Milgram Redux

How do we free our psyches from auto-coercion? How do we avoid becoming Nazis?

This tele-xperiment paints a bleak picture. Still, I want to know about the 16 out of 80 who refused to shock the contestant. What are they like? What education have they had? How were they able to free themselves from the authoritative glare of the camera? Knowing these things might enable us to lead better, more moral lives.

Evolutionary psychology could potentially provide an explanation for why we obey, even when the orders are immoral, and why we sometimes don't obey. It's probable that, in the environment of human societies, (hypothetical) genes that give an individual the propensity to obey were favored by natural selection.

I make this guess based on analogy with other social species, including those in which beta males submit to the alpha male's authority, even to the point of eschewing reproduction. For these males, the net cost of being a member of a society in which they cannot reproduce outweighs the net cost of being cast out to defend against threats all alone. Not to mention, a beta male could one day become the alpha male and find huge reproductive success.

It is likely that our ancestors faced a similar situation. They were probably better off gleaning benefits from authoritative individuals by obeying them than they were by dissenting and facing punishments like execution or exile. I doubt that these speculations are too off the mark.

But what about disobedience? That may have also been positively selected for, but probably on fewer occasions than obedience. Ancient Galileos may have gained reproductive success by throwing off the chains of the powers that be and pioneering more productive, truer ways of doing things. Or they may simply have subverted the ruler's rule and taken over for themselves. This, of course, could also help dissidents maximize their reproductive fitness.

Even if obedience isn't encoded in our genomes, it may be differentially favored within and across cultures. Cultural notions of when it is right or wrong to obey may have evolved by similar mechanisms as in the biological evolution scenarios above. The difference is that cultural concepts of obedience would be transmitted by word of mouth both horizontally (between strangers) and vertically (between parent and offspring) whereas vertical inheritance would be the primary means of biological transmission of a gene that codes for a propensity toward obedience.

By understanding both our cultural and biological histories of obedience and disobedience, we may be able to lower the proportion of individuals who kill others under orders from authority figures and avoid future genocide.

Social Science Gone Wrong- what not to do

In Monday's NY Times, op-ed columnist David Brooks talks about change in the Senate which will make it more like the House. He says the Senate is home to "person-to-person thinking" and that "because one senator had the ability to bring the whole body to a halt, senators had an incentive, every day, to develop alliances and relationships with people in the other party". He contrasts this with the House, which he refers to as embodying a "clan psychology", where individuals have little power and decisions are made on the group level.

He notes that the Senate is becoming increasingly like the house in this respect, despite attempts by prominent democrats, including our very own president, to curtail this change. The problem is that the crux of Brooks's argument hinges on what he calls humans' innate sense of sympathy. It is true that humans, along with many other species, have an internal sense of sympathy or empathy, causing us in many cases to have an internal sense of fairness and to avoid violating the social code. Brooks notes that with the shift from person-person interactions to group-group interactions there comes to a degree a loss of this empathy and natural mimicry.

Brooks uses this to shape his argument, saying that humans are naturally inclined to be sympathetic, and that forming in-groups and out-groups as he notes would happen with the impending shift in the senate would "bleach out normal behavior and the normal instincts of human sympathy". To make this argument is to deny that the formation of such groups was a crucial factor in human evolution.

Brooks's argument is riddled with poor science, to a degree that undermines the efforts of many to seek consilience between the sciences and the humanities. It may be true that we should work to stop these changes in the Senate and that to change the current system would be a step in the wrong direction. But what Brooks has done is grab a snippet of science, ignore all context, and mold it to fit his argument. This is what led to the idea of social darwinism. It is also what led to the eugenics movement which, unbeknownst to many, played a prominent role in early 20th century American domestic policy (I would highly recommend this paper).

