The Pygmalion vs. The Golem Effect

There are two kinds of self-fulfilling prophecies. They are broadly defined by wiki as follows:

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.

On the other hand is the Golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance.

In ancient Greek mythology, Pygmalion fell in love with one of his sculptures, which then came to life. The theme was in the main stray of many English literary works during the victorian era. One of which is George Bernard Shaw's play titled "Pygmalion" from which Rosenthal effect gets its name. In Shaw's play, the protagonist, a professor of phonetics Henry Higgins makes a bet that he can train a bedraggled Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. (The play is a sharp lampoon of the rigid British class system of the time and a commentary on women's independence.)

When read along with Hawthorne effect, the two behavioral effects above become even more interesting. The Hawthorne effect (commonly referred to as the observer effect) is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior, which is being experimentally measured, in response to the fact that they know that they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation. (Of course, without much doubts the key-words and the theme thus far may have already reminded you of the Quantum double-slit experiment, which in itself is a topic for a new Bubble-game. Meanwhile, try here if you must.)

These effects, among others, constitute the broader macro psychology theory of human motivation and personality called "Self-Determination Theory" which concerns with people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs, and attempts to study the motivation behind the choices that people make with/out any external influence and interference.

When applied to modern-day study of the economy, it brings us to the ongoing work by MIT professor Dan Ariely in the field of "behavioral economics". The following TED talk captures his ideas rather nicely around prevalent biases in human decision-making process and the term that he coined to describe the behavior: "Predictably Irrational". (My short book-review of the namesake shall follow as a future post.)

[Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?]
NB: This blog entry is an example of "Bubble-game Theory"

Read More

Peter Singer: The Ethics of Food

In this persuasive lecture on ethics about modern diet and eating habits, Dr Peter Singer, the Utilitarian philosopher and professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, highlights and questions ethical issues concerning food involving animals, its corresponding cost to the ecology and considerations for animal rights that the humans have been, perhaps rather conveniently, avoiding to acknowledge.

In his typical free-thinking, lets-face-it approach characterized by pragmatism rooted in down-to-earth reality, one can clearly bear witness to Prof Singer avoiding all possible temptations or invitations to indulging into any kind of rhetoric. Or so much as letting any sentimentalities enter into the frame of reasoning even while discussing gross cruelty to animals and the overall ecological impact it draws. The approach remains factual and clinical, and the presentation is driven by data in its most part. For philosophical indulgences around the issue, the Q&A section that follows offers a few interesting insights. Even there, the premise remains guarded, and avoids cliches including neutral, relevant, ones such as "what you eat is what you will become." Religious beliefs are kept outside of the arguments against factory-farm non-vegetarian diet.

The lecture is filmed at Williams College, Williamstown, sometime in Oct-Nov 2008 while the run-up to the then American presidential elections was in progress. Prof Singer begins by asking why, among all other ethical considerations debated in the public domain, the presidential candidates are not being questioned or judged on the basis of their ethical views on food? Today, as the American electorate faces another wave of persuasions and debates running up to electing the next president in Nov 2012, where incubent President Obama is hoping for his second consecutive term, this presentation remains as relevant as it was four years ago but with an added sense of deja-vu. The questions raised in the presentation remain the same, unresolved, and as previously, without considerations during the public debates.

Some of the aspects that have been discussed during this lecture include: i) How America, that was facing a hunger crisis in the 50s and 60s, has "solved" that problem to such an extent that the major issue which the American society is facing now is obesity. What are the ethics of obesity? ii) Why a ship-load of rice from Bangladesh to California is ecologically more ethical than Californians attempting to harvest the same quantity of rice themselves. iii) What are the ways for our society to transitioning towards a more ethical diet.

In conclusion of the lecture, the ethical choices and steps listed for a sustainable future for us, as well as for the upcoming generation, whose fate is linked with the global warming and hence is likely to be decided in next two decades, are as follows:

- avoid meat products from Factory farms (CAFOs) 

- prefer Organic, Vegetarian/Vegan or "Conscientious Omnivorous" diet, that use "Fair trade". 

- choose Local (seasonal) produce when you can.

• See also:
• Try here for the video on YouTube.
• Try here for Peter Singer's page at Princeton Uni
• Mentions during the lecture: try here for FairTrade (USA) portal, and here for VeganOutreach.org

Read More

Kantian Ethics And Human Dignity

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” - Immanuel Kant (Categorical Imperative. try here)

In this rather short video clipped from the BBC documentary - "Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century", Prof. Michael Sandle picks up an ethical dilema from a real-life kidnapping case that took place in Germany in 2002, and bounces it off to a Kantian activist and journalist, and to Peter Singer, the utilitarian Bioethics professor at Princeton University.

A kidnapper of a eleven year old boy of a banker in Germany, after collecting the ransom, is caught by the authorities. When he refused to divulge the whereabouts of the boy, the police threatened him of extreme torture. The kidnapper gave into the threats and confessed to murdering the boy. The German authorities, after further investigation, sentenced the kidnapper with life sentence, while at the same time, the police chief was also prosecuted and sentenced for violating the human dignity of the convict. A judge from German constitutional court is heard defending the police chief's prosecution by saying, "There are certain inherent qualities in a person that the person cannot forfeit even by doing the worst of deeds possible."

Peter Singer, from his utilitarian position, dismisses the whole Kantian idea -as followed by the German court in this case- and defends the police chief's actions. The way the (editing of the) clip suggests, Singer's primary issue with the Kantian thoughts seem to be their approach of non-action, but his position seems to begin weakening when Sandel challenges him by supposing that "let's assume the perpetrator wouldn't talk even under extreme torture, but he would talk if you tortured his 14 year old daughter", would Singer allow that? When Sandle adds more "numbers" into the equation, the utilitarian squeeze becomes even more prominent.

Apparently, the answer isn't easy. Though, uneasily perhaps, it seems surprisingly easy to relate to the effects of using man as means rather than respecting his human dignity as ends, with the experience where man seems to witness the everyday world being used as a commodity, that includes himself.

A follow-up question could perhaps be: Could Kantian ethical thinking give back humans -as utilitarian means- their dignified end? 

• See also:
• Go here for details of the BBC documentary "Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century" by Prof Michael Sandle.
• Try here for Kantian resources at Online Library of Liberty.
• Try here for Peter Singer's page at Utilitarian.net.

Read More