It’s fun to laugh at a hypocrite…so, when you need a laugh, look in the mirror.  (Yes, we’re all hypocrites.)

 

Not surprisingly, this [chapter] has the irony of being all about oneself.

 

What’s not obvious – yet true – is that people, when acting in unethical ways (e.g., from cutting you off in traffic all the way to Nazis running concentration camps[!]), don’t think they’re doing anything wrong.  Most people think they are good people and that their actions are motivated by good reasons.  Machiavellian tit-for-tat requires devotion to appearances, including protestations of one’s virtue even when one chooses vice.

 

And these protestations are most effective when the person really believes them.  Robert Wright, in The Moral Animal, puts it eloquently: “Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.”

 

But Haidt also nails it with: “We [each] are well-armed for battle in a Machiavellian (cunning and amoral use of power) world of reputation manipulation, and one of our most important weapons is the delusion that we are non-combatants.”

 

Q: How do we get away with it?  A: Our inner lawyer.

 

Now…the Law (capital “L” as in the actual practice of jurisprudence in, say, the USA) is a noble profession – when the objective is justice.  But the reality is also that lawyers are trained to fight for a client’s interests, not [necessarily] for the truth.  Hence a preponderance of ethical violation – and the consequent contempt so bestowed.

So too the “behavior” of our inner lawyer, i.e., the rider “under the influence” – or more accurately, at the direction – of the elephant’s desires.  He “springs into action” in defense of our overt behaviors as well as [our likely conflicted] covert feelings (e.g., when we’re angry and have zilch incentive to engage, say, self-critical thinking or empathic perspective).  What results is one-sided, at best quasi-truthful, likely slanted, and fully supportive of self-delusional buy-in.  And it’s powerful.  The lawyer is working for us – and we want to believe what we’re being told.  Our “esteemed and rational counsel” is playing the role of defense lawyer – and, in the process, acts [psychologically speaking] as a very effective defense mechanism.

People are skilled at finding reasons to support their gut feelings: The rider acts like a lawyer whom the elephant has hired to represent it in the court of public opinion.

One of the reasons people are often contemptuous of lawyers is that they fight for a client’s interests, not for the truth. To be a good lawyer, it often helps to be a good liar. Although many lawyers won’t tell a direct lie, most will do what they can to hide inconvenient facts while weaving a plausible alternative story for the judge and jury, a story that they sometimes know is not true. Our inner lawyer works in the same way, but, somehow, we actually believe the stories he makes up. To understand his ways we must catch him in action; we must observe him carrying out low-pressure as well as high-pressure assignments. But our elephant is not an inquisitive client…

When people are given difficult questions to think about—for example, whether the minimum wage should be raised—they generally lean one way or the other right away, and then put a call in to reasoning to see whether support for that position is forthcoming. Our thinking generally uses the “makes-sense” stopping rule. We take a position, look for evidence that supports it, and if we find some evidence—enough so that our position “makes sense”—we stop thinking…and blissfully (read ignorantly) move on…

Ah, Ben [Franklin], who concluded: “So convenient a thing is it to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.”

 

 

Something else is “in cahoots” with our lawyer; the individual tendency to overestimate our own virtue.  We may, at times, be able to accurately judge the behavior of others; but we all misjudge – as in overvalue – our own actions, capabilities, intentions.  (You know somethin’?  It’s just the way we are…)

 

This self-serving bias lends fealty to the lawyer’s arguments, especially in embracing the buy-in.  There are natural “thinking errors” at work here: the delusion of uncritical acceptance that “serves” to protect one’s ego (talk about a fragile entity [!]) and the fallacy of positive instances[1], wherein we hear what we want to hear (and conveniently filter out the rest).  What results is really a kind of blindness – more accurately, there is no incentive, cautionary stimulus, or intuitive reminder to be skeptical – to what a more “critically thoughtful” and fair-minded assessment would yield.  (But then, that would take effort…)

 

Lawyers – both real and [here] metaphorical – are working “round the clock” to spin and distort [whatever] the case [may be] in their client’s [i.e., our] favor.  Note also that this simple truth is nearly impossible to recognize and face when we’re in the throes of emotionally heightened engagement (e.g., when we’re angry, or have just been insulted, or are being threatened).  Here again, it’s the elephant “steering” the rider, as in taking us where it wants (actually, where we want) and “thinks” we ought to go.  So how can we expect the rider (our conscious mind) to argue with our lawyer, who is (metaphorically) in control of the conscious mind at that moment?  Uh…we can’t – or at least we don’t.

