I.
Profile of Patric Gagne, sociopath. Caucasian, 48, married, two children, dirty blonde hair. Occupation: therapist, writer. What makes one a sociopath?
Traits may include lack of remorse, deceitfulness and a disregard for the feelings of others as well as right and wrong.
Sounds pretty bad.
But that only tells part of the story. The part that’s missing is you can be a sociopath and have a healthy relationship. You can be a sociopath and be educated. That’s a very uncomfortable reality for some people. People want to believe that all sociopaths are monsters and that all monsters are easy to spot.
I’m relieved sociopaths can still get degrees. What’s the subjective experience like?
Just because I don’t care about someone else’s pain, so to speak, doesn’t mean I want to cause more of it. I enjoy living in this society. I understand that there are rules. I choose to follow those rules because I understand the benefits of this world, this house where I get to live, this relationship I get to have. That is different from people who follow the rules because they have to, they should, they want to be a good person. None of those apply to me. I want to live in a world where things function properly. If I create messes, my life will become messy. I think [transgression] feels good because it feels free. To do something bad, it’s like, I don’t give a [expletive]. The consequences — be it internal guilt or getting thrown in jail — happen after. In this moment, I’m going to do this because it feels [expletive] great to just not care. That is what the sociopath experience is almost all the time.
II.
Lately I keep hearing about ethically questionable things my acquaintances do. Examples:
-
Driving in the bus lane to beat traffic.
-
Buying 5 TVs to take advantage of a sale, then returning four of them immediately.
-
Buying furniture from IKEA, using it, then returning it before the 180 day policy expires.
-
Using the carpool lane when driving alone.
-
Avoiding road tolls with illicit methods.
-
Raiding the office snack room and hoarding the best snacks for themselves, or even stocking their pantry at home.
I’m not going to browbeat these people to get them to admit that this stuff is wrong and antisocial. It’s not exactly the crime of the century. Depending on how well I know the person, sometimes I gently ask them why they think this is acceptable. The responses I get range from non-sequitur rationalizations (“I overpaid my taxes, why should I pay bridge tolls?”) to rules-lawyering (“if it’s not forbidden, why shouldn’t I?”) to blackpills (“it’s like India here, every man for himself”) to blank stares and changes of topic.
The people I’m talking about are high functioning. They have careers, relationships, educations. They make good money. The sociopath at least understands that there are rules that have to be followed, but Gagne’s understanding of “neurotypicals” doesn’t match what I see (maybe I don’t know enough affluent white female liberals?). I see people who see no connection at all between rules and benefits. I see people who don’t feel that they have to follow the rules, or even that being a good person entails following the rules. I see people who will do just about anything that gets them ahead if they can’t immediately see the harm. The notion that actions may have diffuse costs, that abusing policies makes things worse for people who follow the rules, that your coworkers might want to eat those snacks, is the furthest thing from their mind. They view these considerations with something between ignorance and contempt - you’re just a sucker if you aren’t looking out for #1.
But sociopaths use it out of necessity, and that’s a really important distinction. My decision to mask [adopting prosocial mannerisms] is not because I have some dark ulterior motive. It’s because you guys are interesting to me. Neurotypical emotions are so colorful and complex. In order for me to engage with you, you have to feel comfortable with me. In order for you to feel comfortable with me, I have to mask. I find that people are unnerved by me when I’m not masking… The bottom line is that I want you to feel comfortable, so I engage. I smile. I mirror. It’s not nefarious; it’s necessary.
Has it always been this way? I am not sure. I think that things have gotten worse. It seems that more people are adopting the perspective that they should just loot all the value they can out of the systems around them, systems that aren’t perfect (why do we W-2 employees need to jump through these tax hoops again?) but make our way of life possible. Burning trust and social capital by mainlining the remorseless sociopathic experience is not long-term sustainable. The people are the same as they used to be, but the mask is slipping, whether that means there’s more of this behavior or people feel emboldened to speak out about it.
III.
Borges wrote a meta-fictional review of a book about how a knave got a glimpse of preternatural goodness in some scum-of-the-earth son-of-a-bitch and realized that he must have witnessed a glimpse, a shard of a great man.
All at once - with the miraculous consternation of Robinson Crusoe faced with the human footprint in the sand - he perceives some mitigation in this infamy: a tenderness, an exaltation, a silence in one of the abhorrent men. "It was asif a more complex interlocutor had joined the dialogue." He knows that the vile man conversing with him is incapable of this momentaneous decorum; from this fact he concludes that the other, for the moment, is the reflection of a friend, or of the friend of a friend. Rethinking the problem he arrives at a mysterious conviction:some place in the world there is a man from whom this clarity emanates; some place in the world there is a man who is this clarity. The student resolves to dedicate his life to finding him.
Even a man of the ‘vilest class’ can reflect a kind of holiness. Isn’t it possible that the mild-mannered white collar transgressors around me are reflecting a kind of damnation? Did these small-time bastards pick up their tendencies from some glancing contact, a ‘faint trace’ of a scowl or word in someone more pathological?
Gagne again:
I think, inherently, neurotypicals are fascinated by sociopathy because it’s a relatable disorder. Everybody has that darkness in them. Everybody has those thoughts that they shoo away because of guilt. If more conversations between neurotypical and so-called neurodivergents were to occur, it would benefit both… I was sitting across from a man at a dinner party — this was like two years ago — and my diagnosis came up, and 30 seconds afterward he said, “You know, I have thoughts of killing my wife a lot.” Not to normalize that, but I was like, Tell me about that. And he goes: “I’ve really thought about it. I’ve reached out to people about hiring somebody to kill her.”
“The line separating good and evil passes… through every human heart.” There has to be a way to beat back the darkness and grow the ‘bridgehead of good.’ To refuse to reflect the damned darkness of the guiltless sociopathic id, in ways big and small.
But as for myself, with no clear villains to tilt with, perhaps the best I can do is to keep my mouth shut. Borges has the last word:
After rereading, I am apprehensive lest I have not sufficiently underlined the book's virtues. It contains some very civilized expressions: for example, a certain argument in the nineteenth chapter in which one feels a presentiment that one of the antagonistsis a friend of Al-Mu'tasim when he will not refute the sophisms of his opponent "so as not to be right in a triumphal fashion."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am one of those people. I am mostly functional as per your list minus the relationship, but I do have friends and family, so I guess that passes?
Anyways. I know intellectually 100% that if most people followed these rules it would be better for everyone. And it's a/THE marker of a effective memeplex to make its followers do prosocial things for no reason but the homeopathic amounts helped by an individual will add up. High trust, cohesive communities, amazing stuff.
I just don't give a fuck. "Society" locked me home for a year, gave me a shitty fabric to deal with for no fault of my own, and a bunch of other stuff, I just don't feel too rosy about doing my best. But yes, that makes it worse!. I reiterate, I do not give a fuck.
More options
Context Copy link
Why does being a good person entail following the rules? Are the rules set down by God or some other infallible moral arbiter? I think not; we do not even have angels in the form of kings to govern us. And in some of those cases, the person IS following the rules and yet you're still objecting (and taking their defense as 'rules-lawyering').
I would agree that some of the examples you brought up are wrong, but others are not. And in neither case does the fact that there's a rule make doing it wrong in any but a legal or administrative sense. This is even a distinction recognized in law -- there are things forbidden by law which are immoral in themselves, malum in se. And there are things which are not, malum prohibitum.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, do they get the price they paid refunded to them, or the pre-sale price? I assume it'd be whatever price is on the receipt.
I think that it is about sales "buy 4, get fifth for free".
As hater of overcomplicated sales I have no big problem with this specific one.
Sales as in buy "9 bags, 10th is 90% cheaper, only if you shared your phone number to be spammed" - advertised by big "90% off!".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some of your examples only negatively affect the very wealthy, and so are morally permissible in Western thought, both in folklore (Robin Hood) and in religion (parable of the unjust steward).
A key difference between sociopaths and the petty rule violator is that a sociopath may betray you even if you’re in a genuine community with him. Americans don’t belong to a community of those who use highways, they only share an economy, and this only occasionally, and the highway is also shared with his class enemies. What’s more, there’s uncertainty about what is law and what is norm: perhaps in his community it is considered normative to drive in the bus lane, it just happens to be against the law. And we obviously lack the pride and homogenity of the Japanese, which enables them to turn conformity into a civic virtue.
The question becomes difficult. How do you get a rag-tag group of stressed humans to obey petty rules under the threat of rare, intermittent monetary fines? Or, how do you get them to care about absolute strangers so much that they obey small rules? I am not sure if you can. Humans are not designed to do that, our sphere of identification and sympathy is not designed to spread to absolutely everyone.
Neither of those examples says what you're claiming it does. Robin Hood steals from the rich in order to help those who the rich are oppressing. Not in order to line his own pockets, as these people are. The parable of the unjust steward is a counterexample, not something to emulate.
In the oldest collection of the myths, Robin Hood steals from the ultra-rich both for his own enjoyment and to donate to a poor knight. He does not redistribute to the poor in these stories, although he swears never to steal from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode
See:
So that’s your first error. Your second error is interpreting the parable of the unjust steward as a counterexample. Let’s see how the parable ends:
The dishonest manager (or, unjust steward) is first commended by his master. There would he no reason to include this sentence in the parable if the commendation were not significant, because parables are elongated symbolic allegories. The master’s commendation is of significance then, hence why it is included; if this were a warning on not to redistribute from the wealthy, then we would see the master “throw him into the outer darkness”, which we read in many of the other parables. Shrewdness here is also translated wisely or prudently.
Next we read, to translate into its basic meaning, “worldly people are wiser in dealing with themselves than us Christians”. So there is some wisdom about how this unjust steward behaved. Finally, we have the ultimate purpose of the parable, where Jesus gives us the final meaning:
Doesn’t get much clearer than that. There’s no symbolism here, we are talking about “unrighteous wealth” or stolen resources. Wealth is not always prefaced with “unrighteous” in parables, but it is specifically prefaced as such here. If the money were a symbol of, say, Godly talents, it would be “righteous wealth”. Jesus specifically clarifies that he is talking about literally money.
Because the real wealth is the goodness of a community, ie friendships
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think any of my examples affect only the very rich.
This proves too much, littering while driving would be beyond the pale even among this group (even though it also just beshits the highway for others). At the same time, stealing snacks from the break room affects not just your coworkers writ large but the people you see every day. If that's not a community I don't know what to tell you.
The TV and IKEA examples only affect the pocket of the owners and investors, who make a lot of money. The employees are unaffected. I would argue that road tolls, while not affecting only the wealthy, are immoral, and that the costs should be taken from the wealthy owners and investors of corporations/cities whose goods are being trucked on the roads.
But nature is valued itself as something innocent and fragile. Literring is bad because it harms nature. Nature is a totally different cognitive space from social contract kind of stuff. It has a semi-divine status in the American imagination (rightfully).
These are white collar people, right? The employees should file a complaint to the multimillionaire C-Suite that they want more snacks. I agree that for a small business this would be pretty immoral. But the break room is also used by just random people you will never meet who work at the company, right?
Until the return policy is nerfed because you can't make money with shit like this, or the prices are increased to compensate.
In fact it is not a road toll but a single toll lane on a road, so it's even more indefensible. Of course, the corporations pay a great deal of tax despite accounting for a small portion of road congestion.
We're not talking about half dome, we're talking about a ten lane megafreeway. Nature has nothing to do with it.
The demand for snacks is effectively infinite. Anything that can't be eaten can be taken home, given to friends, etc.
There's a break room on every floor and there's not that many people per floor. I know most of the people on my floor personally or by reputation.
Prices can’t increase more than a consumer is willing to pay, and return policies have always had profit in mind (unless there’s a law / regulation). If you’re telling me that consumers would be willing to pay at a higher point, then it would be priced at that already. If you’re telling me that the price would need to rise as otherwise the business would go bankrupt, that’s disproven by the huge investor/corporate profits which would suffer before bankruptcy. If you’re telling me that every business would increase their price-per-TV in unison in order to maximize corporate profit rather than competing over lowering prices, then that’s a good reason to steal from the businesses. Whether GameStop is raking in the profits by being the foremost video game retailer, or whether they are a tiny retailer with hardly any profit at all due to online purchases, the consumer is paying essentially the same for essentially the same service. The difference is simply that the leadership once made a lot of money, and now they don’t — the service is identical. And their return policy has always sucked, because they can get away with it. Let us let the consumer get away with things too!
Road wear is why we have tolls, that’s largely caused by trucking and next by employees going to work. Surely the party which reaps the resources from both of these should be the party paying for the road wear. It would be pretty silly if an entry employer had to pay the same for road wear as the CEO of Amazon, when the CEO reaps the most profit of the economic economy which results in road wear
Nature, uh, finds a way. Like wind. I can say at least for myself, I am literally okay with thievery but would never think about leaving a cigarette butt anywhere outside, even on a city street. For me at least, it’s the sanctity of nature. I can’t speak for others, so maybe you’re right that they have a different motive
The employees should form some sort of demand organization for the implementation of receiving tokens for their labor, which can be redeemed for food items, and perhaps for other items too. They can then decide amongst themselves the proper balance of corporate pay to token maximization, by electing or bargaining with the leadership of the company. Given that the employees are motivated by token maximization themselves, this would naturally lead to a company which profit-maximizes without sacrificizing any employee benefit/quality of life / tokens. Until such a day, I do believe that the employees should be stealing snacks, even hoarding them, and staplers and other stationary on occasion too.
