historiblogography

Conspiracy

Self-interest is often argued for as the “real” motivation of people based on a very broad construction of how people operate self-interestedly. I am going to try to make a point about how flawed self-interest as a mode of explanation can be. Unfortunately my reasoning is a bit complicated here, so please try and bear with me.

A)
A: Jim told me that carbs make you fat and that I shouldn’t eat cereal. He says I’d be better off to eat lard. Except I found out from my doctor that Jim is wrong.
B: You know why Jim wants you to do that right?
A: Because he thinks it’s good for me?
B: No, because Jim owns futures in cereal. He wants to build you up by giving you advice against his self-interest so that you will trust him. Then he wants to get you to buy a computer because he owns stock in intel.
A: But I’m not going to buy a computer. Additionally it turns out that lard is bad for me, so how could that cause me trust him?
B: Jim has been deceived by Atkins (who by the way just wants to sell books), and has also miscalculated your desire to buy a computer.

B)
A: Jim was telling me how good cereal is for you the other day. I think I’m going to start eating more cereal and less lard.
B: You know why Jim want syou to do that right?
A: Because it’s good for me?
B: No, because Jim owns futures in grain. He’s trying to campaign to create a culture where grain is considered to be better than lard.
A: But isn’t cereal actually better than lard?
B: Maybe, but that isn’t why Jim wants you to buy it.

C)
A: Jim told me the carbs make you fat and that I shouldn’t eat cereal. He says I’d be better off to eat lard.
B: You know why Jim wants you to do that right?
A: Because it’s good for me?
B: No, because Jim owns futures in grain. He wants to build you up by giving you advice against his self-interest so that you will trust him. Then he wants to get you to buy a computer because he owns stock in intel.
A: But I’m not going to buy a computer. And isn’t Atkins right?
B: Sure Atkins is right. But, obviously, Jim thinks you are going to buy a computer!

What I think these three dialogues demonstrate is that self-interest when broadly constructed is an empty concept. B continually explains Jim’s actions in terms of self-interest. He manages to do this in unlikely scenarios. One might imagine the following box:
__________________________
......|..Jim...|..Not Jim|
A.....|...1....|....2....|
Not A.|...3....|....4....|
--------------------------
That is to say there are exactly four possibilities for any given recommendation of Jim’s. It can be in Jim’s interest and A’s interest. It can be in Jim’s interest but NOT in A’s interest. It can be NOT in Jim’s interest, but in A’s interest. And it can be NOT in Jim’s interest and NOT in A’s interest. In any of these cases we explain Jim’s actions in terms of self-interest. Let’s go through one by one.

1) It’s in Jim’s interest and it’s in A’s interest. This case is explained in dialogue B. What we claim is that Jim really recommended the course of action because it was in his interest. Even though it was also in A’s interest, we assume that Jim was more motivated by his desire to make money.
2) It’s in not in Jim’s interest and it is in A’s interest. This is dialogue C. What we assume is that there is some possible self-interest Jim must be thinking of, even if he is ultimately wrong. Jim simply miscalculated.
3) It’s not in A’s interest but it is in Jim’s. This one is easy. We explain Jim wanted A to harm himself for Jim’s benefit.
4) It’s in neither A’s interest nor Jim’s interest. Dialogue A explains this example. We simply say that Jim has miscalculated what’s in his own interest, and doesn’t really care what is good for A.

In the situation I have outlined we might not be inclined to believe the pessimist B in all the dialogues. But I think if you pay attention very closely to the kind of argument B makes in each dialogue you will see the exact same argument made in other places. In particular if I were writing a profile in Jim entitled Jim, that Self-centered Bastard I might explain away the anomalies when Jim doesn’t seem to be self-interested using one of the arguments I outlined.

I think we should take seriously the notion that Jim (and others) may legitimately believe the things he is saying, even if we can construct a self-interested motive for his saying them. We shouldn’t assume that the possibility of a self-interested explanation precludes Jim’s genuine benevolence.

posted by Michael Benson @ 8:47 PM