Read Online EVILICIOUS: Cruelty = Desire + Denial by Marc Hauser - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Marc Hauser
Ads: Link
when others get more, and thus be less interested in leveling the playing field.
The anthropologist Joseph Henrich and his colleagues presented a set of bargaining games to adults living in different small-scale societies across the globe. Though the subjects in this study played a number of different games, the basic goal was similar to those deployed by Fehr in his studies of children: under what conditions do individuals choose to share an unequal distribution of resources, and what are the consequences of selfish acts?
Consider the ultimatum game. One individual decides how to distribute a fixed amount of money to an anonymous partner. The partner has two options: keep what is on offer or reject it. Rejection costs both players as they leave empty handed. Rejection is both an expression of sour grapes for what could have been — a fair offer — and punishment for selfish behavior. In large scale societies, offers typically range from 40-50% of the initial pot, and rejections are common for offers less than about 20%.
Across the globe, most people in these small scale societies offered some amount of the initial pot. Across the globe, most people rejected really low offers. This suggests the universal signature of fairness and a desire to level those who try to get ahead. Cultures differed with respect to how much they shared and their threshold for rejecting offers. Some societies offered, on average, close to 40%, while others offered as little as 15%. Some societies accepted virtually all offers, whereas others rejected both low and even high offers. Even in more egalitarian societies, therefore, there is sensitivity to unequal distributions. Even in egalitarian societies, there is a willingness to punish those who act unfairly, those who take more than what others see as their fair share. Even in egalitarian societies there is a desire to prevent the Haves from having too much.
Let’s take stock of the discussion thus far. Our sense of fairness is part of human nature, appearing early in development, but guided by experience toward a particular cultural form. The reason why I have discussed fairness is because it often plays an essential role in our experience of envy. Envy grows when we detect an uneven distribution of resources, wishing we were members of the haves as opposed to the have-nots. Envy grows when desire combines with competition, motivating a departure from the group of have-nots. Envy is yet another way in which we can accumulate unsatisfied desires, seeing the rest of the world as always having more. This perception of inequity can drive competition and hatred.
Studies of the brain show how envy is generated from the psychologies of desire and competition. When healthy subjects sit in a brain scanner and learn about other individuals who have what they desire, there is considerable activity in the
anterior cingulate
, and more activity in those who feel more envious. This is not the envy center of the brain. There is no such area. But the recruitment of the anterior cingulate in other social situations helps us understand what is going on more generally in the case of envy. There is significant activity in the anterior cingulate when we experience pain from social exclusion, but not when we witness such pain in others. It is one of the areas that was activated in Chiao’s work on the differences in pain empathy between individuals who prefer egalitarian as opposed to hierarchical societies. The anterior cingulate is also involved when our minds are pulled in two different directions, a situation that arises when we are forced to choose between two conflicting moral options – for example, a duty to save the lives of many versus the prohibition of killing one person to save the lives of many. There is a common thread here that unites these different experiences. Like our experience of social exclusion, envy is also a form of social pain and to some, deeply painful, as it spotlights our
The anthropologist Joseph Henrich and his colleagues presented a set of bargaining games to adults living in different small-scale societies across the globe. Though the subjects in this study played a number of different games, the basic goal was similar to those deployed by Fehr in his studies of children: under what conditions do individuals choose to share an unequal distribution of resources, and what are the consequences of selfish acts?
Consider the ultimatum game. One individual decides how to distribute a fixed amount of money to an anonymous partner. The partner has two options: keep what is on offer or reject it. Rejection costs both players as they leave empty handed. Rejection is both an expression of sour grapes for what could have been — a fair offer — and punishment for selfish behavior. In large scale societies, offers typically range from 40-50% of the initial pot, and rejections are common for offers less than about 20%.
Across the globe, most people in these small scale societies offered some amount of the initial pot. Across the globe, most people rejected really low offers. This suggests the universal signature of fairness and a desire to level those who try to get ahead. Cultures differed with respect to how much they shared and their threshold for rejecting offers. Some societies offered, on average, close to 40%, while others offered as little as 15%. Some societies accepted virtually all offers, whereas others rejected both low and even high offers. Even in more egalitarian societies, therefore, there is sensitivity to unequal distributions. Even in egalitarian societies, there is a willingness to punish those who act unfairly, those who take more than what others see as their fair share. Even in egalitarian societies there is a desire to prevent the Haves from having too much.
Let’s take stock of the discussion thus far. Our sense of fairness is part of human nature, appearing early in development, but guided by experience toward a particular cultural form. The reason why I have discussed fairness is because it often plays an essential role in our experience of envy. Envy grows when we detect an uneven distribution of resources, wishing we were members of the haves as opposed to the have-nots. Envy grows when desire combines with competition, motivating a departure from the group of have-nots. Envy is yet another way in which we can accumulate unsatisfied desires, seeing the rest of the world as always having more. This perception of inequity can drive competition and hatred.
Studies of the brain show how envy is generated from the psychologies of desire and competition. When healthy subjects sit in a brain scanner and learn about other individuals who have what they desire, there is considerable activity in the
anterior cingulate
, and more activity in those who feel more envious. This is not the envy center of the brain. There is no such area. But the recruitment of the anterior cingulate in other social situations helps us understand what is going on more generally in the case of envy. There is significant activity in the anterior cingulate when we experience pain from social exclusion, but not when we witness such pain in others. It is one of the areas that was activated in Chiao’s work on the differences in pain empathy between individuals who prefer egalitarian as opposed to hierarchical societies. The anterior cingulate is also involved when our minds are pulled in two different directions, a situation that arises when we are forced to choose between two conflicting moral options – for example, a duty to save the lives of many versus the prohibition of killing one person to save the lives of many. There is a common thread here that unites these different experiences. Like our experience of social exclusion, envy is also a form of social pain and to some, deeply painful, as it spotlights our
Similar Books