I would consider it immoral then to steal snacks from them, then, yes
I'm telling you that the market price of a TV includes the costs of making and selling the TV. If you increase the costs of selling the TV, perhaps by increasing the return rate by 10x, prices indeed will rise. It's bizarre to use this as justification for theft, unless you think that for some reason TVs should be sold below cost.
The goal of the toll lanes (as stated by the state DoT) is to reduce congestion.
Yeah, it'll be real great when instead of free snacks you have to put your 'demand token' (aka dollar) into the vending machine to get a bag of chips. This is exactly the bizarre mental gymnastics I'm talking about in this post - selfishly hoarding the free snacks is not a good thing, no matter how many paragraphs are written in justification.
Forgot to reply to this, but this is false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_toll_lane
It's not false.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/hov
I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not they achieve this goal. The point is that they have nothing to do with road wear and griping about Jeff bezos and his 18 wheelers is a non-sequitur.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you’re thinking something like, “BestBuy competes with Walmart over lowered TV prices, when both of these companies face theft they will be forced to increase prices in proportion to the theft; the price of TVs is already as low as it can be, so theft causes an increase in prices”. But I don’t think this is true. If we had a real competition between BestBuy and Walmart, we wouldn’t see as much profit as we see going to the top. It would be a race to the bottom for both prices and C-Suite/Investor profit. I think these companies actually have pseudo-monopolies in their locations, because consumers are unwilling to travel very far for purchases or to spend a lot of mental energy doing cost-saving arithmetic. This is different from your local bodega and coffee shop where a person can walk down the street to a better competitor and where the daily cost of items are more salient.
It’s more likely to me that the cost for TVs is set according to whatever price the consumer will not grumble over, rather than some magical “best possible price”. The price right now is fixed at “as high as possible for the consumer to not decide against buying a TV”. If this is true, theft actually can’t increase prices, because the consumer will opt against buying a TV if it is any higher. If they attempt to increase prices, they would simply lose profit, because the American consumer can just stick to his old TV, or stick to his computer.
If you’re saying, “Walmart will decide against doing business if its profits suffer too much”, I would again point at GameStop as evidence that this isn’t so. Or just the fact that, provided you can make more than the median wage selling TVs, someone will be out there selling TVs.
So, the consumer stealing from BestBuy is a lot like a free peasant stealing from his lord who has a monopoly over his land. The consumer can’t be assed to travel very far because he’s stressed and has too many commitments, just like the peasant can’t be assed to travel hundreds of miles by foot to possibly get a better deal with his peasantry.
How do you know how much profit "should" go to the top? If Walmart fired its CEO, it could cut prices by 0.003%, or pay out 0.008 pennies per share to each shareholder. That would have almost no impact on prices or returns, but having a shitty CEO would assuredly tank the business.
It's already current year plus nine, nobody is going to Walmart to buy a TV irl. People are buying them online (my return abusing friend included). I also just checked and there's 6 best buys and 7 Walmarts within 20 miles of my house. So much for a monopoly.
Best buy's profit margin is a measly 7%. I can get better profits parking money in an index fund. The market for TVs is extremely competitive and the price has accordingly fallen many multiples while quality is unbelievably better than before. You are making an evidence-free assertion.
You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for this, but I am getting the feeling that it's really more of a question of vibes and further engagement is unlikely to be productive.
Let me just say that yes, you can rationalize just about anything, and I mentioned several rationalizations that people have offered me in the OP. You are always the easiest person to fool, and you should be very cautious about conclusions which just happen to benefit your pocketbook and pretend that there's no knock-on effects.
The top is not just CEO pay, it’s the total C-Suite pay and investor pay. Walmart is actually not as egregious in its CEO pay package. In 2019 at least, more people bought TVs in store than online. See here.
That’s huge. That’s 7.5 billion. What is failing in our hypothetically competitive economic system where a middle man — who simply takes technology from Korea and shows it to people in America — can generate 7.5 billion in profit? With its founder being worth more than 2 billion? Are you telling me that if most of that money went to consumers or employees, Best Buy would do a worse job? I don’t think so.
The reason Best Buy can turn so much profit is the same reason McDonald’s can increase prices and turn profit, or Coca Cola can be so profitable when there are cheaper alternatives: the idea of a rational consumer with infinite time / willpower / reasoning is a myth. The consumer will go to Best Buy and be sapped into a bad deal, giving Best Buy more money. Or they will google a list of top TVs which the Best Buy / Samsung marketing have manipulated. The store design and location will be decided by PhDs in consumer psychology to maximize the chance of consumer irrationality. The Amazon top lists will be manipulated.
