3 ms·
I still find it mind-boggling how some people can be so surprised by the fact that people in general act in their own interest. A normal, healthy human being is
by ekr 7y ago
I still find it mind-boggling how some people can be so surprised by the fact that people in general act in their own interest. A normal, healthy human being is exclusively concerned by its own well-being and that of its immediate family. To the extent that we witness altruistic behavior, it is executed for signalling purposes (this is the reason why there's virtually no completely anonymous charity, see "The elephant in the brain").
There is a part of the brain that is responsible for integrating events into a continuous narrative. That part of the brain is why we perceive ourselves as an integral being and not a set of parts, but that part is also severely biased in healthy humans, biased to paint ourselves as kinder, more altruistic, more intelligent, while also rewriting the motivation we cite for our past actions, so as to put ourselves in the best possible light.
But no, there's nothing special about those Exxon researches, that's just normal human behavior.
And to go further, acting against ones own interest requires going over a strong emotion. The body let's you know that you shouldn't be doing something through a gut feeling. Repeatedly ignoring or repressing those emotions is not healthy for the nervous system, and much has been written on this subject.
LE: And regarding claims that stopping global warming was in their own interest back in the 1980s, there's the hyperbolic discounting effect (among other things).
- komali2 7y agoThis implies one needs to act against one's interests to take action on climate change. Lack of imagination on Exxon's part could explain this as well. They could have started ringing alarm bells and used their massive strength to push for environmental research and favorable regulations.
- PeterisP 7y ago> They could have started ringing alarm bells and used their massive strength to push for environmental research and favorable regulations. i.e., acting against their own interests. Spending the last 40 years using their strength against environmental research meant that the people who in 1980 owned and managed Exxon extracted great benefit to themselves (at the cost of others) for the rest of their lives (either they're already dead, or will be before any serious consequences may hurt them); doing what you propose would have benefitted the world but greatly hurt their own interests.
- scarejunba 7y agoThe immediate family is going to die. Good luck to them.
- dang 7y agoMaybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
- scarejunba 7y agoI thought it was substantive. The "immediate family optimization" argument doesn't work when the "immediate family" is what's going to suffer.
- anigbrowl 7y agoA normal, healthy human being is exclusively concerned by its own well-being and that of its immediate family. This and other statements in your comment are assumptions rather than facts.Have you considered the possibility that your view of human nature is overly reductive?