The Pathological Altruist

[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

[Elijah]

I'm glad to hear that, perhaps there is hope.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

[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]

Are you saying that pure altruism does not exist, except in theory?

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

Are you saying that pure altruism does not exist, except in theory?

I am not prepared to say that true altruism doesn’t exist. But I sure don’t believe that it exists to the extent that it can be pathologized. True altruism done to such an extent that it becomes a pathology in my mind can’t exist. I believe there are other psychological factors causing a pathology that may have some altruistic like symptoms. A sort of pseudo altruism.

[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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by ElijahRene

I once posed a hypothetical question to a friend about a discussion we were having along the same vein...I asked if you were on a ship with 2,000 people on board but only had enough life rafts to hold 1,000, would you save the 1,000 or would you attempt to overload the life rafts and in the end, no one survives?

It would be foolish to overload the life rafts so no one survives. However, for me the problem lies in who dies and who decides it. Because it is hard to imagine 1000 people willingly sacrificing themselves.

I would be interested in the plan for making the hard choices. I would also be interested in how the plan once made would be implemented. Who gets saved who gets condemned to death? And who tells the 1000 who need to sacrifice themselves? Perhaps there would be 1000 pathological altruists on the ship. Now that would be a stroke of luck.

[SoNotHer]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

It would be foolish to overload the life rafts so no one survives. However, for me the problem lies in who dies and who decides it.

Agreed. I'm curious if anyone has seen Hitchcock's Lifeboat or read Lord of the Flies recently.