Hypocricy makes the world go round
The Right Thing.
We all know what The Right Thing is. The concept is an integral part of our society.
...
Wait a minute. Instinctively? I don't think so. As children, we naturally think of ourselves before others. We break promises on a whim, we hurt others to establish a pecking order, we are greedy and selfish and will readily lie, manipulate, or steal to get something we want. Sure, children are capable of being generous and thoughtful too. But what happens when you try to get them to give up something they REALLY want? The sweetest child turns into a rampaging brat.
The point is, we aren't born knowing what The Right Thing is. We have to be taught. We observe our parents and other children going out of their way to please and help others. We're instructed in the details of The Right Thing, and admonished if we falter. Over time, whether we like it or not, we learn The Right Thing.
Eventually, we start seeing the benefits of people doing The Right Thing. We look out for each other, we help each other, we make little sacrifices for each others' benefit, and as a result, we thrive as individuals and as a group. What a wonderful system - everybody is doing The Right Thing, and everybody wins!
Then the problems start. We notice that, for some reason, not everyone is doing The Right Thing. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of people who just rely on other people doing The Right Thing, and benefit from that without having to do anything in return! We're all familiar with the kid on the playground who demands his turn on the swing, then refuses to give it up to the next person. And the guy who's always asking to borrow stuff, but never returns anything. The "good friend" who always has an excuse why he can't help you do something.
These are parasites to the happy little community of people doing The Right Thing. They don't contribute, they just suck a certain amount of goodness out of the communal pot. We see this, and we get indignant. How come they get all the benefits with none of the costs? That's not fair - here we are, putting forth all this extra effort to do The Right Thing, so that we can help others and feel good about ourselves, and these people are leeching off the system for free!
Now the indignation starts. People take offense, they shake fingers and declare, "You shouldn't be that way, that's not fair! It's against the rules and you can't play that way!". Why? Because they feel cheated. Here they've been following the rules all this time in order to reap the benefits, only to discover some folks are getting it all for free. That wasn't the deal!
At this point, we have a large-scale prisoner's dilemma. Each person who does The Right Thing contributes to the communal good, from which everyone benefits. Each person who doesn't do The Right Thing still benefits, but has no associated cost. Let's call the total number of people in the community Φ, the people doing The Right Thing is α, and the people not doing The Right Thing is ß. The amount of sacrifice involved in doing The Right Thing is Θ. Let's call the total goodness in the community pool Ω, and the amount of good an individual has gained or lost at the end of the day can be µ. I'm running low on symbols, but, for the sake of the argument, let's say that the process of making goodness available for others has a potential to change its value ($10 in one person's pocket might be more valuable than the same $10 in someone else's pocket, for example), so we'll define a multiplier, δ, such that α * Θ * δ = Ω. With me so far?
