Want A Better Capitalism? Keep Entitled "Big Shots" Under Control

The work of Berkeley Psychology Professor Dacher Keltner, on the critical topic of dominance and how it translates to power plays and economic inequality,  is well known to many .  In his book, 'Born To Be Good - The Science Of A Meaningful Life', for example, Keltner waxes forth on the main culprits standing in the way of a more equitable and harmonious society.  Among these is  "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement. Also a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual (as a "productive" worker) is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remains on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

The ultimate denizen of Homo Economicus is a bizarre, disdainful and arrogant grabber: the entitled CEO, "boss man" or alpha member of a group who fancies that he is the one deserving of the "most toys". Experiments conducted by Keltner and others have exposed these deformed, entitled cretins in numerous experiments and via many observations, including: games of Monopoly in which they grab two dice instead of one to advance, and company managers invariably grabbing twice as many biscuits or other goodies brought into a room for a team, or teams of employees.

Evidently, from the get go, these entitled goobers believe it their right to grab as much as they can and devil take the weaklings or less powerful. What are they going to do? Complain to the big boy? 

Of course, transferred to the larger economic scene - say to hedge fund managers, CEOs and thousands of bosses, we can easily see the basis of inequality. If these grabbers, indeed, can set up an economic system which is rigged from the outset to get them more: more money, more jobs, more real estate, more resources of every kind  then we have a putative basis for huge economic inequality.

But this stuff isn't new. It is a fact of historical record, which can easily be checked by anyone, that the social and political hierarchies of Nazi Germany were set up this way. The most powerful and dominant always took more than their share before the German hoi polloi or little people even had a chance.  My sister-in -law Krimhilde, for example, often related how high (and low)  ranking S.S. would barge into their farm and home and take whatever they felt they could use, or give as perks to others. They didn't care it would leave the family with five mouths to feed worse off.

Much of this was exposed 60 years ago in the little known book, 'The Power Elite' by C. Wright Mills who actually modeled his work on earlier studies of Nazi Germany. In Wright's 1956 book, however, the sights were turned on American society which even then was infected by the virus of a self-sustaining clique of miltarists, corporatists, PR mavens and politicians out to feather their own nests.

Later, Harvard's Pitirim Sorokin published 'Power and Morality' which proposed that the individuals introduced by Mills were not just self-interested but sick. He wrote:

"Taken as a whole, the ruling groups are more talented intellectually and more deranged mentally than the ruled population'"

Much of this take (by an admitted refugee from Lenin's Russia) was taken as commie drivel - at least until 1959 when Edward Jennings (a founder of business ethics) quizzed 162 American execs on their lives. Were they little angels just out to do as much good while they made some profits on the side? Did they treat their employees and others fairly? Hardly.

Jennings found:

- In the office most treated their colleagues with suspicion and regarded friendship as a weakness

- They to a man allowed self-interest to govern their in work and outside behavior

But in true Jekyll and Hyde fashion, most admitted to being "nice guys on weekends" - meaning they played with their kids and invited the neighbors over for barbecue.

The implication of Jennings' findings was that most of these honchos were born with their penchant for unethical behavior. It wasn't a side effect of being in charge.

Keltner in his book (op. cit.) divides humans into "low jen" and "high jen" groups.  According to Keltner:

"Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

There are also biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

By contrast, low jen humans (like the entitled power players exposed by Jennings) exhibit consistent scowls or paranoid distrust, unless weekends arrive - when they put on their fake smiles (always easily distinguished from the Duchenne because the eyes are not a part of them, only the mouth).

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness."  Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For a manipulative billionaire like Trump, for example the jen rato would be about 1/40 on a given day. For Hillary, it might be 3/10. Based on these, one can easily see Hillary has the higher jen ratio.

Is this enough to elect a politician or presidential candidate to high office? Maybe not, but it's a start, certainly in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils which is what we are confronted with in this election. As Carl Bernstein also pointed out on 'Smerconish' this morning, neither one of these candidates - Trump OR Hillary - "has been properly vetted by the media" . This goes beyond 15 minute segments on '60 Minutes' or the occasional appearance on 'Face The Nation'. Bernstein was referring to (and demanding) entire hour documentaries on each of the two, going to their real selves and getting beyond the mythologies.  Will the bought and paid for PR- driven media do it, say like Cronkite and CBS would have in the 60s? I doubt it.

