The "Just World Hypothesis" and Karma
Hamsaka
goosewhispererPolishing the 'just so' Veteran
From PsychCentral.com
The idea that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it. Also known as blaming the victim, the just-world fallacy, and the just-world effect.
Example: Because it’s far too frightening for many to accept that bad things can happen to good people, and therefore that they themselves have no control over whether bad things might happen to them someday, they will instead search for ways to differentiate themselves from victims of ill fortune. For example, outsiders might deride people whose houses were destroyed by a tornado, blaming them for choosing to live in a disaster-prone area or for not building a stronger house.
A member of the domestic violence forum I spend a lot of time on posted a scholarly article on this, apparently it received a ton of attention and research (some not exactly ethical) by behavioral scientists in the mid to late 20th century. .. The "Just World Hypothesis" is a 'cognitive bias' among many typical biases we humans are subject to.
What blew my mind was how similar this cognitive bias is to the knee jerk or simple assumptions we make about what constitutes either THE central or a central core aspect of Buddhism -- karma.
I immediately thought of my personal assumptions about karma, and honestly quite a few are better explained by "Just World Hypothesis" than the suttas. Karma and "Just World" both attempt to understand the apparent patterns in the randomness. I thought being aware of the cognitive bias in our own selves will help eliminate the concepts and misunderstandings that get in the way of perceiving what karma really is. It seems as though if you believe "Wow, I think I got it!" you probably don't, and are entangled with yet another annoying human brain-fart (ie cognitive bias).
Comments
I understand how karma is framed in Buddhism, though it's a little different depending upon the tradition, but I've never quite agreed with some of that framing (especially "old world karma" where a deformed child would be deemed responsible for their deformity). I've understood this need that people have for justice, just as much as their need for continued existence, and have recognized humanity's many ideas about an absolute universal justice (from many different religions). Ideas that are not testable or knowable.
I expect Buddhism's "karma" to reflect reality rather than my/our desire for justice. To that end I've understood karma as "focused causality" dealing with mind, suffering and liberation from suffering. It's not a supernatural process or law -- it's part of the natural causal order. Karma is like the weather, which is why we can say "these actions usually lead to these fruits", but even then we can't be sure. The reason we can say that at all is because we understand causality, and causality is exactly what we're talking about.
Anyway, to each their own!
I don't think karma's purpose is to feel less angst at the world. I think it is because the mind doesn't just stop at death. Just like the body becomes worm food the mind doesn't simply disappear. We can see even in this life that killing or whatever cheapens life. Sex addiction can also lead to suffering as can intoxicants. It's a matter of what causes the condition for peace and other virtues. There are different types of karma but the one everyone talks about is intention. Suppose you had been seeing McDonalds cheeseburger signs all month and are drooling. And then there you are at a McDs and you have one. Or say you make a resolution to exercise and then eventually you put on your tennis shoes and run. Basically good seeds ripen to good fruit and vice versa. In my opinion karma is a personal affair. You don't go telling other people about their karma and scold or even praise them.
Great thread.
I feel as mentioned, 'intention' is key. 'Just is' rather than justice is important. I am as much to blame or rewarded for everyone's karma as they are entangled with mine.
I would suggest good intentions encourage good and lead to benefits individually and collectively.
The many life Hindu vestige is the Buddhist equivalent of infantile spirituality of the 'good people go to heaven' superstition. I will be a better person when the time is right and conducive?
m m m . . . such ego strength, we hanker after life, post meat rotting . . . m m m . . .
You are in dukkha. Sort it. If not now, when? Well that is my plan :buck: .
Trungpa said the thing about enlightenment is that you won't be there. I think the next life is like that. It is not really 'you' in any case.
What's the point of me meditating then?... p:
I think the point of karma is to do with personal responsibility - we are the "heirs of our actions". So it's about looking inside at our own intentions and behaviour, not about looking outside at the world.
OR, perhaps people find it difficult to accept that everyone, regardless of how good they are now, has done bad things in the past at one point or another and that expirencing consequences from that is inevitable. IMO the problem with comparing the "Just World Hypothesis" to Buddhist karma is that Buddhist karma is meant to be taken in context of many lifetimes whereas the criticism of the "Just World Hypothesis" usually only looks at just this lifetime. Given that context of the many lifetime view, it's not that irrational to believe that bad actions in a past life led to negative consequences in this life. After all, that is what the Buddha taught. He did teach "you reap what you sow"!
Is there an explanation as to how this sort of idea found its way into our psyches?
