8 ms·

I know I think differently than most, but this idea always confused me. Yeah, if I threw a piece of trash out of my car window, I could possibly get in trouble

I know I think differently than most, but this idea always confused me. Yeah, if I threw a piece of trash out of my car window, I could possibly get in trouble but where I live, nobody will notice and I will probably get away with it. Instead, I could just do the right thing and not do that. Personally, I don't need that scary presence of responsibility to choose the "better" path. I guess it is really hard for me to see it from the other side's shoes.

cgriswald 7y ago
My girlfriend and I recently found a lost dog. A package of salami, a phone call, and about 15 minutes later, the dog was reunited with its owner. We helped the dog despite a variety of risks to ourselves, despite not knowing when it would end, and despite being in a hurry. We didn't do it with any expectation of reward or kudos. And although we do train and board dogs as a side gig, we're already booked enough to be choosy about clients, so we weren't doing it for potential business. We did it because ignoring the dog felt bad and helping the dog felt good. That is, it was completely selfish on our part, but we still did the right thing. But at least a dozen other people just walked by the dog as if they didn't see it. It was off leash, unkempt, and clearly scared. They saw it, but they just walked on past. Why? Because, for whatever reason, they didn't feel badly enough or wouldn't feel good enough if they helped. I don't litter, either. And I take some personal responsibility for the litter of others. Again, because it feels good (or, in this case, living in a marginally cleaner city feels good). It also feels good knowing I might not be the only one who does so. Neither of these makes me a good person. There's one instance where I know I don't do the right thing: I don't visit people in hospitals unless someone else drags me along. The experience, for reasons I'd probably need a psychologist to figure out, is painful for me, and whatever reward I get visiting the person is dwarfed by that pain. Even the shame and embarrassment of being a person who doesn't visit people when they're in the hospital isn't enough of an incentive to go. I need an external incentive. I need a friend to say, "Hey, let's go visit Phil in the hospital" or I'll be 'too busy' to go. We all 'think differently' than each other. We're all doing what feels best. We all have different internal incentives and disincentives. So, for any sufficiently large group and any desired behavior, external incentives are required to get some of the people to exhibit that desired behavior.
- eyepea2007 7y ago
  "All actors are locally rational."
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  Thanks for writing that. I have been trying to explain for years that in most people, the brain rewards things like this in the same way that it rewards eating candy. Saying that doing something that gives you a pump of serotonin is selfless is ridiculous. Show me someone who is absolutely repulsed by something, but does it anyway because creates the serotonin pump for someone else, and I'll show you a selfless person.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    Well, no-one said "selfless".. This and the GP sound like psychological egoism[0], the claim that "all of our ultimate desires are egoistic": "Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives. Suppose, for example, that Pam saves Jim from a burning office building. What ultimately motivated her to do this? It would be odd to suggest that it’s ultimately her own benefit that Pam is seeking. After all, she’s risking her own life in the process. But the psychological egoist holds that Pam’s apparently altruistic act is ultimately motivated by the goal to benefit herself, whether she is aware of this or not. Pam might have wanted to gain a good feeling from being a hero, or to avoid social reprimand that would follow had she not helped Jim, or something along these lines." I was attracted to this years ago, and even more to the related theory of Mark Twain in What Is Man?, which seemed very convincing[1]: "...we ignore and never mention the Sole Impulse which dictates and compels a man's every act: the imperious necessity of securing his own approval, in every emergency and at all costs. To it we owe all that we are. It is our breath, our heart, our blood. It is our only spur, our whip, our good, our only impelling power; we have no other. ... FROM HIS CRADLE TO HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE–TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR HIMSELF. ...He will always do the thing which will bring him the MOST mental comfort–for that is THE SOLE LAW OF HIS LIFE" but came to think (as most philosophers do) that both are just mistakes. They explain too much, are unfalsifiable (how do you know about what people never do - it's just asserted), and are crazy and a horrible way to live. There's no goodness in the world?! No kind acts? Why would you want to believe that. You really didn't care about that dog at all, GP? [0]https://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/#SH3d https://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/#SH3d [1] http://www.fullbooks.com/What-Is-Man-1.html http://www.fullbooks.com/What-Is-Man-1.html
gnopgnip 7y ago
You are ignoring the incentives. If doing the right thing cost $5 instead of being free, there would be a lot more litter
- apacheCamel 7y ago
  I am not sure I know many examples that would fit like that though. Recycling probably is a big one, since I have to pay to have a recycle bin picked up weekly. Holding on to litter costs me time and energy since I have to hang onto it until I find a trash can. I feel like people have a "minimum" threshold of how much they can be put "out of their way" before they go with the bad option. I really don't know. I think it is tough to think about. How much time/money would you be willing to part with to properly dispose of a candy wrapper? How about the same question but now you have to pay/waste time to not steal a TV? I don't know how to explain it without going full on slippery slope.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- stevenicr 7y ago
  that's kind of the reverse for the 'bottle deposits' - where it costs you up front, and not doing the right thing (returning the bottles for recycling), costs you as not getting money back. So, deposits on plastic cups! and straws! (might get people to pay the cost of washing and re-using a sturdy one)

cgriswald 7y ago

My girlfriend and I recently found a lost dog. A package of salami, a phone call, and about 15 minutes later, the dog was reunited with its owner. We helped the dog despite a variety of risks to ourselves, despite not knowing when it would end, and despite being in a hurry. We didn't do it with any expectation of reward or kudos. And although we do train and board dogs as a side gig, we're already booked enough to be choosy about clients, so we weren't doing it for potential business. We did it because ignoring the dog felt bad and helping the dog felt good. That is, it was completely selfish on our part, but we still did the right thing. But at least a dozen other people just walked by the dog as if they didn't see it. It was off leash, unkempt, and clearly scared. They saw it, but they just walked on past. Why? Because, for whatever reason, they didn't feel badly enough or wouldn't feel good enough if they helped. I don't litter, either. And I take some personal responsibility for the litter of others. Again, because it feels good (or, in this case, living in a marginally cleaner city feels good). It also feels good knowing I might not be the only one who does so. Neither of these makes me a good person. There's one instance where I know I don't do the right thing: I don't visit people in hospitals unless someone else drags me along. The experience, for reasons I'd probably need a psychologist to figure out, is painful for me, and whatever reward I get visiting the person is dwarfed by that pain. Even the shame and embarrassment of being a person who doesn't visit people when they're in the hospital isn't enough of an incentive to go. I need an external incentive. I need a friend to say, "Hey, let's go visit Phil in the hospital" or I'll be 'too busy' to go. We all 'think differently' than each other. We're all doing what feels best. We all have different internal incentives and disincentives. So, for any sufficiently large group and any desired behavior, external incentives are required to get some of the people to exhibit that desired behavior.

eyepea2007 7y ago
"All actors are locally rational."
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
Thanks for writing that. I have been trying to explain for years that in most people, the brain rewards things like this in the same way that it rewards eating candy. Saying that doing something that gives you a pump of serotonin is selfless is ridiculous. Show me someone who is absolutely repulsed by something, but does it anyway because creates the serotonin pump for someone else, and I'll show you a selfless person.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  Well, no-one said "selfless".. This and the GP sound like psychological egoism[0], the claim that "all of our ultimate desires are egoistic": "Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives. Suppose, for example, that Pam saves Jim from a burning office building. What ultimately motivated her to do this? It would be odd to suggest that it’s ultimately her own benefit that Pam is seeking. After all, she’s risking her own life in the process. But the psychological egoist holds that Pam’s apparently altruistic act is ultimately motivated by the goal to benefit herself, whether she is aware of this or not. Pam might have wanted to gain a good feeling from being a hero, or to avoid social reprimand that would follow had she not helped Jim, or something along these lines." I was attracted to this years ago, and even more to the related theory of Mark Twain in What Is Man?, which seemed very convincing[1]: "...we ignore and never mention the Sole Impulse which dictates and compels a man's every act: the imperious necessity of securing his own approval, in every emergency and at all costs. To it we owe all that we are. It is our breath, our heart, our blood. It is our only spur, our whip, our good, our only impelling power; we have no other. ... FROM HIS CRADLE TO HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE–TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR HIMSELF. ...He will always do the thing which will bring him the MOST mental comfort–for that is THE SOLE LAW OF HIS LIFE" but came to think (as most philosophers do) that both are just mistakes. They explain too much, are unfalsifiable (how do you know about what people never do - it's just asserted), and are crazy and a horrible way to live. There's no goodness in the world?! No kind acts? Why would you want to believe that. You really didn't care about that dog at all, GP? [0]https://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/#SH3d https://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/#SH3d [1] http://www.fullbooks.com/What-Is-Man-1.html http://www.fullbooks.com/What-Is-Man-1.html

gnopgnip 7y ago

You are ignoring the incentives. If doing the right thing cost $5 instead of being free, there would be a lot more litter

apacheCamel 7y ago
I am not sure I know many examples that would fit like that though. Recycling probably is a big one, since I have to pay to have a recycle bin picked up weekly. Holding on to litter costs me time and energy since I have to hang onto it until I find a trash can. I feel like people have a "minimum" threshold of how much they can be put "out of their way" before they go with the bad option. I really don't know. I think it is tough to think about. How much time/money would you be willing to part with to properly dispose of a candy wrapper? How about the same question but now you have to pay/waste time to not steal a TV? I don't know how to explain it without going full on slippery slope.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stevenicr 7y ago
that's kind of the reverse for the 'bottle deposits' - where it costs you up front, and not doing the right thing (returning the bottles for recycling), costs you as not getting money back. So, deposits on plastic cups! and straws! (might get people to pay the cost of washing and re-using a sturdy one)