I'm not sure if I'd disagree with his point - other than that article he linked is not "one of the most famous psychology studies of all time" (except on a large scale, it's not taught the way...
I'm not sure if I'd disagree with his point - other than that article he linked is not "one of the most famous psychology studies of all time" (except on a large scale, it's not taught the way others are).
But he sounds absolutely insufferable. Like, spending time around him would in fact make me a worse person because I'd use terms like "sky daddy" and I'd muse about how no one is helping the homeless at a social justice conference and finding that a deep realization and then, basically, go on with my life while indirectly comparing myself and all "enlightened" people like me to an abolitionist willing to be beaten to death for his beliefs...
Like I do disagree with this sense of superiority, but I just have zero interest engaging with gestures all of that. Like, sure you're enlightened and most of the world isn't. How nice to assume you're above reacting to "incentives" and thus not an "idiot or a schmuck" like everyone else. Thanks for telling us.
There are just better ways to do science communication than this.
There's a sense of the writer just saying "people should just not be stupid and do the right thing". Not a lot of people have a say in the matter. Most people live and die on the incentives set...
There's a sense of the writer just saying "people should just not be stupid and do the right thing". Not a lot of people have a say in the matter. Most people live and die on the incentives set for them. This is the sort of "hustle wisdom" you'd see on Diary of a CEO. Something for people to fantasize about when they are in charge and not bound by silly targets and KPIs.
It doesn't help when so many businesses have been "streamlined" through years of management consulting, MBAs corporate consolidation that have no idea what businesses actually do to make money. And it's all geared to a singular incentive of maximizing shareholder value.
The metrics and incentives that matter are out of 99% of peoples hands. Cutting headcount by 60% is known to boost share prices. Off-shoring is 12% more profitable. Outsourcing core operations reduces capex by 60%.
The incentives for everyone else are not set by "sky daddy". Its a transaction between a person and their employer. It's quantifiable metrics that both parties can sign. It's also set in good faith that it's towards mutual benefit. But only one party holds all the cards.
People can do the best work of their life for 10 years or be an anchor holding back every team they are in the general vaccinity of. The 10 year guy is more likely to be cut as a higher earner. Its the same system that cut hours when you're just about to make benefits. Or talks you into unpaid overtime to be a team player. Incentives are not bad, they are just weaponized.
I didn't look at it through that lens - but I don't work in a corporation so pretty much everything you're talking about is stuff I only know through a vague awareness. But while I think...
I didn't look at it through that lens - but I don't work in a corporation so pretty much everything you're talking about is stuff I only know through a vague awareness.
But while I think incentives are so much broader than work, I think it is still possible to go find employment more in line with your values. My university and department still makes decisions I disagree with but I don't feel a fundamental misalignment with my work and my ethics or my priorities.
But even the most intrinsically motivated person will need some extrinsic motivation now and then.
I think I feel similarly to you. Maybe I'm just projecting, but my sense when reading this is that he's disappointed that this is the way American society is, and still can't remove his anger from...
I think I feel similarly to you. Maybe I'm just projecting, but my sense when reading this is that he's disappointed that this is the way American society is, and still can't remove his anger from it. It's hard not to feel betrayed when you have personally put yourself on the line to help others, at consequence to yourself, and then to see other people refuse to do so. But again, I'm possibly projecting here, as I know I felt like this myself for a long time. I think the answer is that life is hard and most people are just doing the best they can. Which is why it makes sense to try and change incentives where possible and reasonable, and still hope that people will reject then when it is important to. I do think he comes to that conclusion at the end.
I get that sense of anger, it just feels like it's coming from a "I, so enlightened, have seen the horror and learned and the masses have not" while not demonstrating that he's actually doing that...
I get that sense of anger, it just feels like it's coming from a "I, so enlightened, have seen the horror and learned and the masses have not" while not demonstrating that he's actually doing that work either. Like I didn't find any news articles or see examples shared about charitable work or protest or advocacy comparable to the examples he cites that he implicitly compares himself to.
And I don't expect everyone to do those things for example, or be newsworthy for them, but it's not enough to see the homeless and have the revelation without action. Else he's just as bound to the same incentives not to act as everyone else (or I suppose has a very different ethical system than me.)
Plus the "sky daddy" internet atheist™ stuff is ick.
Haha, don't get me wrong, I noticed the same thing about him not demonstrating doing any of the work. And that style of atheist definitely is grating. He does come off as immature, hopefully he'll...
Haha, don't get me wrong, I noticed the same thing about him not demonstrating doing any of the work. And that style of atheist definitely is grating. He does come off as immature, hopefully he'll grow past that at some point.
I always hope folks can grow, and also he's 34 and I'm dealing with college parents at move-in and I'm.... Not in an optimistic mood about humanity at this precise moment. (No you cannot take the...
I always hope folks can grow, and also he's 34 and I'm dealing with college parents at move-in and I'm.... Not in an optimistic mood about humanity at this precise moment.
(No you cannot take the chair out of your students room! No a
Ninja Creami is NOT allowed!)
Oof, dealing with parents sounds so grating. I can't blame you about not being optimistic. I have several friends who left education because of parents. I mean, it's disappointing that he's 34 and...
Oof, dealing with parents sounds so grating. I can't blame you about not being optimistic. I have several friends who left education because of parents. I mean, it's disappointing that he's 34 and still immature, but not frankly uncommon, sadly.
As we just had a 30 something student on campus who had a bottle of vodka under his mattress and asked our cleaning staff for a beer. Alas I'm all too aware. (I love my job and my students but...
As we just had a 30 something student on campus who had a bottle of vodka under his mattress and asked our cleaning staff for a beer. Alas I'm all too aware.
(I love my job and my students but this is my time to be cynical and annoyed while putting on my customer service face. And parents can do nothing to me when I've worked with literal murderers.)
I read your comment before reading the article, but even when I tried to discern this insufferable character from what was there, I could not. Maybe it's just a matter of taste? Maybe I'm not well...
But he sounds absolutely insufferable.
I read your comment before reading the article, but even when I tried to discern this insufferable character from what was there, I could not. Maybe it's just a matter of taste? Maybe I'm not well versed enough in English to pick up some of the tells?
On the other hand, you bring up "sky daddy" as an example when it should be clear that it was a reference to some teenagers' view of their god - not an expression the author would use.
Whatever the case, I'll note that this was a perfectly fine read for me, even if just to let others know they might want to give it a go.
There are just better ways to do science communication than this.
I don't think this was intended to be science communication first and foremost? It reads as a person fed up that people are not using their brains and the awful consequences of this, wishing to call attention to the phenomenon.
I find that his tone places himself in a superior position to those "following incentives" because he insults those people. He talks about having to "see the fish and go insane" and that this is...
I find that his tone places himself in a superior position to those "following incentives" because he insults those people. He talks about having to "see the fish and go insane" and that this is something that people with integrity do. His solution to his first major "fish" is to "sometimes still go to the hotel but only have it say "guest" on the name tag"... Not do anything about his convictions about the homeless, not change their conference to involve a charity aspect (my professional org conference did this for example) or choose smaller hotels with fewer luxurious canapés. He just.... Relabeled himself.
But he never demonstrates that he, or anyone really, is immune to incentives. Even his examples. And I find it an argument that conveniently puts himself on the "right" side of the line.
The sky daddy line is literally a tweak of a Star Wars quote, it's not something the teenagers in the study would have said it's how he framed the idea of "moralistic therapeutic deism" that IMO he is insulting. It's "cute" (by which I mean it isn't). It's not just about criticizing religious belief, it's doing so in a very childish way.
As for whether it's science communication, he's an experimental psychologist talking about psychology. Whatever he's doing if not science communication, I think it's not well done.
