Pathological Altruism

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well that's just plain wrong..

The chart you've included perhaps does, however, indicate the real reason the Tea Party types are against raising minimum wage. It isn't about protecting teenagers, but rather about keeping females at an economic disadvantage.

That is possible, but I think it is more likely that they are the victims of 30 years of propaganda and simply don't have a fucking clue what is going on.

For instance, those on welfare are lazy and jobless. When it is indicated the majority of those on welfare are white, they say a higher percentage of blacks are on welfare... as if that somehow proves that the whites on welfare aren't jobless and lazy. They should change their name to the Obfuscation Party. Their insignia could be a guy teabagging himself.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So some chronically assert without a shred of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary.

And providing food for an area with a chronic problem does what to solve the chronic problem?

It keeps the people alive while the chronic problem is addressed, which in modern times is usually a market or governmental (or lack of) problem. We can easily feed the world. In fact most famines are worsened by your attitude and millions have died from it. I can cite many historical examples including Ireland, Ethiopia and India.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. What I'm saying is that altruism classes as pathological when it helps the very people it's intended to help. For example, improving poor jobs into unemployment.

That's not necessarily the case. There are examples, Australia, Scandinavia, England, etc, etc, where minimum wage is higher than the US (adjusted for cost of living) and it is not the case, employment rates are often lower.

So it can be done in practice.

1) They have training wages that have much of the same effect.

2) More extensive welfare systems. Many of our "unemployed" are on welfare over there.

3) I'm not convinced about the standard of living anyway. Every crowdsourced PPP comparison I see has a considerably greater discrepancy than the official data.

- - - Updated - - -

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

Well that's just plain wrong..

View attachment 1149

..as I'm sure has been pointed out to you every other time you've made the same assertion.

"Adult" women includes college students.

 

[Emily Lake]

While I freely admit to having memories which are outdated on this subject, and withdraw this example as supporting evidence... I also rather object to your characterization of it as "seething nonsense" as well as to your implied characterization of my views and morals. Your insult is unwarranted and is not justified by my actions or by any views that I've expressed.

How would you characterize it then? I mean this, to me, seems the textbook definition of a facile argument - no? As I understand it, your statement was a flowery retelling of the free-rider theorem in a thread about pathological altruism.

I mean, I don't go out of my way to be a dickhead (nor do I necessarily not) but since we're talking about real people dying by starvation while we have idle conversations in our comfortable lives via easy (and nearly ubiquitous) access to the internet, let's at least try to keep some sense of perspective and do some fact checking.

Hopefully you're getting over your cold.

This is getting a bit off topic. But for the sake of better communication, I will point out that you assumed that I held a particular ulterior motive and belief structure that I do not hold. In fact, it formed a substantial portion of your responding post:

This is, of course, seething nonsense but it certainly helps us to rationalize the belief that once some tens of thousands of children starve to death the indigent will straighten up and fly right.

You assumed that I held a judgmental view, based on some ideological dogma in which those who suffer are deserving of their fate through their own actions. You ascribed to me a view of them as "indigent" rather than as unfortunate or even simply poor or poverty-stricken. You ascribed to me a motivation that they "straighten up and fly right" as if drought and famine were some action that they themselves caused. You framed your response as if I personally were unconcerned about death by starvation, as if it were some means to a callous end.

None of your assumptions and characterizations of me are in any fashion warranted by anything I've said, and in fact they do not represent my views at all. Nothing in my anecdote expressed the views and beliefs that you've ascribed to me. I presented a fairly objective outline of the factors involved in the situation to the best of my recollection.

My recollection was correct for what was known at the time; but it has since been shown to be false. For that I thank you. I welcome more accurate information whenever it is presented.

I do not, however, thank you for assuming a nefarious and callous underlying motive for my presentation of that recollection. I find your characterization to be very offensive. As I have already said, it is quite unwarranted.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

are altruistic acts, taken in total, more beneficial or more detrimental to society as a whole?

If the answer is the former, then we need to examine the assumption of the title of the thread again.

Not necessarily. I don't believe that the title of the linked article is claiming that ALL altruism is bad. I believe it is claiming that some people are pathological in their approach to altruism, in that they discount and ignore the potential negative outcomes in their zeal for taking altruistic action.

As an analogy, consider that sex is not bad. Sex is great. But some people take sex to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological. Those specific people then would be sex addicts or nymphomaniacs. It's an imperfect analogy, certainly, but I think it gets the idea across well enough.

