
The Just-World Fallacy - ckuehne
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/
======
DanielBMarkham
There's a fine line here.

The world will never be just. But that's not germane -- doesn't matter what
the world is to you anyway. It's not like you have to power to change or
complain about it. It's like complaining about the spectrum of certain stars
because you can't get a good tan from them.

The key question is _how do you act in the world_. I think many people confuse
acting as if the world is a just place with actually believing that the world
is a just place. When young, you may start out thinking the world is a
meritocracy. Then, perhaps in school, you finally figure out that life's a
bitch and then you die. Perhaps some smartass with a website or a teacher or
some other authority figure takes you aside and tells you that life is shit.

What comes next is very interesting. Some folks internalize the unfairness of
the world and chew on it. They hold grievances, complain about those who
succeed, and feel oppressed and victimized. Other folks act as if the world is
a fair place because they have decided that acting in such a way is the kind
of person they want to be. They are happy, optimistic, and always looking for
the good in life.

Perhaps these people always view people in pain or suffering as in some way
deserving it. Perhaps the other people always view people in pain and
suffering as never deserving it. Perhaps both groups secretly think of life as
a meritocracy. This would be an interesting hypothesis to test.

But in either case, _the world sucking is no reason for you to change your
attitude one way or the other_. In fact, once you figure out that you own your
emotional responses to events, you move past whether the world sucks or not,
_because it's really not that important_.

And then you find articles like this pointless or worse.

~~~
lukifer
It's fallacious to think your fate has nothing to do with your actions, yet
it's also fallacious to think that your fate is determined _solely_ by your
actions.

The real fallacy in action is the unspoken assumption that every effect has a
singular cause, when the vast majority of the time there are a multitude of
causes and contributing factors. Robert Anton Wilson called it "quantum
causality": <http://blog.est.im/archives/1158>

While this outlook is seemingly more difficult to manage, it becomes a lot
easier when one begins to think in terms of probabilities rather than
certainties. In the example of the drunk woman in the bad part of town, she is
responsible only for increasing the probability that that she would be raped,
but she is not responsible for the rape itself.

~~~
mburney
_the example of the drunk woman in the bad part of town, she is responsible
only for increasing the probability that that she would be raped, but she is
not responsible for the rape itself._

This assumes that it is easy to measure the probability of possible risk vs.
possible benefit for every action that an individual makes. I'd say that
something like that is very difficult to do, given that our desires don't
always coincide with what is objectively rational.

Of course we could decrease the probability of bad things happening to us if
we stay at home most of the time and don't break any rules/norms, but that
would rule out acting on many of our desires.

~~~
mseebach
The problem with the rape-example is that it's overly idealized - it's a
tautology: If you're asking to get raped, then, yes, you're asking to get
raped. But you're not. The majority of street-rapes (the actual majority of
rapes are between people who already know each other) aren't of people "asking
for it", it's of people who _maybe_ didn't take _all_ the precautions they
could have, but all-in-all were just in the wrong place in the wrong time. And
then it's not so simple - I don't think very many would think that a girl who
walked three blocks alone deserved to get raped, even if it could have been
avoided by taking a taxi or walking with a friend.

~~~
lukifer
No one _ever_ deserves to get raped (except perhaps a rapist, but that's
another debate).

At the same time, someone who gets drunk by themselves in a bad part of town
has to take responsibility for that choice, that it's more likely to lead to
getting mugged/stabbed/raped, etc. That does not mean the event is their
fault, because no event has a singular cause. Moreover, accepting a small
piece of that responsibility does not in any way absolve the transgressor, nor
does it imply that the victim "deserved" it.

Let's take a less visceral example: the tires on my car are somewhat worn, but
not yet dangerously bald. My wife is driving on a rainy day, slowing down for
the road conditions, but not by very much. The car skids and crashes into a
tree, resulting in only minor injuries but a totaled car.

Is it my fault for not being more vigilant on the tires? Her fault for not
driving slow enough? No one's fault, just an unfortunate act of God?

The answer to all three questions is "yes". Many couples would argue until
they're blue in the face over who is at fault, until one gives up and backs
down. The reality is that we both contributed to the situation, which
potentially could have happened anyway. Acknowledging our personal
contributions does not absolve the other party of theirs, nor does it mean the
event is not simply an unlucky happenstance of the wrong time and place.

------
kirse
This "fallacy" is existential in nature and entirely subjective to the world-
view that one holds.

In just one example, how one defines "losing at the game of life" is
completely subjective, so this article really isn't grounded in true logic,
and calling it a fallacy is a bit of a misclassification.

File this under -> Gladwellian Pop Psychology.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It's an awful article -- with lots of upvotes. Third one from the same website
on the front page just today.

~~~
kirse
Oh I agree wholeheartedly! I usually don't comment much anymore, but this one
was egregious enough to make me login and post a warning.

The unfortunate thing is I've seen an increasing amount of this garbage on HN
that purports to be "scientific" or "logical" but is clearly just pop pysch or
just the ruminations of someone who sounds intelligent.

Of course everyone dismisses that as "Oh, it was at least interesting and
thought provoking"... to which I say that there's no point in wasting time
eating garbage in the kitchen when there's a dinner table full of steak in the
next room...

