Good analysis.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because it’s a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (“They like the strong horse.”)
I like to think that I would’ve been pro-abolition. But you’re right, I don’t know whether 19thC me would’ve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there would’ve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now I’m curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. I’m going to squeeze that into my research this week.
Thanks for writing this. It’s very reflective of my experience as a former military officer.
I’ll add (from an American perspective):
The military is a reliable means of upward socio-economic mobility, especially as an officer. To be reductive for a minute, EA often strikes me as a well-heeled Oxford/Boston/San Francisco club. As a son of a Midwestern UAW worker, I did not have the kind of background commonly associated with those places. I did well in my military career in a technical field, and had a few lucky breaks where I was invited into industry and academic circles in DC, Austin, and California. I doubt I could have made those connections without the institutional backing of the DoD.
I absolutely agree that the EA mindset is rare in the military (although we seem to be a minority in most contexts anyway). In my experience, you are more likely to encounter kindred spirits outside the combat arms career fields. In general, the more technical and education-laden a career field seemed to be, the more EA-ish people I encountered.
I love your points on the importance of developing leadership and organizational skills. One of the most common mistakes I see smart people (EA or not) make is the assumption that the most genius or technical person in the room is the best choice to lead. The best leaders I worked with were of generally above-average (but not genius) intelligence, with exceptional people skills and planning capacity. They surrounded themselves with smarter technical people, who acted as trusted advisors. The military follows a time-tested model that senior leaders are generalists, not specialists. Additionally, leadership is fundamentally about people. If you can’t muster up an ounce of charisma, you will not be an effective leader. I think these finer points are often lost in highly intellectual circles.