What Brooks is doing isn't as dangerous as social darwinism or eugenics, but it's a chip off the same block. Poor use of scientific evidence to support policy arguments in appallingly superficial ways has been a giant setback to both the sciences and the understanding between disciplines. Humans evolved, this is clear. As such, it is productive to consider evolution and the forces which shaped animal behavior before the phenomenon of culture got underway. To do this correctly will prove invaluable; to do it sloppily and superficially is an obvious burden to consilience and understanding.

Daydreaming Prompt

A giant asteroid is set for a collision course with the Earth. Humankind has 5 days to get its act together. Fortunately, you have constructed a space vessel just in case this sort of thing were ever to occur. (Needless to say, you are very meticulous and paranoid.) Your fully stocked spaceship is gassed up and ready to set sail for Mars.

The vessel seats 10, meaning one seat for you (I would assume) and 9 seats for whoever you want to bring with you.

1. Who will you invite aboard your space ship? In other words, who will you choose to repopulate and reconstruct humanity on Mars once Earth has been demolished?

In addition to room for foodstuffs, you can bring 1000 lbs. of other stuff on the ship.

2. What will you bring with you to your space colony?

Let's assume that, being the genius captain and engineer that you are, you safely land your ship on the red planet.

3. What institutions will you instate to govern the colony? Will you try to create a lasting constitution for what you hope will be the burgeoning population of [enter sweet colony name here]? Or will you be more flexible? How will you go about sowing the seeds of a prosperous settlement, both in the short run and the long run?

(My thoughts on the issue are forthcoming...)

Relative vs. Absolute

In a free market economy, businesses that do not succeed go bankrupt. The relative success of businesses is a situation much more reminiscent of a zero-sum game than that of countries competing on a global scale. Or so says Krugman.

If relative success at the nation-level isn't really that important and what really matters is your absolute success, then it is possible for each involved party to improve, even though some will grow faster than others. So what would happen if everyone woke up tomorrow and every country in the world were 30x richer than the US? To follow Krugman's logic, this would ostensibly be good for the US; trade and cooperation with other countries would raise the US's level of prosperity, causing the US to be better off than it is today, even if it is the poorest country in the world.

This is tradeoff between relative and absolute success is also prevalent in animal behavior. Dominance hierarchies are perfect examples of relative success being chosen over absolute success. A hiena in a pack which can kill large prey is able to aquire food for itself, and is consequently better off than it would have been by itself. But at the same time, that one hiena might be the lowest notch on the hiena social totem pole.

If the argument for absolute over relative success holds for nations, does it hold for individuals? Would you really rather make $10,000 and be the poorest person in your country than make $5,000 and be one of the richest? If we were measuring in terms of 'happiness' then you might say yes, but if we measure in dollars it's not so clear. Does this mentality hold true across levels of hierarchy? And if so, what units are best to clarify the relationship?

In which I proudly demonstrate a remedial understanding of supply, demand, and economic growth

An asteroid may have spelled doom for dinosaurs. But what do asteroids spell for humans?

In "Space: The Final Frontier of Profit," Peter Diamandis of the X Prize Foundation writes that the cosmos provide endless lucrative opportunities of enterprising individuals. In particular, he appraised "an average half-kilometer S-type asteroid" at $20 trillion. But that's not all. He writes:

...companies and investors are realizing that everything we hold of value—metals, minerals, energy and real estate—are in near-infinite quantities in space. As space transportation and operations become more affordable, what was once seen as a wasteland will become the next gold rush.

I find Diamandis's assertion that "everything we hold of value" can be found in the heavens to be overly cavalier -- as a case in point, (almost) none of us are up there right now -- but certainly "metals, minerals, energy and real estate" are abundant in space.

So what does this mean for us? Is space a money tree? If space becomes our industrial playground, how will this effect our perception of the world? Consumer goods? Productive goods? How will it alter our views of what's important?

Without a doubt, the practical opening of the space market would flood the supply of goods such as platinum and iron. Unlike Spain in the New World, countries that laid claim to a medium-sized asteroid would not suffer from atrophy in other growing industries (like how Spain failed to grow its manufacturing capabilities in the colonial era); rather, space explorers would be advancing the new and profitable technologies of the future. Dutch disease would not be a concern.

