Self-Interest: Group Edition

You have no doubt come to expect that my posts here are often going to relate in some way to self-interest as a primary motive for human behavior. I'm fascinated by the topic. There are a variety of angles from which to ponder it.

Today, I read an article dealing with "coalitional interest" or more simply stated, motivation for group behavior. The general idea is that a human is always going to act with self-interest as a very high priority, but in a coalition setting, a person is persuaded that the objectives of the group can promote and even enhance the individual's ability to achieve his goals. This can even involve a sense of personal compromise on some points as a higher value is placed on the shared interests among the group. But, coalitional interest does not involve abandonment of self-interest, it is actually just a tool in the realm of self-interest.

The more fascinating aspect to me is the issue of conflict or negotiation between two opposing groups. Whatever the shared interest is within a group, it could be described in a similar way to an individual's "core" self. The coalitional interest is not on the table for compromise, rather it is the primary purpose of the self-interested individuals in that group to achieve that goal, or advance that idea, or approve that activity, etc.

Opponents in a coalitional disagreement are going to serve their own interests by defining the terms of the debate in the way that most benefits their point. The "facts" are going to be collected and presented in the most favorable way for achieving the joint purpose. Both sides will deny that self-interest affects their presentation of "plain facts," and then both sides will cry foul, accusing the other of grossly distorting the truth in service to the obviously misguided agenda.

This brief tidbit is an example given in the article mentioned above and linked below:

Economic inequality creates coalitional conflict within nations, because it advantages some citizens (the upper class) and disadvantages others (the lower class). The upper class tends to argue that inequality is morally good (e.g., "it's the result of rewarding people who work harder than others"), whereas the lower class tends to say it's bad (e.g., "it's the result of unequal opportunities").

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE by Dr. Michael Price at his Psychology Today blog.

Where does your argument originate?

You feel like you handle yourself in a rational manner with regard to discussion of some issues and situations, but then there are some topics where you seem prone to an irrational adrenaline-generating almost-angry response. Why?

You explain a view on an important topic very calmly and respectfully to a friend or family member, but they seem blatantly closed-minded in their refusal to really engage in conversation about it. Why?

You have a particular perspective on a variety of issues. When you are challenged in a view that you hold very dear, it feels almost like a personal "attack" because that view is so valuable that you associate it with your very identity or "core" self. You might claim to be "open" to correction "if" you are wrong, but you deeply believe that you are right.

I recently encountered an excellent and brief commentary on why our responses to being challenged can vary from civil and intellectual to irrational and strongly emotional. I have modified this quote only slightly to remove potentially distracting context. It was written in a comment stream following a blog post, and it was addressed to a previous commenter. Please share your thoughts.

The way you wrote really gives your neurologically informed reader a clear picture of where the blood and oxygen was flowing in your brain while you wrote and where it was not. When you lash out with personal attacks such as “How…terrible of you,” “You are disingenuous,” and “Shame on you,” followed by sweeping generalizations, you really paint a graphic picture of what the electroencephalogram of your thoughts looked like as you transcribed those thoughts. There is a reason why serious intellectual discourse (as opposed to political sensationalism, demagoguery, and old fashion priest craft) requires civility, politeness and etiquette. When you make a debate personal and emotional the way you have, you redirect the flow of blood and oxygen in your brain away from the higher neomammalian cerebral cortex and down to the lower paleomammalian and reptilian parts of the central nervous system that are responsible for activating the fight or flight responses in a person (see triune brain theory). These centers however are not responsible for higher level abstract thinking, categorization, and compartmentalization. The “knife” of the lower more primitive parts of the brain that your are using in your writing are really a very blunt and dull instrument with which to dissect ideas and decipher their value. In fact, with those lower parts of the brain, the tendency is to set up knee jerk prejudices and a black and white sense of who is a like minded part of your “in-group,” i.e. looks like you and reminds you of yourself, making you feel safe, and who is the terrifying “other” or “out-group” that you don’t identify with you and whom you wish blindly to either destroy or assimilate into a clone of your own image by force.

And that precisely, is the definition of pre-humanism. You don’t identify with all humans as part of your group. You have hard and fast rules and dogmas about who is part of your “in-group” and who is in the “out-group,” and the thought of merging those two groups makes you froth at the mouth, rage, and hurl personal insults. That sounds like a classic example of primitive homogeneous in-group-ism. If you want to join something better and bigger than yourself and become part of a conversation rather than a war, you might want to start with some breathing exercises–yoga perhaps–before you try to join in a discourse so that you can redirect the flow of blood in your brain back up to the higher levels of neomammalian evolution, so we can see if you actually have the capacity to share any intelligent perspectives. - WRITTEN BY Thoth Coon

Helping hand or fighting fist?

I recently encountered a very brief and simple exchange on Facebook where I was reminded of the basic underlying arguments between "conservatives" and "liberals" about government-arranged financial aid for people whose problems fall in the "social" category (as opposed to disaster relief, for instance). I like arguments of this nature when there is some sort of reasonableishness being expressed on both sides. One thing I don't have much patience for is arguments where one or both parties are primarily opposing while avoiding proposing. I might make a t-shirt, "Don't just oppose...propose."

Really, all I'm saying is that if you are dissatisfied with the current manner of "solving" a problem, don't just raise your hand to say you don't like it, unless you have an alternative solution in mind.

The Situationist Blog has drawn attention to a New York Times piece which deals with behavioral research. I hope that behavioral research will get more attention in general, especially from people who are against helping others who need help.

