FAVORTISM, NEPOTISM is GOOD? "Against Fairness", Book musings

“The Utilitarian approach—the greatest good for the greatest number—can be pushed to its logical conclusion. The hardcore version asserts that it is more ethical to deny your elderly father expensive healthcare if that same money could be used to save ten starving African strangers.”

Stephen T. Asma "Against Fairness" 2013

“For Confucian thinkers, integrity is not synonymous with fairness or equality. Rather familial love and devotion trump all other duties and obligations. There is a natural hierarchy of values with one’s kin on top and Confucian culture enshrines, rather than denies, that hierarchy.”

Stephen T. Asma, "Against Fairness" 2013

"When a patient's vmpc (ventralmedial prefrontal cortex) is normal (healthy) they almost always answer the ethical dilemmas in favor of their favorites, not in favor of the majority. But if the emotional vmpc is damaged, the subject becomes extremely utilitarian (hyper-rational) in their responses."
Stephen T. Asma, "Against Fairness" 2013

When someone has the ability to change my mind about an idea that I have maintained a fairly rigid acceptance of, I get very excited! I am enthralled, even provoked with mental stimulation and the endorphin rush that comes with a challenging, thought-provoking argument. I love to read books by current authors who happen to be leading thinkers in the modern world. These are individuals who propose ideas that often counter the generally agreed upon systems of thought or “boxes of thought” as I like to call them

I am currently reading the 2013 book “Against Fairness” written by Stephen T. Asma. Asma is a truly brilliant thinker who challenges the reader to reconsider the idea of fairness. He suggests that we often like to pride ourselves as fair beings—individuals who not only espouse the doctrine of fairness but also like to think that we comport our lives in a manner of consistent fairness. In this book he attacks the idea that fairness is the most moral strategy for human beings and he seems to think that there are good things—virtues—that come from partiality and nepotism.

While we often attack government policies that do not execute themselves fairly, we rarely do this with the nepotism and partiality that is woven throughout Hollywood. Many famous people are only famous (and have high-paying jobs in the entertainment industry) simply due to the favoritism and nepotism that is major theme in this industry.  Many people have acting or modeling jobs simply because they know the right people—they have family in the industry. By its very nature, this automatically disadvantages those actors/actresses seeking employment who do not possess ties to this industry. Despite these facts, very few people protest and refuse to watch these movies when we know that partiality, nepotism and unfairness were part of the strategy that brought certain actors and actresses to the top. For this industry (hollywood) we are willing to throw out our devotion to egalitarianism—even when lots of money is involved (and many others are being disadvantaged).

We endorse systems of government and policy that attempt to work towards fairness—but in our day to day lives—we do no such thing. We definitely have our favorites!

Asma takes the side of favoritism over egalitarianism and offers cogent, extensively thought-out arguments in its favor. He also delves into neurobiology.  From the moment we (and other mammals) are born we have a disposition to favoritism. This starts with the very important human activities like bonding and imprinting. We are humans that bond with our mothers.  The bonding hormone “oxytocin” is released during lactation and plays a role in the infant bonding to the mother and vice versa. Bonding is the first element of attachment to a certain person (rather than another). This bonding tendency which is a major part of our early development is then extended out to our larger family (father, siblings) and then further out to our relatives etc. It is from this early nucleus of attachment where we get nuclear families, clans, tribes etc. In other words, favoritism and tribal tendencies tend to be a part of a healthy neurobiology.

Studies show that bonding with our mothers after birth is very important to being able to form bonded, attached relationships later in life.

Asma suggests that some of the good things that come with favoritism include: allegiance, devotion, attachment and loyalty.

While I am just midway through the book, I highly, highly recommend it! If you want a thought gripping read, choose “Against Fairness” by Stephen T. Asma. This is a short book but time consuming to read as it is dense with difficult ideas and pithy sentences.

