The one thing that did not make sense to me when reading Daniel Gilbert’s Immune to Reality chapter was his one quote, “But siblings and presidents are ours, for better or for worse, and there’s not much we can do about it once they,ve been born or elected.” (201) What confused me about this is the fact that Gilbert writes just before this, “Friends come and go, and changing candidates is as easy as changing socks.”
I feel Gilbert presents a sense of bias here and at first I thought he incorrectly used the word “president” to mean “precedent”. Not only does he undermine the importance of friendship, which many would compare to the warmth of a sibling relationship, but he also acts as if our president will stay and haunt us forever. What made me go “Huh?” was his use of someone who is in power for a short amount of time and possibly criticized throughout his or her term to enforce his idea that the mind tends to cope to things inescapable. I understand our society to function in a way where we would not have to feel oppressed by our leaders, and for Gilbert to use this example poses many problems with his credibility.
Using the word “precedent” on the other hand would make more sense. George Washington set a precedent that no president should serve more than 2 terms to avoid corruption of power. A precedent is a law that is set over the course of time. When we hold these truths and they are voided, then we have an inescapable outcome. So rejecting a value that we hold dear would trigger our psychological defense more than would a politician who we know can be easily replaced.
I do however admire Gilbert’s use of survey’s and studies to make his other points. It clarifies his theories by using factual evidence to support his claims. I also appreciate his adding humor to his work in between evidence. It balances the work to include some ease to it, making it more than just a serious read.