Irrationality Part 2
A coworker passed along a trite fable that was infecting inboxes last month. Usually I am pretty good at ignoring this kind of thing, but this time I asked another recipient about it, a very competent developer and seemingly sharp guy. He described the story as "gold." After that I couldn't leave it alone, and eventually banged out the reply below. This, of course, got no response. A week later I asked the original sender about my objections, and he answered by saying "It's only a story." Simple as that.
It was abundantly clear that this message impressed its readers exactly to the extent that it supported their worldviews. No harm done, of course, if that worldview is correct, but I tried to demonstrate that the same kind of nonsense can support any viewpoint, absent critical thinking.
It was abundantly clear that this message impressed its readers exactly to the extent that it supported their worldviews. No harm done, of course, if that worldview is correct, but I tried to demonstrate that the same kind of nonsense can support any viewpoint, absent critical thinking.
From: Steve
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:43 PM
To: Dan; Rick; Jim; Clifton
Subject: RE: Socialism
This anecdote is amusing but ultimately unsatisfying in its honorable intention refuting the viability of socialism.
First of all, alternate outcomes are plausible. Professors frequently assign group projects in which students of differing levels must work together. Harder-working students take up the slack of lazier ones and the overall result is satisfactory. This story suggests that if two students are paired as lab partners for a semester, the lazier one will inexorably depress the other until neither is willing to even light a Bunsen burner. It is plausible that motivated students will continue to work hard – or even work harder – as slackers take advantage of the “equitable” grading system (though they would be foolish to agree to such an unfair system in the first place). Moreover, freeloaders will be pressured by their classmates, who depend on the overall grade, and some may be shamed into pulling their own weight. Motivated but struggling students will suddenly find themselves supported instead of ignored by formerly competing class members. It is even conceivable that the average grade will be higher with the “one grade fits all” policy.
Secondly, the classroom analogy to socialist government seems strained. Socialism is not simply capitalism with individual incentive removed. A socialist government typically has considerable infrastructure to meddle with the lives of individuals. Why are there no TA’s, dividing the work and scheduling study sessions? No tutors, training slower students? Bean-counters, measuring performance? And don’t forget the secret police, enforcing classroom morale! These socialist elements are wide open to questions about their effectiveness (not least of which is who pays for them), and these questions pertain more to what socialism is than the straw man classroom in Texas.
I'm not sure I find your middle paragraph all that convincing. In the case of groups projects, or a fortiori lab partners, I can still get the maximum grade on the assignment if I simply do all the work myself. I don't receive all the benefit of my work - some of it goes to the slackers - but I do have complete control over my own outcome, even though I may have been unjustly burdened. In the original case of grade averaging, I have very little control over the outcome; the slackers ineluctably pull me down to their level.
Now, it can be said that this situation is more analogous to "social democracy", which is more likely than pure socialism/communism to be implemented or attempted in a modern society, but this does not dilute the original argument which is aimed at the pure form.
And the rest of the paragraph is a jenga stack of suppositions that will come crashing down sooner or later. Sure, it's conceivable that the average grade could be higher, but given human nature, there will always be those who through inability, apathy or selfishness will just never be motivated to help the group at their own expense. And once this group makes its presence known the better students will be less and less motivated to put forth effort which yields them diminishing returns.
In fact, I think that what you've pointed out actually gives strong support to the argument behind the original fable: the larger and less virtuous a society is, the lesswell socialism will work, and the bigger advantage capitalism/laissez-faire will have. Socialism works fine among very small groups, such as a family, where all members care deeply for each other and have strong incentive to support the group. Maybe even a college class of 20 or so might be small enough that it wouldn't work too badly. A commune or "intentional society" of maybe a couple hundred could probably make it work, because they share an ideology that makes them committed to the project. But get up in the millions or even hundreds of thousands and you run into disaster pretty quickly.
I think the final paragraph is a much better objection, but it's easily countered: a parable must be simple; incorporating those elements you mention would unduly complicate the message.
On the gripping hand, people who forward mass emails are kind of dorks.
------------------