You’re a LINGUIST! I’m so impressed! Some of my best friends are linguists. It was a linguist who first turned me on to semantics and began to change my life. He’s a Hittitologist, if you can believe it.

I agree that teasing out hard wired and conditioned responses is very difficult. In your example, taking a human being with no previous social contact would probably rewire the brain, since it would appear that this wiring may be done in early childhood. Lock up an infant in a closet and feed it intravenously and I’m sure you will get a product that is not quite human in the way we know it (ergo, your longing for a modern Romulus or Remus).

The term “extrinsic reward” tends to refer to something tangible that can be seen and measured. Usually, it’s capital goods or specie of some kind. And, yes, it is common for humans to closely associate intrinsic rewards with extrinsic ones, such as the sales rep who closely associates money with success and success with love.

Thanks for the conversation.

“Social behavior causes pleasure, as does punishing those who engage in anti-social behavior…” Agreed. Unfortunately, there’s no way to test that response in a truly controlled situation, i.e., a human animal with no previous social contact placed into a social group. So, hard-wired or conditioned? I’d love to know. (Behavioral science is not my thing, man, but I can tell you this: every budding linguist, no matter how humane, secretly hopes for a wolf boy to turn up.)

Also, in terms of reward, I’ve never been sure where extrinsic shades into intrinsic, since group approval certainly reinforces inner satisfaction, but is not always guaranteed even in extremely controlled societies, and can be expected but not relied upon.

And finally (thank heavens) consistency theory – the term I recognized. Hugely important, no debate there. If relief from cognitive dissonance isn’t motivation, nothing is. I quote:

“We fear the unknown. We hate the unexpected. We shit ourselves when the lights go out suddenly…”

I’ll leave the “selfish” definitions up to the rest of you, because that’s precisely the kind of wonkery that can keep me glued to the keyboard for hours.

If we are to define “selfish” so broadly that ALL human behavior falls within that definition, then we have no good way to categorize behavior by that which is individual-focused and that which is herd-focused. I think some people might vote for “social” and “anti-social,” but those terms are also misleading, since individual-focused behavior is not necessarily anti-social in the sense that it is criminal (which is how “anti-social” is so often used).

I think there’s an unwarranted obsession here with motivation. What’s so hard about this: all motivation is ultimately self-oriented. However, self-oriented action often leads to pro-herd effects.

Redefine terms like “selfish” and “selfless,” and one finds no symbolic distinction between Mother Theresa and Adolph HItler, since both were acting “selfishly.” We end up with moral equivalency in all behaviors, since they are all “selfish.” The mugger and his victim, being motivated by the same avoidance of pain and seeking of pleasure, would be the same, morally. I think this is a dangerous concept, and it really doesn’t suprise me that a denizen of Hell advanced it.

Oh, now I see. You want a way to be “morally” advanced.

If this is the real point, then why are you talking about Mother Teresa and Hitler, who are not famous for their motivations at all, but instead for the effects of their actions? In your formulation I should equate Mother Teresa with those whose actions lead to disaster, but they did so with the best of intentions, right?

What’s that old saw about “the road to hell”?

“In my world (not necessarily the real world, since I hardly have enough experience in behavioral sciences to know how things are defined), the words “selfish” and “selfless” describe behaviors that are fundamentally individual-focused, not herd/socially focused. Phrases like “you’re being selfish” or “it was a selfless act” are fundamentally meaningless because even supposedly “selfless” acts are done, as you pointed out, to maximize personal pleasure or minimize personal pain.”

Thanks Brian. Yes, this is what I meant, though I didn’t say it very well. If we are to define “selfish” so broadly that ALL human behavior falls within that definition, then we have no good way to categorize behavior by that which is individual-focused and that which is herd-focused. I think some people might vote for “social” and “anti-social,” but those terms are also misleading, since individual-focused behavior is not necessarily anti-social in the sense that it is criminal (which is how “anti-social” is so often used).

And I think it gets even deeper than this. I believe that most of our perceptions of good and evil behaviors are wrapped up in herd-focused and individual-focused behavior. Redefine terms like “selfish” and “selfless,” and one finds no symbolic distinction between Mother Theresa and Adolph HItler, since both were acting “selfishly.” We end up with moral equivalency in all behaviors, since they are all “selfish.” The mugger and his victim, being motivated by the same avoidance of pain and seeking of pleasure, would be the same, morally.

I think this is a dangerous concept, and it really doesn’t suprise me that a denizen of Hell advanced it.

Thank you – what a kind thing to say.

One item that you mentioned, too briefly I think, was the Industrial Revolution. In particular, the extension of Human Rights to Corporations was something I firmly believe TJ would have railed against as a fraud on the people, just as the selling out on the newspaper’s part would have dismayed him, surely.

I go back and forth on what I think Tom would have made of Corporation as Citizen. On the one hand, it doesn’t seem to fit with his stated ideals, but on the other, his ideals didn’t necessarily anticipate the Industrial Revolution. In his context, citizenship was automatically vested in the financial elite – the agrarian landowner. And he was clearly okay with locating political power within that financial elite.

Youse guy’s are a lily bit outta my league, so I’ll just sit back here and enjoy reading from now on!

You should never let being out of your league keep you from over-participating. I know I certainly don’t, and as I think I’ve suggested, that’s just not the American way. >:)

In my world (not necessarily the real world, since I hardly have enough experience in behavioral sciences to know how things are defined), the words “selfish” and “selfless” describe behaviors that are fundamentally individual-focused, not herd/socially focused. Phrases like “you’re being selfish” or “it was a selfless act” are fundamentally meaningless because even supposedly “selfless” acts are done, as you pointed out, to maximize personal pleasure or minimize personal pain.

But I’m quite willing to open up the conversation to the social arena, where we divorce inherently selfish motivations from their social context and their impact on social situations, networks, etc. But, again in my world, I’d prefer different words to define those situations than “selfish” and “selfless.” You’re proposal of “charitable” is a good starting point.

What a deliciously miserable missive! I enjoyed it immensely. One item that you mentioned, too briefly I think, was the Industrial Revolution. In particular, the extension of Human Rights to Corporations was something I firmly believe TJ would have railed against as a fraud on the people, just as the selling out on the newspaper’s part would have dismayed him, surely.

As to selfless acts, there are indeed those that are done with no recompense, though they be distateful. Having said that, you both have covered enough of that topic, thanks. JS O’Brien and Ann, your well reasoned comments here are a pleasure to peruse as well!

Youse guy’s are a lily bit outta my league, so I’ll just sit back here and enjoy reading from now on!

It’s not a matter of refutation. We agree on the fact that people do get some sort of reward, or avoid some sort of pain, from their actions, and choose accordingly. What I’m suggesting is refinement of principle.

Is it true, to you, that a person who puts a bullet in a man’s head and steals his wallet, and a person who jumps into a freezing river and nearly loses his life saving a little kid’s dog should both be described as “selfish?”

If so, “selfish” has now become a useless word, because it is no longer of use in classifying particular kinds of behavior.

What term(s) would you suggest to replace pro-herd and anti-herd behavior?

Ah – yes, I think that’s my point exactly! You say it better than I did.

And, yet, there is behavior that is pro-herd and behavior that is anti-herd, would you agree?

I would.

And since, traditionally, this behavior has been described as being “selfish” and “selfless,” where are we to go if we no longer have useful terms to describe this behavior.

I’m not suggesting that there is not pro-herd behavior. I’m merely noting that it stems from the attempt to act on selfish principles.

I would submit that you are devilishly attempting to frustrate your heavenly adversaries by convincing human beings that there is no such thing as pro-herd behavior.

Not true at all. In fact, I believe basic Liberal theory suggests that individuals acting on their own interests produce a greater good for the whole, right?

I believe that, if you were to really probe the semantic issue with the average human, you would find the term “selfless” attached to that behavior that has no EXTRINSIC reward, or even negative extrinsic consequences. The guy who jumps on the live grenade to save his buddies may feel a few agonizing seconds warm gooiness before his entire body becomes warm and gooey, but I hardly think it’s appropriate for the newspapers to write, “Private Gorfnozzle selfishly jumped on a grenade to give himself a few seconds of pleasure, selfishly saving his buddies from certain death.”

Let’s not get into journalistic standards here. However, a lot of soldiers wouldn’t have jumped on that grenade, right? Those soldiers were clearly driven by the sense that living was better than flying off into many directions at once. Pvt. Gorfnozzle, on the other hand, acted on an impulse that saw “sacrifice” as more rewarding. Maybe there’s a martyr complex in play there, but the example hardly refutes my position.

Once again, I believe it comes down to definition. Of what use is it to say, “Bonesparkle is being selfish because he won’t lend me his wife for a fortnight of pleasure” if, in fact, ALL behavior is selfish. The term “selfish” then loses its usefulness, because it is so broad that to accuse someone of being “selfish” would be the same as accusing someone of being a vertebrate.

And, yet, there is behavior that is pro-herd and behavior that is anti-herd, would you agree? And since, traditionally, this behavior has been described as being “selfish” and “selfless,” where are we to go if we no longer have useful terms to describe this behavior.

