More stupid scientists

From The Independant (UK)...

A study of the brain's "reward centre" has shown that men get the biggest buzz from a monetary prize when they know that it is a bigger award than that received by someone else.

The findings indicate that it is not the increase in a person's pay packet that is important but whether or not that increase is bigger than those of other people. This could explain the tide of resentment towards the recent pay rises of GPs and hospital consultants....

The study, published in Science, involved 38 male volunteers who performed simple mental tasks inside parallel brain scanners. For correct answers, they were given a prize ranging from €30 to €120. Brain activity in a particular area was higher if a player received more money than his partner.

Contrary to the narrowmindedness of the scientists involved, such a test involves two distinct factors...

A. Financial increase

B. Perceived uniqueness of the individual

We respond to both. If we perceive we are unique in a favorable way (the best, the only that can do this..., etc.) then it satisfies our ego needs.We are not herd animals, content with only the betterment of the herd. We desire meaning and purpose in our individual lives. The perception that we are merely another face in a sea of identical faces is extremely depressing. The idea that we as individuals contribute a unique value to the whole, however, works toward satisfying our innate desire for meaning, purpose and value. It isn't selfishness, nor vindictiveness.

But the conclusion made by the scientists is that to respond more positively to individual success than to group success is just that.

I would suggest that the scientists involved are themselves demonstrating failure of their own group, by the limited intelligence of it's individual members. Perhaps they assumed they didn't have to try, that the others in the group would provide the actual work, and they could be happy with that.

Thus another inherent weakness is what's treated as the "scientific process" today--blind assumptions. They make the mistake the King made in the old fable where he desired a cauldron of the kingdom's best wine for a celebration by having each family bring their best bottle of wine and pouring it into the cauldron. When the King took the first sip---it turned out to be pure water. (Each family assumed that if they brought only water, saving their wine for themselves, then no one would notice)

Reliance of the success of the group inevitably leads to mediocrity and failure. The desire for individual success, however, leads to prosperity and freedom for the group. Which social experiment has proven the better success: The capitalist, individualism of the American Republic or the socialist, collectivism of the Soviet Union?

That we are more pleased by unique success than collective success is a good thing. Unfortunately when economist fail to study realistic sociology, while pretending to apply it, they look like fools

Posted by Danny Carlton at November 23, 2007 7:24 AM