In ancient times, sacrifices were at the centre of many religions. The Greeks and Romans offered their gods food and animals. The Aztecs and Mayans sacrificed humans, and Abraham was prepared to kill his own son. All were attempts to placate potentially angry gods and to win fertility, good harvests or luck in battle.
Today, we know this is just irrational babble. We’d never do anything so stupid, would we?
Oh, yes we would, as this paper by Paul Frijters and Juan Baron shows.
They got a group of Australian students to play a series of public goods games, with a quirk. After each round of the ordinary game, subjects were told that their pay-offs would depend upon an unknown rule set by “Theoi”, and they were asked to choose to make a sacrifice (or not) of the money they’d made in the game to Theoi before playing the game again.
The subjects made large sacrifices. This is despite the fact that Theoi did not exist, and the pay-off was just random.
What’s really weird, though, is that subjects continued to make large sacrifices - around a third of their money - even after playing the game for several rounds, during which they should have learned that the rule was random, that Theoi didn't exist, and that sacrifices were doing no good.
What’s going on here is that, when people are faced with uncertainty they anthropomorphize the uncertainty, and make payments to it in the hope of winning favour. And they continue to do this even though they should learn that it doesn't help.
You might think this is just a quirk of a laboratory experiment. But is it? Here are some possible ways in which such a thing might be happening in the real world:
1. The uncertainty created by the threat of terrorism leads us to sacrifice liberty even though this doesn’t necessarily improve our security.
2. Climate change “sceptics” would argue that we are sacrificing some economic well-being today as a way of assuaging uncertainty about the future climate.
3. Our uncertainty about our future health and our children’s earnings cause us to spend fortunes - publicly and privately - upon education and healthcare even though the productivity of such spending is doubtful.
4. Cuts in budget deficits are necessary to placate the angry gods that are financial markets. However, market sentiment is random and capricious, and fiscal policy on its own is a poor way of actually reducing government spending.
5. The popularity of expensive extended warranties on consumer durables might rest upon a readiness to make irrationally large payments in the face of uncertainty.
I’m not saying these five are all definite examples of Abrahamic-style irrationality. But Frijters and Baron have got me wondering…
Today, we know this is just irrational babble. We’d never do anything so stupid, would we?
Oh, yes we would, as this paper by Paul Frijters and Juan Baron shows.
They got a group of Australian students to play a series of public goods games, with a quirk. After each round of the ordinary game, subjects were told that their pay-offs would depend upon an unknown rule set by “Theoi”, and they were asked to choose to make a sacrifice (or not) of the money they’d made in the game to Theoi before playing the game again.
The subjects made large sacrifices. This is despite the fact that Theoi did not exist, and the pay-off was just random.
What’s really weird, though, is that subjects continued to make large sacrifices - around a third of their money - even after playing the game for several rounds, during which they should have learned that the rule was random, that Theoi didn't exist, and that sacrifices were doing no good.
What’s going on here is that, when people are faced with uncertainty they anthropomorphize the uncertainty, and make payments to it in the hope of winning favour. And they continue to do this even though they should learn that it doesn't help.
You might think this is just a quirk of a laboratory experiment. But is it? Here are some possible ways in which such a thing might be happening in the real world:
1. The uncertainty created by the threat of terrorism leads us to sacrifice liberty even though this doesn’t necessarily improve our security.
2. Climate change “sceptics” would argue that we are sacrificing some economic well-being today as a way of assuaging uncertainty about the future climate.
3. Our uncertainty about our future health and our children’s earnings cause us to spend fortunes - publicly and privately - upon education and healthcare even though the productivity of such spending is doubtful.
4. Cuts in budget deficits are necessary to placate the angry gods that are financial markets. However, market sentiment is random and capricious, and fiscal policy on its own is a poor way of actually reducing government spending.
5. The popularity of expensive extended warranties on consumer durables might rest upon a readiness to make irrationally large payments in the face of uncertainty.
I’m not saying these five are all definite examples of Abrahamic-style irrationality. But Frijters and Baron have got me wondering…
Arnold Toynbee said “Civilistions aren’t destroyed: they commit suicide”. Another example of the phenomenon alluded to above?
The desire by most people in the West to see their civilisation overrun by Islam and other incoming cultures is another example, isn’t it?
Also I agree with items 4 and 5 above.
Posted by: Ralph Musgrave | May 10, 2010 at 04:27 PM
You're only halfway there.
Yes there's the anthropomorphiwhatitsnameisation.
But there's also the advantage of bringing things under control. If it's not random chance but a capricious god that's at work, then suddenly you stand in a relationship of being able to influence that capricious god, rather than being a slave of fortune.
That means suddenly you have some sort of - albeit minimal - ability to exert influence and control over your situation. Generally, human beings would rather delude themselves into believing that their actions are not futile hostages to brute fortune than to face that brutality and to sit still, resigned to fate.
Nobody likes to be trapped in pointlessness - so inventing justifications for this pointlessness is an excellent coping strategy (and also a wise gamble just incase it's not actually pointless after all), even if it means fooling oneself into believing in a charade of ones own invention.
If this sort of stuff interests you, check out Nietzsche's On The Genealogy of Morals, especially the Third Treatise on Ascetic Ideals. Nietzsche is very hot on this sort of psychology stuff.
Also, I have a paper for you about the dumbness of Rational Choice theory; remind me to email it if I forget.
Posted by: Paul Sagar | May 10, 2010 at 07:47 PM
I agree with the general insight of the article, however I wouldn't really compare all those features of nowadays business with ancient sacrifices. Maybe that's going too far.
Posted by: Fred Kapoor | May 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM