The Importance of Being Earnest (and Vocal)

One of my favorite professors in law school was Professor Cavanagh, who, among other subjects, taught Antitrust Law. He once told a story about price fixing, the illegal practice of businesses that are supposed to be competing, that instead agree to charge consumers the same (elevated) price. Price fixing is often more subtle than a contract written in invisible ink–it can be the result of a collusive atmosphere where companies casually discuss cost, price and future trends; tacitly agreeing to set prices.

Professor Cavanagh’s story (too long ago to remember and too good to check) was about a group of executives on a dais at an industry conference. These executives were on a panel to discuss topics relevant to the industry, but during the Q&A, they were led astray and began to discuss price. Future price. One of the executives–and this is the bit a young corporate lawyer remembers–one of the executives stood up, dumped a pitcher of ice water all over the table, and shouted “you people are talking price, it is illegal, and I am leaving.”

That caused one hell of a scene. When the murmuring quieted down, the Q&A discussion continued without that executive. Several years later, however, as the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s case was being made, all of the corporations were named in a price fixing scheme–all but one. There were literally hundreds of witnesses who remembered crazy Charlie, who dumped the pitcher of ice water, shouted about price fixing, and left the room.

Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s fantasies, which involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves, Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.

For obvious reasons, undignified outbursts have been on my mind lately. Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s personal power fantasies (which apparently involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves–Maureen, it’s called projection, see a professional, get help), Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.  The Obama administration was lying to the public, and was calling Republicans liars for exposing the lie.  Faced with this hypocrisy, Wilson lost his temper and his composure and shouted in rejection.

Now, I am not suggesting that Wilson was correct or that he need not apologize.  What he did was inappropriate, but not necessarily wrong.  First, he had a duty to his constituents to protect them and their property from what he saw as a threat (the taking of their money to pay for healthcare for illegals).  His outburst was successful in a way no civil discourse was.  The Obama administration was forced to agree to a provision it had previously rejected, mandating that illegal aliens not be covered by ObamaCare.  I am reminded about the French proverb about a small carafe of wine being illogical, immoral, and inadequate.  In some circumstances, doing the impolite thing is the only way to do the right thing.

Not only is this normal, it is healthy and far too infrequent.  In one of my favorite, life-changing books,  The Wisdom of Crowds, James Suroweicki describes conformity and peer pressure experiments first conducted by Solomon Asch.  In the basic experiment, the scientist places between 4 and 20 subjects in a room and shows each subject a note card with a straight line on it.  The scientist then projects an image with three lines, labeled A, B and C of varying lengths, and asks each subject which of the labeled lines is the same length as the one on the note card.  The process is repeated with different note cards and new projected images.

The trick is that only one of the “subjects” is actually a subject.  The others are all actors who are told that after the third or fourth note card, they are all to intentionally and unanimously pick the same wrong line.  The real test is to see whether the actual subject (who always picks last) will go along with the group, who is obviously wrong.  The fascinating conclusion of these experiments is that, to a large degree, people will go along with a group they know to be wrong, simply because no one else will speak up.  The implied (or explicit) consensus of the group acts to silence dissent.

Even more fascinating is that, no matter how many wrongheaded people there are making up the groupthink bubble, that bubble will burst when just one actor speaks up.  In other words, if “A” is the correct answer, and there are 10 “subjects” (9 actors and 1 actual subject), even though 8 actors (wrongly) say the right answer is “B”, but the ninth says “A”, suddenly the subject is liberated.  The peer pressure vanishes and the subject is free to speak their mind.  What is even more fascinating is that, even if the ninth subject says “C”, the other wrong answer, the effect is the same.  The subject is still liberated simply by the bubble bursting–even if it’s by a wrong answer.

Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.

This is the theory behind the centuries old Catholic practice of the Devil’s Advocate.  When a person is considered for sainthood, the Church will appoint an expert in canon law (yes, there are attorneys who are allowed in church) to argue against canonization.  Although the Devil’s Advocate will of course raise valid points, he will also allow others who have doubts to be free to raise them without feeling peer pressure.  The Church, in 1587, codified an anti-groupthink process that is only now becoming mainstream.  (Sometimes tradition is ahead of the times.)

Too often, in our personal, professional and political lives, we  let things slide.  We hear lies, half truths and hypocrisy and we don’t call each other on it.  Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.  That failure to speak up–to dump a pitcher of ice water on a table once in a while–happens every day in small, but important ways.  Ordinary Americans are starting to fight against Hope·ocrisy, and we need to do more.

We need to keep speaking up.  At work, at home, and everywhere else, when you hear lies, hypocrisy, and things that just don’t sound right, challenge them openly.  Be that dissenting voice and know that, when you speak, you will be bursting the bubble for millions of others–even if you don’t have all the right answers.  When someone brings up Global Warming™, don’t politely change the subject, challenge them, even if you don’t have an advanced degree in climatology (they don’t either).  Opening a dialogue is the point.  Challenging the “consensus” is all you need to do, someone else may hear you and that alone will be enough to make them question the status quo.

We also need to encourage those who speak out against Obama, Reid and Pelosi, (and, for that matter, Michael Steel, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and everyone else in a position to direct public opinion and policy)–even if we disagree with those who speak up.  Their dissenting voices help to burst the groupthink bubble–even if they don’t have the right answers.  The mere fact that they speak up is enough to burst the bubble.

This weekend, nearly 2 million Americans poured a pitcher of ice water on Washington D.C.  The bubble is already bursting.

Tags: Advice, Analysis, inspiration, law, sociology

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 at 10:45 pm and is filed under Advice, Best Of, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.