It’s silly but also dangerous to believe on faith that a consumer is (or even can) make a rational purchasing decision for something like a TV. The majority of people do not have the knowledge to know whether they are making the most efficient economic choice. And this is how large corporations can produce so much profit, by taking advantage of the insane informational asymmetry at play. (Consider Apple earphones for a moment.) Best Buy knows everything about consumer behavior and TVs; the consumer knows nothing about his own behavioral biases or TVs. This is not a fight fair, someone will walk away with a better deal. So why would you reward such antisocial behavior? I say let your friends steal as much as they want from Best Buy, the top do not deserve the money.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Several of those antisocial behavior examples you listed just seem trashy. I can respect a solid Evil Scheme executed with cunning and deceit, but stealing the snacks from the break room or pushing the limits of return policies ain't it. I imagine myself doing these things and it just feels like it would be embarrassing to stoop so low for something so trivial, and where the social risk of being caught is more "disappointment" than punishment. This is the antisociality of an animal or a machine, that doesn't even have a theory of other human minds and can't understand the disappointment when unaccompanied by punishment. It's more aesthetically depressing than morally repugnant to see this kind of behavior.
Doing these things is rational from the point of view of someone who doesn't give a shit about others. Risk of punishment is very low.
These people are being sociopathic. Sociopaths do not know they're doing wrong. They lack most of the associated instincts. E.g. sociopathic murderers were found to be blind to negative emotions in faces of others. No guilt, no remorse, no conscience. The glib rationalizations are usual, too. Sure these people aren't fully sociopathic, but that's a whole spectrum, or rather several of them and most or all definitions only call 'sociopath'/psychopath someone who scores highly on all of them and is making society worse.
As a psychiatrist I know so put it: when I talk to sociopaths, they don't seem to understand why everything is falling apart around them - they don't feel they're doing anything bad. You need to explain it to them. If they accept they need to be better, usually they can become less of a problem to their family.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, what I'm about to say is going to sound like the same old, same old, "you can't be moral without religion" but this is what happened. Society has burned through its social capital, and now it's down to the last pennies in the bank.
Imagining this in an American context, I think it starts early with things like 'parents looking for ways to game the school system so you get advantages to get ahead', be that nagging and pressuring teachers to give better grades or saying little Jonathan needs accommodation for his educational needs. Later on, conning doctors to give you Ritalin or similar 'for my ADHD' so you can study harder, focus more, get on with college. Plagiarism in college because everyone does it and only a fool or a loser or a chump doesn't buy their essays online and cheat in exams. That easily extends to "take advantage in every single way you can", be it "fuck the rest of these guys, I want these snacks, and if the company is dumb enough to supply free food, I'm loading up on it to cut down my grocery bills" or the rest of the things you say.
The only thing that matters is winning. That's what you learned as a kid from your parents pushing all they could so you could get into the good college to get the good job. Therapy speak tells you that your own authentic self is what is important and that demands and responsibilities and duties are shackles others impose on you. Guilt is a trap, discard it and be free. Abortion for convenience (not to flog that horse, but we've gone from 'the precious miracle of life' to 'embryos are just clumps of cells and if it interferes with my freedom, it dies'). A myriad of ways in which the old values are now judged repressive. Christianity is abusive, unless we remould it to be what we want, and the liberal churches try that in service to the Zeitgeist and still find their numbers dropping.
We're living off the last scraps of the old morality, and when those are gone, we'll have nothing left. Turns out you do need a society-wide, culturally accepted version of "rights and duties and citizenship and civic lessons" because you can't rely on individuals deciding a code of ethics for themselves. One good atheist may indeed not need religion to be moral, but that's an individual.
And I'm not blaming atheism as such, I'm blaming our human nature which wants the easy way always. Victimless crimes. Insurance will pay for it. Megacorporations are fat on profit, they won't lose out by this. Fifteen Clever Hacks To Improve Your Life. A poor guy does it, it's stealing. You do it, you're just being clever.
I'm not saying religion is the solution, either, but it was what we used as a set of values. We scrapped that, but the values evaporated along with it. It took time, but you cannot pull a plant up by the roots and expect it to keep flourishing. We need something, and it has to be widely accepted and even imposed. "Everyone has their own truth" does not work, for a coherent society. Even if we all adopted Rationalist EA Utilitarianism in the morning (something I am not hugely enthused about), it would be something, some framework of "we are not atomised individuals, yes you are the asshole for stealing the good snacks, yeah in fact we do live in a society and we all need each other".
