Incentives or misguided beliefs?

 

 

Surgery, covid and family visits have occupied my time for the last month and a half.  It has been a nice hiatus but it is time to renew my efforts to understand our world and how we respond.  Time spent with our grand kiddos was very enjoyable and tiring.  They do have a lot of energy.  I did have enough energy left to read Jonathon Haidt's book, The Happiness Hypothesis.  Jonathon Haidt's latest book is currently a best seller.  However before I read it I wanted to read one of his earlier books.  I enjoyed "The Happiness Hypothesis"  I especially like the metaphor of one riding an elephant.  Without getting too detailed our mental and moral state is represented by us riding an elephant.  We as the rider "steer" the elephant.  We have generally a clear view of our goals and we make decisions on how to achieve those goals.  I viewed this as our conscience self.  However the elephant views and reacts to information.  The elephants reactions are more ingrained.  It is more our sub conscience self.  Our conscience self knows to steer away from too many visits to the desert table however the elephant will continually steer towards it.  This metaphor accurately describes how difficult it is to make changes in our habits.  We not only have to control the rider (our conscience self) but we also have to train the elephant (our sub conscience self).  Training the elephant takes time and effort, making real and lasting change a difficult process.

While running with our grand kids from parks to swimming pools to adventure facilities I also had time to ponder the concept of incentives.  I am not interested in incentives that are immediate and direct.  As an example: "Buy today and get a 5% discount!!!!".  I am also not interested in after life incentives that mostly revolve around religious beliefs; "Be good and get rewards in heaven".  I am focusing on the incentives that we rely on to manage and control our society.  First, what is an incentive?

According to Webster:

something that incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action

Another definition from Google:

a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.

A slightly different description from a search of "incentive theory."

Incentive theory is a psychological theory of motivation that suggests that people are motivated to behave in certain ways to gain rewards or avoid punishments

If I break it down in my own way an incentive has 3 components

1.) A condition to be altered or expectation to be realized

2.) An action to address the condition or expectation

3.) The result, the condition addressed or the expectation realized.

It is interesting that Webster's and Google's definitions say nothing of the result.  Both definitions speak to my first 2 components.  Motivation, incitement and encouragement are the initial responses to a condition.  Both definitions then refer to an action.  However, a result or outcome is never alluded to.  This brings this post to the types of incentives I have been thinking about (when not running after grand kids).  I mentioned them earlier as incentives that we assume will manage and control society. 

Have you ever heard someone say something like, " welfare only encourages people to be lazy"?  Or we assume that health risks will incite people to eat healthy foods.  We quite often assume that these kinds of incentives will keep society "in check".  A Bill Maher commentary triggered my thoughts on this subject (you can watch the clip here).  This clip delves into many aspects of our prison system but one comment is that prisons are allowed to be horrific so that inmates will not want to return once released.  We come across these types of incentives.  Here are a few more to go along with the 2 already mentioned:

• Study hard and get good grades or you will end up in a poor paying job.
• Save for a rainy day
• Safe needle policies will only encourage drug use
• Tax breaks will make people more likely to save for retirement
• fines and penalties with force people off the streets

We may also consider these "societal norms" or "unwritten rules of society".  As I delve deeper into this topic I may categorize these as beliefs.  For the most part we believe that society will respond in a particular way to an external stimulus.  A good example may be a Police force and its antithesis "defund the police".  People who support strong policing (back the Blue) have the belief that crime can be curtailed simply by the presence of strength.  The belief is that criminals will think twice before committing a crime out of fear of a strong opposing force.  I must admit that I do feel safer living in a community that has an orderly and stalworth Police presence.  I also will confess that I am not deeply informed as to the opposite belief.  Calls for "defunding the police"  do seem to have a variety of avenues.  These range from outright abolishment of police forces to reallocating resources to other services.  Defunding seems to be based on the belief that "policing" is not effective in all crisis situations.  It appears that those calling for the outright abolishment, believe that police forces cause more problems than they solve.  As I said I am not too well informed on the details of the defund police, I got most of my info from this article.

This particular post has been a challenge.  Making sense of the the things in our world has always been the focus of my posts.  More specifically how we as a society and as individuals respond to these things.  I also feel it is important to investigate whether or not our responses improve our lives.  I endeavor to to be as factual and as analytical as possible.  I also endeavor to apply the insights I have gained while writing this blog.  I'll have to admit this one had me stumped.  Then I came across some articles regarding the homeless situation and how a recent supreme court ruling.  The basics of the ruling is:

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which makes it easier for communities nationwide to fine, ticket or arrest people living unsheltered, even when there is no adequate shelter available.

Specifically, the Supreme Court determined that the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the City of Grants Pass from enforcing criminal punishments against people who are homeless for camping outside in the city.

I quickly envisioned a patrol officer handing out citations to members of a homeless camp.  Each member being assessed a $100.00 fine.  I thought how ridiculous this is.  Are all the homeless people suddenly going to go out and rent apartments or purchase homes to avoid the fine?  Are any of them going to pay the fine?  If the action (the fine) is ineffective in addressing the problem what is the point.  I then thought of a previous post called the smell test.  It then dawned on my why I have had trouble with this topic.  I was trying to to be concise and analytical about topics that don't even pass the smell test.  Basically these are outrageous claims that really have little basis in reality.

Wow! I think I may have learned something by writing this blog.  In my smell test blog I talk about an initial question and if I cannot find the answer the smell test is a fail.  When presented with fining homeless people my first question would be "How is this going to help?"  More specifically; "What is a homeless person going to do once they get the ticket or fine?".  If there is not an adequate answer to that question then the result of the smell is "fail!".

A good rule of thumb these days just because it may seem logical to you doesn't mean it is.