A reader (well, a friend also, but it's kind of fun to say that -- make it sound like Random Observations has more than 5 6 readers) sent me this interesting article on hypocrisy.

When given a choice between two tasks (one fun, one unpleasant) people assigned the unpleasant one to the next guy, rather than (as the experimenters suggested) flip a coin to make the choice fair. 92% took the easy way out, and yet generally told researchers they'd acted fairly. A different group was shown someone doing the same thing, and invited to comment: of course, they'd said he was acting unfairly.

Then they tried distracting people with a second task while asking them if what they'd done was fair: suddenly (see graph in article) the hypocrisy "disappeared" -- under these conditions the brain didn't have time to form excuses, but rated themselves the same as others.

If this is true, what does that say about how we engage in relationships with others? Most people clearly possess a deep sensitivity to violations of fairness, yet most also readily act hypocritically when it serves them. Are we better off with the “honest veneer” that makes us seem moral and thereby worthy partners?

GK Chesterton (I think) once remarked that it was odd that the Christian doctrine of human "fallenness" (that humans have a bent towards evil) is the most rejected since it was the only one which could be scientifically verified. So of course I personally read this as just another bit of evidence that we all have a built-in compass which tells us the difference between right and wrong (conscience) -- and that we also readily choose the wrong (and justify it) when it suits us. In short, that we prefer to behave badly; we prefer to "sin".

And we're often not even honest with ourselves regarding our own motivations.

Confession: I myself have participated in this exact same experiment -- and failed! In college, I was managing a group of volunteers, and a few were needed to help out in an office setting rather than "in the field." Guess what I did? Yep: I assigned the task I thought was ugly to others. I felt guilty about it at the time -- I felt I'd done the wrong thing, and still do to this day.

So what would I have said, if I'd been asked, as these participants would have, to assess my level of fairness at the time? Would I have given myself a pass? I honestly don't know. Undoubtedly I had some rationale at least at the moment I made the choice. Volunteerism isn't really as noble as we sometimes make it out to be.

It might have been interesting to have learned more about the 8% who decided to flip the coin: Why did they choose to do so? Did their background have something in common? I want to improve; to be one of those 8% (or better yet, volunteer for the unpleasant task next time so that someone else can have the nice one) -- but it's not a desire that comes naturally. For human beings to be good, we have to work at it, every day, all the time.