Human Dichotomy
Human Dichotomy
People are an amorphous mass of contradiction. Though needing each other to survive, we seldom
agree about much, complain continually – about almost everything, and criticize all that we encounter
whether we understand it or not. So we are to live in democracy where everyone’s opinion is as good as
any others’? Were that so, says John Dunn, community would have no lasting shape and, as Thomas
Hobbes put it, only by a fluke would there be any security. But then, adds Dunn, “had it really been rule of
the people…it would assuredly not have triumphed, but dissolved instead, immediately and irreversibly,
into chaos.” It is also true that “democracy” does much better when things are going well than when they
are not. But here we are.
Of course our way of life is a lot more than “democracy.” Actually it is representative democracy, and
along with that go rule of law, respect for property, free markets and a number of other things enumerated
in our Constitution. Actually, the Constitution, for very good reason, is much more designed to limit than
to allow; the writers, you see, did this deliberately because their primary fear was abuse of power, and
they tried to both limit and balance the power they created. Unfortunately there seem to be many who
would try to reverse that, for innumerable reasons.
To put it succinctly the almost insurmountable challenge to democratically elected representatives in
a republic are to somehow make some sense out of natural chaos, for left to our own we would dissolve
into anarchy – every man for himself, including of course seeking a patron. But that’s not all due to our
passion for individual rights; we not only want rights for ourselves, but are pretty adamant about
restricting the rights of others with when we don’t agree. I suggest this is one of the biggest problems
we have in living together: I like to call it the politics of envy; most would call it egalitarianism. A joke once
told placed two farmers on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, watching a barge with crabs float by. Since
crabs are even more erratic in their behavior than humans, they were constantly trying to climb over the
side, and just as constantly their fellows were similarly bent on pulling them back in. The punch lines
were racially tainted, but they needn’t have been; it just made the joke simpler. “Look at that barge of
Mexican crabs,” said one. “How do you know they are Mexican crabs,” asked the other. “Because as
soon as one tries to get out, the others pull him back in.” Almost anything can be substituted for Mexican;
that is the politics of envy. We all want to be equal, but if we don’t have the capacity (or motivation) to lift
ourselves up, we are willing to take the next best steps and pull everyone else down to our level. The
current metaphor is dumbing down; communism was an even more egregious attempt to dumb down,
though the dreamers couldn’t see it (although the perpetrators did). If only…right…if only everyone could
live and work together, to help each other, etc; but all disagree on just what that takes, and we are back to
where we began.
A perfect example is our schools. Another has to do with benefits provided by the government. A very
popular current disagreement has to do with protecting the environment and how to do it without limiting
personal rights and initiative. Bryan Caplan, in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, added even more
political complications to the formula with his list of preconceived human biases. Caplan is a professor
of economics, so his irrational biases are economically based; but Rousseau claims that everything is
politics and I claim that virtually all politics are economics. So here are Caplan’s list of irrational biases.
Antimarket bias: a tendency to underestimate the economics of the market mechanism. (We hate it
when other people get ahead and we don’t and can’t see how it works for the common good when it
doesn’t help us immediately).
Antiforeign Bias: a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of interaction with foreigners. (We
don’t like people who are different from us).
Make-work bias: a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of conserving labor. (We want it all
for ourselves and can’t see beyond that, especially when we don’t benefit personally).
Pessimistic Bias: a tendency to overestimate the severity of economic problems and underestimate the
recent past, present and future performance of the economy. (We whine and complain unmercifully
about everything that irritates us – that’s what makes us tick).
(Words in parenthesis are mine alone; don’t blame Caplan for them)
So what does all that mean? That whatever is done to improve things economically for “the greater
good” is resisted out of hand, bringing up that old saw, the common good. What is the common good?
What’s best for all? But what is best for all, particularly when the above biases keep us from doing what
really is best for all, since we refuse to accept that it is? Well, we don’t believe that it is. In fact the way we
determine what’s best for all is usually to establish what’s best for us, and extrapolate. We don’t know
what’s best for all, and even if somehow we did, if it wasn’t best for us we wouldn’t buy it.
