Does the way science people/libs talk about altruism in the scientific sense and make anyone else feel uneasy?
This isn't a fully-formed thought, but it seems like by putting altruism under a microscope they end up pathologizing it, only to bend over backwards to minimize its importance because they feel like they can explain it as still being self-interest in the end.
The whole strain to define altruism as ultimate self-interest seems to stem from a deep contradiction that is only a contradiction if you have an ideology that everybody/thing acts only in its own self-interest.
Like we have complex social behaviours - nobody is distressed and mobilized to find a biological justification for liking to play basketball, we just accept that a complex soup of influences creates ways humans can be. Altruism though? We have to make sure to explain this away.
I don't mean to put all science people in a box, I have a STEM background myself. I just feel like I hear people refer to altruism as if to equate it to just something they do because of their programming, like no shit that describes literally everything you could possibly every do.
In my opinion, as someone who studied Behavioral Economics quite a bit in undergrad (and this is precisely the kind of shit we went over), it is really just an desperate attempt by economists to rationalize marginal utility theory and justify consumer manipulation. You have to basically take the concept Utility as normative, thus the purely atomistic individual, and then use descriptive means to try and explicate deviations from the norm.
In short, in order to talk about altruism you have to contrast it with an a priori assumption about nonaltruism as the default mode of decision making. That ain't so simple, humans are dynamic, social, and qualitatively diverse decision makers, we also have a conscious and unconscious which are not some purely harmonious unity. I think the most disconcerting thing for most people, what the libs are incapable of grappling with, is that our perceived self-interest rarely actually ever is simply that
I might be completely wrong but isn't that kinda similar to the Kantian view of altruism, where complete selflessness is impossible because feeling good about being altruistic is a way you gain from the act and therefore it can't be truly selfless? I think it's pretty reductive to approach it that way as well as the way sciencey people approach it like you pointed out. I always assumed it was a way selfish people could reconcile the contradictions of their morals and actions. By arguing altruism is also selfish they have an excuse not to engage in it.
I always assumed it was a way selfish people could reconcile the contradictions of their morals and actions.
Yeah of course that's a much simpler explanation. I was overthinking it by thinking it is a justification of capitalism, the idea that we're all ultimately selfish so we can't every consider a system based on altruism.
I guess I never thought about it too hard. I always kinda liked that you had a universal reason to improve stuff.
No matter what, the earth is where you keep your stuff, so making the earth nucer makes your situation better 100% of the time and thats rad.
I dunno, if it weren't true would we all still be for comunism? I would think most of us would read theory and find the beat system and try to work towards that. Since that is true, comunism is the most sound way to operate so we have go try tonsave the world and all that.
My understanding is that the question comes up because of the apparent contradiction between the notion that an organism giving away resources would presumably be reducing its own chances of propagating its genes, and the fact that altruistic behavior does exist. But that contradiction gets resolved if traits can be selected at the group level, because then something that increases group survival will tend to spread. And I do think there are similar discussions regarding why humans play sports and games.
Like I say, I have a STEM degree I understand the argument. It only makes sense from a ridiculous genetic reductionist perspective though.
We aren't amoeba. We have sophisticated behaviours informed at least partially, often primarily, by complex culture. This one crusade against altruism just seems very highly motivated is all.
Does the way science people/libs talk about altruism in the scientific sense and make anyone else feel uneasy?
This isn't a fully-formed thought, but it seems like by putting altruism under a microscope they end up pathologizing it, only to bend over backwards to minimize its importance because they feel like they can explain it as still being self-interest in the end.
The whole strain to define altruism as ultimate self-interest seems to stem from a deep contradiction that is only a contradiction if you have an ideology that everybody/thing acts only in its own self-interest.
Like we have complex social behaviours - nobody is distressed and mobilized to find a biological justification for liking to play basketball, we just accept that a complex soup of influences creates ways humans can be. Altruism though? We have to make sure to explain this away.
I don't mean to put all science people in a box, I have a STEM background myself. I just feel like I hear people refer to altruism as if to equate it to just something they do because of their programming, like no shit that describes literally everything you could possibly every do.
In my opinion, as someone who studied Behavioral Economics quite a bit in undergrad (and this is precisely the kind of shit we went over), it is really just an desperate attempt by economists to rationalize marginal utility theory and justify consumer manipulation. You have to basically take the concept Utility as normative, thus the purely atomistic individual, and then use descriptive means to try and explicate deviations from the norm.
In short, in order to talk about altruism you have to contrast it with an a priori assumption about nonaltruism as the default mode of decision making. That ain't so simple, humans are dynamic, social, and qualitatively diverse decision makers, we also have a conscious and unconscious which are not some purely harmonious unity. I think the most disconcerting thing for most people, what the libs are incapable of grappling with, is that our perceived self-interest rarely actually ever is simply that
I might be completely wrong but isn't that kinda similar to the Kantian view of altruism, where complete selflessness is impossible because feeling good about being altruistic is a way you gain from the act and therefore it can't be truly selfless? I think it's pretty reductive to approach it that way as well as the way sciencey people approach it like you pointed out. I always assumed it was a way selfish people could reconcile the contradictions of their morals and actions. By arguing altruism is also selfish they have an excuse not to engage in it.
Yeah of course that's a much simpler explanation. I was overthinking it by thinking it is a justification of capitalism, the idea that we're all ultimately selfish so we can't every consider a system based on altruism.
I guess I never thought about it too hard. I always kinda liked that you had a universal reason to improve stuff.
No matter what, the earth is where you keep your stuff, so making the earth nucer makes your situation better 100% of the time and thats rad.
I dunno, if it weren't true would we all still be for comunism? I would think most of us would read theory and find the beat system and try to work towards that. Since that is true, comunism is the most sound way to operate so we have go try tonsave the world and all that.
Interesting. No one read it because we are nemotodes, but interesting
My understanding is that the question comes up because of the apparent contradiction between the notion that an organism giving away resources would presumably be reducing its own chances of propagating its genes, and the fact that altruistic behavior does exist. But that contradiction gets resolved if traits can be selected at the group level, because then something that increases group survival will tend to spread. And I do think there are similar discussions regarding why humans play sports and games.
Like I say, I have a STEM degree I understand the argument. It only makes sense from a ridiculous genetic reductionist perspective though.
We aren't amoeba. We have sophisticated behaviours informed at least partially, often primarily, by complex culture. This one crusade against altruism just seems very highly motivated is all.
I guess my point is more that I've never heard it as a crusade against altruism, is all. But maybe that's just me.