Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts

Saturday, May 3, 2025

Payback

Karma is an interesting idea.

It's originally a concept from Hinduism and Buddhism, and claims that good or bad deeds accrue on what amounts to a Life Ledger, and not only will result in positive or negative payback later in this life, but will affect the quality of rebirth you're granted in subsequent lives (in one's saṃsāra, to use the Sanskrit term).  The word karma itself is from Sanskrit, and combines the meaning of "action or deed" with that of "intent."

Here in the West, the idea's been swiped and (usually) disconnected from anything having to do with reincarnation.  It's come to mean "payback," usually of an unexpected sort.  How many times have you heard someone say, "Karma will catch up with him sooner or later"?  Even the Bible has the evocative line, "Who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind." 

It's an appealing idea, at least for those of us who would like there to be some fairness in the world.  Too often, dishonest, cheating, lying assholes (*koff koff koff Donald Trump koff koff *) get away scot-free, and deserving, hard-working people can't catch a break to save their lives.  Believing that there is going to be some kind of cosmic balancing of the accounts would be mighty reassuring.

A Nepali prayer wheel [Image is in the Public Domain]

Interesting, though, that people's attitudes toward karma vary dramatically depending on whose karma we're talking about.  A study that came out this week in the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, by Cindel White, Atlee Lauder, and Mina Aryaie, found that regardless of religious belief (or non-belief), people tend to associate good karma with themselves, and bad karma with other people.

Asked to come up with a karmic experience about themselves, 69% of participants described some good deed that was unexpectedly rewarded; when it was about other people, a full 82% of participants recounted a bad deed that resulted in the evildoer receiving their just deserts.  And this trend held no matter where the participants were from.

"We found very similar patterns across multiple cultural contexts, including Western samples, where we know people often think about themselves in exaggeratedly positive ways, and samples from Asian countries where people are more likely to be self-critical," said Cindel White of York University, who was lead author on the study.  "The positive bias in karmic self-perceptions is a bit weaker in the Indian and Singaporean samples compared with U.S. samples, but across all countries, participants were much more likely to say that other people face karmic punishments while they receive karmic rewards."

Curious finding, if not exactly unexpected.  We all tend to have undeserved confidence in our own rightness.  As journalist Kathryn Schulz points out, when we are forced to confront our own fallibility, we'll all admit we can make mistakes -- but it's always purely in a theoretical sense.  Sitting here, right now, it's impossible to think of a single thing that we're wrong about, meaning that there's a tacit assumption we all have that "okay, I'm fallible, I guess, but at the moment I'm one hundred percent right about everything."

Now, sure, the facile objection is that if you knew you were wrong about something, you'd forthwith cease to hold that particular belief.  But it's not an easy trap to get out of.  Schulz says:
So why do we get stuck in this feeling of being right?  One reason, actually, has to do with the feeling of being wrong.  So let me ask you guys something...  How does it feel -- emotionally -- how does it feel to be wrong?  Dreadful.  Thumbs down.  Embarrassing...  Thank you, these are great answers, but they're answers to a different question.  You guys are answering the question: How does it feel to realize you're wrong?  Realizing you're wrong can feel like all of that and a lot of other things, right?  I mean, it can be devastating, it can be revelatory, it can actually be quite funny...  But just being wrong doesn't feel like anything.

I'll give you an analogy.  Do you remember that Looney Tunes cartoon where there's this pathetic coyote who's always chasing and never catching a roadrunner?  In pretty much every episode of this cartoon, there's a moment where the coyote is chasing the roadrunner and the roadrunner runs off a cliff, which is fine -- he's a bird, he can fly.  But the thing is, the coyote runs off the cliff right after him.  And what's funny -- at least if you're six years old -- is that the coyote's totally fine too.  He just keeps running -- right up until the moment that he looks down and realizes that he's in mid-air.  That's when he falls.  When we're wrong about something -- not when we realize it, but before that -- we're like that coyote after he's gone off the cliff and before he looks down.  You know, we're already wrong, we're already in trouble, but we feel like we're on solid ground.  So I should actually correct something I said a moment ago.  It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.

The White et al. karma study is further evidence that we have a dangerous blind spot with regard to our own capacity for getting it wrong.  Not only do we have the sense that it's other people who make errors, it's also other people who do bad stuff, who should be on the receiving end of the Cosmic Morality Squad's efforts to keep things in balance.  As for us?  We should finally get our Just Reward for being the good people we've been all along, right?

Of course right.