I also didn't find the author insufferable, for what it's worth, but the type definitely can be. I think one's read may partially depend on how much time one is spending with people like this in...
I also didn't find the author insufferable, for what it's worth, but the type definitely can be. I think one's read may partially depend on how much time one is spending with people like this in the real world at the moment.
I'm curious about the type you're referring to! I can't detect a type, but others are so there must be something there. Is there a general descriptor for it that you (or someone else) would like...
I'm curious about the type you're referring to! I can't detect a type, but others are so there must be something there. Is there a general descriptor for it that you (or someone else) would like to share?
I think it's more likely a writer's persona than how they are in real life, but the sort of "I have agency and most people are sheep" vibe, if that makes sense. For example it's generally...
I think it's more likely a writer's persona than how they are in real life, but the sort of "I have agency and most people are sheep" vibe, if that makes sense. For example it's generally considered impolite to point out that many people's religious beliefs are incoherent or poorly considered, to the point that doing so tends to make people (even those who might agree) immediately suspicious of you. That's a fairly American-type perspective, though. A Dutch would take it completely differently, I think.
However, I don't think the author is wrong at all, and I think they're using the right tone for this essay. To go into an extended, sympathetic look as to why some people are slaves to external incentives would be a completely different essay. But I get that it can grate on people.
OK, returning to this now that I've slept on it XD I think the core of my critique runs in two directions: The author broadly ignores the existence of consequences; They miss the point of framing...
OK, returning to this now that I've slept on it XD I think the core of my critique runs in two directions:
The author broadly ignores the existence of consequences;
They miss the point of framing behaviour as being primarily driven by structural conditions vs. personal morality. Afaik, the intent of that is to underline quite how high the guardrails are (incentives, in this analogy) which statistically funnel people into a particular direction.
Digging into critique one: I propose that electing to follow your own internally consistent, externally radical moral compass has actual consequences. The batting helmet thought experiment is one: if one's low-income parents don't forego a couple meals to afford one, their child is left to dodge concussions instead of being largely oblivious to their existence.
(feel free to extend this metaphor as you wish ...)
As a perhaps more direct analogy, companies can decide to be altruistic: genuinely supporting competitors (since free market capitalism relies on them), becoming involved in prosocial initiatives in communities (happier workers == more productive workers), limiting profit to a sustainable level (wealth inequality drives guillotine sales), etc. The problem is that every dollar not spent on bribing politicians, ruthlessly union busting, or unsustainably undercutting regional competitors, weakens their market position. In the ultimate race of optimizing next quarter's profits, their unethical competitors will beat them down nine times out of ten. We've socially constructed these zero sum games, where electing not to play by the same rules as everyone else does not absolve one of the consequences of losing.
Just listing off a few examples, but not putting any weight behind the philosophies underlying them: if you've decided that taxation is theft, that doesn't stop the government from taking your money and throwing you in prison. If you wish to protest a war, because murdering entire families to secure a cheap foreign oil supply is amoral per your personal convictions, your belief won't stop a tear gas canister shot into your eye by a fascist. If you decide not to send your child to batting practice, to bump shoulders with the upper crust at the risk of permanent brain damage, your distaste of our informal caste system won't save your child from worse economic outcomes. In a normally distributed population, 50% of people are losers, and basing your society on their enduring immense hardship in order to swim upstream is an absurd position. To the author: incentives, Mr. Mastroianni, drive behaviour for obvious reasons, and you'd be stupid [1] or immensely privileged to ignore them.
Moving on to point two: focusing discussions around systemic problems instead of individual failings. Assuming that one accepts the above premise around the enforcement power that incentives are often accompanied by, the reframe to discussing incentives helps in proposing and enforcing effective solutions. The incentives that the author is railing against were created by human action, and my hand to sky daddy, they can be rebuilt by humans as well -- incentives need not lead one towards infinite greed. To inexpertly comment on religion, one set of religious incentive structures led to widespread community food donation by practitioners at Sikh temples. We're very capable of building decent systems for people to live inside, too.
