Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind (Rob Kurzban)
Your brain is your "press secretary"
Some excellent insights herein, despite some ramblings and repetitive material. As a layperson, the concept of modularity of the mind was both new to me and makes intuitive sense. Conclusion ties together nicely the dangers of inconsistent moral principles and hypocrisy (keeping in mind the author resigned from Penn for sleeping around with his students). Despite a decidedly non-serious tone (this book could have been written by former Miami Herald columnist Dave Barry), it is an excellent complement to other books on morality and politics such as Jonathan Haidt's.
Kurzban explains the idea of the modular mind, which means that the mind is a series of modules with different functions, each of which evolved separately, to the end of increasing our evolutionary prowess. Evolution does not care if we are happy. Modules evolved in ways that encouraged the best evolutionary outcome, and they can contradict one another since there are many modules. The book calls into question the idea of the “Self” or the idea of “someone” in the mind in there pulling the strings of consciousness. The mind thinks many things it cannot voice, and attaches after-the-fact justification in the form of reasoning (the “press secretary”). I.e. the idea that incest is “just bad” and “immoral.” In the final chapter, Kurzban tries to reason why perhaps our morality evolved in such a way as to discourage certain group behaviors (though his reasoning is certainly not exhaustive for every topic, such as illegal drugs). We favor monogamy because it is in favor of both less-dominant males as well as females, because the less dominant males find mates, and the females keep their mates. In contrast, the alpha males would favor polyamory, as they could spread their seed wherever they want (example of promiscuous birds vs. “dad” birds and female birds). Kurzban’s theory is that morality norms evolved in such a way that minds think whatever is moral is, and it benefitted us evolutionarily. He underscores the importance of not being hypocrites when it comes to enforcing moral standards, because inconsistency just means that we are using authority to enforce whatever we think should be (I.e. favoring pro-life viewpoint because we think “life starts at conception" vs. Just our wanting to shame actions that lead to promiscuity – if you truly believe in liberty, you should apply that consistently, and if you truly believe abortion is murder, you should want to apply the same laws as murder laws to people who have abortions, and not allow exceptions for rape and incest). Hypocrisy makes for bad policy. Moral judgements are sticks, and if we are not consistent, we are just going around beating people. We must use the sticks in conjunction with principles, or the rule of law does not exist. Some modules evolved to want short term gains, and some evolved to want long term gains – the idea of “self control” is thus something of a farce, and what the “self” “really” believes or thinks – like Isaiah Berlin’s ideas on all of our perceived goods in life, the sum total of all the things does not necessarily add up to 100%. “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)” -Walt Whitman. All humanity is disposed towards hypocrisy, it is easier to catch in politicians because they are always in the spotlight. Some of our brain modules may be better served by not seeking out the truth or any information at all (i.e. alcohol in a brown paper bag allows police to invest their effort in more productive uses of time). Some modules guide what we say; others guide what we do, and inconsistencies can arise -- Different parts of the mind with different functions generate different moral judgments. In the context of evolution, a large part of what we know about others is what they say about themselves; thus the evolutionary “press secretary,” which tries to persuade people you are better than you are (for evolutionary purposes). People tend to overestimate and overembellish their own skills – most people say they are “above average” drivers, which is impossible. People naturally 1. think they are more favorable than realistic 2. think they have more control than they do and 3. are more optimistic about the future than facts allow (and the absence of these personality traits can be called “depressive realism”) -- there is great strategic benefits for evolution to being wrong in these ways. Everything has an evolutionary origin, I.e. sweet taste; to reiterate, evolution does not care if you are happy; effects outside the body are the good explanations of the way things are, not how things make us “feel.” Brains are useful tools for evolution, causing us to effectively reproduce. We have evolved to care a LOT about what other people are up to. People hate hypocrisy because it suggests those people think “the rules” do not apply to themselves – but we only need to be accountable to the degree other people call us out. Being aware of the inconsistencies, particularly as it pertains to liberty, challenges us to change the balance of power. “Moralistic modules often win the battle in their struggle with the principle of liberty in many areas of our personal lives and our political discourse”. “If people say that they are in favor of liberty, failing to hold them accountable for the view that others' liberties should be constrained on pain of punishment gives them a blank check to use authority in any way at all. The whole point of agreeing on the principles that should guide rules is to limit the rules. To allow unchecked exceptions and inconsistencies is to undermine the agreements that we have made on the rules that govern us.”