On this post,
he starts out with a digression that speaks to the issue of cultural intelligence.

if different cultures progress through developmental milestones at different rates or not at all, then these aren’t universal laws of child development but facts about what skills get learned slowly or quickly in different cultures. In this model, development is not a matter of certain innate abilities like walking “unfolding” at the right time, but about difficult mental operations that you either learn or you don’t depending on how hard the world is trying to cram them into your head.

Most of the post concerns his suggestions for what might constitute mental underdevelopment. I was struck by this one:

I’m not sure whether the Post genuinely believes the Democrats are pro-crime by inclination or are just arguing their policies will lead to more crime in a hyperbolic figurative way, but I’ve certainly seen sources further right make the “genuinely in favor of crime as a terminal value” argument. And this doesn’t seem too different from the leftist sources that say Republicans can’t really care about the lives of the unborn, they’re just “anti-woman” as a terminal value. Both proposals share this idea of not being able to understand that other people have different beliefs than you and that their actions proceed naturally from those beliefs. Instead of saying “I believe gun control would increase crime, but Democrats believe the opposite, and from their different perspective banning guns makes sense,” they say “I believe gun control would increase crime, Democrats must believe the same, and therefore their demands for gun control must come from sinister motives.”

The idea is that seeing an issue from someone else’ point of view requires advanced development. People whose mental development falls short of that will end up making false characterizations of others’ motives. Some thoughts:

1. By this standard, Paul Krugman appears to be mentally underdeveloped, even though he would score well on most measures of intelligence. The same would go for many people who like his writing.

2. Along the three-axis model, you can predict what will happen if people are mentally underdeveloped in this way. A conservative, who is focused on the civilization vs. barbarism axis, will see others as driven to destroy civilization (“Barack Obama’s goal is to destroy America.” “Libertarians are nihilists.”). A libertarian, who is focused on freedom vs. coercion, will see others as driven to destroy freedom (“Progressives want to run the economy.” “Conservatives want to run your personal life.” A progressive, who is focused on the oppressor-oppressed axis, will see others as driven to support oppression (“Conservatives are racist homophobes.” “Libertarians only want to justify the power structure.”)

3. See also David McRaney on the illusion of asymmetric insight, in which we think we understand others better than they understand themselves. Maybe getting past this illusion is a step in mental development.

4. When I worked at Freddie Mac, the senior management worked with some human resources consultants to develop a set of operating principles for improving teamwork among employees. The most interesting principle was “assume positive motivation.” That is, whenever some expresses a point of view that differs from yours, don’t assume that they are trying to cause problems for you or for the team. Think about what positive, reasonable goal they might be trying to achieve.

What is interesting about “assume positive motivation” is how much effort it takes to do it. If you don’t believe me, try to spend a week incorporating this operating principle in every in-person and on-line encounter you experience.