Overall, the effect of harvesting space would be to lower the prices of most goods. At first, the depression of prices would seem infinite, corresponding with buyers' expectations of infinite growth and resources. Space's bounty would shine down on humans with the gratuitous generosity of Bastiat's sun in "The Candlemaker's Petition." It is likely that humankind would bask in its light and prosper. By this, I mean that we'd reap the benefits of a higher standard of living and, in general, more time to play guitar.

So maybe space does "hold everything we value."

Some other cool questions to ponder: If we began to colonize other worlds, or even just asteroids, how would we go about exporting our lives and our ecosystems? What role would Earth's biosphere play in the transformation of the solar system? How does global warming's threat to the biosphere affect our future in space? And is space -- an almost infinite resource -- the unique, inevitable path to prosperity? Would it "solve the economic problem"?

Pessimistic Bias, 1995 edition

It's very easy to call this guy stupid. Very easy. But it is just as easy to mock those who are overly optimistic about innovative ideas, like flying cars. So what is the difference? It's probably just hindsight 20/20.

A few of Stoll's predictions have some validity. Consider the final paragraph:

What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another. A network chat line is a limp substitute for meeting friends over coffee. No interactive multimedia display comes close to the excitement of a live concert. And who'd prefer cybersex to the real thing? While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where—in the holy names of Education and Progress—important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued.

Certainly, the internet has made it increasingly possible for people to never leave their homes to shop, work, or even socialize.

At the same time, however, Stoll underrates consumers' sense of their own needs and desires. The internet can and will never devalue human interactions: only people can do that. It is arguably because people value "human interactions" so much that the internet has become such a big deal. Media like Facebook and Twitter have made it easier to arrange meetings and facilitate human contact. They have enabled old friends to keep in touch. One would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that people were more connected to one another fifteen years ago than they are now. The internet provides an obvious example of the improvements to our standard of living spurred by economic growth and enterprising technological innovation.

Looting, Social Trust, and Social Capital

The generally fantastic Tyler Cowen:

"There is a certain lawlessness in this country that the government enabled," he said in Spanish. "They don't protect people and people don't respect them and criminal elements get out of control. People also have a high sense of entitlement. They expected the government to have water and power and things under control."

There is much more at the link or try this tweet: "The situation in Concepción is deteriorating. Citizens have taken up arms to defend themselves and their stores. 8 PM to 12 PM Army curfew." By no means is it just a bunch of people trying to feed themselves: "...many residents in the most damaged areas have not only taken food from supermarkets, but also robbed banks, set fires and engaged in other forms of lawlessness."

Haiti, on the other hand, remains fairly orderly and there have been reports that police corruption has gone down significantly.

One implication here is that I fundamentally distrust the use of "social trust" or "social capital" indicators in cross-country growth regressions. Repeat three times after me: context-dependence, context-dependence, context-dependence. The lessons for social science run deep.

My deeper worry is that this event will change Chile and set it back more than the damage alone would indicate. It will alter their self-image and national unity could decline. An alternative story is that Chile will become more progressive, as there will be greater common knowledge of income divisions and it will be harder to pretend everything is just fine.

Maybe it is a sign of social health to have some looting after an earthquake. In this part of blogland we do not dismiss the counterintuitive conclusion out of hand. For instance perhaps Haiti is so orderly because a) looters would be killed on the spot, and b) the entire fate of the nation is at stake and thus every small event is taken very seriously. Neither factor is exactly good news.

I'm interested in finding out how the looting that went on in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina compares to both Chile and Haiti. I imagine that Americans would share the Chileans' "high sense of entitlement" in the aftermath of an equivalent event. Is this due to the rise in high liberalism over the past century? I'm guessing it has something to do with the legacy of New Deal paternalism.