Basic Values

With this post I have finally written about each of the five causes of unintended consequences that Robert Merton outlined in his 1936 paper “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action” (the other four being errorshort-term vs long-term interests, ignorance, and the self-defeating prophecy).

Let’s look at what basic values are, why we have them (if we do), and how they impact us in unexpected ways to generate unintended consequences.

What are basic values?

“Basic values” is an imprecise term. It’s personally meaningful for us to use the term in discussion but also vague enough to include a lot of potential themes. I have the feeling that different people may think they share the same basic values but actually be off the mark. Paraphrasing from several sources, I have this basic definition of basic values:

Basic values are important and lasting beliefs or ideals about what is good or bad, shared by members of a group.

Basic values aren’t laws, written down in detail and with assigned judges. Instead they spring from group or individual ideals, culture, history, and more. They aren’t necessarily ranked in order of goodness or badness.

Let’s go back to Merton’s paper:

“[Basic values] …refers to instances where there is no consideration of further consequences because of the felt necessity of certain action enjoined by certain fundamental value…. The empirical observation is incontestable: activities oriented toward certain values release processes which so react as to change the very scale of values which precipitated them. This process may in part be due to the fact that when a system of basic values enjoins certain specific actions, adherents are not concerned with the objective consequences of these actions but only with the subjective satisfaction of duty well performed.”

Rephrasing the above two definitions: basic values determine the way you will act, regardless of your evaluation of the outcome (if you evaluate it at all). 

  • Basic values “release processes which so react as to change the very scale of values which precipitated them.” That’s a natural effect we see in many systems.
  • [A]dherents are not concerned with the objective consequences of these actions…” That means that people pushing their own basic values do not consider or try to avoid second order effects that may arise from their actions. They act out of what they believe is the right thing to do, regardless of outcome. (“The operation was a success but the patient died.”)
  • Adherents are concerned “with the subjective satisfaction of duty well performed.” Duty is a characteristic that doesn’t get much attention. But what if fulfilling our duty is the wrong thing to do in a certain situation? What if fulfilling duty leads to outcomes contrary to the desired results? Have we still fulfilled duty? Robin Hanson’s book Elephant in the Brain explores hidden motives behind our actions. Duty, or the visible display of duty is important, as is the subtlety between real and professed motives.

“A common problem plagues people who try to design institutions without accounting for hidden motives. First they identify the key goals that the institution ‘should’ achieve. Then they search for a design that best achieves these goals, given all the constraints that the institution must deal with. This task can be challenging enough, but even when the designers apparently succeed, they’re frequently puzzled and frustrated when others show little interest in adopting their solution. Often this is because they mistook professed motives for real motives, and thus solved the wrong problems.” — Elephant in the Brain, by Robin Hanson

  • “But with the complex interaction which constitutes society, action ramifies, its consequences are not restricted to the specific area in which they were initially intended to center…” That is, well, unintended consequences. See the other posts I’ve written.
  • The “realization of values may lead to their renunciation.”

Is this not who we are?

A trait of a group’s basic values seems to be the lack of complete agreement on what they are. Groups don’t always write down the real ones.

In this manner, basic values are not laws and I expect that a random selection of people from the same group could repeat a mostly overlapping list of their basic values. They could also probably identify where they break adherence to the basic values and give examples.

Could it be that groups form their “pure” basic values when they are weak and able to appeal to idealism, maintain them officially even when they become strong, but then pick and choose what they actually act on?

A common phrase heard after an unpopular action that shows a break from basic values is “this is not who we are.” But if you too often have to say “this is not who we are,” whatever the “this” and whoever the “we,” then perhaps the reality is the opposite of what you say.

So I want add to Merton’s description and claim that there are both stated (or believed) and practiced basic values.

Started basic values are those that people aspire to. They may be written down publicly. They are the first that people think of. Practiced basic values are those that people actually act on.

We abide by our basic values… unless that’s too hard.

Stated (or believed) and practiced basic values differ when:

  • The group’s basic values emerged when the group was substantially different than it is today. (The group is no longer the group.)
  • There is judged to be too large of a difference between the cost of adhering to the values and breaking from them. There is judged to be too great of a benefit for breaking from the basic values. This shouldn’t matter, but it does.
  • A subset of the larger group takes actions that don’t represent the larger group (new policies that come top-down).

Consider

  • First-order effects of basic values include channeling resources and attention. Second-order effects include outcomes that are contrary to those intended.
  • How often does a group need to adhere to its basic values for them to be real?
  • Other posts on unintended consequences have included basic values even if I didn’t say.
  • If having basic values influences the way we act, then we are at risk of unintended consequences.
  • Does someone acting on basic values in a way that causes unintended consequences actually have basic values?