Mental Disorders and Illnesses: Part Six
Comparators as Clamps
In the book The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects How We Think, Live, and Die, Keith Payne argues that neither liberals, who argue that poverty is a system, nor conservatives, who argue that poverty is personal choice, are correct. He posits it is both the system and individual behaviours.
He suggests inequality impacts the thought processes and behaviours of everyone on the inequality ladder. Those who are dealing with poverty, or who feel poorer than their comparative cohort, all tend towards short-term decision making and are less capable of planning or of applying behaviours that involve delayed gratification. Those who are wealthy, or feel they are doing better than their comparative cohort, tend towards higher levels of judgment towards others and lower levels of empathy or recognition of situational influences on others.
The author also notes that when we speak of “inequality” we all focus on the poor. When he mentioned to colleagues he was writing a book on inequality, they all tended to send him links and papers that were focused on the impacts of poverty.
However, those who comparatively identify as wealthier than others, focus more on framing their wealth as a reflection of merit and hard work. They are also far less likely to want to have a fair redistribution of wealth in society as well.
Payne and his colleagues developed a series of experiments to test how people behave when unequal distributions occur in various economic games they created:
“… [and this] suggests that more unequal outcomes lead people to perceive that they need more resources to be satisfied. Higher perceived needs, in turn, motivate greater risk taking to meet those needs.”
In the above quoted research, Payne and his colleagues posit that this underlying ratcheting towards higher-risk behaviour may be the underlying driver for many of the well-known poor outcomes we see in highly unequal societies: greater rates of crime, poor health, greater debt levels, etc. And notably, the higher-risk behaviours for the disadvantaged were not present when those subjects were not aware of the disparity.
The upshot is that highly unequal societies essentially make us all prone to checking our status against those of our neighbours. If we feel we come out comparatively ahead, then we are less empathetic and less willing to have any redistribution; and if we feel comparatively behind, then we are liable to adopt shorter-term higher-risk behaviours in the pursuit of trying to catch up.
We are best served when we do not have the comparators front and centre it seems. If we look around and everyone seems to be in the same boat then we can maintain empathy and maintain an ability to delay gratification and apply longer-term behaviours that will serve our needs well.
And this is where the title of this series comes into focus: what is the story we have developed around ourselves about ourselves and how would we edit, curate and protect it to ensure that we keep all the toxic comparators at bay to serve our own interests and the interests of others in the best way possible?
How much of our story of ourselves is based on comparators? We should also look at any comparators we apply internally using our past and future selves as this too likely clamps our ability to be either empathetic with ourselves or to apply long term thought and right-sized adoption of risk in our behaviours.
And what is the setting of our story? Are we curating our story, or simply floating through it? What is the point of our story? Who are the characters and what is the environment in which we set this story?
Coping Continuum and Curation of Environment
[image description: four cartoon illustrated panels. First panel on the left titled: Reality. There is a fence with a ballgame being played beyond the fence. There are three individuals behind the fence. The one on the left with a blue shirt is standing on so many wooden crates above the fence that we only see his shoes in the frame. The second person standing next to them on the right in the red shirt is standing on one wooden crate and with their height this enables them to see the game over the fence line. The third person in the purple shirt is actually standing in a hole dug in the grass well below the fence, they are also shorter than the person in the red shirt and they can see nothing. The second panel titled Equality. It has the three people again trying to see the ballgame over the fence and each is standing on one wooden crate. The person in the blue shirt is now fully visible in the frame and they are the tallest and can easily see over the fence. The second in the red shirt remains unchanged able to see over the fence on the one wooden crate. The third in the purple shirt is still too short and even standing on one wooden crate they cannot see over the fence. The third frame is titled Equity. Now the person in the blue shirt is just standing on the ground and can still easily see the game over the fence because they are tall. The second in the red shirt remains unchanged on the one wooden crate and can see over the fence. The third in the purple shirt is now standing on two wooden crates and they can now see over the fence and can enjoy the game. In the final panel on the right titled Justice, the fence has been removed and all three can see the game standing on the ground without any crates.]
The above image is doing the rounds on Twitter these days – there are many variations on the original illustration. As far as I can tell the most original version of this illustration was created by Craig Froehle and had two panels: equality vs. equity.
If you are the person in the purple shirt, the only space that allows you to immerse yourself in enjoying and watching the game and not really comparing yourself at all to the people in the blue and red shirts, is the space where no accommodations are necessary (panel four on the right).
And back to reality.
Yet your reality is filled with different frames and vignettes and reality does not mean you are stuck in a hole by a fence in all interfaces and interactions in your life. But a single frame of injustice can sear comparator clamps into your existence in all areas of your life.
Any label that attaches to you is a comparator clamp and will impact how you think and feel and what behaviours you apply and reinforce.
Mental disorder and illness have mental health and wellness as their comparator opposites. And having health and wellness as comparator clamps worsen any pursuit of health and wellness because a comparator increases higher-risk behaviours and lowers an ability to make decisions in favour of long-term better outcomes. The more you want what others have, the more risks you will take to get it.
As I mentioned before in this series: “Children with coping continuum challenges need places and spaces that allow them to experience mastery and self-direction on their own terms.” Adults need this too. Next week the final installment in this series: Part Seven
Payne BK, Brown-Iannuzzi JL, Hannay JW. Economic inequality increases risk taking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017 May 2;114(18):4643-8.