I would submit that you are devilishly attempting to frustrate your heavenly adversaries by convincing human beings that there is no such thing as pro-herd behavior.

I believe that, if you were to really probe the semantic issue with the average human, you would find the term “selfless” attached to that behavior that has no EXTRINSIC reward, or even negative extrinsic consequences. The guy who jumps on the live grenade to save his buddies may feel a few agonizing seconds warm gooiness before his entire body becomes warm and gooey, but I hardly think it’s appropriate for the newspapers to write, “Private Gorfnozzle selfishly jumped on a grenade to give himself a few seconds of pleasure, selfishly saving his buddies from certain death.”

If you MUST do away with the term “selfish” as a useful term, then we certainly must replace it or find ourselves entirely unable to describe certain events. I think THIS is where our disagreement lies. I have testified to my belief that we are wired to have good feelings from doing good things for others. So it’s clear that I believe there are intrinsic rewards in doing good for others. Where we differ is that I believe the term “selfish” should apply exclusively to extrinsic rewards in order to give the word useful meaning.

I’m no Webster, but when I use the term I think I’m referring to an act that benefits others and offers no benefits, and is potentially detrimental, to the actor. We laud Mother Teresa for leading this life of poverty, which is harsh and awful and all sorts of other things that we think are undesirable, and she does it only to benefit others. My argument is that regardless of how it looks, people only do the things that set off the endorphins, as it were. MT gets the same charge out of helping the poor that Trump gets out of building a new tower.

I’m open to the idea that there are better ways of looking at it.

What thinks thou, o thou unholiness?

Hey, I’m just a diplomat.

Perhaps we should shy away from using the term “selfless” and go with “selfish” and “charitable.”

What thinks thou, o thou unholiness?

In that sense, it is correct to say that altruism is connected to self-interest, since altruism in healthy humans is connected to pleasure. What is not correct is to suggest that altruism is always connected to the idea of give and take; that is, all giving to others must be connected to a reasonable assumption of debt and obligation. This is where the economic man theory falls short and has always fallen short (well, it’s ONE place anyway. There are others.)

I’m not sure I have suggested that, at all. In fact, my impression is that I was saying the exact opposite. Let me put it more succinctly, and forgive me if I essentialize: in terms of internal motivational dynamics, altruism is indistinguishable from hedonism. It is a dressed-up expression of id.

But, for whatever group we define as “our own,” evolution-determined altruism is both the norm and that which allows us to hold society (a very big herd) together.

And this is important. That which we call altruism certainly serves a productive purpose – pro-social activity improves the lot of the herd and the individual. However, this doesn’t prove the existence of selflessness. On the contrary, it adds depth to our understanding of its non-existence.

Yes, we are agreeing on one level. But I left out quite a bit, which include the influences of drive/habit (Pavlovian conditioning sorts of stuff) and consistency theory, which is the only theory that explains such things as self-defeating behavior, and resistance to changes in behavior that are obviously needed.

At some point, yes, it all comes down to the way an individual’s personal psychology causes him or her to react to things based on a perception of personal pain and pleasure, but I think it’s quite unfair to paint humans as completely “selfish,” when what most people mean by “selfish” is behavior that is anti-social.

(BTW, I read your blog and responded to one of them. You, my dear, are one helluva writer. For what it’s worth, I’m impressed.)

See, I think we’re agreeing again, especially in the area of hard-wired brain responses. Maybe it’s terminology; yours is much more specific and well-researched than mine. Isn’t “altruism always connected to self-interest” what Brian was saying; action followed by reward, whatever form that reward might take? A warm gooey feeling deep inside is certainly a reward, though intangible.

We’re monkeys with car keys, my friend.

I’m not entirely sure what a “non-self-deluded twit” might be. I believe that most, if not all, of our delusions are self-inflicted in one way or another. I will certainly plead guilty to being self-deluded. I know there are surely areas in my life in which this is true, the most probable being my strong belief that I’m a dead ringer for Leonardo DiCaprio.

As for being a twit, I’m guilty as charged.

When it comes to human motivation, on the other hand, I think my research into the topic, in support of what I do for a living, is fairly extensive, so that I lost my self-delusions about human behavior long ago and any misconceptions I may now have are the products of misunderstanding and/or faulty research on the part of the academic community.

The fact is, I don’t have a philosophy about human behavior, because one no longer needs philosophy to explore it. Science does a pretty good job, I think. Besides, how could I possibly pit my pitiful philosophy against those who, judging from their comments, must surely worship at the feet of Ayn Rand .

Human motivation is a BIG topic and requires books to explore well, not a few blog entries and certainly not a response like this one. Having said that, I’m going to give this a bit of a go.

Recent (and fascinating) research in neuro-psychology confirms that behavior is, to a large degree, about pleasure and pain. Not surprisingly, the trick is to maximize one and minimize the other. What’s fascinating, though, is that SOCIAL behavior causes pleasure, as does PUNISHING those who engage in anti-social behavior or, for that matter, any behavior not sanctioned by the social group. This is why economic games theory is so utterly useless in describing human behavior at the micro level: Sometimes, things like revenge and battling unfairness bring us more pleasure than simple monetary gain.

In that sense, it is correct to say that altruism is connected to self-interest, since altruism in healthy humans is connected to pleasure. What is not correct is to suggest that altruism is always connected to the idea of give and take; that is, all giving to others must be connected to a reasonable assumption of debt and obligation. This is where the economic man theory falls short and has always fallen short (well, it’s ONE place anyway. There are others.)

One thing that many fail to realize, or deliberately decide not to realize, is that we are animals and much of our motivation comes from hard-wired, mammalian and reptilian responses. Moreover, we are herd/pack animals who, like our close cousins the chimpanzees, are extremely territorial, reward social and punish anti-social behavior, and will cheerfully kill strangers in our territory.

But, for whatever group we define as “our own,” evolution-determined altruism is both the norm and that which allows us to hold society (a very big herd) together.

(BTW, of the four major Greek schools, I had to reject Epicureanism because I can’t afford it, Stoicism because I hate hair shirts, and Cynicism because it makes me unhappy. I prefer Skepticism, and I think I’ll stick with it .)

Laughing like a loon (as you might be, if you knew me) at an apology for wonkiness… you can’t go far enough in that direction to lose my interest.

However, Brian and Bonesparkle already answered you for me – and much more succinctly than I might. I do draw the line at Boney’s possible assessment of you as a self-deluded twit – I can’t see fundamental generosity of spirit as a fault, even when I disagree with one or two of its philosophical manifestations.

Cynical yet hopeful,
Ann

It has long been obvious to me that there’s no such thing as “altruism.” As you say, all action is a response to some impulse to self-gratification. Mother Teresa and Donald Trump are the same – both act(ed) to make themselves feel good.

“Altruism” is best understood as an external assessment of pro-sociality. Only a self-deluded twit would argue for the selflessness of human nature.

Solutions? Alternatives? I didn’t think so… Never any alternatives.

The world is full of alternatives. But there’s always the need for pragmatism – it does me no good to have a model that cannot plausibly be realized. Certainly there are smaller policy moves that can help, and enough of these might put you in a situation where you could begin thinking about larger-scale systemic change. Or maybe if you fix enough policies you no longer need large change.

The country has a problem. It’s Bush/Cheney. It’s looking at bombing Iran now because it can. Stay focused. It’s a short-term problem that will create long-term horrors.

You’re confusing the symptom for the disease, assuming I accept that things aren’t exactly as they ought to be. Whether good, bad or otherwise, Bush and Cheney are not the cause, they’re the effect. This is an important distinction that all would-be reformers would do well to note.

Too many countries… too many languages… We live in a world that’s comprised of 1,000s of little worlds. That’s the nonsense of it all.

So you’d favor a program aimed at … “unifying” everything? One world, exterminate other cultures, what? This is intriguing.

It’s easy to twist the words of any document but it means nothing unless you can profer a viable alternative – something that works.

Twist? Can you show me where I twisted anything?

Is capitalism an essential root evil? From this document, it apparently is. It is a major tool in creating class distinctions. It has existed in all forms of government by various different names.

You seem to be reading me all wrong. First off, I assign no evil to capitalism or anything else. I’m merely describing what I see and leaving the value judgments to others. Second, class distinctions existed long before captialism and will continue to exist long after it’s been replaced by something else. Capitalism merely has its own methods for defining class.

How about religion? Is this another tool?

Religion has served a number of distinct purposes. However, perhaps its greatest accomplishment has been in helping focus large masses of people away from their own self-interests. It’s no accident that the power elites in any successful culture treat the church well. Without an ideology of glorious afterlife to distract them, people would have little choice but to take note of their actual condition. Such an eventuality would inevitably lead to torches, pitchforks, barricades, and other public activities, none of which would be in the best interests of the power elite.

Are you saying we need a benevolent dictator for this country? Or for the entire world?

I offer no opinion on what “we” need. I’m merely pulling the curtain back on what you have.

What’s your solution?

You keep insisting that I provide a solution, which is odd, given that I never suggested there was a problem.