One of my favorites from management is the continual tug of war between centralized and de-
centralized management, an argument that will never be resolved, because both have advantages and
shortcomings. So if an operation is centralized its shortcomings are clearly evident and de-centralization
appears better – because we don’t know its shortcomings until we have to live with them. The situation
is opposite when we are working in a decentralized environment. Similarly when people are unaware of
the complexities of almost anything, they find it easy to criticize when things go wrong, and generally and
immediately, without knowing facts, look to find someone to blame. Caplan points out that this puts
political representatives in a very difficult position: if they don’t do what voters want they don’t get elected; if
they do and it’s wrong they’ll be voted out of office, because voters (if they even remember) are never
responsible for anything – and criticize everything that doesn’t go their way, which is why no matter what
politicians do they will be criticized by someone. Not that that let’s politicians off the hook because they
play their own personal benefit game, which is power for themselves.
The apparent dichotomy is obvious: as pack animals we know we need to mutually support each
other; as individuals we want to be left alone to do what we want to do. But at one level below that is the
reality of it: selfishness. We want what we want and think we should be afforded the opportunity to
pursue it – or have it – or be provided it - and when things get tough we want to be taken care of. On the
other hand people only appear to be dichotomous when taken in the aggregate; we’re all different, which
makes people appear to be inconsistent when looked at across the board. Individually we come across
as different only because of changing circumstances in our own lives. Once someone said that there is
no such thing as altruism; everything we do is for ourselves. Too cynical? Well, he admitted that did not
eliminate altruism, it only defined motivation differently. Some do good things to be recognized for it;
some do good things because it makes them feel better. And that’s wrong? Ah, good old right and
wrong. Fortunately there are many people in the world who want to help other people, and that is a very
beneficial thing. Does it matter why? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t, in a philosophical sense, but,
some will say, it’s the result that counts. And on we go. The real key to humanity is that we are all
different, individually and collectively, personally and culturally. We think differently; we react differently; we
have different beliefs, standards, motivations, expectations, desires, needs, wants, demands; and each
of us deals with it in a somewhat different manner. And mostly we don’t agree on much.
But to organize in that manner can be described as anarchy, and because of our mutual needs (the
old no man is an island syndrome) we have to come up with a method that permits us to live together,
which is what governments are all about, and mankind has tried many of them with varying – and limited
– degrees of success. But again the apparent humankind dichotomy: domination or freedom? Take
care of ourselves or be taken care of? Dominate or be dominated. Living is by necessity a continual
succession of decisions and compromises, whether we like it or not, and we don’t like it, because each
of us has our own view of the way it ought to be. That is the challenge of governing and it plays out every
day everywhere as people deal with it, each in their own (or their culture’s own) way.
In the West we have evolved in our own way, eschewing domination by those who have grasped
power, and preaching egalitarianism: we are all equal; no, we aren’t , but we should all be treated the
same; we should have the same rights under the law? None of that really works, because it’s not the
way we are, but we argue that it is better than any alternative we have found yet, and it probably is. But if
only…ah yes, if only we were all perfect; but we can’t even agree on what perfection would be.
So we continue on, in apparent dichotomy with an untold abundance of differences, all the while each
in his way trying to impose his views on all the others, eternally frustrated because the others can’t
understand why it should be the way we think it should be – even more so because we can’t even find a
forum to tell them the way it should be, since those who can do that have power the rest of us don’t have.
And suddenly we are wallowing in the realm of that about which I constantly rail that makes it so: power,
gained in oh so many ways, through so many means, for so many reasons. The domination we wish to
avoid through belief of egalitarianism won’t go away, at so many levels and for so many reasons, which
is the real dichotomy. Our differences are legion and to get along we must balance domination and
individuality. How that is accomplished is an ever changing, very complicated (because it happens
differently with each of us, continually), frustrating exercise in short term existence and long term futility.
Equal? In no way are we equal? Egalitarian? I think that means that even though we can never be
equal due to differences of almost everything, we should be treated that way, deserved or not. How can
humanity survive this way? One wonders, but we have for quite a long time, and whether we continue
depends on how well we deal with it in a future that daily becomes more complex and challenging.