On a personal note: I detest how deeply society's individualism streak runs. The mere suggestion of factors outside of one's control seem enough to tilt this blog's author. Given the scale of problems that we're collectively facing, no one person is capable of moving the needle, and suggesting otherwise seems a backwards step.
But for some reason, the second we start talking in terms of incentives, we also start acting like courage doesn’t exist and can’t exist. Bad incentives have become our generation’s version of “I was just following orders”, an excuse that should be an indictment.
So we should try to get our incentives right, but also—incentives be damned, do the right thing.
Firmly disagreed with the author. Find a position and hold it firmly; don't weakly make a half statement then walk it back. Courage exists, but it's on the streets of San Francisco, in the kitchens of gurdwaras, and beneath every leaky roof in the bad side of town. It's likely my own bias showing, but the only times I've heard of incentives used as an excuse are when suffering people need a crutch to lean on, and I feel no need to kick it out from under them.
...
OK, rant over, but as a quick sidebar: noted racist H. P. Lovecraft wrote of cosmic horrors because -- paraphrasing greatly -- he was freaked out by a non-anthropocentric view of reality. So, like, the idea that space is vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big. This is now a household concept that we all seem to go along with just fine after it's been normalized.
My dumb observation is that the scary fish just became a regular fish once we gave it a couple decades, and similar to the currently radical-seeming changes needed for adjusting our socioeconomic system such that it doesn't drive global climate change, etc., hopefully future humans will look back on our current hand wringing with blank, bemused stares.
[1]: I'm OK with calling the author names because they refer to people as dummies and schmucks. Wrestling in the mud is fun
Well and his idea of "anthro" excluded anyone with a skin tone darker than vaguely tan. Also air conditioners were terrifying. (You hit this well I just never miss a shot to hate on Lovecraft, so...
paraphrasing greatly -- he was freaked out by a non-anthropocentric view of reality
Well and his idea of "anthro" excluded anyone with a skin tone darker than vaguely tan. Also air conditioners were terrifying.
(You hit this well I just never miss a shot to hate on Lovecraft, so racist for his time even other racists were like "whoa dude". )
I don't know what the author does with his spare time, but I think it's notable that he didn't have this "revelation" about his conference in SF - a thing I've also experienced in Portland and Cleveland and other cities while at conferences - and makes no indication of his actions. Like, what incentives are keeping him in place?
But I do think incentives are unavoidable in that very few of us feel like we can always say or do " the right thing" for a variety of reasons. Because we have people we are responsible for (kids, partners), because losing our job would leave us homeless, etc. And no one can do everything. I'd like to think I'd accept being beaten near to death to end slavery, and also I'm not putting myself out there to protest ICE where I could be shot, because I have obligations and because I'm scared and any number of things. But I am doing other things. And it's not impossible there could be consequences for those things either.
I do agree we could build a different society with different structures and incentives if we have but the will for it. Most folks won't steal just because they could get away with it, most folks don't want to hurt other people and won't do so, at least directly, without an extenuating circumstance that overrides that principle. There are more of "us" than of "them".
I just think the author is not the person to make the case because, again, insufferable.
Reading this was a positive experience for me, thanks for posting! The article introduces a concept I keep detecting in people but didn't know the name for: illusion of explanatory depth. It...
Reading this was a positive experience for me, thanks for posting!
The article introduces a concept I keep detecting in people but didn't know the name for: illusion of explanatory depth. It supports the same explanation I've landed at wondering why so many people do so many bad things despite having the logical processing ability to realise they're bad, and despite their obvious intention to be a good person (myself included of course). The observation that mindlessly following incentives can lead to extremely horrific outcomes, similar to the WWII era's "just following orders" is important and should be highlighted every chance we get.
Unfortunately the human brain works by creating shortcuts that enable us to turn off cognitive processing as often as possible. Turning it back on to check ourselves must be done with deliberation. We should also make it a regular practice. Just like going to the gym one time is a step in the right direction but won't actually change much, developing our mental models is a neverending process.
Some criticism: the author seems to imply that as soon as a person is met with something that conflicts with their current world view, they are likely to reprocess it. This is not at all the case as the author very likely is aware. We have a host of defense mechanisms that we tend to pull out first, in order to avoid the cognitive/emotional labour we'd have to do in order to actually change our existing beliefs. The first step of doing the required work is often to recognise that we are in fact using one of these mechanisms, not actually processing the internal conflict in a way that could lead to a change. We might not even be aware that there is a conflict to begin with so learning to catch our defenses in action is a good start.
I'd agree with a weaker version. Everyone should be aware what incentives they are living by and choose when not to follow them or follow them or follow them due to the alternative being too...
I'd agree with a weaker version. Everyone should be aware what incentives they are living by and choose when not to follow them or follow them or follow them due to the alternative being too problematic.
Also there are essential incentives such as having to work.
Or nonessential incentives such as using social media because they are easy to use legalized and socially acceptable drugs.
Some incentives also do not start very strong as we have seen. Blindly following them means that over time incentives that are usually worse for society as a whole get introduced.
We can all agree: the incentives are bad. Everywhere you look, people are being rewarded for doing the wrong thing. This has become the go-to diagnosis for every problem, from climate change to political polarization to scientific malfeasance—“sorry pal, you’ve got a bad case of the incentives.”
I don’t disagree with this analysis, exactly. Who could? It’s basically tautological. “People do bad things because they are encouraged and rewarded for doing bad things.” Well, why else would you do them?
My real gripe with this line of thinking is it implies that incentives should be obeyed, that it is normal or even noble to do so, and that is perhaps impossible to do otherwise. How could you be expected to break a rule, forego a promotion, or give up decimal of your grade point average, for the sake of—what? Doing the right thing?
I'm not sure if I'd disagree with his point - other than that article he linked is not "one of the most famous psychology studies of all time" (except on a large scale, it's not taught the way others are).
But he sounds absolutely insufferable. Like, spending time around him would in fact make me a worse person because I'd use terms like "sky daddy" and I'd muse about how no one is helping the homeless at a social justice conference and finding that a deep realization and then, basically, go on with my life while indirectly comparing myself and all "enlightened" people like me to an abolitionist willing to be beaten to death for his beliefs...
Like I do disagree with this sense of superiority, but I just have zero interest engaging with gestures all of that. Like, sure you're enlightened and most of the world isn't. How nice to assume you're above reacting to "incentives" and thus not an "idiot or a schmuck" like everyone else. Thanks for telling us.
There are just better ways to do science communication than this.
There's a sense of the writer just saying "people should just not be stupid and do the right thing". Not a lot of people have a say in the matter. Most people live and die on the incentives set for them. This is the sort of "hustle wisdom" you'd see on Diary of a CEO. Something for people to fantasize about when they are in charge and not bound by silly targets and KPIs.
It doesn't help when so many businesses have been "streamlined" through years of management consulting, MBAs corporate consolidation that have no idea what businesses actually do to make money. And it's all geared to a singular incentive of maximizing shareholder value.
The metrics and incentives that matter are out of 99% of peoples hands. Cutting headcount by 60% is known to boost share prices. Off-shoring is 12% more profitable. Outsourcing core operations reduces capex by 60%.
The incentives for everyone else are not set by "sky daddy". Its a transaction between a person and their employer. It's quantifiable metrics that both parties can sign. It's also set in good faith that it's towards mutual benefit. But only one party holds all the cards.