In the same way, altruism is not bad. Altruism is great. But some people take altruism to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological, and they don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

are altruistic acts, taken in total, more beneficial or more detrimental to society as a whole?

If the answer is the former, then we need to examine the assumption of the title of the thread again.

Not necessarily. I don't believe that the title of the linked article is claiming that ALL altruism is bad. I believe it is claiming that some people are pathological in their approach to altruism, in that they discount and ignore the potential negative outcomes in their zeal for taking altruistic action.

As an analogy, consider that sex is not bad. Sex is great. But some people take sex to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological. Those specific people then would be sex addicts or nymphomaniacs. It's an imperfect analogy, certainly, but I think it gets the idea across well enough.

In the same way, altruism is not bad. Altruism is great. But some people take altruism to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological, and they don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions.

How big is this problem? Is this problem causing substantial harm in the world? Are the troubles being attributed to altruism really about altruism or do they stem from other sources?

Is the basis of the OP an examination of altruism or apologia for selfishness and little talent for socialization and interaction with others?

 

[RavenSky]

In the same way, altruism is not bad. Altruism is great. But some people take altruism to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological, and they don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions.

First sentence of the OP: "Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads."

Is that a statement you agree with when you make your above comment?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That's not necessarily the case. There are examples, Australia, Scandinavia, England, etc, etc, where minimum wage is higher than the US (adjusted for cost of living) and it is not the case, employment rates are often lower.

So it can be done in practice.

1) They have training wages that have much of the same effect.

2) More extensive welfare systems. Many of our "unemployed" are on welfare over there.

3) I'm not convinced about the standard of living anyway. Every crowdsourced PPP comparison I see has a considerably greater discrepancy than the official data.

- - - Updated - - -

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

Well that's just plain wrong..

View attachment 1149

..as I'm sure has been pointed out to you every other time you've made the same assertion.

"Adult" women includes college students.

And college students include thirty year old married mothers.

What's your point?

 

[SimpleDon]

The reason that teenagers are studied to try to prove that the minimum wage causes unemployment is not because they make up a large number of the minimum wage workers but because a large percentage of teenage workers earn the minimum wage. And because no one has ever remotely come close to showing that adult minimum wage workers suffer from higher unemployment because of an increased minimum wage.

But the newest cross border studies, where one state increases the minimum wage and a neighboring state has a lower one, these all show that the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment, in fact it eventually forces wages up in the low minimum wage state's border areas.

I for one don't believe that it is a problem if more teenagers don't work. We want them in school and not working. We want wages to be high enough that children don't have to work to help support their families. It seems really simple to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

In the same way, altruism is not bad. Altruism is great. But some people take altruism to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological, and they don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions.

First sentence of the OP: "Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads."

Is that a statement you agree with when you make your above comment?

I've been very clear in referencing the linked article in the OP, not the opinions of Trausti. You, however, repeatedly keep coming back to Trausti's opinions and narrow objective as if that's the only thing being presented and discussed. Trausti's specific and narrow opinions are not my concern.

If you cannot have the decency to respond to my posts in the context in which they are presented, then I will cease to engage with you.

 

[RavenSky]

First sentence of the OP: "Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads."

Is that a statement you agree with when you make your above comment?

I've been very clear in referencing the linked article in the OP, not the opinions of Trausti. You, however, repeatedly keep coming back to Trausti's opinions and narrow objective as if that's the only thing being presented and discussed. Trausti's specific and narrow opinions are not my concern.

If you cannot have the decency to respond to my posts in the context in which they are presented, then I will cease to engage with you.

I will agree that your post did specifically state "linked article". I asked you a question to clarify your overall position in light of the context of your posts and your passionate defense of the principles in the "linked article". I find the entire concept of "pathological altruism" to be faulty, your example of same to be erroneous, and the overly casual use of the word "pathological" to be highly suspect.

You now accuse me of "repeatedly keep coming back to Trausti's opinions and narrow objective" and then saying: "If you cannot have the decency to respond to my posts in the context in which they are presented, then I will cease to engage with you."

I have exactly three posts in this thread. Only the one above is directed to you. The one before it comments on the graph that Canard DuJour posted. The first is directed to Tausti.

I think you have ruffled your own feathers needlessly, but thanks for clarifying your position. And by all means, cease to engage with me any time you wish. That is your perogative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

are altruistic acts, taken in total, more beneficial or more detrimental to society as a whole?