It isn't religion, or a lack of it. It is trust. We are currently in the transitional phase from a generally high trust society to a generally low trust society. If you trust your neighbor or your mayor or your doctor to do right by you then you don't feel like a sucker for doing right by them.
This country wasn't founded by particularly devout leaders and most of the gentry took a much more rational and considered view of religion and the belief systems of various sects. They would have found 1950's southern baptists laughable superstitious bumpkins, not examples of what an ordered and high trust society should look like.
Regarding your injection of abortion politics into this subject. Benjamin Franklin even gave instructions on how to perform an at home abortion in "Every Man his own Doctor: OR, The Poor Planter's Physician" -- "For this Misfortune, you must purge with Highland Flagg, (commonly called Bellyach Root) a Week before you expect to be out of Order; and repeat the same two Days after; the next Morning drink a Quarter of Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, with 12 Drops of Spirits of Harts-horn, and as much again at Night, when you go to Bed. Continue this 9 Days running; and after resting 3 Days, go on with it for 9 more."
Go back further and infanticide was common practice, even in religious societies, so we haven't always even thought of babies as precious, let alone a fetus. Crap, do we have to have a funeral for every missed period that doesn't result in a born child if we are true Christians? Most women have more miscarriages than born children.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2175534-women-have-more-miscarriages-than-live-births-over-their-lifetime/
Cultural homogeneity increases trust. So in that respect religion could help be one of many binders, but anything will do; a great civilization wide cause or mission, an actual visible existential threat (maybe), strong traditions, a founding idea or ideal, brainwashing and harsh punishments for deviation, material abundance and space to pursue success without harming your neighbor (perhaps America's greatest strength for the past 400 years). 96% of Pakistan portends to be devout Muslim. Does that seem like a high trust society to you?
Too many people and too few resources is what causes the death of prosocial behavior in a free society, not giving up on worshiping a deity of some type. It is easy to be kind if helping someone doesn't diminish your situation, especially if you can expect reciprocity because you know them, too many people make everyone a stranger. History is littered with the corpses of 1000 religious societies.
As George Costanza would say - "We're living in a society!"
Well, as I said, I don't think that religion is the sure cure. But as a stand-in for "a universal and accepted set of values that everyone knew and followed, and if breached everyone knew these were the consequences, and why at least in theory you shouldn't breach them", it worked. You can substitute other values for that: patriotism is now nationalism is now bad and we should scorn it, instead of "we are all proud citizens of the free and liberal nation of Greatlandia, and that means that as Greatlandians we look out for each other". Strong traditions are bad because they stop me being free and anyway, the people of the past were dumb and ignorant and didn't know Science! like we do. Founding ideals get rewritten to fit in with the Zeitgeist (see the referendums going to be held later this month in my country). Space ran out - you headed west until you got to California, then you couldn't go any further, and like Huck Finn indicates, 'civilisation' came trundling along after you to fill up the empty spaces and impose rules once more. Material abundance? Eat the rich.
Trust is part of that. You can't have values that just float around in the air, unrooted or unattached to anything. If you expect that you can chop away the collective part of existing in a society and still retain the collective values while everyone behaves like an individual with no duties to the whole, I think you'll be disappointed, and I think the examples given are exactly that.
The guy who thinks he has found a clever loophole about exploiting the letter of the law on "buy five TVs in a sale, return four of them later after the sale is over for a higher price, profit". The people who fill up their packs with the free food provided and clear out the breakroom cupboard so nobody else can get anything. It's all "I see the situation as between me, the individual, and the large faceless company or corporation who is paying for this" but with no glimmering of "the other people who shop in this store/the other people who work in this office" as beings to take into consideration. There is no expense involved, save that borne by the faceless entity, which gets its money out of thin air apparently and not from other people. If prices go up, if there is no more subsidized food, that is the fault of the big faceless corporation, it's got nothing to do with my actions taking advantage and cheating and stealing.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek when I say maybe it's partly down to the single child phenomenon; all the kids with no siblings so they never learned to share and grew up retaining the three year old mindset of "all the toys are for me".
But I think there is something about the emphasis in recent decades over privilege, rights, what society owes me and the simultaneous reappraisal of social and civic demands as being impositions on freedom and imposing one's morals on others and the rest of it. So now all you have to go by is your own view of what is right and wrong, and if I think it's fine to steal all the free food, who are you to tell me otherwise, you moralist judging my actions?
