The Pathological Altruist

[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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

No insult was intended. I read you as saying that you thought the article was stating that altruism is pathological. My error.

As far as the definition of altruism. How are you using the word? I would define it in the sense of any action that causes you to spend energy on behalf of someone else that may cost you beyond the mere energy expended. In other words, if I pay you to mow my lawn on a hot day you are not being altruistic. If you know I can't mow my lawn and you volunteer to do it even though it's a hot day then it is considered altruistic.

At this point you might say "but wait! Nurses are paid so anything they do cannot be altruistic" but that's not quite what I'm driving at. Nurses are paid to provide care. Good nurses go above and beyond the mere provision of care. They advocate in the interest of their patients as well as providing care. That energy expended could be used elsewhere--with other patients, on themselves, with their family--but they choose to give it to this patient. If it costs them--say the behavior is staying late while a particular patient is on the floor--then the action is altruistic.

I think that the Darwinian model of altruism--namely that altruism is any action entity A takes on behalf of entity B where the risk to entity A is non-zero and there is no immediate reciprocal benefit to be had by A--is certainly useful and has explanatory power. What part do you think is flawed?

Cheers
Aj

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No insult was intended. I read you as saying that you thought the article was stating that altruism is pathological. My error.

As far as the definition of altruism. How are you using the word? I would define it in the sense of any action that causes you to spend energy on behalf of someone else that may cost you beyond the mere energy expended. In other words, if I pay you to mow my lawn on a hot day you are not being altruistic. If you know I can't mow my lawn and you volunteer to do it even though it's a hot day then it is considered altruistic.

At this point you might say "but wait! Nurses are paid so anything they do cannot be altruistic" but that's not quite what I'm driving at. Nurses are paid to provide care. Good nurses go above and beyond the mere provision of care. They advocate in the interest of their patients as well as providing care. That energy expended could be used elsewhere--with other patients, on themselves, with their family--but they choose to give it to this patient. If it costs them--say the behavior is staying late while a particular patient is on the floor--then the action is altruistic.

I think that the Darwinian model of altruism--namely that altruism is any action entity A takes on behalf of entity B where the risk to entity A is non-zero and there is no immediate reciprocal benefit to be had by A--is certainly useful and has explanatory power. What part do you think is flawed?

Cheers
Aj

This is going to be hard to explain and I don't feel that confident in my ability to communicate this effectively. Let me just say that I have a problem with altruism as it is defined. I don't think that people make a decision to expend energy that could be used elsewhere completely altruistically. I might decide to offer to mow your lawn for free on a hot day because i know you can't do it and I might believe I'm doing it because i'm a heck of a nice person. I just think there are always other factors at play. Maybe I get off on thinking about what a heck of a nice person I am. So it's worth the energy I might expend elsewhere just to have that. My problem is that when there are so many things involved in people's motivations it seems unlikely that their pathological behavior is actually caused exclusively by a need to expend enormous amounts of energy on the needs of others. I hope this makes sense.

[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.

[SoNotHer]

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.

Or it has to be re-imagined beyond its current state of limitations. 1) Nothing stays the same in a fluid universe and 2) Einstein was right when he said that our current problems can not be solved at the level of thinking that created them.

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.

Lines have been drawn in sand for most of human history and for a myriad of reasons. We like a certain look, a certain way of speaking, a perceived quality, a comment, a persona, a possibility. We draw lines in the sand all of the time and decide what we will ignore, assimilate, listen to or refute. This quality is in no way specific to pathology or altruism. But your point about the break down of communication and the demonization of the others is spot on.


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

Agreed. Likewise with perfectionism as a salient aspect of material consumption and self gratification, or a course of action driven, informed by and responsible entirely to the needs of the self.

I would also be interested in a thread on "Pathological Solipsism" or "The Hungry Triplets: The Id, Ego and The Super Ego." Inasmuch as we're living that reality, the nexus is clarion and examples abundant.