If the answer is the former, then we need to examine the assumption of the title of the thread again.

Not necessarily. I don't believe that the title of the linked article is claiming that ALL altruism is bad. I believe it is claiming that some people are pathological in their approach to altruism, in that they discount and ignore the potential negative outcomes in their zeal for taking altruistic action.

As an analogy, consider that sex is not bad. Sex is great. But some people take sex to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological. Those specific people then would be sex addicts or nymphomaniacs. It's an imperfect analogy, certainly, but I think it gets the idea across well enough.

Imperfect? You seem to have equated addiction to sex with benign altruism, without actually showing where altruism can be benign. Misguided, naive, yes... benign?

In the same way, altruism is not bad. Altruism is great. But some people take altruism to an unhealthy level, a level that might be considered pathological, and they don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions.

There seems to be an issue here. You've created a claim that the altruism isn't the goal. You note, "don't seem to care about the actual outcomes of their actions" which heavily implies that they know what they are doing isn't working, which implies they have some other goal in mind. IE, altruism in that case would be a cover, not the problem.

There is naivety in the world, and some people don't understand that certain resolutions can't occur with ease, or at all. Solutions to dealing with Aboriginal populations... just throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. Sending food to Africa doesn't solve the hunger problem (thanks to governments that use food as a weapon of war or control over their people). Dropping bombs in Syria to stop ISIS. Some problems require intricate long-term planning and steadfast resolve.

But "pathological altruism"? Seems a lot like complaining about voter fraud in the US. Sure, it is technically something we should avoid, but does it really amount to that big (or ever tiny) of a problem? Shall we start printing the brochures warning people of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monooxide?

 

[Emily Lake]

I've been very clear in referencing the linked article in the OP, not the opinions of Trausti. You, however, repeatedly keep coming back to Trausti's opinions and narrow objective as if that's the only thing being presented and discussed. Trausti's specific and narrow opinions are not my concern.

If you cannot have the decency to respond to my posts in the context in which they are presented, then I will cease to engage with you.

I will agree that your post did specifically state "linked article". I asked you a question to clarify your overall position in light of the context of your posts and your passionate defense of the principles in the "linked article". I find the entire concept of "pathological altruism" to be faulty, your example of same to be erroneous, and the overly casual use of the word "pathological" to be highly suspect.

You now accuse me of "repeatedly keep coming back to Trausti's opinions and narrow objective" and then saying: "If you cannot have the decency to respond to my posts in the context in which they are presented, then I will cease to engage with you."

I have exactly three posts in this thread. Only the one above is directed to you. The one before it comments on the graph that Canard DuJour posted. The first is directed to Tausti.

I think you have ruffled your own feathers needlessly, but thanks for clarifying your position. And by all means, cease to engage with me any time you wish. That is your perogative.

My apologies; I believe you are correct. I have lumped you in with several other people who did very similar things with respect to conflating Trausti as the Original Poster and the article linked in Trausti's post. That was poor behavior on my part, I should have double checked and not assumed that you were someone I had already interacted with. I have indeed ruffled my own feathers; I will try not to be so easily ruffleable in the future.

My personal opinion, as I attempted several times to explain, is that there are substantial pitfalls to attempted altruism. Whether one could use the term "pathological" with any degree of accuracy is another matter; I've used it here colloquially and not in any technical sense. I think that many policies ignore the potential negative consequences on the basis that they're intending to "do good". Since they're "trying to help some people" it doesn't matter if some other people are harmed. This approach isn't exactly rare - it comes up in many political and policy debates. It often gets dismissed as being politically motivated.

For example, with ACA, there were many people before hand warning that there would be substantial market disruption, and that there would be many people who would see their rates increase. Prior to implementation, many proponents of ACA insisted that either no body would be harmed, or that so few would be harmed that it didn't matter. After ACA, even though there were many people whose rates increased, it was dismissed as being unimportant, on the grounds that "a lot more" people benefited. The view seems to be that since the intention was altruistic - to help some people who needed help - then any harm caused didn't matter, it was subsumed by the "good intention" of the law. I've seen this argument repeated in various forms many times.

As I've said before, most of our individual acts of kindness don't carry that sort of risk. And it's by no means an exhortation to stop being altruistic. It is, however, an appeal to all people to think through the possible repercussions and weigh the outcomes, both the positive and negative ones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For example, with ACA, there were many people before hand warning that there would be substantial market disruption, and that there would be many people who would see their rates increase. Prior to implementation, many proponents of ACA insisted that either no body would be harmed, or that so few would be harmed that it didn't matter. After ACA, even though there were many people whose rates increased, it was dismissed as being unimportant, on the grounds that "a lot more" people benefited. The view seems to be that since the intention was altruistic - to help some people who needed help - then any harm caused didn't matter, it was subsumed by the "good intention" of the law. I've seen this argument repeated in various forms many times.

So how many strawmen do we need to stuff here? Almost all Americans were able to keep their insurance. The fear mongers warned of massive insurance cancellations. That did not happen.

Those affected the most were those that had insurance plans that were skeleton plans. In order for the system to work, everyone has to put in their contribution to the system, not play it for what works best for them at that moment. This is just a reality that the rest of the First World accepted decades ago.

The harm that came to those that lost their skeleton plans is nothing compared to the harm to those that couldn't afford insurance and became sick, ill, or injured.

As I've said before, most of our individual acts of kindness don't carry that sort of risk. And it's by no means an exhortation to stop being altruistic. It is, however, an appeal to all people to think through the possible repercussions and weigh the outcomes, both the positive and negative ones.

And for others to realize their pitfalls of Moore-Coulter, considering how they can't apparently understand the magnitudes of harm from having to pay more money for insurance verses a family being able to be treated for illnesses and disease instead of waiting until it becomes much more expensive to treat.

It is odd how the term "harm" seems to mean so much regarding money until the exact same people demand this sort of access once they, themselves, need it.

 

[Underseer]

So how many strawmen do we need to stuff here? Almost all Americans were able to keep their insurance. The fear mongers warned of massive insurance cancellations. That did not happen.

Those affected the most were those that had insurance plans that were skeleton plans. In order for the system to work, everyone has to put in their contribution to the system, not play it for what works best for them at that moment. This is just a reality that the rest of the First World accepted decades ago.

The harm that came to those that lost their skeleton plans is nothing compared to the harm to those that couldn't afford insurance and became sick, ill, or injured.

As I've said before, most of our individual acts of kindness don't carry that sort of risk. And it's by no means an exhortation to stop being altruistic. It is, however, an appeal to all people to think through the possible repercussions and weigh the outcomes, both the positive and negative ones.

And for others to realize their pitfalls of Moore-Coulter, considering how they can't apparently understand the magnitudes of harm from having to pay more money for insurance verses a family being able to be treated for illnesses and disease instead of waiting until it becomes much more expensive to treat.

It is odd how the term "harm" seems to mean so much regarding money until the exact same people demand this sort of access once they, themselves, need it.

Liberals are exactly as bad because they predicted that Obama wouldn't become a socialist dictator, and they claimed that Obama doesn't have a secret weather weapon.

 

[ksen]

You can't spell "harm" without a-r-m. Which, of course, stands for "adjustable rate mortgage".

Coincidence?

 

[Underseer]

Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads. So it's worth calling out. Its definition may vary, but essentially it occurs when a well-meaning person seeks to aid a third person, but fails to appreciate the harm to the third person caused by such good intentions - harm which is reasonable foreseeable to an external observer. There's a peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf+html

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Ah.

So if we dare complain about the fact that you support big government and more government handouts to starving people with full time jobs at highly profitable corporations, it's because we are "pathological altruists" who are just stupid or something.

Personally, I think the easier explanation is that conservolibertarians are simply full of shit when they claim to be against big government. All they really care about is helping rich people and large corporations at the expense of everyone and everything else.

 

[Emily Lake]

For example, with ACA, there were many people before hand warning that there would be substantial market disruption, and that there would be many people who would see their rates increase. Prior to implementation, many proponents of ACA insisted that either no body would be harmed, or that so few would be harmed that it didn't matter. After ACA, even though there were many people whose rates increased, it was dismissed as being unimportant, on the grounds that "a lot more" people benefited. The view seems to be that since the intention was altruistic - to help some people who needed help - then any harm caused didn't matter, it was subsumed by the "good intention" of the law. I've seen this argument repeated in various forms many times.

So how many strawmen do we need to stuff here? Almost all Americans were able to keep their insurance. The fear mongers warned of massive insurance cancellations. That did not happen.