What exactly is a "clever loophole"? If I go to a supermarket and only buy the loss leader product, am I using a loophole while following the letter of the law, since the supermarket expects to profit from people coming into the store for the loss leader and buying other things? What if I need to travel to Atlantic City for personal reasons, so I take a casino bus where they give me $10 in free coins, get the coins, and not bother gambling with it? (I've actually done this.) If I'm black but can pass for white, it's the 1950s, and I use a segregated lunch counter, am I exploiting a loophole, since I know the owner doesn't want me there?
More options
Context Copy link
There have always been a percentage of people that are bad apples in any society. The US has enjoyed centuries of relative prosperity and that has allowed a certain type of generosity of spirit to evolve in the people and traditions here.
In places with poverty, population pressure and desperation, even highly religious ones, the general public behavior is much much worse and you're seen as a sucker for not taking and cheating everyone you can, see Pakistan or Bangladesh or India or Egypt, or if you want a Christian example seek out African dystopias or South American slums. If you want a non-religious example See the "grab hag" phenomenon left over from early communist china. https://youtube.com/results?search_query=grab+hags
Religion is no more than one small component of a kind and cohesive and honorable society.
Wealthy equality and material abundance are what make for a fair-minded and moral society. If your citizens feel like that is what the country is working towards or currently has, that is what will keep them from buying 5 TVs and returning 4 or cheating on their taxes. If they feel like the society is working for them, not just taking from them to give to the elite.
Tongue-in-cheek or not there is also no evidence that single children are more selfish than those with siblings. So we should squelch that old nugget right here.
The funny thing is that the people I'm talking about are comfortably in the top 5%-10% of individual incomes. Their wealth is probably smaller, but they are mostly under 30 so they don't have a lot of years of accumulation and appreciation under their belts. They are pretty well off by any standards. Nice cars, multiple vacations a year, fancy restaurants, etc etc.
If they are dealing with any of the issues you mentioned in your original post they are certainly not in the elite catagory in any respect. No elites are wasting 2 days buying and returning 5 TVs to save 100 bucks or blowing their afternoon setting up ikea furniture only to return it (and replace it with more in an endless cycle to save a 1,000 dollars? at the cost of entire lost days?), these are broke college kid tips and tricks.
They may resent their boss making 100x and so hoard some snacks; or feeling ripped off by the constant nickel and diming and everything being sold as pay per use or subscription may skip some tolls.
Feeling like a stakeholder and feeling like life is fair are what would help curb these behaviors, not believing in Christ. Having leaders who appear to have achieved through merit rather than grift would help curb these behaviors. Strong cultural ideals, homogeneity, wealth and security are what matter. Here is another chart. The countries at the very top are all incredibly rich and secular compared to most of the world, the USA is almost as rich, but MUCH more religious.
https://i.imgur.com/lRouBej_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand
I feel like we're all reading way too much into what are pretty petty little infractions, the likes of which have been going on for thousands of years in every society. People have been sailing around tolls and tariffs ever since the first one was levied.
Nevertheless, these people are in the top decile of US incomes. That's why it's so bizarre. Maybe you don't think they are truly "elite" but that is a quibble - they are doing better than nine out of ten countrymen.
Their immediate boss (or even boss' boss) isn't making 100x, unless by "boss" you mean "CEO". These are very well paid white collar professionals.
I'm a Jew, so you don't have to sell me on not believing in Christ.
Well after much time and consideration on this topic as evidenced by leaning in hard to many parts of this thread. I've come to the conclusion that the listed infractions are not prima facie evidence of a society in collapse, but of the banality of mankind. You could write up the same complaints 70 years ago with people buying plugs for vending machines, skipping town to escape debts, jumping turnstiles, watching the baseball game through the fence, driving around toll bridges etc...etc...some people will always do this kind of thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there’s another trend that happened alongside the loss of religion and the rise of the low trust society— the decline of communal activity. In the 1940s and 1950s much of a median person’s leisure time was spent with other people. Dancing, bowling, going to the movies or out to lunch with friends, BBQs and cookouts. Kids had pickup sports, board games, movies, and video game arcades. So if you lived in that era you’d be fairly strongly connected to your community by the mere fact that you spend a lot of time with them. Church played a role as well, going to church in person met even more in-person social time.
The other trend is that really, because most people don’t stay in one place for nearly as long (switching jobs and possibly moving), the ability to form long term, trusting relationships is much lower. You don’t settle in and end up in a new place among new people every five years or so. It’s a nomadic existence to some extent, and thus your willingness to build a community, to build trust, to invest in things that the community needs drops. Why pay taxes to the school district when you’ll be gone long before it’s time to send the kids to school? Why get to know your neighbors when you’re moving in a couple of years anyway? Why be anything beyond cordial with your office mates if they’re now competing with you for the next gig? And for that matter, why not cheat like hell? Why not cheat to get yours, it’s not like you actually care about anyone in this area?
These are not separate trends they are the same trend. The oft ignored downside to "freedom for freedom's sake" and being "unbound" is that no one is bound to you.
As I've pointed out several times in this thread. They are very different trends; although religion may have a small part to play in the overall tapestry of social trust and 3rd spaces etc...it is not, and has never been, the driving force in creating a high-trust society.
High trust is created primarily by great material abundance distributed relatively equality and physical proximity (without crowding, where people are a help and not a hindrance...help plowing your 1/4 mile long driveway for you in the country rather than competing for dinner reservations in the city) in groups from dunbar's number up to about 5000 known faces.
Pew research lines up pretty much with what I've said. Wealthy white rural married older folks are people that feel the most trust in society and in their fellow man. The more secure you feel and the more life has worked out for you the more trusting you are. I'm sure this has changed a bit since 2007.
"By contrast, the survey also found that there are some demographic and political traits that have little or no correlation to levels of social trust. Men and women; Republicans and Democrats; liberals and conservatives; Protestants and Catholics and the secular — all of these groups have roughly similar levels of trust."
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2007/02/22/americans-and-social-trust-who-where-and-why/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a good point and certainly the focus of some previous analysis on this phenomenon in works like "Bowling Alone" and their ilk. I touched on it poorly in my last paragraph about too many people and not enough connection. The only thing I'm not sure about is blaming an uptick in nomadism. I believe people actually move around much less than they did 70 years ago. We've actually been on a downward trend in movement since the 1940's according to the US census and are currently at all time historic lows. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/historic.html
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there's something to this. I started asking some of people the toll evasion scenario to see if I could notice any patterns in who's likely to do it.
I did see a lot of blatant cheating among international students in college though. Maybe it is down to the upbringing, but rather than competitiveness, the question is whether or not the parents instilled a notion of civic duty.
Nicely said. Of course, organized religion has had plenty of antisocial which hunts in its day too (and they are still hunting albinos in Africa).
I fucking hate those tolls. I understand what they’re trying to do in keeping cars off the road and encouraging alternative transportation, but if the government is going to do that, they need to offer alternative transportation that does not take 2 hours for what would normally be an hour long drive.
I rarely skirt the tolls, but I have done it on occasion. I know that what I’m doing is wrong, but at times, I simply do not care. The other reason I feel comfortable doing this is that there is almost no way I can get caught. Cops do not patrol my commute route in the slightest; if I saw them cracking down, I’d rethink ever trying to avoid the tolls.
I didn't want to get into the technical details but in fact it's a single toll lane on a five lane freeway, so you can still get where you are going, but you'll sit in traffic more.
And yeah, there is zero enforcement, which is a whole other pet peeve.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes!
If anything they've gotten better:
"things are better than it used to be in Russia" is not a high bar to pass. As far as social trust goes Russia was pathological for quite long time.
It is kind of like "at least social inequality is not as bad in Sparta". Like being better than society that was commented as unusually cruel toward massive enslaved underclass - already by ancient slaveowners.
More options
Context Copy link
Things were definitely bad in rural Russia in the 19th century. But was behavior more moral ten or twenty years ago? Perhaps harder to establish.
More options
Context Copy link
Whelp, I feel like I understand the deep roots of anti-Kulak
Revoltsentiment now.I do worry you’re extrapolating from Russian culture a bit though. Perhaps there is a root of this sentiment in all cultures, but I would be very shocked if it played out the same in every culture. Some people in every society are predisposed to it, but it depends very much on culture whether it is allowed to grow and fester, or is snuffed out.
Sure, rates of violence and criminal behavior vary wildly across different locations and time periods. Certainly. The point is that you can’t act like any supposed degeneration of our moral and social fabric is a recent or unique phenomenon.
People have kind of inb4’d the “nasty, brutish, and short” meme, but there’s ample historical evidence that life really was (and still is) nasty and brutish and short for quite a lot of people, and any discussion of criminality in contemporary first world countries should be viewed in a global historical context.
More options
Context Copy link
It depends on material conditions more than anything. You make everyone a dirt farmer with no education and no resources and no hope and we would be right back to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the advantage of doing this? You mean returning them after the end of the sale, so you get refunded the full price rather than the sales price?
Right. I think the exact situation was that there was a discount if you spent over $X, so this guy buys five TV's to cross the threshold and then returns four of them since he only needs one TV. He wasn't refunded exactly the full price but he still ended up with some discount.
I get you, thanks for clarifying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nice title
More options
Context Copy link