Moral Licensing

August 10th, 2016 at 7:47:25 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
I caught Malcolm Gladwell on CNN the other day, promoting his podcast Revisionist History, and talking about moral licensing. He deals with that issue on his first episode (which I listened to yesterday). I'd read a bit of Gladwell online now and then, and he struck me as a rather insightful intellectual with an eye for relevant detail.

Anyway, the concept of moral licensing is rather simple: doing or believing something good or virtuous, gives you license (permission) to do something bad or vicious.

It's a bit like tokenism. Groucho Marx out it very well when he quipped "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." Groucho was Jewish in an era when anti-Semitism was losing respectability. A social club which wanted to exclude Jews, then, could get around accusations of anti-Semitism by allowing one or two token Jewish members to join. Ergo Groucho was saying he'd never serve as a token.

Tokenism is rather blatant. Moral licensing is less so. Think how African Americans consider racism to be a big problem, and how some people counter this with "But we elected a black president." This is not very common, but you may have ran across it. I know I have (in fact, since the primaries prior to the 2008 election). And if Hillary Clinton is elected, do you think that ends misogyny in America in one swift stroke?

Gladwell draws a contrast between opening the door to a restrictive field to allow all outsiders in, with letting one outsider in and then using that as justification to keep the rest out.

To the former, he points out that soon after Jackie Robinson was hired to play baseball in the major leagues, more blacks were hired to play by several other teams. Whereas most countries which have elected a woman as president or prime minister, have gone anywhere from years to decades without ever electing another. Countries like Israel, India, Great Britain, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and more.

This might also explain how Christians can loudly proclaim love and enact oppression at the same time. This mechanism is not exclusive to Christians, of course, but it's at its most blatant with them. Almost literally they act as though the pat on the back with their left hand justifies the knife in the back with the right hand. Still, it would be a big mistake not to be aware of this type of bias within one's self, and not to guard against it.

It also works entirely within yourself. If you work out an extra five minutes, say, you might feel entitled to eat a large piece of pie later. And there can be a halo effect. This is when we see a good action spreading where it doesn't spread. For example, if you use a coupon to save some money for one item, you may overspend in other items because you feel as though you're saving money.

You don't even have to do something good in order to give yourself license to do something bad. Sometimes merely thinking about it is enough. A clear example would be "It's ok for me to take it easy and relax and eat chips today, because I'm starting a rigorous diet and exercise program tomorrow." And then tomorrow you think "So I'll start a day late, and eat some more chips and chocolate in the meantime."

This also explains why so many "firsts" are a big deal, such as the first women nominated to the presidency by a major party, but also a big risk of setting things back. Likewise having a very visible, and positively received, member of a minority in any position, carries grave risk for other members of that minority, as much, or more, than it brings opportunity.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
August 11th, 2016 at 5:21:36 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
In another episode Gladwell brings up a notion involving a type of social threshold. Simply put it means: how many people have to do an action that is against your beliefs, judgment and/or feelings, before you join in.

A typical example is an unruly crowd that degenerates into a rampaging mob. In every large group, you'll find some people prone to violent action. So maybe they start throwing rocks at windows. People with a low threshold will join in soon, while those with a higher threshold will take longer. some won't join in at all.

But Gladwell chooses three concrete examples from sports to make the point.

The first, which is the one with empirical evidence, concerns underhanded free-throw shots in basketball. Apparently there was this player named Chamberlain who was very, very good at the game, but was lousy at free throws. This meant the opponents could foul him, as he was more certain to miss a free throw.

So this one time he tried throwing underhand, and his success percentage shot up sharply. But then he never used the underhand throw ever again. As I understand it, throwing underhand means holding the ball near your knees, and lobbing it upwards. Apparently no pro players do this in America, and only two do so in collegiate basketball. Even though it's been proven far superior than the over hand shot.

Why? Because players feel silly doing it, and are afraid they'll be mocked and/or laughed at. A collegiate player in the podcast refers to it as a "granny shot," not the image you want associated with young athletes.