Those affected the most were those that had insurance plans that were skeleton plans. In order for the system to work, everyone has to put in their contribution to the system, not play it for what works best for them at that moment. This is just a reality that the rest of the First World accepted decades ago.

The harm that came to those that lost their skeleton plans is nothing compared to the harm to those that couldn't afford insurance and became sick, ill, or injured.

I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating my point so perfectly. The harm that some suffered is of no consequence to you, since others were helped. You dismiss any collateral damage as inconsequential, and without consideration for the impact on those people.

Although, you've also decided that it's only "skeleton" plans that saw rates increase, when such is not the case. Many people saw their rates increase, especially younger people. Most of them didn't, however, do much in the way of complaining. And many people would have had their plans discontinued had Obama not changed his mind at the eleventh hour and continued coverage of existing plans for 2014. And many with employer sponsored coverage would have seen their rates increase more if the administration had not delayed implementation of the minimum value requirements until 2015.

Please don't mistake this as criticism of ACA on the whole. It is still better than the system we had before. But it was not without harm to some people. It was, and in 2015 will continue to be, disruptive. Some people are harmed by ACA and are net losers under its implementation. Failure to acknowledge this as a fact is nothing more than willful ignorance or politically driven blinders.

As I've said before, most of our individual acts of kindness don't carry that sort of risk. And it's by no means an exhortation to stop being altruistic. It is, however, an appeal to all people to think through the possible repercussions and weigh the outcomes, both the positive and negative ones.

And for others to realize their pitfalls of Moore-Coulter, considering how they can't apparently understand the magnitudes of harm from having to pay more money for insurance verses a family being able to be treated for illnesses and disease instead of waiting until it becomes much more expensive to treat.

It is odd how the term "harm" seems to mean so much regarding money until the exact same people demand this sort of access once they, themselves, need it.

This is the second time I've seen this term recently. What is this?

I will point out that a difference in magnitude does not negate harm being done. Harm still occurs. Just because you have decided that some kinds of harm are acceptable to you (the person not experiencing the harm) doesn't make it not-harm. You're simply exchanging two different harms - one immediate and one contingent; in the example that you're providing, they're not even that much different, as both are monetary. You're assuming that the reduction in cash flow on a monthly basis of some people is less important that the impact of a single large bill to someone else. It would have been a better exemplar if you'd chose to compare the impact to premium versus someone who dies from not being able to get coverage. At least then it would have been money versus death

Either way, you don't know the impact of that cash-flow change, and you cannot know. You've simply decided through belief that it is unimportant, and hence you have dismissed it. Worse, actually, you've used your belief that it is unimportant as a battering ram with which to bludgeon your opponents, implying that they're heartless and uncaring, implying hypocrisy and stupidity. You use your belief that it is unimportant, gleaned from no evidence except your want to be altruistic, as a means to shame your opponent by appealing to emotion instead of to logic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So how many strawmen do we need to stuff here? Almost all Americans were able to keep their insurance. The fear mongers warned of massive insurance cancellations. That did not happen.

Those affected the most were those that had insurance plans that were skeleton plans. In order for the system to work, everyone has to put in their contribution to the system, not play it for what works best for them at that moment. This is just a reality that the rest of the First World accepted decades ago.

The harm that came to those that lost their skeleton plans is nothing compared to the harm to those that couldn't afford insurance and became sick, ill, or injured.

I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating my point so perfectly. The harm that some suffered is of no consequence to you, since others were helped. You dismiss any collateral damage as inconsequential, and without consideration for the impact on those people.

Actually, the point was not that the harm is qualitatively inconsequential... but rather it is quantifiably inconsequential both on its own merit and when positioned against the gain.

 

[DBT]

That's not necessarily the case. There are examples, Australia, Scandinavia, England, etc, etc, where minimum wage is higher than the US (adjusted for cost of living) and it is not the case, employment rates are often lower.

So it can be done in practice.

1) They have training wages that have much of the same effect.

Training wages are only temporary. Those on minimum wage are not likely to get a better deal unless they find better employment. If they can't do that, unlike those on training wage, MW workers remain on their subsistence rate indefinitely.

2) More extensive welfare systems. Many of our "unemployed" are on welfare over there.

Not sure what you mean.

3) I'm not convinced about the standard of living anyway. Every crowdsourced PPP comparison I see has a considerably greater discrepancy than the official data.

I live in Australia and I've spent some time in the US, so from my own observations the official data appears to be a reasonably accurate measure of the cost to income ratio.