From an early age, we are taught that cooperation, generosity, and altruism are generally things we should strive for. But altruistic acts aren’t always lauded, and researchers have found that generous individuals are sometimes punished for their behavior. Studies suggest that people often react negatively to large contributions, are suspicious of those who offer help, and want toexpel particularly charitable individuals from cooperative endeavors. These seemingly counterintuitive behaviors are called “antisocial punishment” and are more common than you might think. But why would people want to punish anyone who is particularly charitable?The answer to that question would explain a puzzling human behavior, and it could have important ramifications for public policy. Tackling many of the major problems we currently face—from climate change to political stalemates—requires cooperation and collaboration. Understanding why people are sometimes willing to undermine joint efforts out of what appears to be nothing more than spite could go a long way to improve cooperation and discourse in many areas.Sociologists Kyle Irwin and Christine Horne suggest that our inclination to punish do-gooders may stem from our adherence to social norms. Using a clever experimental design that allowed them to manipulate the level of conformity among group members, the researchers investigated the relationship between antisocial punishment and social norms.[More]
Wait where did I hear that before?
(this is not the original ad. It is a draft one read by Jobs himself.)
Jobs described these people explicitly, the generous, the rule breakers, the deviants:
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
And what this study shows is that in communities where there is little diversity of behavior, anyone who acts differently, even when those acts benefit everyone, is punished buy the community by removing those individuals.
Instad of everyone rising to the nail that stands higher, they remove that nail.
But Jobs, in his amazing fashion, flipped this behavior on its head, not only making those people seem normal but actually working to move social norms to embrace those people.He made us want to be those people.
He wanted us to all rise to that higher nail by using the tools of the new age.
That is a hallmark of this new society we are putting together. Not only Jobs recognized it. Most of those running 21st Century organizations kow this at some level. But few put it into focus so brutally or effectively.
Those groups that fail to embrace the rebels who change the world will lose. Those groups who do embrace the rebels can not help but win.
This is a fascinating study because it demonstrates this principle directly and the results speak for themselves. Groups that fail to embrace those with differnt approaches will actually harm themselves and others in the community in order to expel those who are outside the norm.
A fourth study suggested that the target is seen by some as establishing an undesirable behavior standard and by others as a rule breaker. Individuals who formed either perception expressed a desire for the unselfish person to be removed from the group.
A rule breaker. An undesirable. A deviant.
At least that is what their intuition tells them. In groups with different norms, with a wider variation of behavior, the punishment is not so severe.
That is, a more diverse group is more accepting of those who help everyone. A less diverse group is less accepting and actually wants to rid the group of those who try to help everyone else.
And their punitive intuitive behavior actually works against the ability of any of them to win.
In this game, the overly generous person helps everyone else and hurts themselves, as just a few seconds of slow, deliberative thought reveals.
It is a competitive game, one where those with the most points wins. People put any amount of credits (each starts with 100) in a pot, the amount is doubled and then split amongst everyone. So if 5 people give 50 each (keeping 50 for themselves) and one gives 90 (keeping 10 for themselves), then after 1 round everyone has 163.3 except for the generous one. They only have 123.3
If everyone had put 50 in, then everyone would have 150 credits.
So the generous one actually made it easier for everyone else to win while hurting their own chances. They help everyone else win by losing.
Yet the conservative group wants to kick them out, wants to actually punish them even more.
If the participants had been engaged in more deliberative thinking, they would have realized they needed to keep the generous person around. They were more likely to win with such generosity.
But most people did not react that way. They simply stayed with their intuitive rules of thumb, punishing those who were actually helping them.
Sometimes rapid rules of thumb simply hurt, not help.
Because it is often these deviants, these rule breakers and troublemakers who do drive us forward. Jobs got it right, even as many groups punish them.
No comments:
Post a Comment