Guilt by association

Photo taken at Fort Breendonk, Belgium, a former fortification,
 which  served as a Nazi prison camp during World War II

It occurs so often that actually everybody should know that it is a fallacy: Guilt by Association (GBA). Nevertheless, “this fallacy permeates society, from social groups, to political campaigns, to business relationships, to the court system”, as Leigh Kolb writes in his article about the fallacy. This is not an innocent matter, for throughout history, guilt by association has made people justify persecution, discrimination, and social ostracism. But what is guilt by association, or, as it is also called, the association fallacy?
I found a clear description in an article by Joshua M. Bentley, which I have adapted here a little bit: Guilt by association is the phenomenon that occurs when one party, person or thing is distrusted because of its connection to another party, person or thing that has done something wrong. Guilt by association is a kind of heuristic, or mental shortcut, that people use to decide which companies share their values, viewpoints, ideas, and the like. This is the negative version of the fallacy. There is also a positive version, which I’ll ignore. (You get it by replacing the word “wrong” by “good” here). I’ll also ignore GBA for things. Guilt by Association is related to the idea of identification, because people are identified with (associated with) members of the group(s) they belong to and share ideas and views with, and/or with individuals who have the same views etc. However, the problem is that the person or persons involved are not only associated with others because of the views etc. they share but because of this association they are also often ascribed the views etc. of these others that they don’t share or that they have never commented on. It’s something like: Show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are.
In formal terms, the reasoning in GBA is this from Wikipedia):

                    Premise (1):    A is in set S1
                    Premise (2):    A is in set S2
                    Premise (3):    B is also in set S2
                    Conclusion:    Therefore, B is in set S1.

But the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, which makes Guilt by Association a fallacy.

First some simple, if not banal examples (again from Wikipedia):

- John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, people with black hair are necessarily con artists.
- Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily folly.
- Simon and Karl live in Nashville, and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal.

I think that you’ll immediately see from these examples how fallacious the GBA is. However, many cases of GBA are more difficult to recognise and less “banal”. Therefore, people often fall into the GBA trap, and commit them themselves. For isn’t it so that associations can also be true? But often they are not and therefore we must always check them. Nevertheless, many times people apply them without checking, because for them the associations seem obvious, though they aren’t.
Even worse are the cases that they are used by politicians in order to manipulate their followers or to attract new followers (and maybe they even believe them themselves). Let me give a few examples of possible dangerous consequences of the Guilt by Association fallacy, leading to suffering by innocent people. Maybe the best-known case of GBA is the McCarthy era in the United States: Senator Joseph McCarthy led a campaign against alleged communists in the government and other institutions. Individuals suspected of having communist sympathies were subjected to intense scrutiny, harassment, and even imprisonment. Many innocent people lost their jobs, careers, and reputations as a result of these unfounded accusations, simply because they were said to have ideas (rightly or wrongly) that were considered “communist”, despite their actual behaviour. (see Bentley) What also often happens is that individuals associated with certain religious or ethnic groups are discriminated against in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, for example after 9/11. Or, – another case – when in 2002 a populist Dutch politician was murdered by an environmentalist, not a few reacted by saying “the bullet came from the left”, as if most people with leftist ideas would support this murder and were responsible for it. This is also what we see now in rising authoritarian states. More and more people there are harassed, dismissed from their jobs, if not held responsible for a political murder, if it happens, simply because they use the democratic right to oppose “the leader” and to disagree with his ideas. But people are only guilty for what they have done and not for possible or alleged associations with perpetrators. If this happens, we have a case of Guilt by Association.

Selfie
A selfie is an ideal self-representation that derives its strength from a public relationship that everyone can establish and no longer needs a real audience, because it is outsourced to a virtual audience (for example on social networks).

Isolde Charim in DieQualen des Narzissmus 

On Books

In his essay “Of three employments” (Essays, III-3), Montaigne distinguishes between dealing with friends, with women, and with books. However, dealings with friends and women are problematical, so Montaigne, for they depend on chance and on the cooperation of others. Moreover, “one is troublesome by its rarity, the other withers with age”. And indeed, real friends are rare and difficult to find for everybody. However, to my mind, the second part of this remark represents a typical male, if not macho point of view – although, I think that Montaigne was not a macho type of man –, besides that as such I disagree with it. By saying that contacts with women withers away with age, Montaigne apparently thinks of sexual contacts that men (if not he himself) have with women, considering the paragraphs preceding this remark. Why would a pure normal friendship bet
ween a man and a woman not be possible and why would such a friendship wither away with age? Furthermore, (implicitly) Montaigne ignores here the friendships and contacts between women among each other, and also in this case there is no reason to suppose that they wither away with age. They do or don’t, just as friendships between men do or don’t, depending on the circumstances.
Anyway, Montaigne prefers contact with books, “which … is much more certain, and much more our own. It yields all other advantages to the two first, but has the constancy and facility of its service for its own share.” Especially, the latter is an advantage of books over humans, for they don’t protest when you need them and they are always there, and as he gets older, Montaigne needs them more. Contact with books, so he says, “comforts me in old age and solitude; it eases me of a troublesome weight of idleness, and delivers me at all hours from company that I dislike: it blunts the point of griefs, if they are not extreme, and have not got an entire possession of my soul. To divert myself from a troublesome fancy, ’tis but to run to my books; they presently fix me to them and drive the other out of my thoughts…”. No wonder that Montaigne never travels without books.
Nevertheless, Montaigne is not a fervent reader. No day goes by that I don’t read a book but not so for Montaigne. Montaigne wants to have books around him and enjoy the reading when he needs it for the reasons just mentioned, but “sometimes I pass over several days, and sometimes months, without looking on them.” They simply must be there so that Montaigne can use his books when he needs them. When at home he likes spending his time in his library, then taking this book, then taking that book, and “I turn over now one book, and then another, on various subjects, without method or design. One while I meditate, another I record and dictate, as I walk to and fro, such whimsies as these I present to you here.”
Books give Montaigne consolation, emotional and mental support, and they help him write his essays. For me, it is different. Like Montaigne, I cannot do without them, but books give me a window on the world. Books stimulate my imagination and give me other perspectives. They help me discover what is outside of me and what is inside me. That’s why reading is so important; not just reading letters whatever they are, like an accounting text, as some think, but reading stories or texts with narrative aspects. And that’s why reading is not only important for the elderly but also and just for young people. Because reading narrative texts stimulates your imagination and broadens your view of and on the world, it stimulates your mental and social development. Nevertheless, as Montaigne tells us: “Every good has its ill.” Also books have, since, so he says,: “[t]he soul indeed is exercised therein; but the body, the care of which I must withal never neglect, remains in the meantime without action, and grows heavy and sombre. I know no excess more prejudicial to me, nor more to be avoided in this my declining age.”
But why should I stop doing what gives me so much pleasure and which is mentally so advantageous for me, because it neglects my physical side? It’s true that reading does not train my body but I have my bike for that.

-.-.-.-.-

Here you find a reconstruction of Montaigne’s library.

Random quote
The societies wherein less disparity is permitted between masters and servants seem to me the most equitable.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Salami Tactics

It is an often-used practise in negotiations, for example in the business world and in politics: The so-called salami tactics, also called salami slicing, salami slicing tactics, and the like. It is a step-by-step method to get what you want to have from your opponent, the person you are negotiating with, by asking or taking it gradually, since it would be impossible to get it in one go, because your opponent would then refuse to give it or would resist in another way. I had to think of it when I thought about how contemporary autocrats or those political leaders who try to become autocrats seize power or already have seized power. The regular readers of this blog will understand that I think of people like Trump and Putin or Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, all democratically elected political leaders who are rising or already established autocrats. But let me explain what salami tactics involve. I concentrate on the use of these tactics in politics.
It may not be a coincidence that also Orbán is on the way to autocracy, for the term “salami tactics” has been coined by the former Hungarian communist leader Mátyás Rákosi as a way to describe his technique of dividing and isolating the other political parties in his country at the end of the 1940s, when the communists had seized power: “demanding a little more each day, like cutting up a salami, thin slice after thin slice.” (source) To cut these parties off like slices of salami till nothing remains was the method used by the Hungarian communists in those days in order to eliminate them. And in the same way the method is still used in politics today (but also in business negotiations and elsewhere) as a way to get what you cannot get at once. In politics, the approach is twofold. On the one hand the opposing parties are discredited and defamed and sometimes even dehumanised, and on the other hand measures are taken that may as such be necessary, but that in addition give the leader more power. Or the leader takes a little bit more power in an illegal way and watches what then happens. If there is no protest worth the name or if (too) many people support the illegal seizure of power, the leader takes some more power in the next step. Etc. Financially eliminating the opponents is another measure of the arising – or already established – autocrat: take away state subsidies that till then were given to institutions you don’t like; forbid them receiving money from abroad. Then forbid thoughts that are allegedly foreign. And if all this works, finally you can try to control the internet as well.
This is a small selection of the possibilities available to an autocrat. Important is that the seizure of power goes on step by step. If taken all at once, at one time, it could give rise to much protest and opposition, which could make the power grab impossible. But taken one by one and one after the other, the measures are often seen as not unreasonable by a majority of people, or they are not seen as a reason for heavy protesting. Small measures with only little impact for most people are often accepted resignedly. It is difficult to organise many to stop them. And then the moment comes that it is too late to stop the autocrat and he can arrest people for the simple reason that they protest or at least he can put them on a sidetrack. That’s what we have seen in Putin’s Russia and that’s what we now see happening in Hungary, the USA and some other countries. For example, in the USA President Trump is pushing the boundaries of the law. “What will happen when I send the National Guard to a city governed by Democrats to ‘help’ the police? Is it legal? How does the city react? What happens if I ignore court orders? If nobody stops me and can stop me in this case, I can take the next step to increase my power.” That’s what the present US president seems to think, and that’s how Putin rose from a democratically elected president to the near-dictator he is now. Salam tactics: Cut up your opponents thin slice after thin slice till nothing is left of them.

Random quote
I never travel without books.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

The psychology of waiting

Rokin Underground Station, Amsterdam

Waiting. Everybody does it and spends much time on it. Therefore, it is surprising how little attention it receives from social scientists and philosophers. I think that street photographers pay more attention to this kind of action. For an action it is. Waiting is not simply doing nothing, being inactive. Waiting has an intention. It is doing nothing in view of something else, and this having an intention makes it an action.
Waiting has philosophical, sociological and psychological aspects. The philosophical aspects concern, for instance, the meaning of waiting and its place in life. The sociological aspects concern, for instance, waiting in a group and waiting in public. The psychological aspects concern how we experience it. Although I am mainly interested in the philosophical and sociological aspects of waiting, and then especially those of waiting in public, I don’t want to ignore the psychology of waiting, also because it influences how “managers” of public spaces organise public areas, and then in the first place, of course, those places made for waiting, like bus stops or platforms in railway stations; and it is the same for managers of semi-public spaces like hospital waiting rooms, the foyers of theatres or sports stadiums. In this blog, I’ll investigate how managers of public space and semi-public spaces, use or can use these psychological aspects for the organisation of waiting spaces. My analysis is based on an article by David H. Maister about the management of waiting in restaurants.

1 – Unoccupied Time Feels Longer than Occupied Time. In semi-public waiting rooms (like a doctor’s waiting room), you often find magazines and other lecture that can be used by the waiting people. However, many waiting people are self-managers and shorten their psychological waiting time with their smartphones or by reading stuff they have taken with them. That’s why many railway stations have bookshops. Music can also reduce the psychological waiting time, for instance in sports stadiums before the match (in addition, it puts the spectators in the mood).
2 – Pre- and Post-process Waits Feel Longer than In-process Waits. Waiting feels less onerous when you are already involved in the process you are waiting for, even in case it increases the overall waiting time. So, when entering a hospital, often you are directly asked to fill in a form, which gives the feeling of being “in-process” and reduces the sense of waiting. When you sit in a moving train for half an hour time seems to go faster than when you wait half an hour on the platform, till the train arrives. Then the train suddenly stops for an unknown reason. The process of the waiting-in-progress stops then as well and a minute of waiting suddenly feels like an hour of moving, so to speak. To reduce the psychological waiting time, modern trains and buses have screens with travel information, such as speed and time to the next station. Sometimes the driver tells you what is going on when an unplanned stop happens.
3 – Anxiety Makes Waits Seem Longer. You are in vain waiting for your train. Then you are informed that an accident has happened. Even if the length of the delay is unknown, information may help. When there are roadworks on a motorway sometimes the length of the works is indicated.
4 – Uncertain Waits are Longer than Known, Finite Waits. Trains and buses are often delayed for unimportant reasons. It should be the norm that such delays always be indicated on information panels.
5 – Unexplained Waits are Longer than Explained Waits. Many motorways have information panels that inform the drivers about traffic jams or slow-moving traffic caused by accidents or roadworks. Train passengers are informed about accidents or technical problems. Or – a semi-public event – sometimes it happens that an opera singer suddenly has become ill and a substitute has not yet arrived in the theatre. So the performance will start somewhat later. Then the public is informed of the problem (also because the cast has changed).
6 – Unfair Waits are Longer than Equitable Waits. In a queue it sometimes happens that someone goes out of turn. Or you don’t know when it is your turn. For semi-public waits, there is an easy solution: Give numbered tickets to waiting people, so that they can be served in order of arrival. In public spaces, this is often difficult or impossible to realise. Lines on the ground indicating where to wait or cords guiding the queues can help, but much depends also on the discipline of the waiting people.
7 – People Will Wait Longer for More Valuable Services. Public space managers can make waiting more comfortable, for example by placing benches, or by simple covered waiting spaces that protect against the weather; or they can even place there a drinks machine and the like.
8 – Waiting Alone Feels Longer than Waiting in Groups. Public space managers cannot do much about this problem.
9 – Physically Uncomfortable Waiting Feels Longer. Waiting rooms, bus shelters, benches, good lightning at dark places in the evening, etc will help. See also point 7.
10 – Waits Seem Longer to New or Occasional Users. Public space managers can provide as much information as possible to customers, travellers, etc. and describe the process they are waiting for in detail. Think of informative websites, information panels, and oral messages via a public address system.

Waiting in public can happen everywhere. In fact, waiting is part of the stream of life and doesn’t stand out. Usually it is a routine action. Indeed, usually it is an action. Waiting implies many decisions, like where and how to wait and what to do while waiting. Waiting is often boring and stressful, as the ten psychological characteristics of waiting show. A public space manager can do something about this. If this is done well, time will fly, even if the wait is long.