People are an amorphous mass of contradiction. Though needing each other to survive, we seldom
agree about much, complain continually – about almost everything, and criticize all that we encounter
whether we understand it or not. So we are to live in democracy where everyone’s opinion is as good as
any others’? Were that so, says John Dunn, community would have no lasting shape and, as Thomas
Hobbes put it, only by a fluke would there be any security. But then, adds Dunn, “had it really been rule of
the people…it would assuredly not have triumphed, but dissolved instead, immediately and irreversibly,
into chaos.” It is also true that “democracy” does much better when things are going well than when they
are not. But here we are.
Of course our way of life is a lot more than “democracy.” Actually it is representative democracy, and
along with that go rule of law, respect for property, free markets and a number of other things enumerated
in our Constitution. Actually, the Constitution, for very good reason, is much more designed to limit than
to allow; the writers, you see, did this deliberately because their primary fear was abuse of power, and
they tried to both limit and balance the power they created. Unfortunately there seem to be many who
would try to reverse that, for innumerable reasons.
To put it succinctly the almost insurmountable challenge to democratically elected representatives in
a republic are to somehow make some sense out of natural chaos, for left to our own we would dissolve
into anarchy – every man for himself, including of course seeking a patron. But that’s not all due to our
passion for individual rights; we not only want rights for ourselves, but are pretty adamant about
restricting the rights of others with when we don’t agree. I suggest this is one of the biggest problems
we have in living together: I like to call it the politics of envy; most would call it egalitarianism. A joke once
told placed two farmers on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, watching a barge with crabs float by. Since
crabs are even more erratic in their behavior than humans, they were constantly trying to climb over the
side, and just as constantly their fellows were similarly bent on pulling them back in. The punch lines
were racially tainted, but they needn’t have been; it just made the joke simpler. “Look at that barge of
Mexican crabs,” said one. “How do you know they are Mexican crabs,” asked the other. “Because as
soon as one tries to get out, the others pull him back in.” Almost anything can be substituted for Mexican;
that is the politics of envy. We all want to be equal, but if we don’t have the capacity (or motivation) to lift
ourselves up, we are willing to take the next best steps and pull everyone else down to our level. The
current metaphor is dumbing down; communism was an even more egregious attempt to dumb down,
though the dreamers couldn’t see it (although the perpetrators did). If only…right…if only everyone could
live and work together, to help each other, etc; but all disagree on just what that takes, and we are back to
where we began.
A perfect example is our schools. Another has to do with benefits provided by the government. A very
popular current disagreement has to do with protecting the environment and how to do it without limiting
personal rights and initiative. Bryan Caplan, in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, added even more
political complications to the formula with his list of preconceived human biases. Caplan is a professor
of economics, so his irrational biases are economically based; but Rousseau claims that everything is
politics and I claim that virtually all politics are economics. So here are Caplan’s list of irrational biases.
Antimarket bias: a tendency to underestimate the economics of the market mechanism. (We hate it
when other people get ahead and we don’t and can’t see how it works for the common good when it
doesn’t help us immediately).
Antiforeign Bias: a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of interaction with foreigners. (We
don’t like people who are different from us).
Make-work bias: a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of conserving labor. (We want it all
for ourselves and can’t see beyond that, especially when we don’t benefit personally).
Pessimistic Bias: a tendency to overestimate the severity of economic problems and underestimate the
recent past, present and future performance of the economy. (We whine and complain unmercifully
about everything that irritates us – that’s what makes us tick).
(Words in parenthesis are mine alone; don’t blame Caplan for them)
So what does all that mean? That whatever is done to improve things economically for “the greater
good” is resisted out of hand, bringing up that old saw, the common good. What is the common good?
What’s best for all? But what is best for all, particularly when the above biases keep us from doing what
really is best for all, since we refuse to accept that it is? Well, we don’t believe that it is. In fact the way we
determine what’s best for all is usually to establish what’s best for us, and extrapolate. We don’t know
what’s best for all, and even if somehow we did, if it wasn’t best for us we wouldn’t buy it.
