brynen vs taylor

A hundred students flooded the Moot Court to witness two of McGill’s most popular professors go head to head: Don Taylor, in impeccable tie, represented social psychology; Rex Brynen, in midnight black, spoke for political science. For almost an hour, they fielded rapid-fire questions on their respective approaches to international development, exploring intersections where the two disciplines might learn from each other. The ground shook.

How much can you benchpress?
Brynen didn’t want to reveal his tactical advantage; Taylor suggested he could lift Brynen; we anxiously moved on to more substantive issues.

How do social psych and poli sci propose overcoming long-term intergroup divisions?
After Brynen had soberly outlined the incentives used in negotiations between conflicting parties, Taylor leaned in and beamed: “In social psychology, we’re losers.” He described social psychology’s belated shift from individual to group issues, and admitted that the real work in understanding intergroup animosity still lies ahead. Brynen, looking back at a half-century of activity on the IDS side, shook his head: “Yeah, look at what political science has done for the Arab–Israeli conflict.”

What are the drawbacks to giving aid money? Does it have to be this way?
Taylor went over equity theory, which holds that parties to any exchange seek a balance of inputs and outcomes, and are uncomfortable even when they themselves benefit unduly. Brynen replied that, all things considered, he wouldn’t mind if everyone gave him $100 on his way out the door. While poli sci recognizes a host of problems with aid dependency, former colonies tend to feel under-benefited regardless of the assistance they receive.

What research needs to be done on political apathy and collective action?
Brynen wondered why, in two repressive regimes where voting seems equally pointless, the population will sometimes roll over for the disliked leader (as in Egypt) and sometimes come out in droves, without regard to personal safety (Chile). Taylor sketched out a psychological research project to distinguish between cowed fear and lack of interest – and the two discussed the personality of opposition leaders, who often require a self-sacrificing irrationality to make good on their hope for change.

Why do development workers burn out in the field, and what can be done?
Brynen estimated that field workers have a good 10 years in them before the weight of the world becomes too much to bear: it’s hard to punch out in the evening when you know lives are at stake, and at some point you need to find a 9-to-5 and save your sanity. Taylor’s best defense was a ready sense of humour, which Brynen seconded, saying that unless you could laugh at the worst, you’d better just stay home.

In response to one student’s closing question about the extent of collaboration between the two fields, Brynen said this type of discussion was the exception, and Taylor argued that students are better positioned than professors to promote the multidisciplinary study that international development requires. Although the world needs dialogue more than deathmatches, the cheering audience convinced them to close with a furious armwrestle.

Taylor proceeded to bite off Brynen’s head (not shown).