The Underdog Bias

This Meetup takes a look at our natural tendency as modern humans to support the weak over the strong. This is often seen as our supporting the underdog – is anyone cheering for Goliath? This tendency shows up in some surprising places. But perhaps our cognitive foibles are leading us astray...

Here’s a LessWrong article by Richard Ngo that gives a view on this ‘underdog bias’ and some examples (a bit American centric) that shows this bias. To his list of examples I would add Socialism vs Capitalism and Transgender rights. Don’t worry – I am not suggesting a debate about the rights and wrongs with regards to these examples. But what I want to tease out is why people might have very different views on these subjects and how much support for the underdog might be driving those views.

Q1. Do people agree that underdog bias is a thing?

The weak vs. the strong

Rawl’s Theory of Justice (detailed description here if you are so inclined) argues we should always orient society to deliver ‘justice as fairness’. In doing so the social contract benefits the disadvantaged. We are stipulating that ‘underdog’ = ‘disadvantaged’ in terms of society.

Q2. Is it reasonable to extend our thinking about the underdog to the disadvantaged?

The powerless can do no wrong

Here is a summary from the book ‘The Identity Trap’ by Yascha Mounk.

In a polarised age, lots of people infer their opinions from their political allegiance rather than the other way round. This, thinks Mr Mounk, is part of the new ideology’s appeal: it furnishes an all-purpose vocabulary to apply to any conflict. In this schema, the powerless can do no wrong, least of all to the powerful—and nobody can be both. Liberation movements of all kinds are linked, as communist insurgencies purported to be during the cold war. As flares in the colours of the Palestinian flag were set off at Piccadilly Circus, a protester in London holding a “Queers for Palestine” sign explained that “All the struggles are connected.”

This philosophy is tailor-made for the posturing and character-limits of social-media posts, perhaps one reason it is gaining adherents. But it prohibits the balance and nuanced judgments that intractable real-world hostilities demand. In particular, because the Palestinians are cast as powerless, and Israel is classed as powerful, it follows that Israelis cannot qualify as victims. Never mind the exile of Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries to Israel. The Holocaust is ancient history.

Q3. What do you think about this idea that the powerless can do no wrong?

Cognitive dissonance

We now take a detour into the subject of cognitive dissonance.

It is natural to try to understand the modern, complex world. But it’s hard. Facts are complex, messy, noisy and sometimes just plain wrong. When we form our opinions and beliefs about a subject we have to contend with all that complexity whilst having our own in-built biases. Our brains look for a shortcut…

This extract is from the Decision Lab website:

• American psychologist Leon Festinger, the pioneer of cognitive dissonance theory, offers three explanations as to why someone might be unwilling to change their existing beliefs or behaviours in light of new, conflicting information:

• “The change may be painful or involve loss.” As mentioned above, changing our attitudes and actions can be difficult—especially if they are deeply held.

• "The present behaviour may be otherwise satisfying.” Think of smokers, who know the negative health effects of their habits, yet still succumb to the satisfaction. They are reluctant to accept information that confirms the future costs.

• “Making the change may simply not be possible.” Even Festinger admits that overwhelming negative emotions in response to change may sometimes not be worth it.

• Festinger assures that it is natural for us to seek internal consistency, both to form a stable identity and understanding of the world around us. This makes sense: it would be difficult to think of yourself as a complete person if all your beliefs and opinions logically contradicted each other or never lined up with your behaviour. In this same way, it is easier to interpret the world as a coherent place, rather than grappling with all of its inherent discrepancies.

And: Not listening to the other side

• In 2002, a team of researchers led by social psychologist Lee Ross investigated the tendency for political opponents to derogate each other's compromise proposals, specifically focusing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In one study, Israeli Jews were more likely to criticize a peace plan when it was attributed to the Palestinians—when in reality, it was actually Israeli-authored.

• Ross attributes this reluctance to a “process whereby the content of a proposal is considered and interpreted (if the proposal comes from the other side) in a manner that renders the proposal less palatable.” In other words, the Israelis evaluated the proposal based on who wrote it, rather than the content itself. They dismissed the other side simply because it was the other side, even when the proposal objectively benefited both sides.

• In this case, cognitive dissonance may cause adversaries to disregard peace proposals as a means of rationalizing their unwavering alliance with their cultural heritage. Simply put, Israelis interpret settlements in a way that justifies the past position their people took in the struggle, rather than prioritizing future means to end that struggle.

• Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We all have a tendency to disregard our political adversaries to preserve our own ideologies. However, it may require dismantling our own ideologies to finally put an end to civil unrest.

Q4. Do people recognise the thought processes described above? Any specific examples?
Q5. “… it would be difficult to think of yourself as a complete person if all your beliefs and opinions logically contradicted each other”. Do you agree?
Q6. Isn’t some cognitive dissonance necessary? Would we ever support or campaign for something if we worried about the cause not being black and white?

The Underdog is not always right

Now we have touched on cognitive dissonance let’s look again at the underdog/disadvantaged. The underdog isn’t necessarily right. It’s our nature to stand up for the little guy; the “David” in the David and Goliath scenario. But the truth is, the person, organization, country etc. that is disadvantaged, isn’t automatically right. In other words, being disadvantaged doesn’t make you inherently righteous.

The biblical account of David and Goliath depicts David as the good guy and Goliath as the bad guy. The story has had a huge effect on our society in that we tend to think that the underdog is more righteous than the overdog. But not all “David’s” in life are good guys, and not all
“Goliath’s” in real life are bad guys.

I believe there are deeply rooted prejudices towards the large corporation, the wealthy person, the powerful country, the employer, the boss etc. It’s true that many of these people and organizations abuse their authority. But shouldn’t we try to consider things on a case by case basis?

Q7. Do you agree there is prejudice against the powerful?
Q8. Is it impractical or unnecessary to consider things on a case by case basis?

Final example

But often society demonizes the person who has the upper hand and renders them guilty without a trial. Case in point; a business person in our city spent ten years building her restaurant clientele. She put in 60–80-hour work weeks and bootstrapped herself into a beautiful business that finally started making money for her and her employees. But in the tenth year, through circumstances beyond her control, (bus stop relocation, shade reallocation etc), the homeless community moved into her neighbourhood and harassed her customers as they entered her restaurant. Soon her business was down by 50% and she was haemorrhaging revenue! When she tried to fight back to save her business she sacrificed so much to build, many ignorant people rose up to defend the homeless from the “big bad entrepreneur.”

Q9. I am not suggesting we try to solve e.g. the Israel vs Palestinian question but do people think its possible to support one side or the other without consciously/unconsciously ignoring inconvenient facts. Do we just put everything on the scales and see what side has the weightier facts?

Q10. A chance to revisit the examples from earlier in these notes and any other examples people want to bring to the discussion.