Psychologist David Pizarro and philosopher Tamler Sommers talk shame with Jennifer Jacquet, including the pros and cons and the difference between shame and guilt. Is shaming effective for generating social progress or getting tax cheats to pay up? Is twitter shaming on the rise or on its way out? And what does David do when he’s alone in the dark? Listen here.
The discussion about 21st-century shaming usually turns to cases in which an otherwise well-behaved person posts a tweet or photograph that results in excessive punishment by an anonymous and bloodthirsty online crowd which ruins that person’s life for a while. Many people, myself included, object to this form of vigilantism. But other examples of shaming — singling out big banks for environmental destruction, exposing countries for refusing to end forced labour or calling out denialists who undermine action on climate change — challenge the mistreated tweeter as shaming’s stereotype. What shaming largely is, after all, is not necessarily what shaming might be. Read more at WIRED.CO.UK.
“Guilt only needs to be addressed by the self, whereas shame can force change in others’ behavior. Shame can scale and its target need not be human. A company or an industry can be shamed, but they cannot feel guilty as these entities lack consciences. This important distinction is central to Jacquet’s thesis: abandon guilt and turn to shame as the tool for resolving collective action problems.” Read more in The Brooklyn Rail.
The anthropocebo effect: a psychological condition that exacerbates human-induced damage — a certain pessimism about humanity that leads us to accept humans as a geologic force and destruction as inevitable.
How do we encourage personal savings and investment? Answers to this question, revealed through new analyses in experimental economics, provide insight into how to encourage collective savings and investment in our future through ecological conservation. There are three lessons to be learned.