Total people in the community : Φ
People doing The Right Thing : α
People not doing The Right Thing : ß
Cost of doing The Right Thing : Θ
Value modifier of contributed good : δ
Total good in the community : Ω
Net good for one person : µ
From here, we can make some basic formulas. For starters:
The total number of people in the community is equal to the number doing The Right Thing, and the number not doing The Right Thing, by definition:
α + ß = Φ
The amount of good in the community is equal to the number of people doing The Right Thing, times the cost of doing it, times the modifier, by definition:
α * Θ * δ = Ω
The amount of benefit a person doing The Right Thing recieves is equal to the amount of good in the community, divided by the number of people, minus their personal contribution:
(Ω / Φ) - Θ = µ
A person not doing The Right Thing gets the same benefit, without the cost:
Ω / Φ = µ
Ok, so let's chart this out. I've picked several arbitrary values, and you are welcome to generate your own - it can be done pretty easily in excel. I think you'll find that the general case holds for all reasonable values:
Total people in the community : Φ = 50
People doing The Right Thing : α = [50...40]
People not doing The Right Thing : ß = [0...10]
Cost of doing The Right Thing : Θ = 10
Value modifier of contributed good : δ = 1.2
Total people in community (Φ)
Total people doing The Right Thing (α)
Total people not doing The Right Thing (ß)
---
Cost of doing The Right Thing (Θ)
Value modifier of contributed good (δ)
Total good in the community (Ω)
---
Benefit for people doing The Right Thing (µ)
Benefit for people not doing The Right Thing (µ)
50
50
0
10
1.2
600
2
12
50
49
1
10
1.2
588
1.76
11.76
50
48
2
10
1.2
576
1.52
11.52
50
47
3
10
1.2
564
1.28
11.28
50
46
4
10
1.2
552
1.04
11.04
50
45
5
10
1.2
540
0.8
10.8
50
44
6
10
1.2
528
0.56
10.56
50
43
7
10
1.2
516
0.32
10.32
50
42
8
10
1.2
504
0.08
10.08
50
41
9
10
1.2
492
-0.16
9.84
50
40
10
10
1.2
480
-0.4
9.6
So, what do we see here? First of all, notice the difference in benefit between the groups of people. People who do not do The Right Thing gain a LOT more from the community than people who do. However, when the number of people doing The Right Thing goes down, everyone gets less, regardless of which group they are in.
I've examined the variables, and found the following corrolations.
As these values go up, everyone's benefit goes up:
People doing The Right Thing (α)
Cost of doing The Right Thing (Θ)
Value modifier of contributed good (δ)
As this value goes up, everyone's benefit goes down:
People not doing The Right Thing (ß)
This means that it's in everyone's best interest for more people to do The Right Thing, for them to sacrifice more when they do, and for the process to be more efficient so that more benefit is generated from each "unit" of sacrifice.
It is also in everyone's best interest for fewer people to not do The Right Thing.
Here's a few other things to take note of. The total good in the community (Ω) goes down as the number of people not doing The Right Thing (ß) goes up. This makes logical sense of course. The corrolary is that the community as a whole is better, the fewer people fall into this category.
HOWEVER...each individual has more to gain if they DO fall into this category. So, from a personal standpoint, the greatest benefit is to be the ONLY person who is not doing The Right Thing. The benefits reduce as more people follow suit, but they will always be better than the benefits of those who do The Right Thing, as long as that number is greater than 0.
Or, to put it into an equation:
if α > 0, µ(ß) > µ(α)
This general concept isn't hard to grasp. I've laid it out here in grotesque detail because, for some reason, people seem to be in denial about it. I'll explain as we get back into the narration.
So we have a bunch of indignant do-gooders, upset that people are leeching off our carefully formed society. Fair enough. Our gut reaction is to start leeching themselves, now that we know it's possible and that there are great benefits involved. But, there's a problem. We have been trained since birth to always do The Right Thing. We can't easily slough that sense of right and wrong, so we struggle. We turn to our friends and authority figures for advice and support.
Here's where things can split. Our friends are generally sympathetic. They understand our dilemma, and they feel it too. It's not fair...there has to be a better way. Authority figures, on the other hand, will almost always pat us on the head and tell us not to let it get us down. They'll suggest we try to bring those renegades under our wing, or turn the other cheek and lead by example, or perhaps litigate against them, or pray for them. Our religious leaders, our parents, our local and national governments, our bosses, our community leaders, and all the other movers and shakers generally suggest methods that lead to the same results: continue doing The Right Thing, and try to get those people to do it too if you can. Which is, of course, the best answer for the community as a whole (see above).
But, in case you haven't noticed, it's ALSO the best answer for an individual who is secretly leeching from the system.
Let's take a small commune as an example.
Everyone in the commune puts some food into the central storehouse, and takes only what they need. I'm taking advantage of that by not doing any farming myself, and just living off the stored food. Let's say I've even managed to do this with everyone's knowledge - perhaps I've finagled myself a public role, as some kind of overseer or supervisor or organizer...the title doesn't matter. The point is, I'm in a position of authority and I'm taking advantage of it for my own benefit.
