Burning other people’s money
I am reading a new book by Michael Prell called Underdogma: How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power.
The book is a fascinating look at why so many people admire the underdog and hate those who achieve or are successful. From a psychological standpoint, the chapter on “Personal Underdogma” really helped to understand the motives behind so many people’s desire to tax and take money from the so-called “rich” even if it means that their own wealth will suffer. The chapter describes a very important study conducted by a pair of economists at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick in 2001:
“Are people willing to pay to burn other people’s money? The short answer to this question is: yes. Our subjects gave up large amounts of their cash to hurt others in the laboratory. The extent of burning surprised us…Even at a price of 0.25 (meaning that to burn another person’s dollar cost me 25 cents), many people wished to destroy other individuals’ cash.”
–”Are People willing to Pay to Reduce Others’ Incomes?” Daniel John Zizzo & Andrew Oswald, July 2, 2001
Author Prell notes that the researchers called this Phenomenon “the dark side of human nature.” He calls it Personal Underdogma. Whatever name is used, it is a problem that needs a solution because as long as jealous citizens and politicians are willing to sabotage success even at expense to themselves, and thus society, losers will prosper and winners will lose. This can’t be good for any society.
Ah, welcome to the dark side of human nature. While we root for the underdog, sometimes with good reason, this article also points out the willingness to trip up the overdog. Bring harm to ones self in order to do greater harm to a percieved enemy is nothing new, It is actually the basis of ALL tactical thinking.
What is novel in the article is how these same tactical principles are applied to all human behavior. It does give one a few things to ponder.
Well, the 10 Commandments might be a start, with that whole, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s (goods) house or fields, nor his male or female slaves, nor his ox or ass, or anything that belongs to him.”
Two men went to Jupiter and prayed that he grant their wishes. One was full of avarice, and the other eaten up with envy. So to punish them both, Jupiter would grant their wishes, but only on condition that the neighbor would receive twice as much. The Avaricious man prayed to have a room full of gold. No sooner said than done; but all his joy turned to grief when he found that his neighbor two rooms full of gold. Then came the turn of the Envious man, who could not bear to think that his neighbor had any joy at all. So he prayed that he might have one of his own eyes put out, by which means his companion would become totally blind.
This also reminds me of the psych experiments where the test subjects think they are running an experiment that involves delivering electric shocks to other test subjects in another room (presumably if the victims answer a question incorrectly or do something wrong).
After a little hesitation, the people delivering the shocks get *way* overzealous. Inflicting harm on other people can be weirdly seductive, and not just in terms of burning their wealth.
“the dark side of human nature.” Schadenfreude.
With all due respect, the study cited above was in Britain, where people commonly believe that wealth distribution is a zero-sum game, and consequently that the rich have taken more than their share at the expense of someone else.
This leads to a perspective that is amazing to Americans: Brits tends to disparage self-made men (one reason why, e.g., Branson, is so assiduous in cultivating a “nice guy” image), but have no problem with those who inherited wealth (“it’s not their fault; they were born wealthy”).
So before chiseling this study into granite, I’d like to see it replicated in the U.S.
Author Prell notes that the researchers called this Phenomenon “the dark side of human nature.”
I call it “The Democratic Party”.
maybe there is an upside, a desire for justice or equality. the impulse may not be all bad, could lead to equality for all under a rule of law, not a Marxist Hell.
just sayin’
reminds me of a story of the afterlife, think it’s from one of the chicken soup for the soul, a table laden with food but everyone is starving. their forks are so long they cannot feed themselves!
another picture from heaven. same scene, lots of food at the table, long forks where no one can feed themselves. But they are full and happy, they feed each other.
Our nature can be grasping, selfish and violent. But there are probably instincts and the invisible hand that can lead to a full table and belly, a desire for justice and equality without a Leviathan State to control us.
wishin’ hopin’ prayin’
Also known as Crab Mentality. From Wiki:
Crab mentality, sometimes referred to as crabs in the bucket, describes a way of thinking best described by the phrase “if I can’t have it, neither should you.”
The metaphor refers to a pot of crabs. Individually, the crabs could easily escape from the pot, but instead, they grab at each other in a useless “king of the hill” competition (or sabotage) which prevents any from escaping and ensures their collective demise. The analogy in human behavior is that of a group that will attempt to “pull down” (negate or diminish the importance of) any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of jealousy, conspiracy or competitive feelings.
This term is broadly associated with short-sighted, non-constructive thinking rather than a unified, long-term, constructive mentality. It is also often used colloquially in reference to individuals or communities attempting to “escape” a so-called “underprivileged life”, but kept from doing so by others attempting to ride upon their coat-tails or those who simply resent their success.[1]
“Underdogma” is a great phrase! I’ve long believed that it is the David vs. Goliath myth, small good David vs big bad Goliath.
There is no myth of a good big vs small bad that I know of — it is anti-mythical. Tho all too real.
I think that this desire to “hurt the rich” is rational over most of history, where “the rich” have long been using gov’t (or mafia) power to unjustly maintain their wealth; Robin Hood vs. the local-richer tax collectors.
A good amount of Tea Party anger is based on the injustice of the gov’t giving so much to the rich. When the rich get rich by risking, that seems at least a little reasonable. But when their “risks” are covered by the gov’t, it’s not reasonable.
Given this long term history of injustice from the rich & powerful, it’s good to have myths of justice against it.
The problem is that the injustice was based on some force, with rich vs poor as a non-exclusive symptom of the injustice. The simple “justice for the poor” slogan covers up the more frequent times where, merely by peaceful and agreed to steps by the free people, the poor fail to get rich, while the rich get richer.
Focusing on the peacefulness, or not, of the situation being created, is the only way to reduce this.
There are no “solutions” to the “problem” of envy. It appears to be buried deep within human nature. It has always been with us, and is utterly independent of any objective differences among us. It can be controlled, through custom, religion, and law, but it can never be eradicated.
Think of envy as the dandelion in the human soul. You can pluck the blossom; you cannot get at the root.
Regarding “good big vs. small bad”
The king in disguise is a common myth.
And there are all sorts of myths about hubris or myths about kings dealing with loyal and disloyal servants.
Robin Hood was just a common thief. To the extent the legends are real, which is open for debate, the earliest don’t depict him giving to the poor at all. (Though he did make a loan to a poor knight that he didn’t ask be repaid.)
Anything that gov taxes we will get less of, while anything they subsidize we will get more of. Taxing winners, and subsidizing losers, will result in more losers and less winners. But that is the real end goal of socialism, to make us all equally poor and destitute, excedt for a small core of gov leaders who run everything.
This behavior is called “spite” when other organisms engage in it, and I’ve got a Science magazine from 2009 with an article on social interactions among things from ants to slime molds to birds that shows that there’s spiteful behavior at all levels of the food chain.
Apparently, we’re biologically wired to sacrifice our own resources to hurt other people at no benefit to ourselves out of the idea it might improve the chances of our kin surviving and reproducing, even though we’re personally harmed. It’s seen as distinct from aggression or the defensive behavior of non-reproductive members of eusocial species like ants or bees.
Stupid biology. Stupid nature.