Betsy used my recent post about schools as the spark for this post of hers. In it, she talks about her decision to send her daughter to a magnet school instead of to her neighborhood school: good (she says) for her daughter, but not so good for her neighborhood school. (I am unfairly shortening her thesis.) She ends by saying, ” And I’ll probably always wonder if I made the right decision [sending her daughter to the magnet school]…or if I only contributed to a larger problem. “
We can make decisions in our rational self-interest that would not be sensible if everyone made them. For example, measles is a dangerous disease. No rational person would want his or her child to catch measles. Yet in the United States, thanks to an effective public health program, immunized persons have a slightly higher chance of catching measles (from the vaccine) than do unimmunized persons (from infected people). So a rational individual would refuse to be immunized. But if everyone acted in rational self-interest and declined to be immunized, within a few years we would have a measles epidemic and a lot of children would die. So we (or most of us) accept a slightly higher risk in exchange for the larger social good: we act as we want others to act even though we increase our risk of catching measles. (If I were the only unimmunized person in the world, I would be safer than if I had the shot.) And by being immunized I have “some skin in the game” — the moral right to insist that others be immunized also. If I refuse immunization, I’m making the “right” self-centered decision, but I’m becoming part of the larger problem.
Purely selfishly I should vote against school taxes. I have no children in the public schools. But what world would my children and grandchildren inhabit if their age group isn’t educated? I think I’ve voted for every school tax measure on my ballot. By voting for school taxes I again have some skin in the game, and the right to insist that our schools do a good job. If I vote against school taxes then I’m again making the “right” self-centered decision, but I’m becoming part of the larger problem. Scientifically illiterate adults aren’t going to cure cancer no matter how hard they try.
What about war? A government that starts a war can predict that a certain number of its soldiers will die, even though it can’t predict which soldiers will die. That factor tempers the decision to go to war: is the possible result worth the loss of life? I don’t want to stretch my theory too far, but it seems to me that a nation’s leadership that has almost no record of service in the armed forces and no children in the armed forces doesn’t have any skin in the game.
Comments
4 responses
That’s a very good way of looking at it. Decisions regarding children and the future are of the hardest ever to make.
I need you around to always shorten my posts since you did a very eloquent job this time!
The fact that I’ve had skin in the game all along has actually made the decision easier than I made it sound. I’ve been an active participant all along, and done what I could to help influence and support the choices the school community has chosen to make (or chosen to keep diplomatically silent when it was clear that my opinion differed from the majority & I didn’t have the time, effort, or energy to make a positive contribution towards changing opinion.)
So I didn’t feel as if I’d bailed without giving it the good old college try first.
And I do agree heartily with your final illustration where having skin in the game ought to be a requirement, not just a nicety. If only we could go backwards in time to make it so…
I can kill two birds with one stone here!
Besty–excellent post at your site. Surely you know you are by no means alone in that mental struggle. I’ve come to somewhat of a precept on that issue: if it involves me making the sacrifice for the greater good, I endeavor to choose to sacrifice. If, however, someone else is to bear it through my actions, I am more inclined to spare them the sacrifice. To apply this practically speaking, if I were the one going to the local school, I’d probably do so. But my kids are another matter, and I’m loathe to stand upon a pedestal of principle, that rests upon their shoulders. So don’t feel guilty; if you end up with better-prepared kids, we’ll all benefit.
Now, to Isaac: where did you hear the phrase “skin in the game?” I heard it for the first time last Wednesday during West Wing. It struck me as a visceral mental image. You give it effective usage here.
I heard “some skin in the game” years ago, when someone talking about business ventures was saying that if a venture capitalist funds someone with a bright idea, he will want the person with the bright idea to put money into the company, not just the bright idea, so that the inventor has “some skin in the game” and will be motivated to work hard to make the idea pay off.