Samwise, one of the simple farmer folk in the community, notices that Pippin isn't contributing his share. Samwise gets indignant, and comes to me for advice.
"Oh, woe!", he pines, "Here I've been working so hard to do The Right Thing, and I've been happy, I have...but now I see that Pippin gets all the same good that I do, but he doesn't have to contribute. It's unfair, sir! What should I do?"
Being the selfish bastard that I am, I'll follow my own best interests. I know that as long as Pippin is leeching from the communal food stores, There'll be less for me. And I certainly don't want Samwise joining him in his lazy endeavors.
So I advise Samwise to take Pippin under his wing, and show him the error of his ways. I reassure him that he's indeed doing The Right Thing, and it's all for the good of the community. I explain to him that there will always be people who try to take advantage of the situation, and encourage him to be on the lookout of those scoundrels so we can get them back on track.
Then, after Samwise leaves my office with newfound purpose and a spring in his step, I return to my meal, kindly provided by the generous, if gullible, folk of the commune. I make a note to myself to perform some grandiose gesture of generosity to keep myself out of the scrutiny of Samwise and his brethren....perhaps I'll use community funds to pave the main road through town, and name it after myself.
This, of course, is just an example, and if you look carefully, you'll see the general case copied in many situations in everyday life. Religious leaders who push everyone to tithe to the church, but never dig into their own pockets for a worthy cause. Police who crack down on organized crime so they can hit up the little guys for money, drugs, and stolen goods. Employers who make you sign carefully worded contracts detailing your liabilities to them, then proceed to renege on verbal agreements and even contracts with their own suppliers and customers. Advertisers who fill our senses with feel-good messages of trust and reliability, but refuse to be accountable for false messages and implications.
My current favorite, however, is the shenanigans of the US government regarding imported canadian soft wood lumber.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) first came out, it was heralded as a new age of trade, where countries would be able to transfer goods and workers easily and fairly across borders, with a carefully detailed process to handle disputes and grievances. There was a huge amount of fanfare about it, and everyone signed on with the promise of good faith participation.
Fast forward to the present day. The US has been charging huge tarrifs on imports of canadian soft wood lumber. This lumber accounts for about 30% of what is used to build houses in the US, and is Canada's #1 industry. There has been great dispute over whether these tarrifs are fair (we're talking about something on the order of, if I remember correctly, 8 billion dollars in tarrifs so far), and the NAFTA dispute resolution system has ruled on several occasions that they are NOT, and that the US needs to refund the tarrifs. Read more here and here, for starters.
What happened to the promise that we'd abide by the rules? Why has this gone so far that Canada is threatening to start an all-out trade war against the US?
It's simple. The US government, like most every other authority organization in the world, doesn't do The Right Thing. There's no global government standing over them to force them to do it. As an individual entity, they gain more by cheating than they do by participating. It's always been that way, but the only way they can keep benefiting is to convince the citizens that it's not the case, that everyone should always do The Right Thing, thus keeping the coffers full for them to leech from.
Look, I'm not saying that everyone in an authority position is evil. All I'm saying is that, as a country and as a people, we have a very naive view of how the world works. We're too easily swayed by all the feel-good talk from the evangelical religious groups and public service organizations and corporations preaching for community good, that we're not only blinded to the reality of all the money changing hands over our heads while they laugh at us, but we buy right into the bullshit and even form our own little grass-roots "community centers" in an attempt to "do our part" and convert even MORE people into thinking the same thing. And we teach it to our children, who grow up to be pawns of the powerful, just like we are.
The idea of a feel-good, do The Right Thing community is nice. But it doesn't work unless you're willing to stick your head in the sand, because there will always be people who will take advantage of it.
I'm not saying we need to tear our system down and start from scratch, I just wish that more people would open their eyes and quit eating all the bullshit they are feeding us.
We all know what The Right Thing is. The concept is an integral part of our society.