People can do the best work of their life for 10 years or be an anchor holding back every team they are in the general vaccinity of. The 10 year guy is more likely to be cut as a higher earner. Its the same system that cut hours when you're just about to make benefits. Or talks you into unpaid overtime to be a team player. Incentives are not bad, they are just weaponized.
I didn't look at it through that lens - but I don't work in a corporation so pretty much everything you're talking about is stuff I only know through a vague awareness.
But while I think incentives are so much broader than work, I think it is still possible to go find employment more in line with your values. My university and department still makes decisions I disagree with but I don't feel a fundamental misalignment with my work and my ethics or my priorities.
But even the most intrinsically motivated person will need some extrinsic motivation now and then.
I think I feel similarly to you. Maybe I'm just projecting, but my sense when reading this is that he's disappointed that this is the way American society is, and still can't remove his anger from it. It's hard not to feel betrayed when you have personally put yourself on the line to help others, at consequence to yourself, and then to see other people refuse to do so. But again, I'm possibly projecting here, as I know I felt like this myself for a long time. I think the answer is that life is hard and most people are just doing the best they can. Which is why it makes sense to try and change incentives where possible and reasonable, and still hope that people will reject then when it is important to. I do think he comes to that conclusion at the end.
I get that sense of anger, it just feels like it's coming from a "I, so enlightened, have seen the horror and learned and the masses have not" while not demonstrating that he's actually doing that work either. Like I didn't find any news articles or see examples shared about charitable work or protest or advocacy comparable to the examples he cites that he implicitly compares himself to.
And I don't expect everyone to do those things for example, or be newsworthy for them, but it's not enough to see the homeless and have the revelation without action. Else he's just as bound to the same incentives not to act as everyone else (or I suppose has a very different ethical system than me.)
Plus the "sky daddy" internet atheist™ stuff is ick.
Haha, don't get me wrong, I noticed the same thing about him not demonstrating doing any of the work. And that style of atheist definitely is grating. He does come off as immature, hopefully he'll grow past that at some point.
I always hope folks can grow, and also he's 34 and I'm dealing with college parents at move-in and I'm.... Not in an optimistic mood about humanity at this precise moment.
(No you cannot take the chair out of your students room! No a
Ninja Creami is NOT allowed!)
Oof, dealing with parents sounds so grating. I can't blame you about not being optimistic. I have several friends who left education because of parents. I mean, it's disappointing that he's 34 and still immature, but not frankly uncommon, sadly.
As we just had a 30 something student on campus who had a bottle of vodka under his mattress and asked our cleaning staff for a beer. Alas I'm all too aware.
(I love my job and my students but this is my time to be cynical and annoyed while putting on my customer service face. And parents can do nothing to me when I've worked with literal murderers.)
I read your comment before reading the article, but even when I tried to discern this insufferable character from what was there, I could not. Maybe it's just a matter of taste? Maybe I'm not well versed enough in English to pick up some of the tells?
On the other hand, you bring up "sky daddy" as an example when it should be clear that it was a reference to some teenagers' view of their god - not an expression the author would use.
Whatever the case, I'll note that this was a perfectly fine read for me, even if just to let others know they might want to give it a go.
I don't think this was intended to be science communication first and foremost? It reads as a person fed up that people are not using their brains and the awful consequences of this, wishing to call attention to the phenomenon.
I find that his tone places himself in a superior position to those "following incentives" because he insults those people. He talks about having to "see the fish and go insane" and that this is something that people with integrity do. His solution to his first major "fish" is to "sometimes still go to the hotel but only have it say "guest" on the name tag"... Not do anything about his convictions about the homeless, not change their conference to involve a charity aspect (my professional org conference did this for example) or choose smaller hotels with fewer luxurious canapés. He just.... Relabeled himself.
But he never demonstrates that he, or anyone really, is immune to incentives. Even his examples. And I find it an argument that conveniently puts himself on the "right" side of the line.
