3 ms·

> people don't always do things for their own benefit This may be a new concept for you, but "The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharin

> people don't always do things for their own benefit This may be a new concept for you, but "The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification." - From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism People always do things for their own benefit. Always. And who else could it benefit? At least her digital begging seems to be working out, but certainly this wont convince the CEO to pay these entry level folks San Francisco living wages.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
A quote from Wikipedia, which says that a theory suggests something, does not adequately provide support for your dogmatic statement that follows it.
- elliotec 11y ago
  Soft sciences like psychology are usually based only on theories that suggest things, and don't really adequately (at least to hard scientific standards) provide support aside from studies which rarely, if ever, have proofs. I could have linked the studies that are referred by the wikipedia page, but ain't nobody got time for that. But I'd also be interested in seeing examples of true altruism, if anyone is capable of providing them.
  - foldr 11y ago
    Pretty much any example of someone sacrificing their own life to save someone else's, which happens all the time. (And not only with people who they are closely related to.)
foldr 11y ago
Invoking psychological egoism here is really using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I don't think that she necessarily made the post for narrowly self-interested reasons. Even if you hold to it as a dogma that all acts are ultimately in some sense self-directed, I'm sure you're still capable of making the distinction between intentions that are entirely cynical and self-serving and those which are genuinely directed towards helping others or exposing the truth (even if these ends are ultimately "selfish" too). >At least her digital begging seems to be working out, but certainly this wont convince the CEO to pay these entry level folks San Francisco living wages. If enough people start complaining, things change. There's a whole lot of history of this happening with regard to working conditions.
- elliotec 11y ago
  I really think this author's post was very selfish, as evidenced by its, well, selfish content (and resorting to begging), and it's fine for us to agree to disagree on that matter. But do you really think she was directing this to help others or 'expose the truth' as you say? Like was it a secret that the entry level customer support job was actually entry level, with wages to match? She knew before moving to SF that she'd be making SF's minimum wage, not SF's living wage. I don't think anything is being exposed here, and I don't think she's going to start a movement to get enough people to complain enough to get things to change. If we are talking about the fundamental issue of people not being able to make enough money to live a proper existence within the constructs of our society, I agree with her and you in that it sucks and needs to be fixed systematically. But this didn't really seem to be a commentary on that. It seemed more like a pity party anecdote with undertones that she knew would stir up that narrative. Do you see where I'm coming from? It's just hard to pity someone that thinks it makes sense to move to SF at a minimum wage job, in her own apartment, eating out at restaurants every day (see her instagram), while her dad lives there, and then asking for people to directly send her money because of her hardships. I dunno. There are a lot more people much worse off and this person made clearly awful decisions for her well being. It baffles me that people are pitying her, and I'm being called heartless for this. I'm curious what you mean by: >There's a whole lot of history of this happening with regard to working conditions. This person was working at a place that provided unlimited coconut water to everyone all the time, and she complained about it. I'd hardly call that harsh working conditions.
  - foldr 11y ago
    >She knew before moving to SF that she'd be making SF's minimum wage, not SF's living wage. This is what confuses me. You seem to agree that she was not being paid enough money to live on, and yet you think there is something wrong with her writing a blog post saying so. No employer should be paying its employees less than the cost of living in the relevant location. What I don't understand is all this judgmental bullshit about her instagram feed. We don't know who was paying for that food. We do know that she was not paid a high enough salary to pay for all of it herself. >I don't think anything is being exposed here, and I don't think she's going to start a movement to get enough people to complain enough to get things to change. Well, sure -- you are very cynical about this. In the past, things have changed because people complained. >This person was working at a place that provided unlimited coconut water to everyone all the time, and she complained about it. I'd hardly call that harsh working conditions. What an absurd thing to say. Coconut water is obviously no substitute for money.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

A quote from Wikipedia, which says that a theory suggests something, does not adequately provide support for your dogmatic statement that follows it.

elliotec 11y ago
Soft sciences like psychology are usually based only on theories that suggest things, and don't really adequately (at least to hard scientific standards) provide support aside from studies which rarely, if ever, have proofs. I could have linked the studies that are referred by the wikipedia page, but ain't nobody got time for that. But I'd also be interested in seeing examples of true altruism, if anyone is capable of providing them.
- foldr 11y ago
  Pretty much any example of someone sacrificing their own life to save someone else's, which happens all the time. (And not only with people who they are closely related to.)

foldr 11y ago

Invoking psychological egoism here is really using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I don't think that she necessarily made the post for narrowly self-interested reasons. Even if you hold to it as a dogma that all acts are ultimately in some sense self-directed, I'm sure you're still capable of making the distinction between intentions that are entirely cynical and self-serving and those which are genuinely directed towards helping others or exposing the truth (even if these ends are ultimately "selfish" too). >At least her digital begging seems to be working out, but certainly this wont convince the CEO to pay these entry level folks San Francisco living wages. If enough people start complaining, things change. There's a whole lot of history of this happening with regard to working conditions.

elliotec 11y ago
I really think this author's post was very selfish, as evidenced by its, well, selfish content (and resorting to begging), and it's fine for us to agree to disagree on that matter. But do you really think she was directing this to help others or 'expose the truth' as you say? Like was it a secret that the entry level customer support job was actually entry level, with wages to match? She knew before moving to SF that she'd be making SF's minimum wage, not SF's living wage. I don't think anything is being exposed here, and I don't think she's going to start a movement to get enough people to complain enough to get things to change. If we are talking about the fundamental issue of people not being able to make enough money to live a proper existence within the constructs of our society, I agree with her and you in that it sucks and needs to be fixed systematically. But this didn't really seem to be a commentary on that. It seemed more like a pity party anecdote with undertones that she knew would stir up that narrative. Do you see where I'm coming from? It's just hard to pity someone that thinks it makes sense to move to SF at a minimum wage job, in her own apartment, eating out at restaurants every day (see her instagram), while her dad lives there, and then asking for people to directly send her money because of her hardships. I dunno. There are a lot more people much worse off and this person made clearly awful decisions for her well being. It baffles me that people are pitying her, and I'm being called heartless for this. I'm curious what you mean by: >There's a whole lot of history of this happening with regard to working conditions. This person was working at a place that provided unlimited coconut water to everyone all the time, and she complained about it. I'd hardly call that harsh working conditions.
- foldr 11y ago
  >She knew before moving to SF that she'd be making SF's minimum wage, not SF's living wage. This is what confuses me. You seem to agree that she was not being paid enough money to live on, and yet you think there is something wrong with her writing a blog post saying so. No employer should be paying its employees less than the cost of living in the relevant location. What I don't understand is all this judgmental bullshit about her instagram feed. We don't know who was paying for that food. We do know that she was not paid a high enough salary to pay for all of it herself. >I don't think anything is being exposed here, and I don't think she's going to start a movement to get enough people to complain enough to get things to change. Well, sure -- you are very cynical about this. In the past, things have changed because people complained. >This person was working at a place that provided unlimited coconut water to everyone all the time, and she complained about it. I'd hardly call that harsh working conditions. What an absurd thing to say. Coconut water is obviously no substitute for money.