The Fallacy of Compromise

Like a lot of guys, I like cars. I’ve been fortunate enough on occasion to have attended car shows and experienced their evolution first-hand (relatively, of course). It’s interesting how their aesthetics have changed over the years. The journey from Model T to what we have today is littered with some truly impressive expressions of design and function. As utilitarian as they may seem now, to me, the modern car is a form of art, a consistent transition expressed mechanically and technologically.

This is particularly true of high-performance cars, especially those known as “super-” and “hyper-cars.” The thing you will notice about vehicles that perform on the bleeding edge of acceleration and speed is that they all look remarkably similar, particularly in their shapes. The realities of driving a car at very high speeds has imposed certain limitations on how they can be shaped and designed. They all share common elements that are impossible to eschew because they must adhere to the laws of physics, such as very low, tear-drop style aerodynamics and venting that produces tremendous amounts of down-force to keep the cars from becoming airplanes at ridiculous speeds. As time goes on and the limits of performance are tested, cars at the top of the performance spectrum are slowly morphing into a single optimal design imposed by reality itself.

It is my firm belief that, for many things in life, there is an optimal standard. When it comes to human survival, I think there is an optimal means to structure our thinking and society. Just as the laws of physics impose a tendency towards optimality in car design, I think the concept of trust, our most important survival trait, leads us naturally to an optimal way of thinking about the world.

I recently read a blog post by author Ian Leslie titled Unfight Club; the overall premise was the need to make political discourse, particularly on social media, more civil. Leslie recommends some “rules” to achieve that end, the gist of which are moderation and open-mindedness. His is just one in a long line of such posts and tweets, the overall position being that we should take the time to listen to those with whom we disagree and give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their positions and intentions regarding political discourse (and discourse in general).

At some point, people have come to equate being the “voice of moderation” with being the “voice of reason.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There seems to be this false notion that has embedded itself into our social consciousness that all points of view are valid, at least to some degree. I think of it like early cars, when their low speeds allowed for wide latitude in design. However, as they got faster, truth imposed itself, in the form of physical and mathematical laws. What humans have not accepted is that the concept of trust for the purpose of survival acts (or, at least, should act) as a similar mechanism for human thinking; an optimality of thought and action is easy to discern based on that standard.

Though I understand the necessity of it, I am a staunch opponent of incrementalism as it regards social justice; it fundamentally undermines the trust necessary to stabilize society. Using the example of racism, I recently pointed out to someone that the reason “progress” regarding racism was not more widely lauded was because the concept itself was socially invalid therefore any improvements regarding it was akin to adding a positive to a negative; the true benefits of anti-racism would not be attained until racism reached “absolute zero,” its complete eradication, the reason being that racism fundamentally undermines society by producing non-equitable outcomes under contextually similar circumstances. I have laid out the thinking behind this argument more comprehensively in my post The Trust Engine.

The reality is that, when you view the world from the position of the necessity of trust to maintain society, you are naturally brought to the need and value of equitability. And, from that lens, you can understand why compromise and moderation are often not possible, particularly when it comes to politics and social justice. It is often the intention of many to maintain social asymmetries that do direct harm to affected groups, often for reasons as capricious as personal preference. Those same people will use nebulous and hard-to-argue reasons (read: excuses) to justify their desire for non-equitability, such as “terrorism,” religion, racism, sexism, “nationalism,” and other personal value judgments. The truth is that many people simply do not engage in good faith and hold socially invalid positions. Under those circumstances, to give them the benefit of the doubt is to validate their positions. To attempt to meaningfully engage with them is, by its very nature, an invalidation of truly valid social positions.

The problem is that everyone thinks their position is socially valid and that the standard of trust and fairness is not important. Many have found ways to justify imposing their belief system on others. How do you meaningfully engage with someone who engages with you in bad faith? You can’t. It’s that simple.

The thing that I notice about those who engage in bad faith is that they often use the word “compromise.” There’s a reason the word is synonymous with the exploitation of a weakness. In our world, we often have the need to find common ground with those with socially invalid positions for the purpose of peaceful resolution. However, such people know the value of peace and are willing to selfishly extract as much value for themselves as they can for the promise of it. The reality is that they also know that any concession is a victory and a validation and paves the way for greater concessions. The alternative is that they can claim victimhood and “unfairness” when their socially invalid positions are disregarded. It’s win-win for them.

“Moderation” in social discourse is based on the false premise that everyone’s personal beliefs are socially valid. This is completely false. The world is full of hypocrites, people who would willingly and easily take from others what they themselves would not be willing to give under any circumstance. They are, by nature, “bad actors.” To compromise with them is to validate them and, in turn, invalidate what drives us to optimality.

There is, indeed, optimal reasoning. It starts with rejecting the need to compromise with those whose positions by nature undermine equitability and social trust. How do you recognize such people? A clue is that they are willing to deprive others of what they themselves would not willingly give.