Does Believing Make It So?
Who should we blame, when it doesn't work?
Rainmaker
There is a movie, made in 1956, called The Rainmaker. It is not to be confused with another movie made in1997, also called The Rainmaker.
The 1956 Rainmaker is interesting to contemplate, seventy years later. The basic story is that a con man shows up in a western town that is suffering from a terrible drought. The Rainmaker assures them he can make it rain, just as soon as they pay him to do it. A secondary theme is that there is a rancher who wants to marry off his spinster daughter. Let’s just say that there’s been quite dry spell in her life also.
The Rainmaker is perhaps capable of ending both dry spells. It’s interesting to watch the movie examine people’s ability, or lack thereof, to rationally examine the realities around them, and to not fall into false expectations based on nothing more than their desire that it be so.
But this movie is nearly seventy years old and couldn’t possibly be relevant to our world today, right? Fat chance. Are there people currently who are easily tricked into believing cons? You’d better know it. I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence so much as some emotional need to feel assured that everything is being handled and will be all right. Others of us are much more comfortable with uncertainty.
Perhaps a measure of the two personality types is in how they approach issues in their life. There are those who see a problem and immediately look for someone to blame. And they  look also for someone else to solve the problem for them. Such people might be the type who turn to a con artist to lay the blame and promise a solution. In my experience, they care little about who gets blamed, as long as they make for a suitable scapegoat. And the promises of a solution need not get real results. The mere promise, the assurance, is enough.
And then there are the people who, if they see an issue that needs resolution, go about resolving it. Blame need not necessarily be assigned, but results will be measured. If the attempts to solve the problem fail, new ways will be considered. If it is recognized that the problem can not be solved, then the problem is accepted.
In the first case, rationality is pushed aside in favor of emotionalism. In the second case, emotionalism is subjugated by rationality. We both have some amount of both, so one might expect a range of approaches and outlooks. But I’m not seeing that. I see, pretty much, either or.
I’ve tried to have rational conversations with emotionalists, but I generally get nowhere. And they get nowhere with me. If I see a problem, my sense of self worth comes from solving it. Rationally. An emotionalist’s sense of self-worth comes from feeling justified and vindicated in having someone to blame. Further emotional satisfaction comes from having a hero ride into town and promise that they can solve the problem for them. Since the central point is the emotions and not the actual problem, an emotionalist really doesn’t need or even want the problem to be solved. They want to be able to continue to vent their hate at the ‘bad guy’ and to continue to have a reason to emotionally attach themselves to their ‘protector’.
Consider this, as you contemplate why problems in this country, especially in government, get worse and worse, yet many, even as they recognize the decay, are fine with it. Emotionally, they don’t want the issues resolved. They need those issues in order to feel emotionally complete.
In the movie, at the end, in accordance with the way things work in Hollywood, it rains. And the rainmaker marries the spinster, ending her drought. And in true Hollywood fashion, we are left to wonder if perhaps the rainmaker, by virtue of his belief in himself, really did make it rain. Rationally, we know better. But emotionally, it is satisfying.
Comments?
Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco. It's about a guy who investigates...well, you gotta read it. Let's just say "if you build it, they will come" predates Field of Dreams.