One of my favorites from management is the continual tug of war between centralized and de-
centralized management, an argument that will never be resolved, because both have advantages and
shortcomings. So if an operation is centralized its shortcomings are clearly evident and de-centralization
appears better – because we don’t know its shortcomings until we have to live with them. The situation
is opposite when we are working in a decentralized environment. Similarly when people are unaware of
the complexities of almost anything, they find it easy to criticize when things go wrong, and generally and
immediately, without knowing facts, look to find someone to blame. Caplan points out that this puts
political representatives in a very difficult position: if they don’t do what voters want they don’t get elected; if
they do and it’s wrong they’ll be voted out of office, because voters (if they even remember) are never
responsible for anything – and criticize everything that doesn’t go their way, which is why no matter what
politicians do they will be criticized by someone. Not that that let’s politicians off the hook because they
play their own personal benefit game, which is power for themselves.
The apparent dichotomy is obvious: as pack animals we know we need to mutually support each
other; as individuals we want to be left alone to do what we want to do. But at one level below that is the
reality of it: selfishness. We want what we want and think we should be afforded the opportunity to
pursue it – or have it – or be provided it - and when things get tough we want to be taken care of. On the
other hand people only appear to be dichotomous when taken in the aggregate; we’re all different, which
makes people appear to be inconsistent when looked at across the board. Individually we come across
as different only because of changing circumstances in our own lives. Once someone said that there is
no such thing as altruism; everything we do is for ourselves. Too cynical? Well, he admitted that did not
eliminate altruism, it only defined motivation differently. Some do good things to be recognized for it;
some do good things because it makes them feel better. And that’s wrong? Ah, good old right and
wrong. Fortunately there are many people in the world who want to help other people, and that is a very
beneficial thing. Does it matter why? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t, in a philosophical sense, but,
some will say, it’s the result that counts. And on we go. The real key to humanity is that we are all
different, individually and collectively, personally and culturally. We think differently; we react differently; we
have different beliefs, standards, motivations, expectations, desires, needs, wants, demands; and each
of us deals with it in a somewhat different manner. And mostly we don’t agree on much.
But to organize in that manner can be described as anarchy, and because of our mutual needs (the
old no man is an island syndrome) we have to come up with a method that permits us to live together,
which is what governments are all about, and mankind has tried many of them with varying – and limited
– degrees of success. But again the apparent humankind dichotomy: domination or freedom? Take
care of ourselves or be taken care of? Dominate or be dominated. Living is by necessity a continual
succession of decisions and compromises, whether we like it or not, and we don’t like it, because each
of us has our own view of the way it ought to be. That is the challenge of governing and it plays out every
day everywhere as people deal with it, each in their own (or their culture’s own) way.
In the West we have evolved in our own way, eschewing domination by those who have grasped
power, and preaching egalitarianism: we are all equal; no, we aren’t , but we should all be treated the
same; we should have the same rights under the law? None of that really works, because it’s not the
way we are, but we argue that it is better than any alternative we have found yet, and it probably is. But if
only…ah yes, if only we were all perfect; but we can’t even agree on what perfection would be.
So we continue on, in apparent dichotomy with an untold abundance of differences, all the while each
in his way trying to impose his views on all the others, eternally frustrated because the others can’t
understand why it should be the way we think it should be – even more so because we can’t even find a
forum to tell them the way it should be, since those who can do that have power the rest of us don’t have.
And suddenly we are wallowing in the realm of that about which I constantly rail that makes it so: power,
gained in oh so many ways, through so many means, for so many reasons. The domination we wish to
avoid through belief of egalitarianism won’t go away, at so many levels and for so many reasons, which
is the real dichotomy. Our differences are legion and to get along we must balance domination and
individuality. How that is accomplished is an ever changing, very complicated (because it happens
differently with each of us, continually), frustrating exercise in short term existence and long term futility.
Equal? In no way are we equal? Egalitarian? I think that means that even though we can never be
equal due to differences of almost everything, we should be treated that way, deserved or not. How can
humanity survive this way? One wonders, but we have for quite a long time, and whether we continue
depends on how well we deal with it in a future that daily becomes more complex and challenging.