 

Yet, even in our calmer moments, this resistance – or, for most of us, this inability – to recognize (let alone reconcile [!]) our inflated self-view induces us to think that others must be at fault and therefore “need help” in seeing the world more clearly; it is a phenomenon some psychologists call naïve realism[2]and it goes something like this: 

 

[note on this last emphasis one could read ‘prejudices and biases’ instead]

But as the word ‘naïve’ implies, it is more a behavior subject to wishful thinking than any based on self-critical insight [i.e., introspectively-driven objective analysis].  I might go further and submit that this is a tendency which borders on self-delusion…because we (individually) “choose to ignore” (i.e., it is a bias and “happens” subconsciously) the alternative and not improbable possibility that we are the one who has ‘not been exposed to the relevant facts’ or, as likely, may be “blinded by our own biases” (i.e., our worldview being colored as it is by 1. ideology, religion, paradigm, and personal philosophy, and 2. [let’s not forget] self-interest). 

 

In other words, the “naïve” part really means that everybody else also “sees the world” with a similar outlook…which naturally begs the question, can we both be (or all be) right?  Now, in some things?  Maybe.  In all things?  Of course not.  Hence, our collective indulgence in naïve realism tends to create much conflict, and – here’s the rub – gives us a world full of good and evil.[4]

 

 

A bias is manifest as an inclination to think, or act, or react, in a particular way.  Often associated with prejudice (and sometimes used synonymously), a bias “works on our thinking” much like habits do; that is, it is a learned and “automatic” behavior, here meaning with little or no conscious awareness of its influence.  What is germane – and actually of critical importance – is the fact that we are all subject to biased thinking (some far more than others) and also that it can indeed lead to conflict. 

 

Now psychologists talk of various biases; e.g., the fairness bias – a desire for fair play and fair outcomes in human affairs, sometimes even at the expense of (what could have been) personal or economic gain; or the hindsight bias – seeing an outcome that actually occurred as inevitable, and then overestimating one’s ability to have predicted what happened beforehand; or the confirmation bias – a tendency to only see evidence or seek arguments that reinforce one’s own beliefs, values, or perspectives, [which leads to] ignoring or finding fault with contrarian positions.  But when we talked above of “the inner lawyer,” or that “rose-colored mirror,” or the lure of naïve realism, we were also talking about biases – influences and tendencies that work “just below the radar.”  We could further categorize them more precisely as “self-serving biases”…so called because their primary function (as used by our inner lawyer) is to protect, support, validate, and/or please us – or in effect, serve our interests.  (Recall I began this chapter section on “the faults of others” by observing – which is Haidt’s point as well – that it’s really all about us.)

 

There are other self-serving biases as well.  One is self-deception, the kind characterized by misleading oneself to accept as true or valid what is really false or invalid; e.g., (for most people) consider what “intellectual mechanism” really lies at the heart of smoking, obesity, alcohol or drug dependence.  Another self-serving bias is blaming others (or its corollary blaming fate), an approach used in explaining why events don’t go our way and thus shielding us from having to take (even partial) responsibility for unpleasant outcomes.  Yet another is self-absorption[5], the sad irony being its self-limiting and often counter-productive consequence; for when one’s worldview is confined to egocentric preoccupation, one may avoid the risks – and having to make the effort involved – in meaningful (and often difficult) empathetic relationship.

 

It’s not “impossible” to recognize the presence of self-serving biases – although, due to the very nature of bias, most of the time most of us don’t.  In fact, as Haidt clearly points out, we’re far more likely to observe their working in others…as we go on identifying, complaining, gossiping, and commiserating on “the faults of others.”  But being aware of them and how they work, and understanding their potential downside – because, it should be noted, biases have useful aspects as well(!) – gives our rider “a leg up” in confronting their influence on the elephant.  This (I believe) is prerequisite to achieving higher levels of intellectual integrity and autonomy, of maturing and growing into better human beings; this being not a trivial or frivolous endeavor…

 

Haidt now goes on to state that “[naïve realism] brings us to the most disturbing implication of the sages’ advice about hypocrisy:

 

Good and evil do not exist outside of our beliefs about them.”

 

Now this is (at least it was for me) a rather eye-opening assertion for anyone raised in a religiously-based tradition (whether quasi or strict) – which happens [I believe] to include the vast majority of human beings.  Few would argue with the statement, “There is good and there is evil.”  But where do these beliefs come from? 

 

Haidt begins with Manichaeism[6] to describe the more conventional approach to understanding “good and evil.”  He writes (which doesn’t mean he necessarily agrees) about its “straight dualism” in the religious sense, saying:  “There exists a good force and an evil force.  They are equal and opposite, and they fight eternally.  Human beings are part of this battleground.”  He goes on in an attempt to explain the common influence this idea has had on modern religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; but – whatever the spin and/or convoluted logic used to deliver “the word” – the bottom line is that we can be influenced by either (good or evil), and that “our choices” (i.e., our actions and behaviors, especially in regard to how we treat other human beings) reflect in great part the extent of such influence.

