Irrational Integral

~~~

From a first tier perspective, it probably seems that Integral is crazily irrational.  To those in developmental memes of archaic, magical, mythical, and pluralistic, the perceived rational approach of second tier makes little sense.  Similarly, to those in the developmental meme of rational, second tier's homage to spirituality probably appears as grossly irrational. Those based in pluralism seem to find hierarchy embraced by second tier as irrational and immature, if not heretic.

This irrational aspect of Integral is good.  It is natural, and it belongs.

One of the problems with most economic theories is that they originated in rational stages of development, and hence are based on the belief that humans make rational choices.  The problem is, humans, collectively, do not.  In fact, even at the individually they do not make rational choices when it comes to economics.

Back in the 1980s, I attended an economic conference for up and coming High School students (I believe it was a conference for those in advanced placement programs).  Now that I've divulged far to much about myself (age, academic propensities, et cetera), let's look at one of the many experiments (also known as "games") in which we partook.  Some of us were given 20 $1 bills.  We were told that we could keep all or some of the money if we shared it with another student who received no money.  It was up to us with the wad of greenbacks exactly how much we should share, and that as long as the other student accepted our offer, we both would get to keep the agreed upon money.  However, if the other student refused our offer, neither of us would get nary a penny. 

The "logic" or "rationality" behind economic theory would lead economists to expect the individuals in this situation to be "rational".  In this scenario, that I would offer the lowest possible amount ($1) and the other person, recognizing that $1 is greater than nil, would accept that offer.

Apparently, to economists, I am not "rational."  I immediately offered a $10 - $10 split, for the mutual benefit of all, since, after all, I had to hang out with this other student for at least four more days, and I had a reputation - a social standing perception - to uphold.  The split, in other words, in a societal context, was "equitable."

Little did we students know that our little pea brains were being messed with.  Apparently, this "experiment" had been prevalent throughout the 80's and was called the "ultimatum game."  A full three years of this experiment ran, and it became apparent that nearly half of the $20 individuals immediately offered to split the money dead-even (ah-ha, so I wasn't so "irrational" after all!), and in these cases the other party immediately agreed.  Most of the time, when the $20 holder offered $9 or even $8, the other agreed.  The clear cut line was $7, where the other individual would refuse the deal, walk away, and both individuals went away with a sad face since they received nada.

Clearly, something more is going on beyond the "well, something is better than nothing?"  What is indeed going on is a societal sense of "fairness."  At a certain point, the person without the $20 would rather refuse a few free bucks to gain a societal "profit" of punishing the person who violated society's rules of fairness.  For social creatures, this sense - this impulse - is not lacking logic.  This impulse for balance and fairness in social reciprocity is essential.

Essential?  Huh? 

Indeed.  Essential.  That is because those evolutionary forces that gave us the gifts of empathy and social cooperation are the same forces that make us prickly.  Believe me, I know about prickly.  A leading theorist in "moral psychology" from the University of Virginia, Dr. Jonathan Haidt (Associate Professor of social psychology, and author of The Happiness Hypothesis - http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/), states that the emotions with which we are hardwired - vengeance and gratitude - are also paired, if not linked directly.  These paired emotions allowed humans to become the ultra-social, ultra-successful (ultra-integral?) species.  The two are an evolutionary check-and-balance, he points out, since gratitude paves the way for expanding social network and forging new alliances, while vengeance ensures our new allies do not take advantage of the situation.

Now, tell me that pairing gratitude and vengeance is seemingly anything but irrational.

Neurologist Antonio Damasio demonstrates in Descartes' Error:  Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, expands on the irrationality of any being that is completely rational (sorry, Spock, in the end you are irrational, with the exception of your seven year itch period).  In this great book (get it at Amazon here - http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222543845&sr=8-1 or at least read the summary) demonstrates through historic cases and in his own more modern cases that individuals who behave as purely rational beings are, in essence, brain damaged.  He demonstrates conclusively through patients who suffer damage to parts of the brain that control emotions yet retain complete cognition (intellectual) abilities yet most often act socially aberrant.

Great, so now we have a purely rational being, in a social context, is in fact irrational.

How did this come about?  Dario Maestripieri, an evolutionary biologist who specializes in the study of macaque monkeys (check out his article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024144314.htm), maintains that macaque monkeys demonstrate an ability to monitor and maintain the social stature.  In macaque troupes, dropping in the social order can become a matter of survival - or lack thereof.  The socially low monkeys are fringe-livers, where they eat leftovers after the higher-order monkeys (Republicans?) have eaten their fill, and now that we're on the subject of eating, the lower-level monkeys on the fringe serve as bait for predators, protecting the troupe.  It doesn't take a great ape to quickly realize that if an individual can avoid being on the lower tier, which makes them also less "successful" in an evolutionary sense, then they should.  Maestripieri continues to extend the logic to the fact that primates, the social animals that we are, require us to be in tune and constantly monitor social nuances in order to be successful (although when the higher-order members do not pay attention, these fringe monkeys do partake in furtive sex, he admits), a key force for evolutionary success was a small step in brain cc size, but a huge leap for apekind, is expanding intelligence.  Face it.  We are group creatures.  Look no further than the fact that solitary confinement, short of death, is our most severe "punishment" for individuals who do not "behave" (in Integral speak - not behaving according to the right-hand domain rules).