The sky daddy line is literally a tweak of a Star Wars quote, it's not something the teenagers in the study would have said it's how he framed the idea of "moralistic therapeutic deism" that IMO he is insulting. It's "cute" (by which I mean it isn't). It's not just about criticizing religious belief, it's doing so in a very childish way.
As for whether it's science communication, he's an experimental psychologist talking about psychology. Whatever he's doing if not science communication, I think it's not well done.
I also didn't find the author insufferable, for what it's worth, but the type definitely can be. I think one's read may partially depend on how much time one is spending with people like this in the real world at the moment.
I'm curious about the type you're referring to! I can't detect a type, but others are so there must be something there. Is there a general descriptor for it that you (or someone else) would like to share?
I think it's more likely a writer's persona than how they are in real life, but the sort of "I have agency and most people are sheep" vibe, if that makes sense. For example it's generally considered impolite to point out that many people's religious beliefs are incoherent or poorly considered, to the point that doing so tends to make people (even those who might agree) immediately suspicious of you. That's a fairly American-type perspective, though. A Dutch would take it completely differently, I think.
However, I don't think the author is wrong at all, and I think they're using the right tone for this essay. To go into an extended, sympathetic look as to why some people are slaves to external incentives would be a completely different essay. But I get that it can grate on people.
OK, returning to this now that I've slept on it XD I think the core of my critique runs in two directions:
Digging into critique one: I propose that electing to follow your own internally consistent, externally radical moral compass has actual consequences. The batting helmet thought experiment is one: if one's low-income parents don't forego a couple meals to afford one, their child is left to dodge concussions instead of being largely oblivious to their existence.
(feel free to extend this metaphor as you wish ...)
As a perhaps more direct analogy, companies can decide to be altruistic: genuinely supporting competitors (since free market capitalism relies on them), becoming involved in prosocial initiatives in communities (happier workers == more productive workers), limiting profit to a sustainable level (wealth inequality drives guillotine sales), etc. The problem is that every dollar not spent on bribing politicians, ruthlessly union busting, or unsustainably undercutting regional competitors, weakens their market position. In the ultimate race of optimizing next quarter's profits, their unethical competitors will beat them down nine times out of ten. We've socially constructed these zero sum games, where electing not to play by the same rules as everyone else does not absolve one of the consequences of losing.
Just listing off a few examples, but not putting any weight behind the philosophies underlying them: if you've decided that taxation is theft, that doesn't stop the government from taking your money and throwing you in prison. If you wish to protest a war, because murdering entire families to secure a cheap foreign oil supply is amoral per your personal convictions, your belief won't stop a tear gas canister shot into your eye by a fascist. If you decide not to send your child to batting practice, to bump shoulders with the upper crust at the risk of permanent brain damage, your distaste of our informal caste system won't save your child from worse economic outcomes. In a normally distributed population, 50% of people are losers, and basing your society on their enduring immense hardship in order to swim upstream is an absurd position. To the author: incentives, Mr. Mastroianni, drive behaviour for obvious reasons, and you'd be stupid [1] or immensely privileged to ignore them.
Moving on to point two: focusing discussions around systemic problems instead of individual failings. Assuming that one accepts the above premise around the enforcement power that incentives are often accompanied by, the reframe to discussing incentives helps in proposing and enforcing effective solutions. The incentives that the author is railing against were created by human action, and my hand to sky daddy, they can be rebuilt by humans as well -- incentives need not lead one towards infinite greed. To inexpertly comment on religion, one set of religious incentive structures led to widespread community food donation by practitioners at Sikh temples. We're very capable of building decent systems for people to live inside, too.
On a personal note: I detest how deeply society's individualism streak runs. The mere suggestion of factors outside of one's control seem enough to tilt this blog's author. Given the scale of problems that we're collectively facing, no one person is capable of moving the needle, and suggesting otherwise seems a backwards step.