- If you make a promise, keep it.
- If someone is in trouble, help them.
- Be considerate of others.
- Don't take things that don't belong to you.
- Be honest and forthright.
...
Wait a minute. Instinctively? I don't think so. As children, we naturally think of ourselves before others. We break promises on a whim, we hurt others to establish a pecking order, we are greedy and selfish and will readily lie, manipulate, or steal to get something we want. Sure, children are capable of being generous and thoughtful too. But what happens when you try to get them to give up something they REALLY want? The sweetest child turns into a rampaging brat.
The point is, we aren't born knowing what The Right Thing is. We have to be taught. We observe our parents and other children going out of their way to please and help others. We're instructed in the details of The Right Thing, and admonished if we falter. Over time, whether we like it or not, we learn The Right Thing.
Eventually, we start seeing the benefits of people doing The Right Thing. We look out for each other, we help each other, we make little sacrifices for each others' benefit, and as a result, we thrive as individuals and as a group. What a wonderful system - everybody is doing The Right Thing, and everybody wins!
Then the problems start. We notice that, for some reason, not everyone is doing The Right Thing. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of people who just rely on other people doing The Right Thing, and benefit from that without having to do anything in return! We're all familiar with the kid on the playground who demands his turn on the swing, then refuses to give it up to the next person. And the guy who's always asking to borrow stuff, but never returns anything. The "good friend" who always has an excuse why he can't help you do something.
These are parasites to the happy little community of people doing The Right Thing. They don't contribute, they just suck a certain amount of goodness out of the communal pot. We see this, and we get indignant. How come they get all the benefits with none of the costs? That's not fair - here we are, putting forth all this extra effort to do The Right Thing, so that we can help others and feel good about ourselves, and these people are leeching off the system for free!
Now the indignation starts. People take offense, they shake fingers and declare, "You shouldn't be that way, that's not fair! It's against the rules and you can't play that way!". Why? Because they feel cheated. Here they've been following the rules all this time in order to reap the benefits, only to discover some folks are getting it all for free. That wasn't the deal!
At this point, we have a large-scale prisoner's dilemma. Each person who does The Right Thing contributes to the communal good, from which everyone benefits. Each person who doesn't do The Right Thing still benefits, but has no associated cost. Let's call the total number of people in the community Φ, the people doing The Right Thing is α, and the people not doing The Right Thing is ß. The amount of sacrifice involved in doing The Right Thing is Θ. Let's call the total goodness in the community pool Ω, and the amount of good an individual has gained or lost at the end of the day can be µ. I'm running low on symbols, but, for the sake of the argument, let's say that the process of making goodness available for others has a potential to change its value ($10 in one person's pocket might be more valuable than the same $10 in someone else's pocket, for example), so we'll define a multiplier, δ, such that α * Θ * δ = Ω. With me so far?
