Chyden Finance: profit from hypocrisy

A friend recently ran afoul of another colleague over some allegedly inappropriate comments made in a social setting. I was not present, the details are unimportant here, and my friend’s post-clash take on the situation is that little good comes of dwelling on the specifics of unpleasant events. Or, as Gen. Patton said, there is no point in fighting a battle, if nothing is to be gained in winning.

My initial reaction was to remind my friend that my friend’s accuser is guilty of making similarly inappropriate comments, and that, if the accusation had any merit, then this looked like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
(Predictably, the accuser never bothered to report h**self for disciplinary action.) This is not to say that the kettle’s behavior is thereby excused. It is to say that too often, when one points an accusing finger at another, one has three accusing fingers pointing back at oneself. Granted, one might be justified in pointing the finger, and the fact that one is a sanctimonious hypocrite for doing so does not excuse the one being pointed at. Nonetheless, one is a sanctimonious hypocrite for doing so. (This is a long way of saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.)

Hypocrisy is one of the most offensive traits in an individual, policy, or statute. Collectivists – whether sexists, racists, nationalists, or any other kind of tribalist – who have the courage of their convictions and speak their minds are offensive, and we can respond with counter-argument, shunning, or violence. However, the sanctimony of the hypocrite is even more vile and fetid. It is the pro-family vitriol of the adulterous evangelist, the intrusive human resource policies of the embezzling executive, and the political correctness of the racist anti-immigrationist.

Even if the accuser’s conscience were as pure as the freshly driven snow, we still have the question of what the basis of the accusation is. Was the offending behavior an unprovoked attack on any individual that caused some quantifiable injury? If so, then the accusation might have merit. However, if no individual victim can be identified, or if the accused is perceived to be little more than an buffoon, then the accusation must be based on something vague, like ‘appropriateness’, for which no objective definition exists.

Whether the basis for complaint is libel, slander, or political correctness, when the most easily offended set the community’s standard of conduct, it creates an atmosphere of fear that stifles creativity, innovation, and discourse. Particularly unsettling is when the little boy who points out that the emperor is wearing no clothes gets punished for his impertinence, or when some thin-skinned crybaby files official, career-threatening complaints because someone disagreed with him or her or said something naughty.

This issue goes well beyond office gossips and tattle-tails. The New York Times reports that science author Simon Singh “is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for an article he published in The Guardian newspaper last year[, in which he] argued that there is no evidence for some of the claims that the BCA makes about the health benefits of visiting a chiropractor.”

“Singh is a well-known writer, journalist and television producer. He received a doctorate from Cambridge University for work in experimental particle physics, and he’s the author of several best-selling popular-science books, including Fermat’s Last Theorem and Big Bang. Last year, he published his most recent book, Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial, which he wrote in collaboration with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. Their book is an accessible and rigorous investigation of the scientific evidence for or against the claims made about various forms of ‘alternative medicine’, from acupuncture to herbal remedies.”

In other words, Dr. Singh is being sued, because he hurt someone’s feelings, and the standards of the British judicial system favor the offended, even if the statements under question are true to the best of the knowledge of the one making the statements or no identifiable individual victim exists. Similarly, many organizational policies on expression, behavior, and wardrobe are based on the sensitivities of the least tolerant, and typically the most sanctimoniously hypocritical.

This is GREAT news for anyone who is hiring as the world economy recovers. While your competitors disdain educated, skilled, and talented individuals who are physically unattractive, uncouth, or members of disfavored minorities, they reduce their own pools of candidates while increasing yours.

As your competitors’ supply of candidates falls, they must pay more; as your supply of candidates rises, you can pay less. Best of all, the unwanted will love you for being tolerant of their foibles.

As the judiciary of Great Britain scares away educated, skilled, and talented individuals, communities outside of the UK benefit. As regulators in the USA scare away entrepreneurs, market participants in the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore benefit. As blue-nosed employers scare away freethinkers, tolerant employers benefit.

We cannot change the culture of hypersensitivity, but we can profit from hypocrisy.

Invest accordingly.

CWE

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above do not refer, directly or indirectly, to any individual, group, or ideology — living, dead, or fictional — and they are not intended to cause harm, discomfort, or emotional distress. All statements of alleged fact were true to the best of the author’s knowledge at the time that this text was drafted. No animals were injured in the drafting of this post, and in fact the cat curled up next to the author for a few minutes while he or she was working on this, before said cat got bored and moved over to the windowsill. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this post is carbon-neutral, gender-neutral (except, maybe, for the Gen. Patton reference), and cruelty-free.