I don't like the framing of Nudge, but I've read most of what Madeleine Bunting refers to here - and have no doubt the logic is right.
And she encapsulates it well:
Are human beings self-interested creatures or are they collaborative? The right's argument for market capitalism is rooted in the former but the research on the social brain supports the latter.
Put crudely, we are social creatures with an inbuilt tendency to co-operate and seek out each other's approval and that is probably more important in determining day-to-day behaviours than narrowly conceived self-interest.
That's about it.
I wish it meant goodbye to the Right.
I think it will, sometime soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If you accept the logic, then it weakens the argument for authoritarianism, irrespective of whether it is from the right or the left. If we are social creatures with an inbuilt tendency to co-operate, then we don’t need the state to force us to simulate co-operation.
Paul
Of course, not always
But like it or not if we are to commune beyond our own village we need structures to do so – if only so we can be sure that the next village will not poison us with their food and that the means of transport we use to get there is safe and that our property will be protected whilst we’re away, and on, and on and on.
All of which you ignore
Which does really undermine all you say
Richard
Richard
You seem to be completely refuting your original point.
Firstly, you agree that we have a tendency to co-operate, but then imply we need a huge state because we aren’t able to voluntarily co-operate to achieve solutions to our problems.
While you might say that you believe people are naturally co-operative, you propose approaches which imply the opposite – that people (other than the chosen few) are vicious, callous and will harm each other without a second thought unless they are prevented from doing so.
In contrast, I don’t just say that we have a tendency to co-operate, I act in a way which shows I believe it.
If I cooperate with anyone, it is because I deem it to be in my self interest. That’s how you operate as well – regardless if you admit or deny this or even realize it. End of story.
I wish you reading this meant goodbye to you being stuck in the idiotic left-right paradigm.
Peter
This is so obviously untrue it shows how stuck you are
I am not in a left right rut in many ways
I am a successful entrepreneur and accountant who has rarely worked for the state sector but who comes froma family where many have worked in that sector
I am dedicated to maintaining private business
But equally I see all the limitations of the private sector – including the fact that we need collective and not just individual decision making – partly because self interest does not work in all cases – partly because we frequently choose to work with others at apparent (And often real) cost to ourselves with no obvious gain at all
And to write what you have suggests a) you are not a parent b) you have never cared for a parent c) you have never cared
Richard
Richard,
You seem to think that your own self-interest is only served by making yourself financially better off. Do you never do anything purely because it makes you feel good about yourself?
Your penultimate paragraph once again seems contradictory. If, as you say, people will frequently choose to work with others for no obvious personal material gain, why do we need collective decision making to force people to behave that way?
You seem to have a very negative view of humanity (other than the “chosen few”).
Paul
I have to say I am completely baffled by your comment
There’s nothing self contradictory about my comment – and nor is there in much of the material Madeleine Bunting refers to. Sometimes we can do things fine by ourselves. Other times not – something we innately know, by the way – not something we choose.
So there’s no black, or white.
Now what the heck is contradictory about that?
Richard
Richard
I’m not sure how to simplify a point which was perfectly simple to begin with.
The point you have been making is basically saying “People have a naturally tendency to co-operate, therefore somebody has to force them to work together.”
That’s very clearly contradictory. If you really believed that people were naturally co-operative and you thought that co-operation was a good thing, you wouldn’t be continually looking for reasons to force people to act in ways that may be at odds with their personal preferences.
If you’d come out and said “I believe that the vast majority of people act out of narrowly conceived self-interest, therefore somebody should force them to work together,” I wouldn’t have agreed with you, but at least your point would have had some coherence.
Paul
I really do think you’re making a straw man that is just not there – nowhere near there in fact
Where the hell did ‘force’ come into it? Have I ever said or implied it? I am saying people want government, want to work cooperatively, want to subjugate themselves on occasion to the will of others, do so knowing on occasion this will impose a burden, and we’re mutually better off is we do
Where was this force you’re obsessed with?
Richard
“People have a naturally tendency to co-operate, therefore somebody has to force them to work together”
Not necessarily a contradiction. Social groups obviously do co-operate but this can be at the expense of other social groups. If we are to progress beyond tribal relationships into states, we need infrastructure to ensure that there is the rule of law that can govern relations and resolve disputes where the interests of two social groups may be different.
So i am with Richard on this one – I think a straw man is being made.
Richard: “Where the hell did ‘force’ come into it? Have I ever said or implied it?”
You imply it in almost everything you post.
“I am saying people want government, want to work cooperatively, want to subjugate themselves on occasion to the will of others”
People who really believe in co-operation ask others if they want to work together, they don’t force them to do it. That’s what co-operation is – people freely choosing to work together. Saying “I believe that you want to be subjugated, therefore I will subjugate you,” isn’t the basis of co-operation to any right minded person.
At least be honest about your beliefs – you don’t believe in co-operation, you believe in compulsion.
mad foetus: “If we are to progress beyond tribal relationships into states, we need infrastructure to ensure that there is the rule of law that can govern relations and resolve disputes where the interests of two social groups may be different.”
Really? There is no rule of law enforced from above which determines relations between states, yet we don’t have continual war between states.
And in response to your first sentence, yes, it is a contradiction.
Paul
Please don’t project your views onto me
By all means believe there is only individual freewill and subjugation if you wish
I don’t agree
I don’t agree with how you read my comments
I do not think what you say I think
And, with respect, I’m leaving it at that because it’s clearly not worth debating it with you
Richard