Firmly disagreed with the author. Find a position and hold it firmly; don't weakly make a half statement then walk it back. Courage exists, but it's on the streets of San Francisco, in the kitchens of gurdwaras, and beneath every leaky roof in the bad side of town. It's likely my own bias showing, but the only times I've heard of incentives used as an excuse are when suffering people need a crutch to lean on, and I feel no need to kick it out from under them.
...
OK, rant over, but as a quick sidebar: noted racist H. P. Lovecraft wrote of cosmic horrors because -- paraphrasing greatly -- he was freaked out by a non-anthropocentric view of reality. So, like, the idea that space is vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big. This is now a household concept that we all seem to go along with just fine after it's been normalized.
My dumb observation is that the scary fish just became a regular fish once we gave it a couple decades, and similar to the currently radical-seeming changes needed for adjusting our socioeconomic system such that it doesn't drive global climate change, etc., hopefully future humans will look back on our current hand wringing with blank, bemused stares.
[1]: I'm OK with calling the author names because they refer to people as dummies and schmucks. Wrestling in the mud is fun
Well and his idea of "anthro" excluded anyone with a skin tone darker than vaguely tan. Also air conditioners were terrifying.
(You hit this well I just never miss a shot to hate on Lovecraft, so racist for his time even other racists were like "whoa dude". )
I don't know what the author does with his spare time, but I think it's notable that he didn't have this "revelation" about his conference in SF - a thing I've also experienced in Portland and Cleveland and other cities while at conferences - and makes no indication of his actions. Like, what incentives are keeping him in place?
But I do think incentives are unavoidable in that very few of us feel like we can always say or do " the right thing" for a variety of reasons. Because we have people we are responsible for (kids, partners), because losing our job would leave us homeless, etc. And no one can do everything. I'd like to think I'd accept being beaten near to death to end slavery, and also I'm not putting myself out there to protest ICE where I could be shot, because I have obligations and because I'm scared and any number of things. But I am doing other things. And it's not impossible there could be consequences for those things either.
I do agree we could build a different society with different structures and incentives if we have but the will for it. Most folks won't steal just because they could get away with it, most folks don't want to hurt other people and won't do so, at least directly, without an extenuating circumstance that overrides that principle. There are more of "us" than of "them".
I just think the author is not the person to make the case because, again, insufferable.
Reading this was a positive experience for me, thanks for posting!
The article introduces a concept I keep detecting in people but didn't know the name for: illusion of explanatory depth. It supports the same explanation I've landed at wondering why so many people do so many bad things despite having the logical processing ability to realise they're bad, and despite their obvious intention to be a good person (myself included of course). The observation that mindlessly following incentives can lead to extremely horrific outcomes, similar to the WWII era's "just following orders" is important and should be highlighted every chance we get.
Unfortunately the human brain works by creating shortcuts that enable us to turn off cognitive processing as often as possible. Turning it back on to check ourselves must be done with deliberation. We should also make it a regular practice. Just like going to the gym one time is a step in the right direction but won't actually change much, developing our mental models is a neverending process.
Some criticism: the author seems to imply that as soon as a person is met with something that conflicts with their current world view, they are likely to reprocess it. This is not at all the case as the author very likely is aware. We have a host of defense mechanisms that we tend to pull out first, in order to avoid the cognitive/emotional labour we'd have to do in order to actually change our existing beliefs. The first step of doing the required work is often to recognise that we are in fact using one of these mechanisms, not actually processing the internal conflict in a way that could lead to a change. We might not even be aware that there is a conflict to begin with so learning to catch our defenses in action is a good start.
I'd agree with a weaker version. Everyone should be aware what incentives they are living by and choose when not to follow them or follow them or follow them due to the alternative being too problematic.
Also there are essential incentives such as having to work.
Or nonessential incentives such as using social media because they are easy to use legalized and socially acceptable drugs.
Some incentives also do not start very strong as we have seen. Blindly following them means that over time incentives that are usually worse for society as a whole get introduced.
From the article: