Dominance Bias Recognition as Philosophical Tool

A common flaw or bias in thinking I think I have noticed, that I have not seen much writing on, is "dominance bias" *. People will tend to believe anything that construes them as dominant, or makes them feel dominant, in line with the universal primate instinct for dominance (1).

For instance someone marginal to industrial capitalism, such as youth or the unemployed will be more likely to believe industrial capitalism is destroying the planet, because this will construe them as morally superior to, hence "dominant over", anyone more successful than them in the capitalist hierarchy. They may also believe the "system" is going to collapse and they will be in an advantageous (dominant) position when this happens compared to people who are currently more powerful or important than them.

A powerful person within industrial capitalism might be more likely to believe industrialism greatly benefits rather than threatens our species survival. They will likely believe it can adapt to future crises as it has in the past. Again this view might simply be held because it construes the thinker as dominant, not because of evidence or rational argument.

I only use the "environmental crisis" as an example, dominance bias can occur in all areas of thought and life. A possibly clearer example is conspiracy theories. If someone believes the world is flat, and there is a conspiracy to cover this fact up, that makes them intellectually and morally superior to everyone else in the world who does not share this belief, hence dominant.  

Keeping an eye out for dominance bias should not be that difficult once one is aware of it and should in my view be added to the standard repertoire of philosophical tools.

_______

It is possible dominance bias appears universal at present due to the apparent narcissism epidemic (2) in laissez-faire Western society. It might be that instincts, such as the instinct for dominance and accompanying narcissism, rise to the surface in laissez-faire situations. A deference bias might exist elsewhere, perhaps in the East where humility is still officially culturally valued. However I think deference or submission can often be a way of attaching yourself to someone who is or seems to be dominant so is often really still about dominance, becoming part of a dominant superorganism, though it may appear and profess not to be.

In some cultures there might even be a bias that everyone is equal or average, taking the middle path between dominant and deferential (in some egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies for instance(3)). I recall an anthropologist who studied one such society, when he commented one particular man was a good hunter, he was told off "we are all good hunters" (4).  

* Not mentioned in the very comprehensive and established Philosopher's Toolkit by Baggini & Fosl (2003) for instance.

1. Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. A Mazur (2005).

2. The Narcissism Epidemic. Living in the Age of Entitlement. J M Twenge, W K Campbell (2009).

3. An "everyone is average" bias seems probable in such societies from the following description: "Instead of denying the" (instinctive) "will to power, egalitarian societies know it all too well. They deal with it every day. In egalitarian societies, men trying to dominate others are systematically undermined, and male pride is frowned upon" (p 74). Our Inner Ape. F D Waal (2005). It may well be that many "primitive" hunter gatherer societies are more civilized than "modern" societies when it come to suppressing instincts for dominance.

4. Not sure who said this, may have been Kirk Endicott talking about the Batek. Pretty sure it was some Malaysian hunter gatherer society.