Personal responsibility
Just jotting down a thought: humans seem quite prone to, even perhaps hard-wired (since children do it a lot), to shift responsibility for ‘bad things that happen’ to others. At first sight, this seems strange, since you might reasonably expect people who recognise their mistakes and flaws (and are thus able to learn from their mistakes) to be more ‘intelligent’ (able to improve from past experiences) - you’d expect natural selection to select for self-improvers, than blame-passers. That doesn’t seem to be the case, and so suggests that shifting the blame has been an evolutionarily favourable trait. That would be down to two forces:
1. Low/tolerable risk of ‘punishment’ for shifting blame and not recognising your own flaws
2. A (reproductive) advantage to shifting blame.
What might the advantage be? This is even more speculative, but it could be that potential mates are not impressed/put off by admissions of guilt. For pre-humans in a social environment, staying confident, blameless and ‘pristine’ in the eyes of onlookers (even if fraudulently) appears to have been a bigger advantage than being ‘intelligent’ to one’s own flaws. Surprising, no? Evolution favours obnoxious liars!
We could dig even deeper and suggest that this might be a ‘loophole’ in our evolution of social conventions and morals as we socialised as a species, which demand good actions and not doing evil as conditions for acceptance within the society (and, crucially, exposure to and acceptance by potential mates). These are so demanding that there are big, big incentives to ‘cheat’ and not LOOK like one’s just done evil (by shifting the blame and making excuses).
Shit, eh?
Related:
- Microphilanthropy is to traditional charity what dual core processors are to single-core processors
- An interesting comment popped up after my "manifesto for microphilanthropy" post. In it, it was suggested that micropayment was important for microphilanthropy. I disagree, and here's why (this is a reblog of my reply:) Pure commoditisation - which ultimately, is what needs micropayment - is almost the exact opposite of microphilanthropy! It leads to donation requests getting so micro as to make the donation they ask for so small that potential donors can't be bothered to do it - it's too much effort to get your wallet out, type in the card details, etc (hence the need for micropayment systems to get over this transaction barrier). Microphilanthropy is not (in my eyes) the act of commoditising charity into tiny, massmarketed, micropayment experiences (i.e. micro-donations by millions of people) - it's about fostering a Long Tail in our new hyperconnected world. The micro relates more to the size of the niche - specific families, specific stories - than to the size of the donation. Micro-donation is an alternative model for charity more suited to the existing, highly institutionalised model of philanthropy (but could be very important/useful to it, so also requires discussion) There's no reason why average donations can't stay relatively...
- How good is this!!
- del.icio.us Tags: liberty,evil,NO2ID...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks