I agree that statements like all As are Bs are likely to be only approximately true and if you look you will find counter examples. But… ‘power corrupts’ is a fairly reliable rule of thumb as rules of thumb go. I include a couple of refs that took all of 3 minutes to find although I couldn’t find the really good one that I noticed a year or so ago.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1298606
abstract: We investigate the effect of power differences and associated expectations in social decision-making. Using a modified ultimatum game, we show that allocators lower their offers to recipients when the power difference shifts in favor of the allocator. Remarkably, however, when recipients are completely powerless, offers increase. This effect is mediated by a change in framing of the situation: when the opponent is without power, feelings of social responsibility are evoked. On the recipient side, we show that recipients do not anticipate these higher outcomes resulting from powerlessness. They prefer more power over less, expecting higher outcomes when they are more powerful, especially when less power entails powerlessness. Results are discussed in relation to empathy gaps and social responsibility.
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/01/power.php
from J Lehrer’s comments: The scientists argue that power is corrupting because it leads to moral hypocrisy. Although we almost always know what the right thing to do is—cheating at dice is a sin—power makes it easier to justify the wrongdoing, as we rationalize away our moral mistake.
“Monarchs, more so than other autocrats, tend to develop norms that help elites solve their collective action problem. Such a “political culture” makes monarchs’ commitments credible. Therefore, monarchs should exhibit longer tenures and faster growth than non-monarchs. Time-series cross-sectional analyses corroborate these hypotheses for the Middle East and North Africa between 1950 and 2004. Monarchs are less likely to suffer coups, revolutions, or government crises. Additionally, as oil rents increase in monarchies, they generate higher economic growth—which does not happen in non-monarchies. A case study of Qatar’s political history puts flesh on a theory of monarchical political culture.”
I can think of a number of reasons why monarchs may suffer somewhat less from the ‘power corrupts’ norm. (1) often educated from childhood to use power wisely (2) often feel their power is legit and therefore less fearful of overthrow (3) tend to get better ‘press’ than other autocrats so that abuse of power less noticeable (4) often have continuity and structure in their advisors inherited from previous monarch.
Despite this, there have been some pretty nasty monarchs through history—even ones that are thought of as great like Good Queen Bess. However, if I had to live in an autocratic state I would prefer an established monarchy, all others things being equal.
Voted up for using data, though I’m very far from convinced by the specific data. The first seems irrelevant or at best very weakly suggestive. Regarding the second, I’m pretty confident that scientists profoundly mis-understand what sort of thing hypocrisy is as a consequence of the same profound misunderstanding of what sort of thing mind is which lead to the failures of GOFAI. I guess I also think they misunderstand what corruption is, though I’m less clear on that.
It’s really critical that we distinguish power corrupting from fear and weakness producing pro-social submission and from fearful people invoking morality to cover over cowardice. In the usual sense of the former concept corruption is something that should be expected, for instance, to be much more gradual. One should really notice that heroes in stories for adults are not generally rule-abiding, and frequently aren’t even typically selfless. Acting more antisocial, like the people you actually admire (except when you are busy resenting their affronts to you) do, because like them you are no longer afraid is totally different from acting like people you detest.
I don’t think that “power corrupts” is a helpful approximation at the level of critical thinking ability common here. (what models are useful depends on what other models you have).
I agree that statements like all As are Bs are likely to be only approximately true and if you look you will find counter examples. But… ‘power corrupts’ is a fairly reliable rule of thumb as rules of thumb go. I include a couple of refs that took all of 3 minutes to find although I couldn’t find the really good one that I noticed a year or so ago.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1298606 abstract: We investigate the effect of power differences and associated expectations in social decision-making. Using a modified ultimatum game, we show that allocators lower their offers to recipients when the power difference shifts in favor of the allocator. Remarkably, however, when recipients are completely powerless, offers increase. This effect is mediated by a change in framing of the situation: when the opponent is without power, feelings of social responsibility are evoked. On the recipient side, we show that recipients do not anticipate these higher outcomes resulting from powerlessness. They prefer more power over less, expecting higher outcomes when they are more powerful, especially when less power entails powerlessness. Results are discussed in relation to empathy gaps and social responsibility.
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/01/power.php from J Lehrer’s comments: The scientists argue that power is corrupting because it leads to moral hypocrisy. Although we almost always know what the right thing to do is—cheating at dice is a sin—power makes it easier to justify the wrongdoing, as we rationalize away our moral mistake.
Somewhat relevant:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1548222
I can think of a number of reasons why monarchs may suffer somewhat less from the ‘power corrupts’ norm. (1) often educated from childhood to use power wisely (2) often feel their power is legit and therefore less fearful of overthrow (3) tend to get better ‘press’ than other autocrats so that abuse of power less noticeable (4) often have continuity and structure in their advisors inherited from previous monarch.
Despite this, there have been some pretty nasty monarchs through history—even ones that are thought of as great like Good Queen Bess. However, if I had to live in an autocratic state I would prefer an established monarchy, all others things being equal.
Voted up for using data, though I’m very far from convinced by the specific data. The first seems irrelevant or at best very weakly suggestive. Regarding the second, I’m pretty confident that scientists profoundly mis-understand what sort of thing hypocrisy is as a consequence of the same profound misunderstanding of what sort of thing mind is which lead to the failures of GOFAI. I guess I also think they misunderstand what corruption is, though I’m less clear on that.
It’s really critical that we distinguish power corrupting from fear and weakness producing pro-social submission and from fearful people invoking morality to cover over cowardice. In the usual sense of the former concept corruption is something that should be expected, for instance, to be much more gradual. One should really notice that heroes in stories for adults are not generally rule-abiding, and frequently aren’t even typically selfless. Acting more antisocial, like the people you actually admire (except when you are busy resenting their affronts to you) do, because like them you are no longer afraid is totally different from acting like people you detest.
I don’t think that “power corrupts” is a helpful approximation at the level of critical thinking ability common here. (what models are useful depends on what other models you have).