I think that the Buddha's teaching version of Karma was only intended to aid practitioners on the path towards suffering cessation and I believe he even warned of the frutility of trying to make full sense of it.
It's teaching was to say that we need to be mindful of ** all** of our intent for it all has consequences which simply makes us everyone of us responsible for dealing with our messes instead of blaming or making supplication to external influences (gods, sacrifices etc).
Taking it beyond this just subverts the purpose of his teaching and quickly manifests as another sandbox for the ego to play in.
Assuming, of course, that one is a secular Buddhist, rather than a philosophical Buddhist, and assuming one accepts rebirth. And, then add into that what @how said above.
I suspect only the most refined ego states are capable of avoiding the Just World type fallacies when contemplating karma, whether it's their own or not. I certainly don't have one of those
.
Otherwise, the ego is so utterly self-centric that its conclusions are going to be riddled with cognitive biases and distortions. I think this holds true for stretching out the Just World fallacy to 'include' various rebirth scenarios we aren't aware of as being the 'cause' of some tragedy in our present life. To me that is strongly biased toward maintaining the fallacy, which admittedly is seductive, it is there because it makes 'sense' (as long as you don't question the bias that is).
@person: that's a good question . . . could it be this fallacy is a fifty ninth generation iteration of the way our human brain is biased toward seeing patterns?
It is easy for the ego to distort buddhist teachings. Karma is less about people getting what they deserve, and a bit more about people perpetuating their own suffering, methinks.
Buddhism cannot be understood through the lenses of intellectualization and egotism. It can only be understood through self realization, which is, if anything, the process of seeing past one's familiar lenses. So, as a buddhist makes progress, many buddhist teachings will transform into something quite different than what they first appeared to be.
Good point @overthecuckoosnest. I think the important word to examine is 'to deserve'. When you take the word deserve and examine its meaning, and then compare it to the Buddha's description (such as it was) of karma, 'to deserve' is does not figure in.
"Just World Theory" is just another common cognitive bias, one of many, and our brains appear to put the sense data together in biased ways. If not biased toward what a person already believes, then toward what the person PREFERS to believe (cuz it supports other beliefs) or toward essential neurological biases of the human brain (seeking patterns for instance).
I just saw how this bias sounded so similar to pop culture ideas of karma.
To understand karma without a cognitive bias of any sort would be to rid the whole picture of the 'self' and it's preferences -- which is a lot like getting the sand out of your car after a trip to the beach. Six vacuum cleanings later, you find a line of sand from last summer's beach outing laughing at you from the edge of a seat cover. Getting 'self' out of the way of clear perception is at least that hard, if not harder.
They say that the human tendency to pick out patterns goes back evolutionally to our times on the plains when noticing a pattern in the tall grass would help notice predators. Selection would favor the a person seeing more patterns of a predator even if false (thus showing caution) over the person who sees fewer "predators".
That idea gets related to lots of "spiritual" phenomena, karma, ghosts, etc. They argue that such patterns aren't really there its just human tendency to see them like the predator in the grass. To me though just because its possible we could be seeing a false pattern doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an actual predator in the grass. No doubt some or many are false but are all of them?
I don't know, seeing a karmic pattern in life could be a cognitive bias, but it could not be a bias as well. Isn't interpreting patterns as some sort of evolutionary behavior a cognitive bias towards believing the world is totally random?
Ha! I'd go further (??) and say that the cognitive bias toward randomness figures in where scientists insist our brains impose patterns where there aren't any (so the scientist says). There has been enough history of being able to see and measure what was not perceivable previously that you may have made a very important point
.
Yeah, like we can see patterns in the way the planets move through the sky. People then interpreted those patterns and developed an understanding of the solar system, they weren't random simply because their patterns didn't fit the earth centered model.
Exactly. I was thinking of radio waves, microwaves, bacteria and viruses, things we could only see once our tools of perception became capable.
There are some optical illusions that seem to support the idea that we humans manufacture patterns, I can't remember what these tests were called. Our brains tend to manufacture repetitions that don't exist in some visual phenomenon, for instance.
To me, hard core empiricism -- as valuable as it is, for sure -- is destructive in its deconstructiveness (sp) to collapse the larger collective patterns (like a 'god' pattern) into the insignificance of a simple bias our brains, in their rush to process information, tend to make. I hadn't thought of that before you mentioned it above
.
....Assuming, of course, that one is a secular Buddhist, rather than a philosophical Buddhist
That's a new one on me. Could you say what a "philosophical" Buddhist is?
