buy a box of chocolate to store away for the occasion. That’s the plan. And it falls apart as soon as you get home. The reason is time-inconsistent decision-making.
Time Inconsistency is when a plan that feels like the best choice today no longer feels like the best choice as soon as it’s set in motion. Your preferences shift over time. You might sincerely intend to do one thing for the future, but when the future becomes the present, you end up wanting something different. Usually, something more immediately rewarding. Like wolfing down that box of chocolate yourself.
Nothing external has changed, except your priorities. It’s why introducing…say… pervasive surveillance laws with the justification that they would only be used against criminals is a Slippery Slope.
Source: Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck, The tricks of politicians (with Strategem 16)
II. Thought-Terminating Clichés
This is Berlin.
…is my favourite example of a Thought-Terminating Cliché. Chronic filth and graffiti in public places? This is Berlin. Normalised rudeness and hostility? This is Berlin. Sidewalks doubling as dog toilets? This is Berlin, mate.
The underlying message is to encourage you to stop complaining and “get all the way off my back” about this. In other words, to normalise things that would be unacceptable elsewhere.
In general, the purpose of Thought-Terminating Clichés is to shut down critical thinking by offering a socially acceptable phrase that ends discussion without resolving the underlying issue. But what can you do? It is what it is.
III. Interpretative Dominance
It doesn’t matter if you’re right; what matters is who gets to interpret reality their way. This is the essence of Interpretative Dominance (or as the Germans call it: Soziale Deutungshoheit).
In society, certain people or groups get to define how events, behaviours or situations are interpreted. It’s not just about who says something first. It’s about whose version of reality becomes accepted as the “official” or dominant one. Think of it as a kind of influence over what counts as “the truth” in social discussions.
Say you’ve gotten into an argument at work. You may have objectively just criticised your colleague. But now the office engages in a game called Russell Conjugation. You say you “criticised”, your colleague says you “insulted”, HR says you “denigrated”. It doesn’t matter if you’re right; what matters is whose version will become the generally accepted reality.
The good news is that it doesn’t have to be permanent. If enough people challenge the dominant interpretation and offer a compelling alternative, the social narrative can shift. 🐘
Have a great week,
Chris
themindcollection.com