Oh boy.  Reciprocity (fairness) is embedded in us.

We have fairness as an absolute vital axiom in a society.  Green meme rejoices, and if any are reading this (most likely I lost most of them by pointing out the monkeys have a hierarchy), are probably nodding their heads that all are created equal.  Redistribute resources, and get to it soon, they mostly likely will quip.
 

Well, here's where Green (pluralists) begin to deplore me (if not call me names such as "fascist").  I love the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, which is probably fairly apparent in my writing.  Through this adoration, I would like to address a popular misconception.  That misconception is that "all men are created equal." 

Um.  No, they are not.  Even in the Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies, an explanation follows that people are created equal with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  Fairness/reciprocity does not mean "equality."

Genetically, people are different.  This is Nature, which the Creator has offset by unalienable rights.  The brutal fact of the matter is, from an anthropological perspective on evolution, free an equal people never existed.  Frans de Waal writes in Primates and Philosophers that as a species that is descended from creatures that are highly social, namely primates (layman's terms, apes), and have been living in groups since we were conceived (macro conceived, not micro - individual). De Waal states directly "Free and equal people never existed.  Humans started out - if a starting point is discernable at all - as interdependent, bonded, and unequal."

Sorry, folks, the evolutionary process is natural system of inequality.  Little fish are eaten by big fish.  That's a brutal fact of life, and the system the Creator put into motion.

"What?  Did he just use evolution and the Creator in the same thought?!?!?"  Yup.

Let's get back to Haidt, since he wrote that evolutionary natural selection seems to have favored the success of groups (and individuals in those groups) that found the ways (both cultural and by extension genetic) to use Gods in reinforcing societal commitment mechanisms such as cooperation and trust.  Religious beliefs - the God or Gods - provide mechanisms that tamp down our selfish tendencies and bolster our social tendencies, which in turn reinforces this evolutionary morality bred into our species. 

Science has not killed God.  God is quite relevant, and in an irrational way, science is getting around to realizing this point.  It is little wonder that second-tier (integral) embodies elements of spirituality.

So, here we are, hard-wired through several mechanisms with a sense of "fairness" in societal terms.  Remember the $20 game?  The sense of fairness goes beyond individual perceptions of personal violations.  Imagine yourself walking your dog in a school zone with a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.  This is a societal "fairness" to the children in ensuring their lives are spared as they head to school.  You espy a driver not heading the speed limit, and ripping through at 35 miles per hour.  What would you do?  Most folks will walk along, fuming internally, but not doing a damn thing about the situation.  There are, however, a select few who will pause to yell and scold at the driver (admittedly, I'm one of those few).  Perhaps expand this example to someone clearly not handicapped and on a mission to purchase beer pulling into a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store.  Do you fume or go at the driver?  Well, those few "moral" or "fairness" police are vital to society.  De Waal, mentioned above, also looks at macaques monkeys (there they are again, ubiquitous little balls of furry primates) and notes that if the few "moral police" in a social system are removed, hostilities increase throughout the entire troupe.

So, we have not "equality" but a system of "fairness."  We also have a demonstrated requirement for "moral police."  This is probably why Ken Wilber (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm) sees that a second-tier governance would necessarily prevent first-tier memes from harassing all other memes.  Even in a second tier society, first tier memes exist, since every individual is conceived and born back at beige.  Some level of protection is required from those not evolved from a worldcentric - a second tier that is perhaps more balanced between "vengeance" and "cooperation." 

Some folks, we have even seen it here on Gaia, interpret this requirement as an "integral government, which in form appears no different than many current systems which easily disenfranchise individuals and groups not in compliance with that status quo."

Well, yes.  But, I disagree with the "disenfranchise" piece.  Closer to the truth, perhaps, would be "ensure the fairness in allowing all individuals in society to evolve to the highest level which they desire, and protecting all memes."  This is not "equality," since it probably is not wise to give most first tier memes as free a range as second tier memes.  As KW eloquently highlights " this police force is NOT allowed to tell people what level of consciousness they should be at; it is NOT allowed to govern what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes or dwellings; it is NOT allowed to coerce or intimidate people who are not at the average level of social development. It is, however, allowed to prevent (or punish) those whose public behavior stems from a less-than-worldcentric stance. For example, in the privacy of my own home, if I wish to think about burning at the stake all people who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior, that is my right. However, if I actually shoot you because you do not believe in Jesus, then the State ... can arrest and incarcerate me."

Probably to the dismay of all first tier memes - there apparently will always be a "higher authority", which from the perspective of all those memes, especially higher altitude memes within first tier, is likely completely irrational for any authority to emanate from any meme other than their own.


~~~