The Pathological Altruist

[Elijah]

Exactly Dutch, you can't get out of the game, so now what?

Originally Posted by Dutch Leonard

Think of thermodynamics in these terms:

You can't win.

You can't break even.

You can't get out of the game.

Someone who wants to save everyone and everything ultimately destroys what they wanted to save in the first place. Same for the crazy cat lady and the spinal tap ordering doctor.

[tapu]

So... you lose.

[SoNotHer]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

Exactly Dutch, you can't get out of the game, so now what?

Stoppard answers just this in Arcadia. You live and you love and you fight entropy (my new cause - can you see the vistas ahead for this? The tee shirts, the placards and the marked whoopee cushions).

Again, I highly recommend at the very least a reading of the play. Watch and marvel :-)

[Dutch Leonard]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

Exactly Dutch, you can't get out of the game, so now what?

"Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."

[tapu]

That "Stoppard" again!! Is he your brother-in-law or something? Just kidding. <tapu ducks>

I'm wondering if anyone else needs a little background on how he comes into the picture here. I realize I could go read about who he is and the works you've recommended but in the short-run, could you fill me in on the connections you want to make just in the context of this conversation?

Thanks. I'm sorry if I'm being thick and could have picked up more from the preceding posts.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

So... you lose.

Ultimately, yes you do but I like to use the analogy of eating. When we eat, we temporarily reduce the amount of entropy in our bodies by taking in the materials of other living things. The thermodynamic books stay balanced because there are waste products that result from converting the energy of one living thing into another living thing. But the immediately local effect is that the total entropy of your body, for that moment, is reduced. Work is done. Matter is converted into energy.

Now, should you stop eating for a sufficient amount of time, entropy will catch up and your body will very quickly start toward a state of higher entropy as your metabolism crashes and then other living things start breaking you down, increasing the disorder in your body until your body no longer exists. Now, over time it doesn't matter how much or how well we eat, our body will break down so, again, entropy always wins in the long run but if you live the average lifespan for your time and place, that's still a *lot* of time at least holding one's own against entropy and I wouldn't call that a loss necessarily.

Cheers
Aj

[Elijah]

I don't mind losing, but I think we are expected to put fourth some effort before we do, otherwise it's called surrender.

Originally Posted by tapu

So... you lose.

[tapu]

Heya, AJ, I bet we hold the title for the shortest and the longest average posts forum-wide. We're Extreme!!

[SoNotHer]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But I think we *can* and *should* look to Nature for an understanding of ourselves and of the world we inhabit. Not so that we can learn what we should do, but so we can have some kind of ideas about what we can do. I would love for every adult in America to have a grounding in the kinds of trade-offs nature makes because all of the living things we see around us and we ourselves are the results of those trade-offs. That means I would love for every American adult to understand Darwinian theory because it gives people the tools to really start to be amazed at how Nature does things and why our world is so wonderful while, at the same time, training the mind to begin asking cost-questions.

I like that this is extending tangentially into related areas of great interest to me. I want to focus in particular on this passage. I would like to think that as a species accessing, well, at least two percent of our brains, that me might avail ourselves of four billion years of Earth engineering. Biomimicry, one of my beloved interests, does attempt this. I would also like to think that we can and should come to some understanding of evolution as something worthy of study and emulation and not an idea to run in fear from or see, in the context of religious teachings, as mutually exclusive. Either we have our sacred cosmologies, or we have evolution, but, the twain shall never harmonize like a good PBJ sandwich. (It's late. I'm hungry.)

So, as my neighbor likes to tell everyone I introduce him to, if we had some intrinsic understanding that one gallon of ancient sunlight (otherwise known as "oil" or its refined offspring "gasoline") is equivalent to three weeks of human labor @ 40 hours a week, we might understand the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, "that no transformation from concentrated to dispersed energy is every 100 percent efficient, and that the late night love call to girlfriend X across town just demanded a lot of beefy types working at .1 hp for three weeks and so on. This equation and information can be found through many sources besides my rogue, cigarette-bumming neighbor, but for convenience sake, I'll reference Pimentel's "Energy and Power" article for The Social Contract.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/art...cle_1090.shtml

I would love for Americans to have a much better understanding of trade offs too, AJ, and I would like them to send me ten dollars or at least a Ponderosa gift certificate (still hungry) for me telling them so. If, for instance, Americans had more information on Hubbard's theory and the term "Peak Oil" than they did on what the Khardasians bought this week, we might have a much deeper appreciation for the fact that the suburbia and empire we zealously undertook in the 50s on $2/barrel oil is now far harder to maintain on $85/barrel oil. And if we were to collectively realize that the ratio of energy spent in extraction to energy (oil for our purposes here) obtained continues to tip in the direction of diminishing returns and depletion, we might in fact be able to effectively reinvent our relationship with energy, model a more balanced and enduring kind of altruism, and pack the entire 2000 in the life boats, coolers and all.

I would welcome the continued survival and non-dissipation of this discussion. I would also welcome Planetary threads on the transition movement, Peak Oil, permaculture and biomimicry, all of which I find the most interesting and useful trajectories for discussion and embrace and deployment in these times. Or, if attempting to attract acolytes, perhaps we would all enjoy creating and top dipping into threads like "The Possibilities of Better Living Through Logic," or "Why I Can't Prepare for Post-Peak Oil Apocalypse Homesteading with a Histrionic Harpy."

Meanwhile, Tapu, I fear you have reshifted your onus (that doesn't sound right and conjures that oh-so-pretty name for the 7th planet) back to me. Hmmm. Well, I shall do my best to find excerpts from the play to satisfy your inquiry. Meanwhile, for God's sake read Stoppard because he's funny, brilliant and, well, yes, biologically related. Now if only I could convince his manager that a millenium-old mitochondiral separation is still technically related and that royalty sharing keeps families strong and snuggly close.

In other news, I need to sleep. I'm shooting arrows in a few hours with my shooting arrows friend. Better that I not be so sleep deprived as to think her Envoy's hubcaps a target.

Thank you all for a jolly good discourse, and happy Saturday morning to you.

[AtLast]

Contemplating that we are on that ship with these kinds of choices throughout life really. My actions constantly impact others if I am present in life.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Meanwhile, Tapu, I fear you have reshifted your onus (that doesn't sound right and conjures that oh-so-pretty name for the 7th planet) back to me. Hmmm. Well, I shall do my best to find excerpts from the play to satisfy your inquiry. Meanwhile, for God's sake read Stoppard because he's funny, brilliant and, well, yes, biologically related. Now if only I could convince his manager that a millenium-old mitochondiral separation is still technically related and that royalty sharing keeps families strong and snuggly close.

Whut? I think you overestimate me....

[SoNotHer]

Originally Posted by tapu

Whut? I think you overestimate me....

OK, than for God and Goddess' sake just read anything.

I will look forward to the report on your exploration of Stoppard. You have a day, eh? :-)

[tapu]

Okay, I'll get started. But I'm letting you know--I only read short words.

[Cin]

Well since we have the virtue of selfishness, why not pathological altruism.

Although I have to agree some of the examples used to explain this term seem to miss the mark, at least the altruism part, pathological for sure, altruistic not so much.

Others have an odd bend like the empathetic nurses as opposed to aloof nurses or giving generously to one kid (I assume not so generously to the other 2). What happens makes sense, understandably empathetic nurses burn out more quickly than those who are uncaring and kids who watch others receive generously feel hurt. I wouldn’t call the reactions or results pathologies to altruism. But then I wouldn’t call being empathetic an altruistic behavior either. And I seriously question whether you can teach empathy. At least to full grown adult nurses. But perhaps you can.

So while I agree with lots of what the article had to say, like there are always trade-offs, increasing something decreases something else, humans as a species are amazingly cooperative etc, I find myself puzzled as to how it all connects to altruism let alone altruism as pathology.

I don’t think I’ve ever really believed in the existence of true altruism. Perhaps loosely defined it exists in some form when an animal behaves in a way that is bad for it personally but helps ensure the survival of the group. And probably loosely defined in humans as well, especially when it comes to one’s children. However, an argument could be made that parents see their children as an extension of themselves. Personally I don’t think altruism exists in any pure form. I seriously doubt people engaging in pathological behavior that involves an overly involved concern with others are practicing altruism.

I do think that understanding about trade-offs is important. If you take something from one side of the equation you need to balance it by replacing it with something else. Either that or remove something from the other side. People often forget that, I think. Another problem I see is that mostly people want to win, they want to be right. They want to win so much that they will lose rather than compromise.

If you are losing nurses to burn out because you are training them to be highly empathetic (if indeed that is even possible) and their patients love them, train them to be not so highly more in the middle empathetic and their patients will like them and you get perhaps less burn out. Someone mentioned having the opportunity to skip two grades and being in the same class as their brother but their mother refused so as not to upset the brother. Why not skip just one grade? Then you’re not in the same class as your brother, but you get to be more intellectually stimulated.

Still I’m not sure I understand what it all has to do with altruism. But clearly I’m not the sharpest tool in the box.

Anyway it’s probably all just part of a plot by the right to justify why the 1% need not concern itself with the plight of the 99%. Giving altruism a black eye has got to be a good thing for them

[dreadgeek]

Miss Tick:

I didn't read the article as giving altruism a black eye. I don't think it is saying that *altruism* itself is pathological. It reads, at least to me, to be saying that beyond a certain point altruistic behavior can become pathological. I thought the examples from medicine were actually spot on. A nurse who will go to the wall to insure that her patients get the very best care is behaving altruistically. A nurse who does so and does not develop the ability to detach, thus causing her to leave nursing, thus reducing by one the number of nurses who will go all the way for their patients, is showing pathological altruism. Part of caring enough about one's patients should, I would think, making sure that oneself stays capable of continuing the practice of nursing.

An even more spot-on illustration is the doctor insisting on the spinal tap with the elderly patient. What the article seems to me to be describing is what happens to altruism and how people can manage to take actions that have consequences *entirely* opposite of their intended goals. That doctor did not want to kill the patient. But he was so certain that he had the patient's best interest at heart that he would not stop and reevaluate the situation. He didn't stop and consider the process costs of this decision.

That is not saying that altruism is pathological. It is saying that if one becomes so blinded by one's altruistic impulse that one can no longer stop and consider possible implications of actions, then the altruistic impulse has been taken too far and the results are pathological--in other words they cause harm instead of good.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well since we have the virtue of selfishness, why not pathological altruism.

Although I have to agree some of the examples used to explain this term seem to miss the mark, at least the altruism part, pathological for sure, altruistic not so much.

Others have an odd bend like the empathetic nurses as opposed to aloof nurses or giving generously to one kid (I assume not so generously to the other 2). What happens makes sense, understandably empathetic nurses burn out more quickly than those who are uncaring and kids who watch others receive generously feel hurt. I wouldn’t call the reactions or results pathologies to altruism. But then I wouldn’t call being empathetic an altruistic behavior either. And I seriously question whether you can teach empathy. At least to full grown adult nurses. But perhaps you can.

So while I agree with lots of what the article had to say, like there are always trade-offs, increasing something decreases something else, humans as a species are amazingly cooperative etc, I find myself puzzled as to how it all connects to altruism let alone altruism as pathology.

I don’t think I’ve ever really believed in the existence of true altruism. Perhaps loosely defined it exists in some form when an animal behaves in a way that is bad for it personally but helps ensure the survival of the group. And probably loosely defined in humans as well, especially when it comes to one’s children. However, an argument could be made that parents see their children as an extension of themselves. Personally I don’t think altruism exists in any pure form. I seriously doubt people engaging in pathological behavior that involves an overly involved concern with others are practicing altruism.

I do think that understanding about trade-offs is important. If you take something from one side of the equation you need to balance it by replacing it with something else. Either that or remove something from the other side. People often forget that, I think. Another problem I see is that mostly people want to win, they want to be right. They want to win so much that they will lose rather than compromise.

If you are losing nurses to burn out because you are training them to be highly empathetic (if indeed that is even possible) and their patients love them, train them to be not so highly more in the middle empathetic and their patients will like them and you get perhaps less burn out. Someone mentioned having the opportunity to skip two grades and being in the same class as their brother but their mother refused so as not to upset the brother. Why not skip just one grade? Then you’re not in the same class as your brother, but you get to be more intellectually stimulated.

Still I’m not sure I understand what it all has to do with altruism. But clearly I’m not the sharpest tool in the box.

Anyway it’s probably all just part of a plot by the right to justify why the 1% need not concern itself with the plight of the 99%. Giving altruism a black eye has got to be a good thing for them

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Miss Tick:

I didn't read the article as giving altruism a black eye. I don't think it is saying that *altruism* itself is pathological. It reads, at least to me, to be saying that beyond a certain point altruistic behavior can become pathological. I thought the examples from medicine were actually spot on. A nurse who will go to the wall to insure that her patients get the very best care is behaving altruistically. A nurse who does so and does not develop the ability to detach, thus causing her to leave nursing, thus reducing by one the number of nurses who will go all the way for their patients, is showing pathological altruism. Part of caring enough about one's patients should, I would think, making sure that oneself stays capable of continuing the practice of nursing.

An even more spot-on illustration is the doctor insisting on the spinal tap with the elderly patient. What the article seems to me to be describing is what happens to altruism and how people can manage to take actions that have consequences *entirely* opposite of their intended goals. That doctor did not want to kill the patient. But he was so certain that he had the patient's best interest at heart that he would not stop and reevaluate the situation. He didn't stop and consider the process costs of this decision.

That is not saying that altruism is pathological. It is saying that if one becomes so blinded by one's altruistic impulse that one can no longer stop and consider possible implications of actions, then the altruistic impulse has been taken too far and the results are pathological--in other words they cause harm instead of good.

Cheers
Aj

I know it isn’t saying that altruism itself is pathological. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills. Apparently though I’m not quite that skilled at writing. I need to look at that. If what I wrote appears to others that I understood the article to be saying that altruism is pathological then I should try another form of communication.

Oh well.

I got what it was saying. I just disagree with the use of altruism to describe the behaviors they allude to in the article. Pathological in some cases yes. But altruistic no.

Perhaps I am using a different definition for altruism than they are using in the article and that others who are reading it are using.

Let me try it this way. For altruistic behavior to be taken so far as to be considered pathological, initially it should actually be altruistic behavior. I just don't agree with that part.

[Elijah]

Alright, I am going to give this a try…what immediately came to mind for Me when I read this article is that I have run into a whole group of individuals that have seemed to adopt this all or nothing attitude about how to fix our social and financial woes. As an example, the attitude that all people of this nation and any other nations who are here legally or otherwise have a “right” to healthcare. Now, while in theory, I think this is a splendid idea, the logical part of My brain steps in and asks the rather inconvenient question of “how?”

How can a system, that has limited means, be expected to serve in an unlimited capacity? The only answer I can come up with is …it can’t.

Once we come to this conclusion, then the question is again, so now what? Then the ominous task of outlining some rules is upon us. Here is where things start break down rapidly, the pathological altruist thinks that everyone, without exception, should be entitled to health care, because dammit, it’s a basic human right (or it should be) etc. While, again, in theory, I agree, we should take care of our brothers and sisters, there are limitations on our ability to do so with abandon.

Then, when we start to draw those proverbial lines in the sand, then we start to attack and demonize each other. Or, we simply give up trying to come up with an actual solution, because the process is simply too painful, and inertia sets in, but the judgment and mudslinging remains.

So, much like the mother on the plane who must put on her oxygen mask before she attempts to help her child, we also, as a nation, have to put on our oxygen mask first or we will no longer be able to extend that seemingly unlimited “hand” to our neighboring nations.

My point is that pathological altruism is akin to perfectionism, which really serves no purpose, but to cripple and divide.

I’m sorry, I really know nothing about thermodynamics or I would have given you a snappy analogy based on that. *s

[Cin]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

Alright, I am going to give this a try…what immediately came to mind for Me when I read this article is that I have run into a whole group of individuals that have seemed to adopt this all or nothing attitude about how to fix our social and financial woes. As an example, the attitude that all people of this nation and any other nations who are here legally or otherwise have a “right” to healthcare. Now, while in theory, I think this is a splendid idea, the logical part of My brain steps in and asks the rather inconvenient question of “how?”

How can a system, that has limited means, be expected to serve in an unlimited capacity? The only answer I can come up with is …it can’t.

Once we come to this conclusion, then the question is again, so now what? Then the ominous task of outlining some rules is upon us. Here is where things start break down rapidly, the pathological altruist thinks that everyone, without exception, should be entitled to health care, because dammit, it’s a basic human right (or it should be) etc. While, again, in theory, I agree, we should take care of our brothers and sisters, there are limitations on our ability to do so with abandon.

Then, when we start to draw those proverbial lines in the sand, then we start to attack and demonize each other. Or, we simply give up trying to come up with an actual solution, because the process is simply too painful, and inertia sets in, but the judgment and mudslinging remains.

So, much like the mother on the plane who must put on her oxygen mask before she attempts to help her child, we also, as a nation, have to put on our oxygen mask first or we will no longer be able to extend that seemingly unlimited “hand” to our neighboring nations.

I’m sorry, I really know nothing about thermodynamics or I would have given you a snappy analogy based on that. *s

I agree it would be helpful to reconsider the all or nothing stand that people often take.

However as far as healthcare for all, other countries manage it. Why would it be that the U.S. can't?

[Elijah]

They manage it, but at what cost?

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I agree it would be helpful to reconsider the all or nothing stand that people often take.

However as far as healthcare for all, other countries manage it. Why would it be that the U.S. can't?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

They manage it, but at what cost?

Ah the scary socialized medicine thing. Well, after beginning the process to be a permanent resident in Montreal, i was given full health care benefits before I was even allowed to work. I have lived here for 8 years and I have to say I have had excellent health care. I love my doctor. She actually listens to me and her diagnostic skills are the best I've ever seen. I will say if you need routine surgery there is a wait, but it isn't really that long. If you need emergency care you will get it immediately.