To me though just because its possible we could be seeing a false pattern doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an actual predator in the grass. No doubt some or many are false but are all of them?
I think humans are quite good at pattern recognition, but also prone to wishful thinking.
Actually, after the 4 hour editing limit I noticed that I had mis-worded my post. I personally see "secular" Buddhism as being akin to "philosophical" Buddhism, as opposed to "religious" Buddhism. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct that.
Ah yes, our infinitely creative ability to delude ourselves
.
There is an 'imaginary' space of the yet undefined, being challenged on one side by the wariness against delusion, and on the other side, the openness to the yet undiscovered.
I like this new def'n so FYI _ I'm a philo-buddhist from here on in
Yes, I see. It seems a lot of western Buddhists prefer to regard it as a philosophy - perhaps partly because of a disillusionment with Christianity etc?
I suppose there are some who would take it that far. But I think many of us are simply not willing to exchange one system of devotion for another. One set of rituals for another. Over the past few years I've known forum participants (on this or other forums) who denigrate the concept of every word in the Bible being the word of God and being the absolute truth, and then turn right around and say that the Buddhist scriptures are 100% factual and handed down literally word by word; if it says Buddha said it, then he said it exactly that way.
To me, a philosophical (or secular) Buddhist says: I appreciate the concepts outlined in Buddhism, and they seem to be an ideal way to live a life. So I'm going to adopt those basic principles. It's not a religion, or a faith, so I can cherry pick and use my own intelligence and trial and error to find which of the various teachings resonate with me. And, if I find teachings in other places than Buddhism that pass those same tests, then I can incorporate those principles into my life. [I kinda laugh when Buddhists often say to take a teaching and test it, and then rather command "you" to see that it will turn out to be 100% valid. I'm glad scientists don't work that way.].
Now, bringing that all back to the "Just World Hypothesis" and Karma, no religion of which I'm aware has answered the question of why good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. The Christian might say it's because, "God works in mysterious ways". The Buddhist might say that it's imponderable. Again, to me, both answers are lacking. Maybe it's just the way life is. Maybe everything doesn't have AN ANSWER. Maybe some parts of life are just coincidences.
In fact, one thing I have learned on this forum -- which I also see within Christianity -- is a near-compulsion on the part of some people to try to attach a Buddhist (or Christian) meaning to everything. You may recall that we went through a phase (and probably will again) when posters were contemplating whether certain famous people (like songwriters, as one example) were Bodhisattvas. Heck, we don't really know whether there are such things as Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas, or Pratyekabuddhas. And then every once in a while we go through a phase where some try to intermingle science and Buddhism...even though those same posters often disdain when the fundamental Christians try to do the same thing.
Last night I was in the emergency room for 3 hours. Was it the magic of karma? No. It was dehydration causing mild tachycardia. Nothing more, nothing less. Was it cured by something karmic? No. It was taken care of with a saline IV and an extra heart pill.
People of every religion seem to want to try to explain everything in terms of their religion, while saying that everyone else trying to explain the same things via their religions are wrong. Maybe, at least part of time, shit just happens. Maybe, part of the time, moonlight and roses just happens.
Thank you.
Not exactly, as a person who relates to Buddhism as NOT a religion. While I have been greatly disillusioned by Christians, and never could grasp how a man who died crucified hideously 2000 years ago has anything to do with ME or what I do/don't do/think/believe/ be, I've achieved a little too much integrity on my journey to make the same MISTAKES I made the first time. The mistake I made the first time was to buy into the 'every word from the mouth of God' bit.
Being now 'Buddhist', I haven't just switched gods, and now believe in THIS god versus the other one. I have gone 'beyond' the paradigm of gods, hopefully beyond the paradigm of religion itself. This sounds a lot more erudite than it is, it's just a frame of perception that transcends and includes previous beliefs rather than rejecting them for another set.
I certainly DID 'switch gods' and spent a lot of time like that, denigrating Christianity from that perspective, and insisting to myself and others I now have the TRUTH before me (the right truth that is). That was years ago, after which I tossed the whole thing out and was what might be called atheist, and then last few years put the Buddha's teaching through The Wringer, which it survived, mostly.
We may have 'Buddhist', 'ex-Christian' and many other hats for example 'ex-aristocrat', 'seeker' etc.
However eventually we bow and hats fall off . . .
I think that's quite a common experience for western Buddhists.
But I think many of us are simply not willing to exchange one system of devotion for another. One set of rituals for another.
Again, I think that's quite a common sentiment among western Buddhists. There is a rejection of established religion, blind belief, and so on.