Keltner himself published a controversial paper on power dynamics in 2010 after which three European academics (Martin Korndorfer, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff) surmised it might be possible to reproduce the results using data from surveys carried out by the German state.  Their work suggested the opposite of Keltner et al's, i.e. that privileged individuals were actually more generous to fellow citizens than poorer citizens. (Which makes sense because they have more disposable income to afford greater generosity). However, on submitting it to The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found it was rejected by peer reviewers.

On re-submitting with some major revisions (extending analysis to the U.S. and other nations) it was still rejected. Did the journal peer review board exercise proper and objective judgment or display bias?  It isn't clear, but if the charity index is anything to go by, their conclusions certainly needed to be more rigorously crafted. One must be able, after all, to separate the many perks of privilege - such as being able to devote more time to volunteer work- from those aspects that feed and foster an aggressive sense of entitlement. The peer review board likely felt this was not done. In any case Egloff et al ultimately published their work in an online journal.

Keltner, for his part has pointed out many of his social experiments have indeed been replicated. I even cited some of them in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God.'.  As he explained in one NY Times magazine piece:

"Here is what power does to just about every human being: it's going to make you not pay attention to people as well as you used to pay attention to them....You will be a little less careful in the language you use. You will be a little less thoughtful of how things look from their perspective.. So just practice a little gratitude."

He makes excellent points, and I'm sure if more power wielders followed his advice we'd behold fewer instances of big shot malevolence and also healthier form of capitalism. This has oppose to "I got mine so screw the rest of them!"

"Jen Ratio" and Goodness: Maybe We Should Take Note

 Sandra Fluke Embodies a high jen person of goodness
According to Dacher Keltner, in his book, 'Born to Be Good', "Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

In later parts of his book, he even makes the case that there are biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

As we can see by examination of the photo of Sandra Fluke - at the Democratic Convention- her face captures the "Duchenne smile", and hence manifests higher oxytocin levels in her physiology, as well as being a "vagal superstar" in the parlance of Prof. Keltner. These also reflect a "high jen" persona or to quote Confucius: "A person of high jen brings the good things of others to completeness." By contrast, a negative, scowling persona indicates low jen and he is more likely to bring the bad things of others to completion. Moreover he doesn't trust others unless they are part of his immediate kin.

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness." Also, why is it that those like Sandra Fluke exhibit high jen while her calumniators, say like Rush Limbaugh - exhibit very low jen? It could be on account of their upbringing. Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For example, let's say he's a blogger who professes to be religious and aspires to carry forth "God's holy word". Then in the numerator we place all those times he has encouraged others and shown true Christian love to them, and in the denominator we place all those occasions in his blogs where he's threatened them with hell even indirectly (e.g. putting 'tick, tick tock' up ) or inserted any hellish images - say of atheists burning up. Let's say just once he's written an inspiring piece on his blog that elevates other religions, while 25 times he'd put up hell images or condemning words in the past month. Then his jen ratio is: 1/ 25 = 0.04.

Keltner also maintains one can apply the jen ratio to just about anything: one's interior life, the tenor of a family reunion, the goodwill of a neighborhood, the rhetoric of a president or the actions of a political party. From this, one would be able to say that very plausibly Obama's rhetoric is "high jen" while the GOP's  behavior, standoffs on the fiscal cliff and (coming soon) the debt ceiling is very, very low jen.

Sandra Fluke's caring for her sisters facing health problems because of their being unable to access affordable contraceptives, is very high jen. She obviously seeks to bring the good of other young women to completeness. She even put herself on the line, exposing herself to the vitriol of pigs like Limbaugh! Her speech also at the Dem convention disclosed her as a high jen, basically good person. Her Duchenne smile is the physiological marker and confirmation. It is the outward signature of an innate, humane goodness which trusts other people implicitly and seeks to bring their best potential to fruition.

Keltner also makes the case that just as people have jen ratios, so also do nations. As he observes:

"Nations whose citizens bring the good in others to completion thrive. High jen ratios are the hallmark of healthy societies."

He goes on to cite a study that showed (ibid.):

"For every 15 percent increase in the trust of a nation's citizens, their economic fortunes rise by $430."

What about the United States? Is it gaining or losing jen? According to Keltner (p. 9):

In the recent explosion of studies in social well being, signs of loss of jen in the United States are incontrovertible. The percentage of Americans who trust their fellow citizens has dropped fifteen percentage points in the past fifteen years."

He lists the symptoms of ill health/ low jen  as follows:

- increasing feelings of anomie, greater loneliness

- the trend toward less happy marriages,

- People have fewer close friends, intimates

- Young babies have "more contact with their strollers" than human hands

Keltner also attributes (p. 195)  the American low jen ratio to a "touch-deprived culture". This ends up triggering a cycle whose outcome is inevitably lower oxytocin, less national trust. The lower oxytocin resulting from lack of tactile stimulation then initiates even less trust, and lower oxytocin. He asserts that the widespread tactile deprivation in the U.S. - from the case of parents ignoring crying infants, to teachers fearful of patting students on the head for good work (on account of possible abuse charges) "owes its deep roots to the Puritans, well known for their attempts at extirpating human delights".  The 40 -year long hostile "drug war"  (especially against MJ) is also a creature originating with this dynamic, as is the widespread fear of sex, intimacy.

Interestingly, Prof. Keltner ties these trends to an "ideology" that if pursued further will lead to a national jen ratio of 0. He refers to the main culprit as "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement, and a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual as a worker is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remain on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

A high jen society with a view to correcting the unemployment problem, for example,  would instead leave out rational choice theory and de-prioritize consumption. It would see the problem as too many work hours by a relative small proportion, so would seek to partition those work hours so they are more equitably allotted to all who need work. Thus, instead of current 50-60 hour weeks (imperiling family health and personal time), we'd go down to the more reasonable 30-35 hours a week. This would enable more people to be hired, albeit at the shorter hours. They'd initially earn less income, for sure, but they'd also have less for infantile consumption. As the new wage -work tableaux then settled in, a new wage-price structure would be the outcome ...so prices would be held in concordance with the new wage structures. But by then, a firm saving ethic would already be established, having been reinforced by earlier lower income.

The problem is that the rational choice theorist doesn't trust for this to happen, or be beneficial to society. It more suits his Neoliberal fancy to have definite income winners and losers as opposed to spreading the wealth (income, resources) so more of the society benefits. It also suits his fancy,say if a shareholder of some company like Mattel, to have more 'Barbie' buyers not fewer. Naturally, this person is severely low jen!

The general outcome of this inverse jen thinking abounds: "economic losses loom larger than equivalent gains, losing twenty dollars stings more than finding a twenty pleases, " and thus the affected person is further induced to pursue rigorous self-interest.

Interestingly, this same exact dynamic is what Benjamin Barber has defined as in accord with the "infantile consumer ethos" in his book, CONSUMED.  Thus, we see that the Neoliberal, self-interested pursuit of economic gains is tied to a naturally infantile, low jen persona.

Is there more to it? I believe there is. I, for one, hypothesize it's not merely a matter of rational choice theory taking hold but rather excess militarism too. Militarism extolled as a national virtue debases a country, and causes it to pursue decidedly low jen goals such as less international cooperation, perpetual war (to keep the military industrial complex fed), building of empire - with military bases scattered by the thousands across the globe, and a military culture which praises all soldiers who've "served" as some kind of super-citizens, but disparages other citizens, say like Peace Corps workers, or even the medical volunteers for 'Doctors without Borders'. The sure sign of a sick, low -jen society is none other than one for which the glorification of the military is paramount. And the more money we cast into its maw the worse it will get, including manifesting in outbreaks of irrational gun violence.

Keltner is basically correct, but he needed to extend his net of low jen culprits a bit wider!

Biden Lacked a "Duchenne Smile" - So Lost? Hardly!

Paul “Eddie Munster” Ryan – after Joe Biden took him to the woodshed.

Some of the rubbish that keeps getting spouted by the media PR meisters and hacks is almost enough to leave a thinking person with a major migraine. You wonder: Where do they dig up this crap? . One of the latest spins is compliments of Kathleen Parker who in her recent column 'Sometimes a Smile Can Say So Much More Than Mere Words' , does an analysis of "smiles" and concludes that Joe Biden's on last Thursday night was not the healthy "Duchenne smile" but some kind of perverse substitute which we must not trust (or at least she hopes her followers won't).

Parker babbles:

"Research on smiles is extensive and fascinating. Sincere smiles, which have a name - the Duchenne smile - are related to health and longevity, among other things....A sincere smile conveys confidence, humor and contagious well being. An insincere smile is hostile....and creepy."

All of which might be fine and dandy except for the fact no hard evidence substantiates this claim. Still, it might at least provide some rudimentary insight if it weren't for one salient fact: Sociopaths are perfectly capable of emulating and flashing the Duchenne smile to a tee. (See: 'The Sociopath Next Door', 2005, by Martha Stoute, Ph.D.)  The fact is sociopaths  number nearly 1 in 25 people in the U.S. (Stoute, p. 9)  So, if there are 310 million people, at least 12.4 million are sociopaths, including amongst infants. (The theory of sociopathy still divides between nature and nurture but many accept that it's partly settled on behalf of nature, and evolution itself may well have spiced the species with these creepazoids)

Sadly, too many in the general population still don't understand the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. As Stoute puts it (ibid.):

"Surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy: murderers, serial killers, mass murderers- people who have conspicuously broken the law many times and who, if caught, would be imprisoned and put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of the large number of sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense."

Why is this? It's because most sociopaths are psychological manipulators. One of the tried and true ways they do this is by use of a technique called "mirroring" by which they can gain the confidence of a stranger by the simple expedient of mirroring their body language, facial displays, verbal cadence....and yes, even smiles. The goal of the sociopath is often to use the smile, in particular the "Duchenne" smile which is so trusted, to manipulate others into his confidence. Once that's done, he can sell them a phony stock or CD that will cost them their retirement (as Bernie Madoff did to his victims) or lure them into some dangerous scheme in which they are burdened with severe costs.

The 'Duchenne smile' of which Parker makes so much to-do about, is in fact to the sociopath a sign of appeasement, weakness and submission, i.e. that his or her psychological manipulations have worked. It is also no surprise that in our society the Duchenne smile widely displayed is most often interpreted by the power monger sociopaths (e.g. CEOs of large vulture capitalist outfits) as a signal that person is weak and easily manipulable or exploitable. It's also no surprise that people who display these smiles the most are also among the most bullied, at school or work.

Women and girls, in fact, often place themselves at greater risk to would-be predators (who are sociopaths) by smiling excessively. (Btw, this is also a terrible drawback when a woman goes to her boss to ask for a raise!) To the predator sociopath this is a sign of a submissive willingness to cooperate with what the sociopath demands. It is almost a truism to say, and someone has to, that if females smiled a lot LESS than they do- they'd not only garner more respect (especially from males, i.e. co-workers etc.) but would be less easily exploited by male sociopaths. Let's note again, that the essential property of the sociopath is any lack of conscience. Let's also be clear his first mandate is to exploit weakness wherever he finds it. While Kathleen Parker may find Duchenne smiles "charming" and "healthy"  they are like red meat to a lion for a sociopath!

Now, let's get back to Parker:

"Biden's smile though it may be the most remembered part of the debate"....

Actually not! It was the barrage of facts with which he withered Eddie Munster, errrrrr.... excuse me, Paul Ryan

"probably didn't work as intended"

It did for us!

"Democrats may have overlooked the inauthenticity of the smile, not to mention Biden's repeated aggression, because he was projecting the aggression they were feeling."

BINGO!

"As their agent, he was compensating for the president's perceived weakness."

Again, correct, but Kathleen misses the point entirely. Biden's smile was never intended to be one of sincere geniality or bonhomie,  but sincere AGGRESSION. In this he manifestly succeeded, as he had to, against a confirmed sociopath. Ryan is a sociopath - like his double 'Eddie Munster' - because he lies without a grain of conscience. The scale and magnitude of the lies he told Martha Radditz with a perfectly straight -eyed countenance and demeanor could only issue from a rank sociopath. This is a guy, believe me, who has not one scintilla of conscience.

Biden's immediate job then, was not merely satisfying the base - as so many pundits on the right have proclaimed- but calling this sociopath out using a medium of body language OUTRAGE! To smile Duchenne-like in the face of feeling justifiable outrage at the lies of a sociopath would have been the true insincerity! This is a point WaPo columnist Dana Milbank also made in Sunday's Denver Post, while advising Obama he needs to do the same.

I personally am relieved Joe Biden showed no phony baloney "Duchenne" smile which would have telegraphed to me that he was as submissive to the sociopath Ryan as Obama was to the corporate egomaniac Romney!