The premise was relatively simple. Each participant was given points and randomly assigned to a group of six players. The participants made their choices in a predetermined order and could see each contribution as it was made, but they interacted with other group members through a computer rather than face-to-face. But there was a pretty significant twist: since the researchers wanted to control some variables while manipulating others, much of what happened in the study was decided in advance which, of course, was unbeknownst to the participants.
Lastly, the contribution of the sixth and final group member was also set by the researchers and was either overly generous donating 90 of the possible points , or overly stingy donating only 10 points. After all the contributions were made, the participant was given the opportunity to punish any of the other group members if desired. He or she could deduct points from any other player, but this came at a cost: for every three points subtracted from another group member, the punisher also lost a point.
Not surprisingly, most people nearly 70 percent chose to punish the stingy deviants that contributed much less than the average. Furthermore, many participants actually wanted this individual to be kicked out of the group. When asked to rate how much they would like each player to remain in the group on a scale of 1 not at all to 9 very much , the average rating for the overly generous player was less than a 3. Examining the interaction between the strength of the social norm as set by the range of donations and the size of the punishment meted out suggests a basis for this puzzling behavior.
Irwin and Horne found that strong social norms encouraged punishment of the cooperative player: the more similar the first four pre-programmed donations were, the higher the punishments tended to be for the overly generous deviant. Players tended to punish this individual equally under both conditions. The researchers suggest that no matter how high or low conformity is among group members, people always see stinginess as a punishable offense. So it appears that nonconformity is a bit of a double-standard, at least under these specific circumstances.
We always dislike free-riders, but we will also punish cooperators when their behavior is particularly atypical. As of now, we can only speculate about the rationale for this behavior; the presence of strong social norms may foster a feeling that the generous contributor is trying to make him or herself look rich or powerful, or that they are trying to make everyone else look bad.
Perhaps the worst offender was the director of Human Rights Watch, who tweeted , "Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel's making in Gaza. End the blockade! I'm quite certain the suffering people of Nepal, who endured another disastrous earthquake yesterday, gladly accepted Israel's assistance without using it as an opportunity to rebuke Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.
I would think that an organization like Human Rights Watch would applaud the efforts of one nation to come to the rescue of another in the interest of human rights. I guess politics sometimes clouds better judgment, leading to Israel's good deed going punished. In another classic case of doing the right thing only to be chastised is the story of Dan Gilbert, a billionaire businessman who was raised in Detroit and is now using his business savvy to turn this beleaguered city around.
As a fellow Detroiter, I've been watching Gilbert's actions closely and cheering for him to succeed. Previous tycoons have tried to create a renaissance in the Motor City in the decades following the race riots of the late s, but no one has succeeded yet. Gilbert, with his real estate spending spree and ability to bring big corporations into Detroit, has made significant progress.
Last week he announced a major investment in a historic Detroit neighborhood that would remove the blight and create new luxury condominiums so people can begin to return to the area. His commitment to the city is unshakable and, as a wise businessman, he is entitled to make a profit on his investments.
Gilbert's companies have brought thousands of employees to the Downtown Detroit area and many of them have taken advantage of subsidies to buy or rent homes close by. One would think that his loyalty to forging a true and lasting revitalization in Detroit would be cause for unanimous praise of Gilbert's efforts. Peter Moskowitz of New York, who is writing a book about gentrification, sees things differently.
From hundreds of miles away from Detroit, Moskowitz penned a disparaging op-ed on Gawker. Moskowitz condemns Detroit's mayor and Michigan's governor for becoming enamored with Gilbert and Ilitch and "painting them as philanthropists on a mission to rescue Detroit. They are also savvy businessmen who seek to make wise investments and can't be blamed for seeking to buy up real estate in this troubled city at bargain prices. Instead of joining the chorus made up of appreciative Detroiters like myself, Moskowitz and others like him have chosen to point out the negatives.
Instead of focusing on the booming restaurant and retail business that Gilbert has energized, these detractors cite the other areas of Detroit that remain desolate because of fires, floods and foreclosures.
No one said Detroit's decades-long decline was going to be turned around in one year. These naysayers can continue to write about the doom and gloom of Detroit, calling Gilbert and Ilitch "moneyed barons who can afford to buy up Detroit without regard for the people who made the Motor City what it is," or they can choose to see the silver linings of the new Detroit renaissance.
I'm opting to heap praise on Gilbert for seeing a bright future for our city and using his fortune to invest in hope and opportunity. The third example of no good deed going unpunished is in Israel where the Conservative movement of Judaism there has been arranging bar mitzvah ceremonies for disabled teens for decades. Known as the Masorti Movement, the association of Conservative Jewish congregations in Israel, has been waging a legal and public relations battle for equal treatment by the Orthodox establishment since its founding.
While Israel is considered a Jewish nation, it has a long standing tradition of intolerance for non-Orthodox lifestyles and viewpoints. Some Orthodox rabbis in Israel have taken a hard line approach by refusing to allow mentally disabled teenagers to have bar and bat mitzvahs Jewish coming of age ceremonies.
These rabbis see the disabled teenagers as being unfit to accept the onus of the Jewish commandments that are undertaken upon reaching the age of adulthood according to Jewish Law.
The Masorti Movement has historically taken a less strict position on this issue and has thus created meaningful ritual ceremonies to accommodate these teens with disabilities so they can celebrate their bar or bat mitzvah.
This program has become more popular over the years and an increasing number of Orthodox teens with disabilities have taken advantage of it. While conventional wisdom would dictate the Masorti Movement should be commended for its outreach to the disabled and for investing necessary funding in this important endeavor, that hasn't been the case.
This bar mitzvah program for disabled teens has been in the news recently for the wrong reason.
0コメント