The other two examples concern football. One is that teams would be better off trading their top first-round draft pick for several second and third round picks. The other is that it would be best to almost always go for it on 4th down rather than to punt the ball (field goals being an obvious exception).

Ok. The problem with these two is that this is what economists say their analyses prove. They make sense, but they haven't been tried experimentally. To the first, the closest was when Ditka traded all of New Orleans' draft picks, all of them, for a running back he picked in the first round. He has been soundly criticized for this, but does anyone remember which team got his picks? Or how well they did that year or the next few years? Or how many of those players picked kept playing?

Going for it on 4th makes sense, if today's net punt yard average, meaning where the ball ends up as compared to where the scrimmage line was for the punt play, is rather small. I think I've heard it's around 30 yards or so, which isn't much. Though I see plenty of exception. Field goals, as I already mentioned, long yardage situation (ie 4th and 15 or more), 4th and almost anything, even inches, when you're close to your own end zone, perhaps favorable winds, and certainly lousy, fumble-prone returners on the other team.

This could be tried easily. A brave team might do it. Or perhaps the owners could agree to play, say, one preseason week where punts are banned from a team's own 35 onward. I'd see a preseason game like that.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
August 15th, 2016 at 8:16:17 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
In an another episode, Gladwell tackles the scandal about Toyota cars with allegedly stuck accelerators. Remember that?

I'll get to his thesis in a moment. What surprised me was he conducted an experiment, along with experts from Car & Driver magazine, concerning what happens when one steps on the brakes with the throttle wide open.

Now, this is a podcast, and there's no video of the experiments. but there are links to an article at Car & Driver detailing similar situations. The thing is that doing nearly 100 mph, with the accelerator pedal firmly floored, the car does stop if you hit the brakes firmly. I find it incredible that the brakes are more powerful than the engine. Though I suppose if you do this, the break pads will need replacing right away.

Gladwell, based on the opinions and analysis of experts in human cognition and performance, and backed by evidence found in accident investigations, is convinced the problem in many such situation, Toyota or other brand, is that people mistakenly press down on the accelerator thinking they're hitting the brake.

At first glance this seems ridiculous. Even in an unfamiliar car, the pedals are standardized. Right is the accelerator and left the brake. Right? How hard can it be? Not to mention they feel quite differently.

All true, but it happens anyway. Panic or anxiety set in quickly. Suppose you mistakenly press the throttle rather than the break, especially if your feet were off the pedals, as in a gentle slope or while on cruise control. If you think you're braking and the car instead surges forward, then panic is a natural reaction. You won't check to see whether you're pressing on the right pedal, but rather assume you are. So your natural reaction would be to press harder.

I've seen it happen in minor accidents. I've also seen people left-click a mouse when they intended to right-click (same principle), and though Gladwell didn't mention this, something similar has happened in some aviation accidents. notoriously in the case of the Air France jet lost over the Atlantic some years ago. We've discussed it here. The pilot pulled the control stick back, when he should have pushed it forward. There are other incidents, with and without loss of life, of the wrong control being used. Things like switching off the wrong engine, raising the flaps rather than the landing gear,

So what to do if your car accelerates uncontrollably?

First be aware that you might be pressing on the wrong pedal.

Second, lift your foot off whatever pedal it's pressing on, and then look down to the foot well and apply the brakes.

I suppose if you're not slowing down fast enough, you can switch the car to neutral or turn the engine off.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
August 18th, 2016 at 8:18:44 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Today I listened to "the last episode of the first season." (an interesting take on satire as applied to politics). No idea when next season starts.

Meantime I've been listening to the Freakanomics podcast. It started quite incidentally when Patrick Smith, of the "Ask The Pilot" blog, was interviewed on it. I like Smith and have read his book "Cockpit Confidential" I also read his blog regularly. My podcast app, though, required me to subscribe in order to get it. I was going to delete it after listening to the Smith interview, but some of the titles caught my eye. I still only play those which sound interesting.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER