[Paleopsych] Entelechy: John A. Johnson: Why Do We Admire Effort and Derogate Beauty
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Mon Jun 20 18:42:03 UTC 2005
John A. Johnson: Why Do We Admire Effort and Derogate Beauty
Entelechy: Mind & Culture
http://www.entelechyjournal.com/why_do_we_admire_effort_and_dero.htm
[Thanks to Alice Andrews for bringing this to my attention. My understanding is
that it was not until Jesus spoke about committing lust in one's heart that
interior states were a major factor in making moral judgments. I do not know
the history of the requirement of "mens rea" (usually rendered as criminal
intent) as being necessary to establish in to prove guilt in certain crimes.
Has murder always been distinguished from manslaughter? In the same way? Across
nations?
[Until these questions have been answered, the reader should be careful in
extrapolating Johnson's notions beyond those of his circle all the way back to
the EEA.
[Howard Bloom has pointed out that non-human primates are very good at bullying
the handicapped. I suppose that others whose "moral intuitions" tell them not
to do so that, well maybe this is true, but "we" are civilized.
[Further thought: even if conscientiousness had a hereditability of 0.4, it
still needs to be exercised. What is the optimal reward level for its exercise,
optimal from the standpoint of someone unborn, not of me, who may be set in my
ways? How hard, in other words, should I discipline my children? I'm not sure
I'd want to be stricter than my wife or my neighbors, if I want to get along
with them. Maybe I should think about what kind of neighborhood I'd like to
live in.
[The only really strict neighborhoods now are those of Christian Evangelicals.
(The Jewish mother is long gone.) But I don't want my children coming away as
Christians, until I see far better evidence for the truth of their doctrines. A
healthy disrespect for authority is among the virtues I would cultivate. In
fact, Creationists very much DO have this healthy disrespect, since Darwinism
leads to "relativism."
[For whose sake do I want to raise my children to exercise their
conscientiousness? For them? For my glory? (In my case, this is a small
factor.) For the community as a whole?
[And what do I am for in moral education? Happiness, presumably, certainly not
the glorification of God, which is un-Christian: And hee [Jesus] said vnto
them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. --Mark 2:27
(original spelling). Now happiness consists of pleasure, engagement, and
meaning.
[Think in terms of a "psychological contract," that will deal with the general
level of moral education across a community, which corresponds to a "social
contract," which is really a political contract. What should be the mix of
pleasure, engagement, and meaning moral education should aim for. How can it be
tailored to individuals? WHy do I care about the state of the culture, as long
as others leave me alone? Is tolerance the biggest virtue to cultivate? Why so
now? It certainly hasn't been in less "enlightened" ages. Does capitalism and
now the Internet mean much less social glue is needed than before?
[A string of questions, many I've have been entertaining for quite a while, but
stirred up again by the essay you are about to read.]
Rudy is a film, based upon a true story, of an untalented,
five-foot runt with a burning desire to play football for Notre
Dame. This obsession causes him to ignore ridicule and
discouragement from those around him. After his applications to
transfer from Holy Cross Junior College to Notre Dame are rejected
repeatedly, he finally gains admission to the university and earns
a spot on the football team. He works harder than all of his
athletically gifted teammates, persisting through pain and lack of
opportunity to play in a real game. The story has a happy ending:
Rudy's teammates cajole the coach into allowing Rudy to play in the
closing moments of the last home game, and Rudy tackles the
opposing quarterback. His jubilant teammates carry him off the
field on their shoulders.
Reactions to Rudy's story inevitably include admiration and
inspiration. We praise his tenacity, his persistent drive to
achieve his goal, despite the odds. Now, let's contrast how we feel
about Rudy with how we feel about a woman who, by conventional
standards, is a natural beauty. Someone with gorgeous hair, a
pretty face, clear, smooth skin, and a perfectly proportioned body
regardless of what she eats or how much she exercises. Her natural
beauty gives her all sorts of advantages over more ordinary women.
She has her choice of men. Even men with no chance of romance with
her treat her with deference and do special favors for her. Other
women want to be her best friend. We hold beauty pageants that
recognize women primarily for being beautiful. But, although we may
admire a woman's beauty and want to be close to her, do we admire
her as a person in the same way that we admire someone like Rudy?
Obviously not. There's a big difference between admiring an
attractive individual as we would a beautiful landscape and
admiring someone as a human being. In fact, the feeling is quite
often the opposite of admiration for many individuals who cannot
have the friendship or love of the beautiful woman: We hate her.
Women are jealous of her natural endowments. Non-alpha males,
tortured by unfulfilled longing, resent her inaccessibility. Both
sexes scowl about how unfair it is that some people are lucky
enough to be born beautiful and never have to work hard to achieve
anything. We question the intelligence of beautiful women. We scoff
at the superficiality of beauty pageants or even claim that they
are demeaning to women. If a beautiful woman achieves status in an
organization we whisper that she must have slept her way to the
top. We coin phrases such as "Beauty is only skin deep" to derogate
beautiful women. The derogation of attractive individuals is
readily explained by evolutionary psychology as a strategy for
competing with rivals. By pointing out flaws in our rivals, we
improve our own chances of being recognized for whatever we have to
offer.
But is it logical, fair, and rational to consider the life of Rudy
(or a female equivalent) to be more worthy of praise than the life
of a man or woman who is born beautiful? Let's put aside the
pettiness and jealousy we might hold toward beautiful people. Is
there something objectively more admirable about Rudy with his
relentless drive, his strong will to achieve, than someone who is a
natural beauty?
Let's take a closer look at Rudy's life. First, one could question
why he invested so much time on an activity for which he was so ill
suited. How smart was that? Would not his time have been better
spent doing something at which he could excel? Next, one could
point out that Rudy's goal (playing football) has superficial
social value at best. All of those hours spent on the practice
field might have been spent on applying what he was learning in the
classroom (he was a sociology major) toward solving social problems
weightier than how to beat Georgia Tech. Finally, even if we grant
importance to one football team beating another team, what did Rudy
really contribute? Perhaps his efforts inspired his teammates.
Whether the talented Notre Dame team actually needed this
inspiration to win is another question.
Okay, someone will say. Maybe the Rudy story is not the best case
study in the virtue of persistence, hard work, and sacrifice
because it is only a football story. Let's take a different case,
the case of a shy young man who suffers from stuttering and
exotropia (a visual defect in which one of his eyes turns outward).
The young man's traits make speaking in front of groups of people
extremely difficult. Nonetheless, he pursues a career in academics,
which requires a significant amount of speaking in front of
students and colleagues. He struggles early on and is almost denied
tenure. Despite his handicaps, he eventually establishes himself as
one of the most important personality psychologists in the history
of the discipline. The discipline's respect and admiration for
Henry A. Murray is evident in the Murray Research Center at
Radcliffe and in numerous awards that bear his name. This special
admiration is certainly based in part on Murray's drive and
determination to succeed even though he was not well-suited for
public speaking.
Ah, but Murray was also intelligent and creative, you might say. We
are primarily recognizing his creative contributions to the field.
Yes, his contributions are all the more laudable because he had to
work hard to compensate for his weaknesses. But we would not
recognize him as we have if he merely tried hard and failed to
produce anything of value. Similarly, it would be wrong to create
awards honoring someone who was physically attractive but had not
accomplished anything. Academics admire and recognize only
substantial intellectual and creative contributions. We do not
create awards to honor psychologists who are merely good looking.
But now we run into a little puzzle. Where did Murray get his
intelligence and creativity? The heritability of intelligence is
estimated to be about .75, and creativity, about .50. Differences
in intelligence and creativity that cannot be accounted for by
genes are due to unique life experiences and random factors. In
other words, if you are smart and creative, you were lucky to be
born to parents with good genes and lucky to have experiences that
helped you realize your intellectual and creative potential. These
are well-established findings from behavior genetics. So what is
the puzzle? There are two puzzles, actually. First, why do we
admire, honor, and reward people who were lucky enough to be born
with a favorable configuration of genes and life experiences? That
makes about as much sense as admiring someone who is lucky enough
to pick a winning number in the lottery. Second, why admire someone
with genes for high intelligence, but not admire someone with genes
for physical attractiveness? Is this logical or fair?
At this point, Murray fans might backtrack to emphasize his dogged
determination to succeed despite his handicaps. It is not just his
intelligence and creativity that we admire. Without his indomitable
will, his tenacity, his refusal to give up, no matter what the
odds, he would never have achieved what he did. It is the
combination of his intelligence, creativity, and strong will that
we admire. He was lucky to get good genes from his parents. He was
lucky to grow up in a wealthy family who sent him to Harvard. He
was fortunate to spend a vacation with Carl Jung and to meet
Christiana Morgan, both of whom took a liking to him. He was lucky
that Gordon Allport supported him during his struggle for tenure.
We do not credit him for these lucky events that he did not
control, but we will give him credit for his tenacity, his
persistence, his character. This case differs radically from
someone who is born with genes for physical attractiveness and
therefore does not have to work to gain favorable attention. Only
people who show determination and work hard deserve special
recognition.
Our desire to applaud determination is so strong that we
institutionally recognize the efforts of disadvantaged individuals
whose physical performances are often less than mediocre. Events
such as the Special Olympics and Paralympics provide an opportunity
for people to cheer for the disabled just for doing the best they
can. It is a pity that we can't have similar events for the
thousands of less disabled but still unfortunate people who will
never be applauded for anything. For each Henry Murray or Rudy
Ruettiger who achieves recognition for some measure of success in
life, there are dozens of unaccomplished stutterers and runts who
endure endless teasing, bullying, and derogation--far more
derogation than what is usually experienced by unaccomplished but
physically attractive people. Unlike Special Olympians, they live a
miserable life and die without receiving a medal for anything.
Sadly, it is true that some people derogate unfortunates--the
stutterers, the overweight, the blemished, the mentally
retarded--more than they derogate the beautiful. Overall,
unfortunates may suffer more than beautiful people. But on the
issue of derogation, we need to keep in mind that only some people
are so malevolent as to pick on the disadvantaged, and that this
kind of derogation is universally recognized as cruel or even evil.
We can nod approvingly when someone criticizes the superficiality
of beauty pageants, but we would consider it extremely poor taste
to put down the Special Olympics or Paralympics.
Let us now return to the notion that determination, tenacity and
dogged persistence deserves special admiration and recognition
because willful striving is something that we control rather than a
lucky gift like good genes or fortunate life experiences. (And let
us leave aside the question of whether physically attractive people
must possess determination to maintain their beauty. Surely many do
follow rigid diets, engage in strenuous exercise routines, and deny
themselves unhealthy pleasures that might put their beauty at
risk.) The question is whether willful striving really is something
that we create rather than something that is handed to us like
genes for high intelligence or a Harvard education. Why is it that
some people have "strong wills" and others, "weak wills?" Why do
some people will themselves to overcome disadvantages and
accomplish extraordinary things, while others only manage to will
themselves to indulge in physical pleasures and still others will
themselves to commit antisocial, destructive acts? Do people choose
how much will they possess for various pursuits?
Of course not. People certainly do make choices, and these choices
are based on the amount of will they possess for various
activities. "Will" is simply the capacity to follow through on
choices. But will itself is not something freely chosen; we simply
have the will to do something or we do not. You cannot tell
yourself at a particular point in time to have the willpower to
persist at a task or to avoid eating that calorie-laden piece of
cheesecake. The will is simply there or it is not. And what
determines what we call "strength of will?" The same thing as all
other human traits: genes and experiences. The domain of
personality containing traits such as will, persistence, tenacity,
determination, and so forth is Factor III of the Five-Factor Model
(FFM), often labeled Conscientiousness. John Digman, a pioneer of
the FFM, referred to Factor III as Will to Achieve. One's level on
Factor III, like the level of the other four major factors, remains
virtually constant over the adult lifespan. Factor III, which shows
a heritability of about .4, predicts school grades and performance
in a wide range of adult occupations as well as scores on IQ tests.
People who are lucky enough to inherit genes for high intelligence
and high Conscientiousness and to experience life events that help
them realize their potential are indeed fortunate. Not only are
they fated to achieve great success by conventional standards, they
will also be admired and recognized by others. If they possess
physical shortcomings, their achievements may even be recognized by
special awards or Hollywood movies.
Nobody chooses his or her level or direction of willpower. The
strength and direction of your will is something given to you, and
not all people are given the same amount. Addicts suffer from low
willpower to refrain from their addictions. Children with ADHD lack
the will to concentrate on tasks. They did not choose to be this
way. They do not want to be this way. This essay could be just as
much about the derogation of "weak-willed" people as the derogation
of beautiful people. Derogating weak will is the other side of the
coin of celebrating effort and strong will. This is unfair and
cruel. The hidden (and incorrect) assumption for most people is
that beauty, as a fixed, physical trait that we passively receive,
is unworthy of genuine admiration, while will is some nonphysical
energy that any person can conjure up flexibly at any time, in any
quantity necessary. In reality, willpower is not equally available
to all of us. We do not all have the same amount of willpower to
overcome obstacles. Like most personality traits, willpower is
normally distributed: Most of us have an average amount and fewer
people have either a lot or a little. Since we are not free to
choose our level and direction of willpower, those who possess a
strong will are, objectively, no more admirable than those who lack
will. Moreover, admiring someone with a will to engage in
activities that you personally value is just a form of
self-adulation.
Yes, people who possess natural beauty are just plain lucky, but so
are people who possess a strong will to engage in socially valued
activities. Hard-working people are no more deserving of special
admiration and recognition than people who are born with a
predisposition toward physical attractiveness. It isn't fair to
admire effort and derogate beauty, because people can't help what
they are. However, pointing this out will not change our attitudes
toward effort and beauty, because attitudes have nothing to do with
abstract fairness and logic. Our attitudes are based on our evolved
nature to look at other people as potential resources. Stupid,
dull, lazy people are usually not very useful to us. Smart,
creative, overachievers might be. Our positive feelings toward
hard-working people are intensified when we perceive them to be
underdogs who are overcoming impossible odds, because these stories
fuel our own dreams of transcending our limitations. Unattractive
people have little use for beautiful people beyond the aesthetic
and imaginary pleasures to be gained by gazing at them and
fantasizing about them, because these people will never be our
friends or lovers and we can never be as beautiful as they are. But
the story of Rudy appeals to every scrawny boy who wants to be an
athlete. We love the idea that we are free to do anything we desire
if we work hard enough at it. Unfortunately for the
effort-worshippers, their dreams are usually dashed when they
eventually discover that will can not be conjured up any more than
beauty. That people suffer for valuing effort over beauty is cosmic
justice.
[2]John A. Johnson received B.S. degrees in psychology and in
biology from the Pennsylvania State University 1976. He received
his MA in psychology in 1979 and his PhD in psychology in 1981 from
the Johns Hopkins University. In the fall of 1981 he joined Penn
State's psychology faculty as an assistant professor at the DuBois
Campus. Dr. Johnson joined the graduate faculty in 1984, was
tenured and promoted to associate professor in 1988, and promoted
to professor in 1995. He spent the 1990-91 year as visiting
professor and Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Research Fellow at
the University of Bielefeld, Germany.
John has published over 30 scholarly journal articles and book
chapters and has presented over two dozen scholarly papers at
regional, national, and international conferences. He has also
published a number of book reviews and has served as a reviewer for
all of the major personality psychology journals.
John's research has been aimed at improving the validity of
self-report personality tests, particularly in the context of
personnel selection. He has also studied methods for improving the
validity and pragmatic utility of computer-generated, narrative
personality reports for single individuals. Over 300,000 persons
have completed his on-line personality test, which received an
award from MSNBC.
References
1. http://www.entelechyjournal.com/
2. http://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list