I am not comfortable with the mood affiliation of the piece.Â How about a simple mention of the massive magnitude of employee theft in the United States, perhaps in the context of a boss wishing to search an employee?
Cowens’ “fallacy of mood affiliation“Â is an interesting and useful attempt to describe a kind of sophisticatedÂ motivated skepticism that occurs when we evaluate evidence that counters our basically optimistic or pessimistic views of the world. When he first introduced it, Cowen described mood affiliations that caused people to misrecognize particular evidence regarding innovations or environmental effects because the particular evidence fails to confirm their preferences for optimistic accounts of future growth and environmental improvements.
But to those clear examples of the optimism bias, he added two other examples that are only indirectly related:
3. People who see a political war against the interests of the poor and thus who are reluctant to present or digest analyses which blame some of the problems of the poor onâ€¦the poor themselves. (Try bringing up â€œpredatory borrowingâ€ in any discussion of â€œpredatory lendingâ€ and see what happens.) Thereâ€™s simply an urgent feeling that any negative or pessimistic or undeserving view of the poor needs to be countered.
4. People who see raising or lowering the relative status of Republicans (or some other group) as the main purpose of analysis, and thus who judge the dispassionate analysis of others, or for that matter the partisan analysis of others, by this standard. Thereâ€™s simply an urgent feeling that any positive or optimistic or deserving view of the Republicans needs to be countered.
#4 is also clearly a bias where in-group solidarity blinds us to evidence, and Cowen has written about this well in the past. It is not, however, an obvious â€œmood affiliationâ€ except by analogy, and it serves a pragmatic purpose: you can only call your friends our for being biased so often before they stop being your friends.
#3, though, is neither a mood affiliation nor an optimism bias. We might call it an â€œunjust-world fallacy,â€ if we really need a name for it. However, Iâ€™d suggest we might want to avoid prejudicing discussions of what makes people poor with attributions of fallacies and congitive biases until weâ€™ve evaluated the evidence.
Since â€œwhat makes people poorâ€ is a hotly debated academic question, thereâ€™s a lot of evidence, and it pushes in multiple directions. (My own money is on some version of Buddy Karelisâ€™s book, The Persistence of Poverty (pdf)Â though thereâ€™s plenty of room for poverty traps and marginal tax rate arguments.) People affiliate around these positions in many of the same ways that they affiliate around political parties. But thereâ€™s a serious dispute in the literature and the question really, really matters, so letâ€™s not glibly reduce our opponents to fallacy-mongers here.
This is relevant to blogging about the workplace only because, by analogy, weâ€™re supposed to believe that employees might be partly to blame for their domination in the same way that poor people are partly to blame for their poverty. But note, there are particular actions the poor engage in that make them poor: failing to finish high school, committing crimes, and getting pregnant out of wedlock are individual actions that primarily harm the individual who enacts them by reducing lifetime wages. In the workplace example, there just aren’t particular actions that workers engage in that justify their being searched or filmed while going to the bathroom (except maybe being unwilling to quit, fight, or unionize). Invading my privacy because somebody else has been stealing doesnâ€™t really fit the kind of personal responsibility motif that Cowen was pushing in the original discussion of poverty. Plus, employee theft costs our economy about $15 billion, which is 0.1% of GDP, and that’s including serious embezzlement in addition to retail “shrink,” so it’s not really so big a deal as Cowen makes it out to be.
Mood affiliation concerns donâ€™t appear to be relevant to workplace domination issues, they threaten to resolve into ad hominem and fallacy fallacyÂ [sic]Â issues, so let’s drop them and look at the data and the arguments.