Psychological Patterns evident in Reactions to the Iran Nuclear Deal
Whether the deal that has been reached will or will not stop Iran from getting nuclear bomb is a question better left for experts in atomic energy and weapons, but there are some psychological processes occurring in reactions to the deal that are quite common and bear pointing out.
- The people who are most concerned about their side getting a bad deal in both Iran and the US are the ones who both are simultaneously are convinced that their side got the worst of it. Just as those on the extremes of the Democratic and Republican party are most quick to criticize any compromise, so too are those who are most partisan in the Iran-US divide most likely to disagree with the compromise, even as they disagree in opposite directions, each saying that the deal is tilted toward the benefit of the other side. This converges with work in psychology on how extreme beliefs often lead people to be more critical of mixed evidence. The Iran deal is a long and complex document and each side can find what it needs to in order to prove it’s case.
- It is psychologically more healthy to believe that one has control than to believe that one does not. So naturally Obama believes that this deal will control Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even as no verification scheme is perfect. And critics of the deal insist they could indeed get a better deal, even as those efforts would be dependent on other countries like Russia and China to keep or increase sanctions. Clearly, there is a lot more uncertainty as to whether this deal will work or whether a better deal was possible.
In the end, the bias of our organization will almost always be toward compromise over conflict. That being said, given what we know about human psychology, we’ll be looking for the analyses of non-partisan experts who talk in probabilistic terms over the certain language of the most partisan analysts to truly evaluate this deal.
- Ravi Iyer