Two people are sitting in a room together: an experimenter and a subject. The experimenter gets up and closes the door, and the room becomes quieter. The subject is likely to believe that the experimenter's purpose in closing the door was to make the room quieter.

Two people are sitting in a room together: an experimenter and a subject. The experimenter gets up and closes the door, and the room becomes quieter. The subject is likely to believe that the experimenter's purpose in closing the door was to make the room quieter.

This is kind of interesting, if only because despite what it's telling me, I *still* have trouble swallowing it.

In part, my assumption that the motives of terrorists are maximal (e.g. "the deaths of innocent civilians, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties") is specifically derived from the logical knowledge that terrorism is bad at at achieving more detailed policy goals. I figure if *I* know that, of course the terrorist leaders do too. So then if follows that whatever their stated goals are, they're an act, a cover.

The article assumes that, for example, bin Laden's *stated* goals are in fact his real goals, namely

1. End U.S. support of Israel
2. Force American troops out of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia
3. End the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and (subsequently) Iraq
4. End U.S. support of other countries' anti-Muslim policies
5. End U.S. pressure on Arab oil companies to keep prices low
6. End U.S. support for "illegitimate" (i.e. moderate) Arab governments, like Pakistan

I just have trouble agreeing. I'm only now, having read this psychology theory, concerned about whether my disagreement is genuinely founded on logic or if it's a correspondent inference interfering with my reason.

For one thing, a number of those policies are unrealistic on their face. End pressure on oil prices? Sure. Stop supporting moderate governments? Definitely. I just don't see how an intelligent person, even one who's a psychotic mass murderer, could assume otherwise. In which case, it's got to be just words, right, masking the true intent.

Beyond which, the maximal objective of crippling or destroying the US state simultaneously achieves all 6 of those stated ones. So is it wrong to assume the maximal objective isn't the theoretical "ideal" goal for these people? Why wouldn't it be? And if it's not, are we really to assume that they're too stupid to see that the reality of the situation isn't having the intended result, and will not?

I remain unconvinced. I think the goals are the destabilization or destruction of the American state, and more broadly, "Western" ideology, no matter what act bin Laden or any other terrorist is putting on. For all their insanity, I don't think they're dumb, and I think they know exactly what they want, and how to go about trying to get it. Just because it hasn't worked before doesn't mean it won't... they've never had this particular president, or this particular blend of Americans. I'm not about to assume for one second that they don't intend to do massive structural damage to the U.S.; it's too dangerous. For one, they already have, through the predictable efforts of authoritarian minded neoconservatives and a public that is either authoritarian minded themselves, or too sheepish to concern themselves about it. How can one not take that seriously and chalk it up to some psychological wiring we all have?