Other quotes from the book:

“Unfortunately, children who are neglected in orphanages for more than this time frame (birth and 18 months) seem to arrive in their new families with the chemical bonding windows closed. It appears that these children will always have more difficulty forming strong attachments. Children’s brains are changed by the early presence of their parents.” and vice versa. Families literally prepare the pumps of emotional chemistry and smooth the pathway to later social connection.”

“Many kids suffer from attachment disorder, failing to seek comfort in others, even their own families.”

Need for cognition?

“If you think humanity is high minded, just check out google’s zeitgeist archives for the top ten search terms. Movie and pop stars, bands, top athletes, and current political events are the perennials, with nary a scientist nor scientific discovery among them (and this is after the most popular search terms, those that relate to sex, have been screened out).  
                     Christof Koch, “Consciousness” (neuroscientist, Caltech)

Some people like to have involved conversations about religion, atheism, skepticism, philosophy and science. Many of these people have an easy time tolerating ambiguity, enjoying abstract thinking or entertaining themselves with controversial subject-matter. For such individuals, thinking itself is an artful endeavor that becomes its own reward. These are the kinds of people who relish being in the throes of a florid argument--provided no individual is being personally attacked. An intense need for cognition is a prevailing theme in these people's lives.

 I’ve noticed that people who engage in the above style of thinking, discussion and debate are often reprimanded with the following criticism:  “Stop wasting your time thinking or talking about this” or “Move on to something else” or “This isn’t changing anyone’s mind anyways” or “No one cares” or “You’re just a novice anyways, save the attempted thinking for the professors”.

 Clearly, there are many people who feel uncomfortable or apathetic about conversations that involve the philosophical realm or the pursuit of inquiry to gain knowledge. This type of person has a very low need for cognition. What would they prefer to talk about? Their dog? The reality television show they watched yesterday? The weather? That funny scene in a movie or television show that they just watched? These are fine things to talk about (and everyone already talks about them INCESSANTLY)—but what makes them appreciably more worthy of attention?  There is an endless deluge of concrete minutiae people talk about, but, for some reason, NONE of it receives the same kinds of rebuke and “You’re wasting your time!” that an attempted philosophical or intellectual discussion receives.  It’s as if having a philosophical discussion is the ultimate waste of time—but talking about your favorite celebrity or music artist is NEVER reproached—this is just expected.

Perhaps it is just “normal” to have water-cooler discussions about celebrities and their latest escapades; it is “abnormal” to initiate a Socratic dialogue with a stranger at a bakery (or anywhere else, I guess). If one of these scenarios above is considered “wasting your time” isn’t the other one too? How many times in life have we heard conversations about the first subject? How many times have you seen two people going-at-it in full-fledged Socratic dialogue?

I see it like this: a person is inevitably going to spend their time thinking or talking about certain things in this life. We choose the content that we discuss, that which arouses our sense of intrigue or passion, and this ultimately feeds and programs our brains. The time we spend having a discussion about that person we think is stupid or about our favorite celebrity—could also be time spent thinking about or discussing a scientific principle or philosophical idea.

If you are an individual with a high need for cognition, you get far less pleasure having discussions about events and other people. Instead, you thrive on ideas and how they have sex with—how they merge with other ideas forming new tiers of thought—novel possibilities to better understanding reality. Every invention or theory starts with a trail of thinking—and many times it requires abstract thinking generated from a philosophical or intellectual dialectic. Many people are perfectionists so they say “Why bother if I’m not very good at this kind of foreign thinking?” It doesn't matter if the initial thinking is rudimentary, naive or marked by flaws in reasoning. We all have to start somewhere, and sometimes we struggle in the same spot for  years—even the most brilliant people in the world were once three-year olds. At least here, we are at a place to learn and expand intellectually.

Chit-chat is a kind of rubbish talk; it really cannot advance the mind—or conversation— to new possibilities. While we all participate in this kind of daily drivel, it does take the place of excruciatingly fascinating conversations that we could be having.

We can only hope that more and more people apply their minds to new ideas and to innovative thinking.  With this method, more solutions and possibilities can be explored.

