altruism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 12:46 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  [Image: WFDweb.jpg]

Empathy is the software.

Altruism is the output.

Wink
this is not proof of altruism. It is proof that a man ran into a burning building, not why he did it. I can think of several reasons he might have done so.

I took a microsecond to scan back through earlier posts to find an agreed-upon definition and couldn't find one, so from my favourite dictionary...

altruism noun an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. altruist noun someone who shows such concern. altruistic adj. altruistically adverb.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from French altruisme, from Italian altrui of or to others.


In that picture, I see an unselfish concern.

The motive could be selfish e.g. salary, self-aggrandisement, taste for adventure or it could be selfless... it certainly involves a high level of risk and I am willing to accept that there have been, in the past, examples of sacrifice of one's own life to benefit others... throwing oneself on a grenade to save fellow soldiers, a mother's sacrifice for their child etc.
Indeed, a simply act of charity of giving money to a beggar in the street could be construed as an unselfish concern.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination.

'Altruism' is just the label we attach to such deeds... i.e. the output of a process, not the trigger (motivation).

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
05-07-2017, 01:22 AM
RE: altruism
They could have gone into the fire because they are a thrill seeker.
They could have gone into the fire because they want admiration.
They could have gone into the fire because a past trauma involving fire drives want to help others in a similar circumstance.

Sympathy is walking beside someone else.
Empathy is walking in someone elses shoes.

Empathy causes real pain to the individual experiencing it.

Empathy precludes Q.

Q is defined by the taking of an action which does not benefit the actor in any way.

An individual who is acting out of empathy acts to reduce their own pain. Thus Q is precluded.
(05-07-2017 01:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:46 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  this is not proof of altruism. It is proof that a man ran into a burning building, not why he did it. I can think of several reasons he might have done so.

I took a microsecond to scan back through earlier posts to find an agreed-uopm definition and couldn't find one, so from my favourite dictionary...

altruism noun an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. altruist noun someone who shows such concern. altruistic adj. altruistically adverb.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from French altruisme, from Italian altrui of or to others.


In that picture, I see an unselfish concern.

The motive could be selfish e.g. salary, self-agrandisement, taste for adventure or it could be selfless... it certainly involves a high level of risk and I am willing to accept that there have been, in the past, examples of sacrifice of one's own life to benefit others... throwing oneself on a grenade to save fellow soldiers, a mother's sacrifice for their child etc.
Indeed, a simply act of charity of giving money to a beggar in the street could be construed as an unselfish concern.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination.

'Altruism' is just the label we attach to such deeds... i.e. the output of a process, not the trigger (motivation).

Yes
So you are reading altruism into the picture. This is an altruism of the gap argument. I cannot imagine another motive therefore Q.

In order to be Q according to the definition you quoted the actor must receive NO benefit, this is to say the benefit must be null or negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 02:48 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 01:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  They could have gone into the fire because they are a thrill seeker.
They could have gone into the fire because they want admiration.
They could have gone into the fire because a past trauma involving fire drives want to help others in a similar circumstance.

Sympathy is walking beside someone else.
Empathy is walking in someone elses shoes.

Empathy causes real pain to the individual experiencing it.

Empathy precludes Q.

Q is defined by the taking of an action which does not benefit the actor in any way.

An individual who is acting out of empathy acts to reduce their own pain. Thus Q is precluded.
(05-07-2017 01:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I took a microsecond to scan back through earlier posts to find an agreed-uopm definition and couldn't find one, so from my favourite dictionary...

altruism noun an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. altruist noun someone who shows such concern. altruistic adj. altruistically adverb.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from French altruisme, from Italian altrui of or to others.


In that picture, I see an unselfish concern.

The motive could be selfish e.g. salary, self-agrandisement, taste for adventure or it could be selfless... it certainly involves a high level of risk and I am willing to accept that there have been, in the past, examples of sacrifice of one's own life to benefit others... throwing oneself on a grenade to save fellow soldiers, a mother's sacrifice for their child etc.
Indeed, a simply act of charity of giving money to a beggar in the street could be construed as an unselfish concern.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination.

'Altruism' is just the label we attach to such deeds... i.e. the output of a process, not the trigger (motivation).

Yes
So you are reading altruism into the picture. This is an altruism of the gap argument. I cannot imagine another motive therefore Q.

In order to be Q according to the definition you quoted the actor must receive NO benefit, this is to say the benefit must be null or negative.

Perhaps you would like to re-read my post?

I did imagine some motives and you yourself repeated two of those, above.

Motive relates to one (or more) of four 'Darwinian drivers', in this case perhaps a combination of kin-selection and reciprocity. Sure, why not? But I am looking at altruism as a phenotype i.e. an output not the motive.

Does the variable "Q" refer to a part of the conversation you were having with someone else? I couldn't find it.

If the actor dies as a result of their action, would that not be classifiable as receiving null or negative benefit?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-07-2017, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2017 03:52 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
Perhaps you would like to re-read my post?
Quote:I reread your post to make sure I had gotten it the first time. I could be wrong (and if I am please correct me). What you are saying is that though there could be another explanation you are choosing to believe that the individual is acting out of altruism. I do not wish to be rude but this seems like an altruism of the gap argument for me. To me this seems equivalent to a Christian who says "You want proof god exists? Look at the trees.".

Q is much like god in my view.
I paraphrase Laplace 'It works with or without that assumption'.

[quote]

I did imagine some motives and you yourself repeated two of those, above.
Yes and then you chose to believe and insert Q into the model in order to explain it even after there was no need for it.

Quote:Motive relates to one (or more) of four 'Darwinian drivers', in this case perhaps a combination of kin-selection and reciprocity. Sure, why not? But I am looking at Q as a phenotype i.e. an output not the motive.


And this is where we run into the wall. The concept Q precludes even the possibility of benefit. Further the argument that Q is an output does not hold given the definition which you provided.]

Q is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
The question which must follow is "Was the action taken unselfish?". If we can explain it with a selfish motive then why should we accept altruism as the answer.
Quote:Does the variable "Q" refer to a part of the conversation you were having with someone else? I couldn't find it.
I am attempting a different approach this time because it seems like those who get involved in this conversation keep getting stuck on the term and not the concept. I am hoping to head that off by using a neutral term.
Quote:If the actor dies as a result of their action, would that not be classifiable as receiving null or negative benefit?
Huh
This is a very good and very important question which gets to the heart of the question of me being unconvinced that Q exists. The concept Q seeks to explain why someone took an action. Q is a concept about why someone does something. It does not explain to that someone died, we have a concept for that already, it seeks instead to explain why someone did something that would lead to death.

Now let me rephrase your question a bit.
If I die saving my child from a fire does this mean that my action that null or even negative benefit? No.
If I die saving someone elses child from a fire does this mean that my actions have null or even negative benefit? No.
What it means, and the only thing that it means is that I valued the life of the child over my own life. This goes a long way in explaining PTSD and survivors guilt among survivors. When a survivor experiences survivors guilt and some forms PTSD the root of the experience is a subconscious belief that the one who died "in their place" had a higher value. Q does not explain PTSD and survivors guilt.

(Yes I am aware that survivors guilt is a form of PTSD but not everybody makes the distinction and I am trying for clarity)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:07 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 12:09 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I don't understand what you mean by "good" so I tried to restate what I thought you meant.

You were the one that first used the word "good", I meant whatever you meant.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:12 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 04:07 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:09 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I don't understand what you mean by "good" so I tried to restate what I thought you meant.

You were the one that first used the word "good", I meant whatever you meant.

If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not increasing their own well-being?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

Correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:14 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 04:12 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 04:07 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You were the one that first used the word "good", I meant whatever you meant.

If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not increasing their own well-being?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

Correct?

Well now, that's an entirely different question isn't it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:26 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 04:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 04:12 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not increasing their own well-being?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

Correct?

Well now, that's an entirely different question isn't it.

So we found the miscommunication? If so let me apologize because that is what I meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 06:32 AM
RE: altruism
You are totally ignoring two basic, genetic things: empathy and auto responses.

People have different levels of empathy - they are genetically equipped with different levels of the ability to feel what other animals feel. As with all genetic attributes, evolution distributes this with zero on one extreme, and super strong ability on the other. People on the latter extreme actually feel pain when others do, and helping brings relief, pleasure and satisfaction.

For more people than we (or they) think, jumping into dangerous waters to save some baby is an auto response. They don't think, they leap. It's genetic.

All your rationalizing is futile when genetic predispositions are in charge. You can form any conclusion you like with reason, but in the end, your genetics are in charge.

If helping others in itself has no reward for you, you just don't have much empathy - if you did, not helping would be painful and helping would be rewarded.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
05-07-2017, 07:20 AM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 06:32 AM)Dom Wrote:  You are totally ignoring two basic, genetic things: empathy and auto responses.

People have different levels of empathy - they are genetically equipped with different levels of the ability to feel what other animals feel. As with all genetic attributes, evolution distributes this with zero on one extreme, and super strong ability on the other. People on the latter extreme actually feel pain when others do, and helping brings relief, pleasure and satisfaction.

For more people than we (or they) think, jumping into dangerous waters to save some baby is an auto response. They don't think, they leap. It's genetic.

All your rationalizing is futile when genetic predispositions are in charge. You can form any conclusion you like with reason, but in the end, your genetics are in charge.

If helping others in itself has no reward for you, you just don't have much empathy - if you did, not helping would be painful and helping would be rewarded.
I am going to disagree with nothing you said as I understand it.
My problem with what you said however is two fold.
1) Empathy is not altruism, nor does it cause an Q response.
Q is defined as an action which has either null or negative reward for the individual.
If i act out of empathy I act to alleviate my own pain. If I am successful I am rewarded by going from a state of in pain, to a state of pain relieved which has a opioid effect.
2) I don't think you mean by "auto response" what I would mean by that term. For me auto response is synonymous with subconscious response. This can be demonstrated using the example of a hitlarian level racist. Such an individual would not in fact jump into the river to save a drowning black baby, while they would do so for a white baby. I just looked for it and can't find it but I was hoping to find a news story I read several years ago. Here's the gist. A former white supremacist who was interviewed who talks about how he was at a restaurant and saw a black kid choking to death. He talks about the pleasure he felt while this was happening. Then he goes on to talk about how that makes him feel now, and how angry he is at himself and how ashamed he is. I posit that should something like that happen to him today he would more than likely try to save the kid.

Before his definition of my tribe(Us) and their tribe(them) has shifted. What has happened in this case is that the definition of tribe has widened.

I am in no way denying the power of empathy. I am saying that the concept of Q is as fraudulent as the concept of god. People act in accordance with their hierarchy of values.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: