{"id":3051,"date":"2013-03-17T17:09:41","date_gmt":"2013-03-17T21:09:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/geraldguild.com\/blog\/?p=3051"},"modified":"2013-03-31T16:01:32","modified_gmt":"2013-03-31T20:01:32","slug":"cheaters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/geraldguild.com\/blog\/2013\/03\/17\/cheaters\/","title":{"rendered":"Cheaters"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nobody likes a cheater.\u00a0 Such acts may stir deep feelings of loathing that erode trust and have ruinous consequences with regard to reputation and relationship.\u00a0 It’s one of those things that is hard to overcome.\u00a0 I’m not just talking about infidelity here.\u00a0 I’m referring to a broader type that does include infidelity, but also includes things like pilfering, speeding, lying about one’s age, and other forms of dishonesty that benefit you at a cost to someone else.\u00a0 Irrespective of the potential social costs, most people, given the opportunity, with little threat of detection, will and DO cheat.\u00a0 Be honest with yourself here.\u00a0 This shouldn’t be surprising.\u00a0 What is surprising is the fact that altruism, or selflessness, the behavioral opposite of cheating, exists at all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By virtue of the fact that human beings are the product of millions of years of evolution by means of natural selection, we are imbued with a selfishness that is hard to deny. \u00a0 As distasteful as this may be, it is nonetheless true.\u00a0 We are compelled by our selfish genes to survive, thrive, and replicate.\u00a0 Within this context, cheating and selfishness make perfect sense and altruism makes little.\u00a0 Yet we do exhibit altruism.\u00a0 Why is this?\u00a0 Steven Pinker wrote in How the Mind Works<\/strong><\/em><\/a> (1997, p 337):<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Natural selection does not select public-mindedness; a selfish mutant would quickly out reproduce its altruistic competitors.\u00a0 Any selfless behavior in the natural world needs a special explanation.\u00a0 One explanation is reciprocation: a creature can extend help in return for help expected in the future.\u00a0 But favor-trading is always vulnerable to cheaters.\u00a0 For it to have evolved, it must be accompanied by a cognitive apparatus that remembers who has taken and ensures that they give in return.\u00a0 The evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers had predicted that humans, the most conspicuous altruists in the animal kingdom, should have evolved a hypertrophied<\/a> cheater-detection algorithm.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

And indeed we have – this cognitive algorithm drives the emotional response we have toward cheaters.\u00a0 Human beings are one of the few species that engage in altruism outside of their kin.\u00a0 This is referred to as Reciprocal Altruism<\/strong><\/em> and clear links have been established between the demands of this type of social exchange and the origins of many human emotions (e.g., liking, anger, gratitude, sympathy, and guilt).\u00a0 Pinker (1997) notes that “Collectively they make up a large part of the moral sense<\/em>.”\u00a0 We are inclined to engage in reciprocal altruism because we have the cognitive capacity to compute cost benefit analyses and the emotional capacity to respond in ways to encourage gains and discourage losses.\u00a0 We have to be able to remember favors given and received and we must effectively calibrate reciprocation.\u00a0 It is a delicate and intricate dance that if kept in balance does result in both individual and group benefits.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When benefits or favors are traded, both parties profit as long as the value of what they receive is greater than the value of what they give up.\u00a0 Because most favors are not exchanged at the same time and they likely vary in degree of effort and value, a calculus is needed to keep the exchange in reciprocal balance.\u00a0 This balance can tip in either direction and people “remember past treacheries or good turns and play accordingly.\u00a0 They can feel sympathetic and extend good will,\u00a0 feel aggrieved and seek revenge,\u00a0 feel grateful and return a favor, or feel remorseful and make amends<\/em>.”\u00a0 (Pinker, 1997 p. 503).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is important to note that there is a different calculus, a more flexible and enduring one that plays out in friendships and kin based, as well as intimate relationships.\u00a0 “Tit-for-tat does not cement a friendship; it strains it.\u00a0 Nothing can be more awkward for good friends than a business transaction between them, like the sale of a car.\u00a0 The same is true for one’s best friend in life, a spouse.\u00a0 The couples who keep close track of what each other has done for the other are the couples who are the least happy<\/em>.” (Pinker, 1997 p. 507).\u00a0 Healthy close relationships come with a feeling of indebtedness and spontaneous pleasure associated with contribution instead of anticipation of in-kind repayment.\u00a0 This is true to a point however, and if one person takes too much, without giving back, the relationship is likely doomed.\u00a0 In such healthy relationships, there tends to be compassionate and enduring love, free of ledgers, time cards, and cash register receipts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So, we are hyper-vigilant cheater detectors, and our scrutiny of others’ cheating behavior varies based on a number of variables.\u00a0 Certainly kinship and friendship play a part in our perception.\u00a0 But in addition to what we understand about reciprocal altruism and cheating, we also know that our cheater detectors tend to be finely focused on people who are different from us.\u00a0 Those outside our identified social groups (tribal moral communities<\/a>) are scrutinized much more closely than those inside our circles – and they are examined with much more resolution than we direct toward our own conduct and toward those in the in-group.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This inclination is a byproduct of the universal and innate tendencies to be much more forgiving toward one’s own mistakes and more judgmental towards others’ transgressions.\u00a0 This is the self-serving bias.\u00a0 We also have a tendency to see exactly what we expect to see and miss or ignore things that don’t fit within our expectations.\u00a0 These tendencies are explained by our inclinations toward confirmation bias <\/a>and inattentional blindness<\/a>. \u00a0 Finally, there is the fundamental attribution error<\/a> which leads us to blame others’ transgression on their internal personal attributes while we ignore important and contributing external environmental circumstances.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That is a lot to take in, but suffice it to say that we are much more likely to give ourselves and those similar to us, a break when it comes to cheating.\u00a0 We are much less forgiving toward outsiders, particularly those that seem to hold different values, norms, or customs.\u00a0 This is even true within a society where there is, to a substantial extent, social cohesion; but, where differences exist with regard to beliefs or ideologies.\u00a0 These truths are self evident – just look at the rancor between Liberals and Conservatives in the United States.\u00a0 But it also helps explain the racial and ethnic tensions within and across this country toward Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, and particularly, the poor.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Currently, much blame for this country’s financial woes has been heaped onto the poor due to “entitlement spending.”\u00a0 These recipients of social safety net spending are often defined as cheaters and freeloaders.\u00a0 There is no doubt that there is, and shall forever be, a small contingent of citizens who are completely comfortable with getting a free ride.\u00a0 It would be foolish to argue otherwise.\u00a0 This is a legitimate problem.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On the other hand, I suggest that we must be willing to acknowledge the prevalence of cheating across the economic spectrum and refocus our microscope on the costs of cheating by corporations, white collar criminals, and those whom we tend to give a pass because they are similar to us.\u00a0 In my previous article, Crime & Punishment and Entitlements: A Deeper Perspective<\/a>,\u00a0I discussed the egregious costs of our prejudicial criminal justice system and the entitlement mentality rampant in corporations and those at the upper end of the economic spectrum.\u00a0 I submitted that article with the intent of opening eyes to the wider hypocrisy that pervades this country and the erroneously sharpened focus on a small fraction of our fellow “freeloading” countrymen.\u00a0 If you believe that the infamous 47% of Americans are truly freeloaders, I suggest that you take an objective look at the data from that group (from\u00a0FactCheck.org<\/a>):<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n