 

This Manichaean concept of dualistic “combatants” (i.e., good versus evil) captures the fundamental premise upon which people view the world, particularly in how we perceive conflict and attempt to reconcile the never ending struggle.  But it can further be seen as the basis for an underlying bias at work, an influence that frames our reaction to human behavior in general but especially in the harsh and sometimes brutal actions of others – whether through “remote” exposure (e.g., the media) or in personal experience.  My take is that the overwhelming tendency to see the world this way is rooted in childhood where conflict is first internalized in terms of good and bad, and in which resolution is usually with “a hero” overcoming the dark forces of evil.  It is this simplistic, black-and-white, “Disneyesque” world that one carries into adulthood, and becomes the familiar model to rationalize the seemingly inexplicable horrors in the real world. 

 

In other words, most of us (all?) come to believe in good and evil because – as children – we were so taught to believe.  And our empirical, post-adolescent experience – fed as it is by the “news,” by the entertainment industry, by those who indulge in shameless political or religious dogma, and even by our daily exposure in the behavior of others – all works to confirm what we have “learned.”

 

Haidt, in making the point, cites psychologist Roy Baumeister’s argument that we humans “have a deep need to understand violence and cruelty” – and our inclination is to do this by engaging what he calls the myth of pure evil.[7]  Haidt gives a succinct yet workable summary of this concept:

 

“Of this myth’s many parts, the most important are that evildoers are pure in their evil motives (they have no motives for their actions beyond sadism and greed); victims are pure in their victimhood (they did nothing to bring about their victimization); and evil comes from outside and is associated with a group or force that attacks our group.  Furthermore, anyone who questions the application of the myth, who dares muddy the waters of moral certainty, is in league with evil.”[8]

 

For some, this characterization may appear stark, overly simplistic, and maybe extreme in describing what frames our understanding of events in which someone (or some group) makes others suffer undeservedly. Yet when we pause and reflect on our own experience…how else do we react to, say, terrorists (e.g., 9/11, Oklahoma City), or hearing about murderers, rapists, gang violence, child molestation, etc, etc?  The “short of it” is usually a news story (e.g.) and we are “fed” only the tragic and painful “facts.”  The “long of it” (i.e., the overriding context, different perspectives, history, and current relevant detail) is less often provided (or pursued) and leaves one with that initial emotional disgust and condemnation – as informed through the lens of this myth of pure evil.

 

The power – and the “working” – of this myth can be even more easily observed in terms of group behavior, validating the “goodness” of “us” in contrast to the evil of others (e.g., George Bush’s “axis of evil,” his [our] “war on terror,” the threat of Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, etc).  It also makes it easier to hate foreigners, or anyone who is “different” from us, and therefore defend discrimination or abuse, even torture, when “they” can be accused of evil or nefarious intent; in fact, the whole mentality of war is predicated on thus so defining “the enemy.”

 

Finally, this myth of pure evil is most useful to the individual as the ultimate self-serving bias – for it sanctions our own self-worth, our own goodness, our own sense of self-righteous superiority.  That it is familiar, convenient, and seemingly grounded in truth – of the kind we want to believe…and of the kind others also believe – serves to validate our role, our place, our own nobility.  More simply put – and so rarely acknowledged – finding fault with others “makes me better.”

 

But…as a sage wisely pointed out, “Appearances can be deceiving.”

 

As for my own experience, I have seen, sensed, discerned nothing that remotely suggests, let alone confirms, the existence of God, or gods, or some universal, cosmic force or being – that is somehow “in control of” or is a/the “creator” of existence, the world, or my personal “being in it.”  On one hand, I am awed, cowed, and profoundly humbled when I perceive the beauty, the complexity, and the mystery of the universe; on the other, I am disgusted and dismissive of mankind’s inhumanity, and further by anyone’s attempt to attribute it to some kind of “God’s will.”  While I respect every person’s right, or prerogative, to choose their own beliefs – call it faith, religion, ideology, or whatever – I can only “speak” for myself when it comes to discussing spirituality, metaphysics, or some kind of existential philosophy.  So (as I’ve written elsewhere) let me be succinct:

 

 

And so, if put the question, “Is there an ‘evil force’ operating ‘out there’ in the universe, steering-driving-influencing people’s thoughts and behavior?” my answer is, “Uh…no.”  That is not to say there is no – or no such thing as – evil.  It’s just not something “operating from out there” (i.e., as in some kind of supernatural agent like a Satan or Lucifer) on us poor human beings.

 

But to the question, are there “evil influences” that affect our thinking?  Uh…yes; but they’re known to us – and they’re called other human beings.

 

Good and evil do not exist outside of our beliefs about them.  There is no “cosmic rulebook” of moral instruction of guiding dictate.  We determine, we define, and we construct the moral landscape; and we act…and must go on living with the consequences. Unless, of course, the ultimate consequence is extinction – due self- (as in the collective “we”) inflicted or otherwise.

 

And also, in the meantime, we judge others – based on our beliefs, of course; and others judge us – based on their beliefs.  Haidt says, “Judgmentalism is indeed a disease of the mind; it leads to anger, torment, and conflict.  But it is also the mind’s normal functioning condition – the elephant is always evaluating, always saying, ‘Dangerous’ or ‘Not,’ ‘Like it’ or ‘Don’t like it.’  You know by now that you can’t simply resolve to stop judging others or to stop being a hypocrite.  But, as Buddha taught, the Rider can gradually learn to tame the Elephant…”

 

Enter meditation, cognitive therapy, self-enlightenment…

 

 

[1] Psychological dfn: The tendency to remember or notice information that fits one’s expectations, while forgetting or ignoring discrepancies.

 

[2] Haidt cites the work of Pronin & Ross, and the following (if you want “another take”) is from Internet probing:

 

Important asymmetries between self-perception and social perception arise from the simple fact that other people’s actions, judgments, and priorities sometimes differ from one’s own. This leads people not only to make more dispositional inferences about others than about themselves (E. E. Jones & R. E. Nisbett, 1972) but also to see others as more susceptible to a host of cognitive and motivational biases. Although this blind spot regarding one’s own biases may serve familiar self-enhancement motives, it is also a product of the phenomenological stance of naive realism. It is exacerbated, furthermore, by people’s tendency to attach greater credence to their own introspections about potential influences on judgment and behavior than they attach to similar introspections by others. The authors review evidence, new and old, of this asymmetry and its underlying causes and discuss its relation to other psychological phenomena and to interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

 

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but

considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

—Matthew 7:3 (King James Version)

 

This familiar biblical quotation describes an age-old double standard in the way people perceive themselves versus their peers.

We suspect that people not only are subject to this double standard but also are inclined to believe that their peers are more subject to it than they are themselves. In the present article, we argue that people readily detect or infer a wide variety of biases in others while denying such biases in themselves. We place this argument in the larger context of theory and research on the relationship between self-perception and social perception. In particular, the ideas we advance can be seen as an extension of Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) conceptual analysis of divergent actor– observer attributions, with the focus of our analysis shifting from judgments about traits to judgments about biases.

 

Our analysis begins with the observation that attributions about others often are prompted by evidence that their response to a given situation or issue differs from one’s own. We then relate this observation to the broader epistemic stance of naive realism (Ross & Ward, 1995, 1996), the defining feature of which is the conviction that one sees and responds to the world objectively, or “as it is,” and that others therefore will see it and respond to it differently only to the extent that their behavior is a reflection of something other than that reality. One attributional possibility is that the “divergent” response in question reflects the others’ personality traits or dispositions. The other possibility, which has particularly important consequences when it comes to contentious social and political issues, is that the others’ judgments and decisions reflect cognitive or motivational biases that distort reality.  Naive realism, we suggest, thus gives rise to the conviction that others in general, and others who disagree with us in particular, are more susceptible to biasing influences than we are ourselves (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002). This conviction, in turn, is reinforced by people’s tendency to treat their introspections about the basis of their own judgments and decisions as highly probative or “sovereign” but not to give similar weight to the introspections of others.

[3]Ibid, pg. 71.

[4] In an interesting aside, Haidt goes on to suggest that naïve realism – this view that because “I see the world as it really is and you should but don’t” [and therefore you must be ignorant of the real facts or else blinded by your egocentricity, ideologies, and prejudices] – is “a candidate” for being the biggest obstacle to world peace and social harmony[!].   For the singular “me/you” so easily extends to – and is validated by – that collective “we/they” confrontation; as in: My group is right because we see things as they are.  (And it therefore follows that “others ‘who disagree’ are obviously biased by their religion, ideology, or self-interest…”)

[5] It’s all about me-e-e-e…

[6]A [relatively “ancient”] dualistic philosophy dividing the world between good and evil principles; or, regarding matter as intrinsically evil and mind as intrinsically good

[7] Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence, by Roy F. Baumeister, W.H.Freeman, 1997, pg. 72.

[8] The Happiness Hypothesis – Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, ibid, pg. 74.

 

*Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis, 2006