~~~
dsc
I want to know where the dinner table is (no joke, I really don't know a good
resource for an "honest" version of the same material). Any sites you know of?
:-)

~~~
roel_v
scholar.google.com, ssrn.com, plato.stanford.edu, iep.utm.edu, ...

------
araneae
The fact that these cognitive biases exist does not preclude the possibility
that people's actions also influence what occurs in their lives.

The question is really _how much_ of your circumstances are due to randomness,
versus your behaviors.

And regardless of how much of it is due to chance, I'm not surprised that
these cognitive biases exist, because basically _only_ the parts of our lives
that we control are relevant to our cognitive processes.

That is to say, if you want to avoid getting raped, the parts that are not
under our control are irrelevant to our minds, for the very fact we can't
control them. It makes sense to be hypersensitive to any factors that might be
under our control.

------
astine
This is not a fallacy. Fallacies are mistakes in logic. This 'Just World
Fallacy' is a cognative bias, if anything.

~~~
Qz
It is a mistake in logic, specifically the part where people see someone in an
unfortunate situation and think "They must have done something to deserve
that".

The fallacy isn't the idea that _the world is just_ (it may or may not be),
it's making the assumption that the just-world idea is actually true.

------
jmcnevin
Three links to the same blog on the HN front page. Does this stink to anyone
else?

~~~
cynicalkane
It would be better if it weren't for the dumb pseudo-logic and false facts
that are constantly present in each of the blog's entries... I posted about it
before (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1411398>), but I can't spend all
day arguing with blog entries on the Internet.

------
techiferous
Most humans think about the world in a framework of justice. I believe this
innovation started with Zoroastrianism and then spread to post-exilic Judaism
which, of course, led to Christianity and Islam. One of the defining
characteristics of Zoroastrianism was its emphasis not just on accountability,
but on _individual_ accountability. More info:
<http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Zoroastrianism>

Vedic religions have different historical roots (although both Vedic religions
and Zoroastrianism share a common Aryan heritage). Vedic religions, therefore,
have less of a sense of justice and I wonder if there is less of the Just-
World Fallacy there. If you think that the concept of karma is the Vedic
religions' take on justice, then you may be misunderstanding karma. Vedic
religions don't have a strong concept of the individual self, so "you reap
what you sow" doesn't quite capture the concept because there is no definite
"you".

------
brc
I disagree with the term 'fallacy'. Perhaps 'mental map' might be better, or
perhaps learned bias.

It's true that many of us use this type of thinking to navigate our way
through life. Stereotype thinking and heuristic using allows a person to go
through massive information without stopping to process each part.

There's no doubt people see homelessness as something brought onto a person by
themselves. There's no doubt that this is not true in all cases. However,
having a mental map like this allows one to get through life without getting
bogged down in negative thoughts.

You need a mental map which says something like 'bad shit happens to good
people' and just get on with your life. Trying to parse all the worlds
injustices is like staring at the stars and working out how insignificant you
are, fun for stoned undergrad students but utterly useless in moving your life
forwards.

~~~
eipipuz
Fallacy: a false or mistaken idea. an often plausible argument using false or
invalid inference.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/fallacy>

Sure, it's a mental map, but why do you disagree with that being a fallacy?

~~~
brc
I'll struggle to word this correctly, but here goes.

It's not a fallacy because the person makes these judgements based on their
experience on the best way to deal with these situations. It's not a false or
mistaken idea, rather a rational way to deal with the lopsided injustices and
contradictions of the world we live in.

------
psyklic
What matters is whether you place yourself in a culture that seems fair (or
whatever attribute you enjoy). I surround myself with people who I admire and
want to learn from. Sure, if your friends are always down on their luck and
miserable, then you may get caught up in their dilemmas too. If your friends
are happy, ambitious, successful, then some of that drive might rub off on you
too. Peer pressure isn't always a bad thing!

------
notmyname
The articles comment about social justice and a desire to change the world
reminds me of a TED talk I watched a while back which is about the differences
in "conservative" and "liberal" outlooks and the ways in which individuals in
each group measure morality.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.ht...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

------
kadavy
Any other HNers who are Causal Determinists? I don't think that makes me think
the world is "just." It just "is."

~~~
Qz
I don't know about causal determinism or whatnot, but the idea of _just_ or
_not just_ is a human judgment applied to the state of the world. Its a
subjective observation which is secondary to reality.

~~~
roel_v
I happen to agree with you, (and you may all of this,) but don't think that
this position is widespread. There are droves of people who will challenge the
idea of an objective, morality-free reality. For example many religious people
are determined that what is just and what is not just is fixed.

This being said I don't even know the Catholic church's (in which I was
nominally raised) dogma on this, let alone that most practitioner would be
expected to know about the 'official' ideas on these issues. It would be
interesting to haven an AMA with a theologist on here methinks :)

------
qw
When reading this article, I was reminded of the social wellfare debate. I see
a lot of similar arguments where it is assumed that if someone falls behind
it's their own fault...

------
whatwhatwhat
Off topic, but, why do all of losethos comments go dead? It was nice reading
his perspective. Almost like I could see into his brain. Weird.

------
exit
we have to bear in mind that we exist only for the sake of existing.

if setting young children on fire and taunting them as they die in agony
ensured self-perpetuation, that is exactly what evolution would have led to.

------
kevinskii
The article says nothing which actually supports the case that the "just-world
fallacy" is fallacious. Hence it should be down-voted.

~~~
pigbucket
If we lived in a just world, it would be.

------
TotlolRon
You always have Samson's choice. Westeners just fail to see it.