CLICK THE LINE BELOW:
"People are complicated. If we're going to address problems, we need to understand..."

Boundary Drawing

This is a fascinating article which highlights two very different ways to look at one "really important" issue. For those of you who never fail to read and absorb my ruminationisms on this site, you are in no need of my prefatory remarks on grasping the heart of the article without being distracted by the provocative particulars mentioned in it. You may skip to the next paragraph with my profound thanks. For the rest of you, please take some time to browse my other posts before clicking on this link. I need you to put your thinking caps on and be prepared to read an article which includes ideas you may vehemently oppose. Rather than allowing your mind to dwell on the fact that this guy is in a different camp from you, please try to consider the bigger picture.

When you establish boundaries or when you adopt other boundaries as your own, the obvious implication is that you have some reason to determine who is inside with you and who is outside and unlike you. Whether this involves an athletic team, a country's citizenship, or a church tradition, there is a desire to know who is in and who is not. As referenced in the article linked here, sometimes the regulations and definitions of inclusion have very important consequences. And "important" scenarios involve great tension if a group of outsiders are determined to tear down the wall.

So what boundaries interest you? Which walls are you concerned to preserve, ensuring resistance to opposition? If a group of outsiders is making serious progress on upsetting your boundaries, do you consider this "the end of the world?" Or do you ponder the possibility that your boundaries may not have been rightly placed and may not be needed after all for the world to carry on existing?

CLICK HERE:

"For them, the erasure of traditional boundaries does indeed threaten the boundaries upon which their archaic civilization is built."

Capitalism...where do you stand?

Three definitions: dictionary version, my general understanding, and an opponent’s summary.

1. “An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” The word “free” is key there as the dictionary also gives “communism” as an antonym.

2. Businesses look to capture as much income as the market will bear. If prices are too high, businesses risk losing customers. If prices are too low, businesses risk not being able to cover their expenses. But instead of coming up with a “comfortable” margin to cover the bills and stay afloat, capitalism encourages businesses to go for as much margin as they can get away with. And businesses don’t have to feel any guilt because it’s not their fault if the market is willing to bear high margins. “How can it be my fault if the market is willing to pay $10.00 for an apple and I charge $9.99 and make a large profit?”

3. Michael Moore on Jay Leno’s new show recently: “Capitalism is legalized greed.” He went on to make the point that the wealthiest 1% of Americans possess more wealth than the bottom 95% combined. His analogy was 10 people sitting around a table with one pie. The result of capitalism is that one man can take 9 pieces and leave 1 piece for the other 9 people to share…and this is somehow okay…as long as the “market was willing to bear” whatever various means the man took to get himself into that position.

For me, it’s an interesting topic, because I love “freedom” as I understand it and I like the idea of people being allowed to make “plenty” of money to be comfortable however they define comfort. But it is troubling to me that there are so many people who are “less fortunate” in the world and have no reasonable hope of ever having anything resembling wealth, while other people in the world have so much wealth they can hardly imagine how it could ever run out and they keep piling more wealth on top of that.

I am neither of these people of course. I am far too comfortable to complain of not having “enough” and yet my bank would testify that I am not so comfortable that I should be giving money away.

So my ponderings on this point are only theoretical for now. It’s just interesting. Some people are very very passionate on both sides of the spectrum.

Healthcare Reform

In general, I will not make a habit of arguing for or against a President because of his or her political party affiliation. I am neither a committed Democrat or Republican. I will support ideas that seem good to me and oppose ideas that seem bad to me.

And I do tend to like an underdog. So if someone’s voice seems to be falling on deaf ears and their ideas are being misrepresented, I’ll be inclined to side with the person who is in need of some respect.

The current hot topic is healthcare reform. There are a babillion things that need reform, but the headline getter at the moment is healthcare. Apparently, tens of millions of people do not have insurance and among the folks who do have insurance, there is a great deal of unrest about the cost of it and the lack of good service. People who need medical attention are either going without the needed attention or creating a burden on the system by receiving care and not paying for it. I am only scratching the surface of a summary here, but I am sufficiently convinced that there is a real problem in need of a real solution.

It seems that most if not all congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, agree that there is a real problem in need of a real solution. However, the tension lies in the fact that decision makers on different sides of the aisle can’t agree on how to get there from here.

If you have an interest or opinion on this matter at all, I encourage you to review President Obama’s speech from Wednesday night (and actually pay attention). His ideas seem good to me, while the primary and loudest criticisms seem unfounded. The bottom line is that a lot of people really do need help and the government can help. While I generally favor the notion that government should not unnecessarily grow larger, and people should help one another voluntarily, it is an unavoidable fact that people don’t voluntarily help one another enough.

I made this comment yesterday on Facebook and it fits here: There is a real problem that needs a real solution. Being opposed to solutions is not a solution. Saying citizens should be left to themselves to figure out a solution is not a solution, since "we" are absolute deadbeats when it comes to helping one another in times of need. It's easy to say, "I'd rather help someone out of my pocket directly than through taxes," but then actually helping someone doesn't happen...at least not 46 million times. I think Obama's point to the congressmen who represent your point of view was, "Okay, you agree something needs to happen and you have an issue with the way I propose to get there, so come forward with an actual, thoughtful point on how to move forward. Let's be done with the boo and hiss." I certainly don't have a plan. But I agree with the President that leaving it at "I disagree" is not constructive.