Total people in the community : Φ
People doing The Right Thing : α
People not doing The Right Thing : ß
Cost of doing The Right Thing : Θ
Value modifier of contributed good : δ
Total good in the community : Ω
Net good for one person : µ
From here, we can make some basic formulas. For starters:
The total number of people in the community is equal to the number doing The Right Thing, and the number not doing The Right Thing, by definition:
α + ß = Φ
The amount of good in the community is equal to the number of people doing The Right Thing, times the cost of doing it, times the modifier, by definition:
α * Θ * δ = Ω
The amount of benefit a person doing The Right Thing recieves is equal to the amount of good in the community, divided by the number of people, minus their personal contribution:
(Ω / Φ) - Θ = µ
A person not doing The Right Thing gets the same benefit, without the cost:
Ω / Φ = µ
Ok, so let's chart this out. I've picked several arbitrary values, and you are welcome to generate your own - it can be done pretty easily in excel. I think you'll find that the general case holds for all reasonable values:
Total people in the community : Φ = 50
People doing The Right Thing : α = [50...40]
People not doing The Right Thing : ß = [0...10]
Cost of doing The Right Thing : Θ = 10
Value modifier of contributed good : δ = 1.2
Total people in community (Φ)
Total people doing The Right Thing (α)
Total people not doing The Right Thing (ß)
---
Cost of doing The Right Thing (Θ)
Value modifier of contributed good (δ)
Total good in the community (Ω)
---
Benefit for people doing The Right Thing (µ)
Benefit for people not doing The Right Thing (µ)
50
50
0
10
1.2
600
2
12
50
49
1
10
1.2
588
1.76
11.76
50
48
2
10
1.2
576
1.52
11.52
50
47
3
10
1.2
564
1.28
11.28
50
46
4
10
1.2
552
1.04
11.04
50
45
5
10
1.2
540
0.8
10.8
50
44
6
10
1.2
528
0.56
10.56
50
43
7
10
1.2
516
0.32
10.32
50
42
8
10
1.2
504
0.08
10.08
50
41
9
10
1.2
492
-0.16
9.84
50
40
10
10
1.2
480
-0.4
9.6
So, what do we see here? First of all, notice the difference in benefit between the groups of people. People who do not do The Right Thing gain a LOT more from the community than people who do. However, when the number of people doing The Right Thing goes down, everyone gets less, regardless of which group they are in.
I've examined the variables, and found the following corrolations.
As these values go up, everyone's benefit goes up:
People doing The Right Thing (α)
Cost of doing The Right Thing (Θ)
Value modifier of contributed good (δ)
As this value goes up, everyone's benefit goes down:
People not doing The Right Thing (ß)
This means that it's in everyone's best interest for more people to do The Right Thing, for them to sacrifice more when they do, and for the process to be more efficient so that more benefit is generated from each "unit" of sacrifice.
It is also in everyone's best interest for fewer people to not do The Right Thing.
Here's a few other things to take note of. The total good in the community (Ω) goes down as the number of people not doing The Right Thing (ß) goes up. This makes logical sense of course. The corrolary is that the community as a whole is better, the fewer people fall into this category.
HOWEVER...each individual has more to gain if they DO fall into this category. So, from a personal standpoint, the greatest benefit is to be the ONLY person who is not doing The Right Thing. The benefits reduce as more people follow suit, but they will always be better than the benefits of those who do The Right Thing, as long as that number is greater than 0.
Or, to put it into an equation:
if α > 0, µ(ß) > µ(α)
This general concept isn't hard to grasp. I've laid it out here in grotesque detail because, for some reason, people seem to be in denial about it. I'll explain as we get back into the narration.
So we have a bunch of indignant do-gooders, upset that people are leeching off our carefully formed society. Fair enough. Our gut reaction is to start leeching themselves, now that we know it's possible and that there are great benefits involved. But, there's a problem. We have been trained since birth to always do The Right Thing. We can't easily slough that sense of right and wrong, so we struggle. We turn to our friends and authority figures for advice and support.
Here's where things can split. Our friends are generally sympathetic. They understand our dilemma, and they feel it too. It's not fair...there has to be a better way. Authority figures, on the other hand, will almost always pat us on the head and tell us not to let it get us down. They'll suggest we try to bring those renegades under our wing, or turn the other cheek and lead by example, or perhaps litigate against them, or pray for them. Our religious leaders, our parents, our local and national governments, our bosses, our community leaders, and all the other movers and shakers generally suggest methods that lead to the same results: continue doing The Right Thing, and try to get those people to do it too if you can. Which is, of course, the best answer for the community as a whole (see above).
But, in case you haven't noticed, it's ALSO the best answer for an individual who is secretly leeching from the system.
Let's take a small commune as an example.
Everyone in the commune puts some food into the central storehouse, and takes only what they need. I'm taking advantage of that by not doing any farming myself, and just living off the stored food. Let's say I've even managed to do this with everyone's knowledge - perhaps I've finagled myself a public role, as some kind of overseer or supervisor or organizer...the title doesn't matter. The point is, I'm in a position of authority and I'm taking advantage of it for my own benefit.
