4 ms·

Discussion, I guess. I'd love to hear some counter-examples. My only rhetoricism in the comment was that "everybody" was probably an exaggeration; more accurat

by tomp 11y ago

Discussion, I guess. I'd love to hear some counter-examples. My only rhetoricism in the comment was that "everybody" was probably an exaggeration; more accurate would be "most people".

anigbrowl 11y ago
Yeah, I knew you were being a bit hyperbolic but this is a bit of a touchy issue for me (see other comments on this thread) so I apologize for my sharp tone. Obvious examples would be people like aid workers, religious clergy and others who ostensibly hew to some unselfish non-discriminatory ethical code, but as well know such activities often sacrifice material wealth in exchange for significant social currency, plus there's a disappointingly high proportion of predatory types to be found among those ostensibly caring for the most vulnerable. I don't have the paper to hand now and can't remember enough to look it up but I was surprised last year to discover that people with sadistic tendencies (as measured by clinical instruments) are over-represented in the paramedic profession, for example. One group that I am inclined to think is extraordinarily concerned with maintaining a level playing field even at their own personal expense is the community of economic theorists, although this claim might seem pretty counter-intuitive at first glance. It also gives rise to a weakness at the heart of the profession; economists are so concerned with discovering objective criteria for efficient outcomes that they don't have a don't have a good model for greedy or altruistic behavior, and until fairly recently have relied instead on the conceit of everyone being rational utility maximizers, much as you did in your grandparent comment. This implicit assumption has led to the discipline being long labeled as 'the dismal science,' notwithstanding the majority of its practitioners' positive rather than normative aims.
- tomp 11y ago
  Re: aid workers; I agree that they don't seem very selfish, but we might simply be hitting the bottom of the power continuum - because they know that they couldn't succeed/gain influence in any other endeavour, they opt at least for good feelings (that one gets when one is altruistic/ethical); or as you said, they benefit in other ways. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - there are definitely worse ways to satisfy one's emotional needs; just that it doesn't mean they wouldn't fuck people over if given a chance. Re: clergy - what is this, I can't even... I guess this simply wasn't the best example, but I can't even begin to consider members/representatives of one of the most corrupt, deceitful, greediest institutions in the past 2000 years - the longest-running scam - to be anywhere near selfless. Re: economists - I'm afraid my opinion of them weights heavily towards them being completely delusional; economics is such a vague "science" and everything is completely unprovable, so having a theory (which isn't correct - no theory is) is infinitely more valuable than being intellectually honest and admitting that you basically know nothing. This is apparent both in theorists (academia encourages this), as with practitioners (LTCM: win Nobel => crash the market; or the past few presidents of US FED - each "fixing" the market only to make it crash even harder). Sure, they might be well-meaning, but so were middle-age "doctors" who made leeches suck their patients blood...
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    I'm too tired now to address the whole thing but just to clarify that when I said clergy I didn't mean Christians in particular.

by tomp 11y ago

Discussion, I guess. I'd love to hear some counter-examples. My only rhetoricism in the comment was that "everybody" was probably an exaggeration; more accurate would be "most people".

anigbrowl 11y ago

Yeah, I knew you were being a bit hyperbolic but this is a bit of a touchy issue for me (see other comments on this thread) so I apologize for my sharp tone. Obvious examples would be people like aid workers, religious clergy and others who ostensibly hew to some unselfish non-discriminatory ethical code, but as well know such activities often sacrifice material wealth in exchange for significant social currency, plus there's a disappointingly high proportion of predatory types to be found among those ostensibly caring for the most vulnerable. I don't have the paper to hand now and can't remember enough to look it up but I was surprised last year to discover that people with sadistic tendencies (as measured by clinical instruments) are over-represented in the paramedic profession, for example. One group that I am inclined to think is extraordinarily concerned with maintaining a level playing field even at their own personal expense is the community of economic theorists, although this claim might seem pretty counter-intuitive at first glance. It also gives rise to a weakness at the heart of the profession; economists are so concerned with discovering objective criteria for efficient outcomes that they don't have a don't have a good model for greedy or altruistic behavior, and until fairly recently have relied instead on the conceit of everyone being rational utility maximizers, much as you did in your grandparent comment. This implicit assumption has led to the discipline being long labeled as 'the dismal science,' notwithstanding the majority of its practitioners' positive rather than normative aims.

tomp 11y ago
Re: aid workers; I agree that they don't seem very selfish, but we might simply be hitting the bottom of the power continuum - because they know that they couldn't succeed/gain influence in any other endeavour, they opt at least for good feelings (that one gets when one is altruistic/ethical); or as you said, they benefit in other ways. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - there are definitely worse ways to satisfy one's emotional needs; just that it doesn't mean they wouldn't fuck people over if given a chance. Re: clergy - what is this, I can't even... I guess this simply wasn't the best example, but I can't even begin to consider members/representatives of one of the most corrupt, deceitful, greediest institutions in the past 2000 years - the longest-running scam - to be anywhere near selfless. Re: economists - I'm afraid my opinion of them weights heavily towards them being completely delusional; economics is such a vague "science" and everything is completely unprovable, so having a theory (which isn't correct - no theory is) is infinitely more valuable than being intellectually honest and admitting that you basically know nothing. This is apparent both in theorists (academia encourages this), as with practitioners (LTCM: win Nobel => crash the market; or the past few presidents of US FED - each "fixing" the market only to make it crash even harder). Sure, they might be well-meaning, but so were middle-age "doctors" who made leeches suck their patients blood...
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  I'm too tired now to address the whole thing but just to clarify that when I said clergy I didn't mean Christians in particular.