How we evaluate our choice depends on our self-perception. Writer Vladimir Gubailovsky reflects.
We tend to uncritically perceive what directly concerns us. «Bad» is something rare and not happening to me. The closer the event is to me, the “better” it should be. On this score, the psychologist and mathematician Vladimir Lefevre has an «algebra of conscience»*. This theory is based on a simple experiment. A bag of beans should be divided into «good» and «bad». Since there are no objective criteria for sorting, we can assume that the piles will be equal. However, in reality, almost all the subjects of the «good» beans turned out to be about two-thirds. Lefebvre explains the unexpected result this way: we evaluate not only reality (in this case, beans), but also our choice. The beans are the same, but the choice is different. When choosing a good bean, the participant of the experiment perceives his choice as “good”, which, of course, pleases him.
About the same — a collision from a Hollywood movie. The President of the country learns that his friend, who financed the election race, is involved in a major scandal. The newspapers are preparing an exposure. What to do? The adviser, as he is supposed to, advises: “No statements need to be made. But when asked, in no case do not deny the fact of acquaintance. The president made an even stronger move. When the cunning correspondent asked him «Do you know N?», he replied: «I don’t just know Johnny, we have been close friends since childhood.» Thus, the fact of acquaintance moved from the category of sensational to the category of well-known. But most importantly, there was a reassessment of the event. At first glance, everything is bad: the president was elected with dishonest money. It is possible that you voted for him, which means you have to admit your mistake, which is rather unpleasant. But you are offered another option: the president is a great guy, he does not give up his friends in difficult times. Which alternative will you choose? Lefebvre’s experiment shows that the majority will choose the second interpretation.
When there are no criteria, the choice itself becomes the main thing: choosing “good”, we feel better.
When evaluating beans (this is also partly true of presidents), reality is neutral in relation to the choice, there are no criteria for “correctness”. But since his choice is so important to a person, it means that by choosing something undoubtedly “good”, he will be able to increase the level of his inner comfort. This hypothesis is confirmed by the work of Elizabeth Dunn (Elisabeth Dann) and her colleagues from the University of British Columbia (Canada). They assessed the happiness levels of employees at several companies before receiving bonuses and after some time, when the money had already been spent. It turned out that those who spent them on themselves did not feel any «growth» of happiness, and those who used them on others became happier.
Giving, sharing is undoubtedly a “good” choice, regardless of the size and real usefulness of the gift, therefore, giving, we feel better. Perhaps this is one of the springs of charity and volunteering.
* V. Lefebvre «Algebra of conscience» (Cogito-Center, 2003).