Social Darwinism Isn’t Dead

[n2doc]

Rich people think they really are different from you and me.

By Matthew Hutson

London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, drew criticism late last year for saying that economic inequality can be attributed, in part, to IQ. “I am afraid that [the] violent economic centrifuge [of competition] is operating on human beings who are already very far from equal in raw ability,” he told an audience at the Centre for Policy Studies.

That’s a satisfying worldview for someone who is successful and considers himself unusually bright. But a quick look at the data shows the limitations of raw smarts and stick-to-itiveness as an explanation for inequality. The income distribution in the United States provides a good example. In 2012 the top 0.01 percent of households earned an average of $10.25 million, while the mean household income for the country overall was $51,000. Are top earners 200 times as smart as the rest of the field? Doubtful. Do they have the capacity to work 200 times more hours in the week? Even more doubtful. Many forces out of their control, including sheer luck, are at play.

But say you’re in that top 0.01 percent—or even the top 50 percent. Would you want to admit happenstance as a benefactor? Wouldn’t you rather believe that you earned your wealth, that you truly deserve it? Wouldn’t you like to think that any resources you inherited are rightfully yours, as the descendant of fundamentally exceptional people? Of course you would. New research indicates that in order to justify your lifestyle, you might even adjust your ideas about the power of genes. The lower classes are not merely unfortunate, according to the upper classes; they are genetically inferior.

In several experiments published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Michael Kraus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Dacher Keltner of the University of California at Berkeley explored what they call social class essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that surface differences between two groups of people or things can be explained by differences in fundamental identities. One sees categories as natural, discrete, and stable. Dogs have a certain dogness to them and cats a certain catness.

more

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/social_darwinism_and_class_essentialism_the_rich_think_they_are_superior.html

[Laelth]

1. Excellent essay and interesting study. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[gulliver]

2. It's a good article but somewhat obvious.

It finally gets to the bottom line when talking about the erroneous "appeal to nature" that can result from the self-serving biases discussed. If it is "natural," then it must be right. A lot of nonsense comes from that idea.

The empathy and sympathy we feel for others is also a product of evolution. So saying to yourself that you should ignore your emotions and let the suffering suffer because of Darwin is anti-Darwinian.

[Demeter]

3. Please! Do NOT conflate "Luck" with "Crime"

because it's been established that the bigger the fortune, the greater the crime that is the foundation of that fortune.

[politicman]

4. true

There used to be a time when hard work and smart ideas would eventually make you rich and successful. Those days are long gone.

Now unless you know someone who can make things happen for you or are born into wealth, then you are screwed, many times both are required.

[nomorenomore08]

5. It's a misunderstanding of Darwinism anyway. It's not necessarily the strongest or smartest

who survive but the most adaptable to change.

[MisterP]

7. a year after publishing Darwin started getting sarky on Social Darwinism

"I have received in a Manchester Newspaper a rather a good squib, showing that I have proved 'might is right', & therefore that Napoleon is right & every cheating Tradesman is also right"

(OTOH it's adorable that the highest peak of evil that Victorian Britain could conceive of was one of the Napoleons)

[reformist2]

6. Well of course they do! How else could they justify their ridiculous wealth?

The smartest among them retain an awareness that their billions are due to luck, pull (read: nepotism or cronyism), or simply outright criminal activity.