Like I said, it's an certainly appealing concept, because all too often there appears to be no justice at all in this world.  But we have to be careful about how we evaluate our fellow humans, because just about everyone is a confusing amalgam of good and bad, pure motives and not-so-pure ones, sometimes varying on a minute-by-minute time scale.  And that includes ourselves.  Remember the wise words of J. R. R. Tolkien, spoken through the character Gandalf.  Frodo has just snapped out that Gollum deserved to die for what he'd done, and Gandalf responds, "Deserves it!  I daresay he does.  Many that live deserve death.  And some that die deserve life.  Can you give it to them?  Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.  For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

****************************************


Saturday, October 19, 2024

The illusion of balance

I got an interesting email, undoubtedly prompted by one of my recent anti-Trump posts.  Here's the salient part:

People like you calling yourself skeptics make me laugh.  One look at what you write and anyone can see you're biased.  You're constantly going on about left-wing liberal crap, and calling ideas you don't like words like nonsense and stupid and ridiculous.  You don't even give the opposite side a fair hearing.  You dismiss stuff without even giving it good consideration, and call it "skepticism."  At least you could be honest enough to admit you're not fair and unbiased.

Okay, there's a lot to unpack here, so let's start with the easy stuff first.  

I'm not unbiased, and have never claimed I am, for the very good reason that everyone is biased.  No exceptions.  

Skepticism doesn't mean eliminating all biases -- that's almost certainly impossible.  As British science historian James Burke points out, in his mindblowing series The Day the Universe Changed, the whole enterprise of knowledge is biased right down to its roots, because your preconceived notions about how the world works will determine what tools you use to study it, how you will analyze the data once you've got it, and even what you consider to be reliable evidence.

So sure, as skeptics we should try to expunge all the biases we can, and for the rest, keep them well in mind.  A bias can't hurt you if it's right in front of your eyes.  As an example, my post yesterday -- about a claim that Breakthrough Listen has found incontrovertible evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence -- revealed my clear bias to doubt the person who made the claim.  However, the important thing is that (1) I stated it up front, and (2) at the end of the post, I admitted explicitly that I could be wrong.  (And in this case, would be thrilled if I were.)  In the end, the evidence decides the outcome.  If the aliens have been talking to us, I'll have no choice but to admit that my bias led me astray, and to change my mind.

[Image is in the Public Domain]

What the guy who emailed me seems to want, though, is always to have some sort of "fair hearing" for the talking points of the other side(s).  Which in some cases is a reasonable request, I suppose, but we need to make sure we understand what "fair and balanced" means.  In the realm of science, it's not "fair and balanced" to have a geology textbook give equal time to plate tectonics and the claim of somebody who thinks the mantle of the Earth is filled with banana pudding.  There are some ideas that can be dismissed out of hand, based on the available evidence; young-Earth creationism, alchemy, homeopathy, and the geocentric model are obvious examples.

There's more to it than this, though, because he touched on the subject of politics, which for a lot of people skates out over very thin ice.  And sure, here as well I have my biases, but I'm perfectly open about them.  I do lean left; no question about it.  I hope I don't do so thoughtlessly, and with no chance of having my mind changed if I'm wrong, but I've been a liberal all my life and probably always will be.

But my attempting to be fair doesn't mean I'm any more required to give credence to absurd or dangerous ideas in politics than I am in any other realm.  "Balance" doesn't mean pretending that people promoting democracy and those promoting fascism are morally equivalent.  It doesn't mean we should give equal weight to >99.5% of climatologists and to the <0.5% who think that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening.  It doesn't mean we have to give the same respect to those campaigning for equal rights and those who think that people of other races are inferior or that queer people should be lined up and shot.

So okay, we should listen to both sides.  And then give our support to the one that is moral, just, and in line with the facts and evidence.

In summary, I'm obligated to treat all humans with equal respect, but that doesn't mean all ideas are worthy of equal respect.  You may not like it, but sometimes the fair, balanced, appropriate, and -- dare I say it -- skeptical response is to say, "That idea is wrong/immoral/dangerous/flat-out idiotic."

In any case, I'm not going to apologize for my biases, although I will try to keep my eyes on them at all times.  And if knowing that I'm (1) liberal, (2) understand and trust science, (3) support democracy and human rights, and (4) champion LGBTQ+ people ('cuz I am one) bothers you, you're not going to have much fun while visiting my blog. 

But after all this -- well, if you really do get your jollies from reading stuff that pisses you off, then knock yourself out.  

****************************************