“On the whole human beings want
to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.” ― George Orwell
“Everybody's got the
seam of goodness in them, Kit," said Grandpa. "Just a matter of
whether it can be found and brought out into the light.” ― David Almond,
Kit's Wilderness
“The evil done by men
of goodwill is the worst of all ... We have done terrible things, for the best
of reasons, and that makes it worse.” ― Iain Pears, The Dream of Scipio
Last spring I
wrote about The Fool’s Dilemma:
the tendency for everyone – fools, geniuses and those of us in between – to 1)
be wrong more often than we think, and 2) not be able to recognize/realize that
we are wrong more often than we think. It’s like driving in the left lane more
slowly than others, thinking that you are the fastest, and a giant 18-wheeler is
cruising on your back bumper in a blind spot. I heard about the Fools Dilemma (a part of what is
called the Dunning–Kruger effect) on an
episode of CBC Radio’s Ideas.
While the intellectual capacity and judgment aspect of the Fools Dilemma is fascinating,
perhaps the more interesting aspect relates to the question of character,
ethics, and morality. According to the researchers on the show, this tendency
applies just as must to how we see ourselves as good or ethical individuals.
The psychologists discussed studies where groups were asked
to predict how they as individuals would act if put in a hypothetical
situation, and how the rest of the group would. For example, if there was a
charity drive, would they participate as an individual, and how many of the
whole group would? Later, the charity drive actually takes place and they
compare the predictions with the actual behavior.
Here’s what the found: Dr. Dunning reports that individuals
predict the actions of the group quite well. People are generally good social
psychologists. They can read others and group pressures/dynamics. However, they
were way off when they predicted their own individual actions. A high
proportion predicted that they would do ‘the good thing’ but in reality did
not.
Dunning suggests that this is because we see ourselves as
being immune to factors like peer pressure and other internal or external
influences – we believe that we ourselves uniquely creatures of independent,
objective free will. But of course, each of us is as susceptible to these pressures
as anyone else.
For about 25 years, I have led workshops on ethics in
educational advancement. We’ve run these as interactive sessions with a heavy
emphasis on case studies and discussions in small then large groups. The
conclusion I have taken from these seminars is the same as the one from the
many conversations with students related to behavior, difficult choices, and
discipline – we all see ourselves as fundamentally good with a strong moral
compass. I’m not sure I know anyone who is mentally well who does not feel the
same about him/herself. And when actions don’t relate to sound moral judgment,
it is common to find justification or they are seen as atypical slip-ups. It
reminds me of the sticker that a friend of mine has on his classroom: “You may
not be racist, but what you said is”.
So people see themselves as moral, ethical beings.
Notwithstanding this reality, we all know of people whose personal ethical
codes are found seriously wanting. Equally as frustrating are those whose
personal mirrors seem to be tinted with pious self-satisfaction. (Occasionally,
family members raise this prospect around my own self-image!)
The Fools Dilemma
as applied to morality provides some interesting challenges for education,
especially character education. For young people who are struggling to find
their own moral code, there is no benefit to attacking what they see as their
core belief structure because the natural instinct for self-protection will
reject it and force the issue into the blind spot.
I think instead that there are three key focal points:
- Open their minds to alternatives - provide a broad window on various models for ethics, spirituality, and morality. If they ever did before, I am quite sure that most bright teenagers today don’t respond well to dogma. Engaging them intellectually in various systems tied to religion and philosophy will provide the kind of stimulation that be the catalyst for them to embark on their journeys on their own terms. As our Chaplain Rev. Malcolm Wilson said recently, all people, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs, at some time are searching for their sense of purpose and meaning.
- Role Model, Role Model, Role Model – it’s a very old axiom that young people take away far more from what they see adults do than what they hear them say. This applies to adults’ willingness to reconsider or challenge their own actions, beliefs and decisions. Showing your openness to being wrong is one of the most powerful tools leaders, teachers and parents have in encouraging students to do the same.
- Look at ethical dilemmas as objectively as possible, then focus on the courage of action – As Dunning said, most people understand what the ‘good’ or ‘right’ course of action is when they look as it from the outside related to a third party. When it becomes their own issue in a personal way, their judgment can be impeded. So frame ethical questions in a non-personal way while searching for the best answer. Once determined, focus on the difference between knowing a right answer and acting on it. As I have blogged before, my good and wise friend always talks about the difference between someone who knows what the ethical course of action may be theoretically and someone who actually does it. It’s all about courage. The more we can promote courage, the more we can expect to encourage leaders of great character.
P.S. Perhaps the best poster child for the Fool's Dilemma is my favourite Looney Tunes character Foghorn Leghorn .. here are some of his best lines