Samwise, one of the simple farmer folk in the community, notices that Pippin isn't contributing his share. Samwise gets indignant, and comes to me for advice.
"Oh, woe!", he pines, "Here I've been working so hard to do The Right Thing, and I've been happy, I have...but now I see that Pippin gets all the same good that I do, but he doesn't have to contribute. It's unfair, sir! What should I do?"
Being the selfish bastard that I am, I'll follow my own best interests. I know that as long as Pippin is leeching from the communal food stores, There'll be less for me. And I certainly don't want Samwise joining him in his lazy endeavors.
So I advise Samwise to take Pippin under his wing, and show him the error of his ways. I reassure him that he's indeed doing The Right Thing, and it's all for the good of the community. I explain to him that there will always be people who try to take advantage of the situation, and encourage him to be on the lookout of those scoundrels so we can get them back on track.
Then, after Samwise leaves my office with newfound purpose and a spring in his step, I return to my meal, kindly provided by the generous, if gullible, folk of the commune. I make a note to myself to perform some grandiose gesture of generosity to keep myself out of the scrutiny of Samwise and his brethren....perhaps I'll use community funds to pave the main road through town, and name it after myself.
This, of course, is just an example, and if you look carefully, you'll see the general case copied in many situations in everyday life. Religious leaders who push everyone to tithe to the church, but never dig into their own pockets for a worthy cause. Police who crack down on organized crime so they can hit up the little guys for money, drugs, and stolen goods. Employers who make you sign carefully worded contracts detailing your liabilities to them, then proceed to renege on verbal agreements and even contracts with their own suppliers and customers. Advertisers who fill our senses with feel-good messages of trust and reliability, but refuse to be accountable for false messages and implications.
My current favorite, however, is the shenanigans of the US government regarding imported canadian soft wood lumber.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) first came out, it was heralded as a new age of trade, where countries would be able to transfer goods and workers easily and fairly across borders, with a carefully detailed process to handle disputes and grievances. There was a huge amount of fanfare about it, and everyone signed on with the promise of good faith participation.
Fast forward to the present day. The US has been charging huge tarrifs on imports of canadian soft wood lumber. This lumber accounts for about 30% of what is used to build houses in the US, and is Canada's #1 industry. There has been great dispute over whether these tarrifs are fair (we're talking about something on the order of, if I remember correctly, 8 billion dollars in tarrifs so far), and the NAFTA dispute resolution system has ruled on several occasions that they are NOT, and that the US needs to refund the tarrifs. Read more here and here, for starters.
What happened to the promise that we'd abide by the rules? Why has this gone so far that Canada is threatening to start an all-out trade war against the US?
It's simple. The US government, like most every other authority organization in the world, doesn't do The Right Thing. There's no global government standing over them to force them to do it. As an individual entity, they gain more by cheating than they do by participating. It's always been that way, but the only way they can keep benefiting is to convince the citizens that it's not the case, that everyone should always do The Right Thing, thus keeping the coffers full for them to leech from.
Look, I'm not saying that everyone in an authority position is evil. All I'm saying is that, as a country and as a people, we have a very naive view of how the world works. We're too easily swayed by all the feel-good talk from the evangelical religious groups and public service organizations and corporations preaching for community good, that we're not only blinded to the reality of all the money changing hands over our heads while they laugh at us, but we buy right into the bullshit and even form our own little grass-roots "community centers" in an attempt to "do our part" and convert even MORE people into thinking the same thing. And we teach it to our children, who grow up to be pawns of the powerful, just like we are.
The idea of a feel-good, do The Right Thing community is nice. But it doesn't work unless you're willing to stick your head in the sand, because there will always be people who will take advantage of it.
I'm not saying we need to tear our system down and start from scratch, I just wish that more people would open their eyes and quit eating all the bullshit they are feeding us.