In Group vs. Out Group thoughts...

“If an out-group member steps on my toes, I am more likely to say, “He is an inconsiderate person” though, with an in-group member I will describe the behavior exactly: “He stepped on my toes.” In contrast, an out-group member acting nicely is described specifically—“She gave me directions to the train station.”—while an in-group member is described as being “a helpful person”.The Folly of Fools, Robert Trivers, PhD Professor at Rutgers

In-Group vs. Out-Group behavior isn’t just found between differing religious/philosophical groups, differing socioeconomic backgrounds and differing ethnic groups, it is found in almost any setting where a “group” can form.  Consider how children “group up” in elementary and middle school. Consider the labels of “popular” and “unpopular” that children give to each other to serve as identification markers of who’s who.

 When you’re a child (between the ages of 8-16) and you are socially excluded from the popular students and their cliques, you start to make observations about group behavior. Of course, you, yourself, are not entirely dispassionate or free of bias, but you can definitely start to notice more things about group behavior from the outside. I would wager that these observations are more transparent and less affected by bias than from an in-group perspective. Why? Well, for one, you are less fraught by an emotional, irrational attachment to the group when you are on the outside. Being a loner, you have less reason to maintain cohesion with members.

As a child, what I noticed—often repeatedly---was how unfair and capricious the popular group members behaved and how inordinately arbitrary their responses were depending on who they were talking to.  For instance, I remember being talked to in a derogatory tone for asking a certain question, yet, if one of the in-group members asked a roughly similar question, they would elicit no such response. Instead, their questions were often acknowledged with kindness and a noticeable level of respect. Sometimes, the in-group member might try and rationalize that “my question was actually more stupid than the in-group member’s question” but in all reality, the difference of my question was insignificant compared to the difference in how they responded to me. The critical difference seemed to be that I wasn’t part of their group, thus, their response to me differed.

If you look carefully, you will start to notice this behavior exhibited by many people.  We all do it from time to time—irrationally treating our close friends’ ideas as superior to the stranger who proposes a similar or even identical idea. We might latch onto the “slight” difference in the stranger’s idea to justify our alliance to our in-group member (friend) instead.

 To observe this behavior among humans, pay special attention to how people respond to their friends ideas/behaviors/suggestions compared to how they respond to their acquaintances/strangers/homeless people/ people they’ve met for the first time/ comments, behaviors, and suggestions.   We all know that our close friends make mistakes—the question is, do we treat their mistakes with less harshness than we treat the similar mistakes of strangers or “out-group members”?

The in-group bias is one of my biggest pet-peeves because it interferes with truth and the acquisition of knowledge. It adds an extra layer on top of what is actually needed to examine. More specifically, the person—not what they’re saying—is factored into the equation. If your friend said something stupid and then a homeless guy said a similar thing, you may very likely treat the homeless guy with more derision than your friend—and that is irrational, not to mention obnoxious. 

 If you consider yourself a rational person your critique should be on what the person is saying—the objective facts being presented.  This is very hard to do.

Since the studies show that we are biased towards treating our friends and kin (group members) more kindly than outsiders, we must exert considerable effort to avoid doing this. We should always ask ourselves, is this individual being ridiculed because the facts he/she presents are anathema to current scientific analysis?... or because he/she isn’t a member of “our group” or maybe because we personally find this individual to be annoying?

 I would prefer that people treat each other equally. It doesn’t matter what they look like, whether they’re male or female, whether they are annoying or aloof, what they’re wearing, what they’re socioeconomic status is, whether or not they are friends with that person or what kind of cultural or ethnic background they have.  What matters is the claims that are made.  A person’s choice of words will always be unique, so what needs to be focused on are the specific claims presented.

If you don’t like the person you don’t like the person—but don’t try and twist it into a case of the other person (most-likely someone not in your group) being “stupid” or “unreasonable”--especially when your own group members are saying very similar things and receiving credit for very similar things.