4 ms·

I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are trying to assert that academia is altruistic ? Academia is not altruistic. The Universities are in the b

I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are trying to assert that academia is altruistic ? Academia is not altruistic. The Universities are in the billion dollar education business. They are just labeled non-profit yet they make hundred of millions collectively in TV contracts but none of that is used to help the poor communities and families many of their athletes come from. They are no better than bankers and consultants, or entrepreneurs trying to make a buck.

arctangent 15y ago
I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. I agree with you that collections of academics (i.e. universities) often act in predatory ways - this is true of any sufficiently large group of people with a common interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
- anamax 15y ago
  > I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. "Altruism is the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others." (Wikipedia.) Not so fast. Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    Altruists International offers a slightly more nuanced definition than that single line from Wikipedia. I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument. I'm not trying to change his argument - I'm pointing out that he's wrong. Academics make less money but that doesn't imply that they're not working for things that they value. The fact that someone makes a potentially less lucrative choice does not make them altruistic. It usually just means that they're trading money for something else that they want. You wouldn't assume that buying a car is altruistic, so why would you assume that making an employment choice that gets me something I want in return for less money is altruistic? (Yes, buying a car can be altruistic.)
      - thaumaturgy 15y ago
        I think you misunderstand altruism. And no, he's not wrong. Since altruism is itself a value, it's erroneous to say that altruism requires a person to not work for things they value. So, whether or not academics are working for things they value has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. If you are motivated by the welfare of others -- if, as Bertrand Russell once said, once you find yourself thinking about human suffering, you find it difficult to think about anything else, and if you then decide to work on alleviating the suffering of others -- then you are acting altruistically. Someone who makes the conscious decision between a lucrative career and a career in academia, and chooses academia in order to advance the field of their choice, even though they expect to make less money for themselves, is making an altruistic decision. Your original reply said, "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. If a person chooses to do something which will benefit others, and not themselves, they are acting altruistically. Now, I happen to think that a person can be selfish and still be altruistic, because of the non-monetary rewards you're alluding to. I am self-interested in improving the lives of the people around me, so, although my actions are altruistic, it still benefits me in a sense. But, that's not a very popular way of looking at it; by definition, when people talk about "benefits" and "costs" associated with altruism, they're talking about things like money or physical health. So, again: if your actions cost you money and benefit others, then you are acting altruistically. I would say that choosing a life of academia fits that rather nicely. By the way, you and I have gone 'round about this subject not all that long ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906). Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things I've ever heard in this subject, so I don't expect you to agree with what I'm saying.
        anamax 15y ago
        > I think you misunderstand altruism. Let's see if we disagree. > Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. That's basically what I said, so I'm not wrong about altruism. The remaining question is whether folks who don't appear to maximize their expected monetary return are typically altruistic. Consider an econ professor vs a strategist at a hedge fund. The econ professor has a much less stressful life. She's got interaction with students, etc. Some people value those things more than they do the chance at an extra $500k/year. > "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. The claim was that folks who aren't receiving monetary rewards are necessarily/mostly altruistic. I pointed out that they're often receiving non-monetary rewards. It's not clear whether you're saying that someone who does something for non-monetary rewards is being altruistic, but if you are, you're wrong. (Consider working for apples, or so you can live some place that you like.) > Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things What's odd about it? People who are concerned about how they're doing relative to other people behave differently than people who are concerned solely about how they're doing. Yes, it's possible to "implement" greed by taking from others, but that's seen as bad. For the envious, that's seen as good.

arctangent 15y ago

I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. I agree with you that collections of academics (i.e. universities) often act in predatory ways - this is true of any sufficiently large group of people with a common interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

anamax 15y ago
> I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. "Altruism is the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others." (Wikipedia.) Not so fast. Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  Altruists International offers a slightly more nuanced definition than that single line from Wikipedia. I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument. I'm not trying to change his argument - I'm pointing out that he's wrong. Academics make less money but that doesn't imply that they're not working for things that they value. The fact that someone makes a potentially less lucrative choice does not make them altruistic. It usually just means that they're trading money for something else that they want. You wouldn't assume that buying a car is altruistic, so why would you assume that making an employment choice that gets me something I want in return for less money is altruistic? (Yes, buying a car can be altruistic.)
    - thaumaturgy 15y ago
      I think you misunderstand altruism. And no, he's not wrong. Since altruism is itself a value, it's erroneous to say that altruism requires a person to not work for things they value. So, whether or not academics are working for things they value has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. If you are motivated by the welfare of others -- if, as Bertrand Russell once said, once you find yourself thinking about human suffering, you find it difficult to think about anything else, and if you then decide to work on alleviating the suffering of others -- then you are acting altruistically. Someone who makes the conscious decision between a lucrative career and a career in academia, and chooses academia in order to advance the field of their choice, even though they expect to make less money for themselves, is making an altruistic decision. Your original reply said, "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. If a person chooses to do something which will benefit others, and not themselves, they are acting altruistically. Now, I happen to think that a person can be selfish and still be altruistic, because of the non-monetary rewards you're alluding to. I am self-interested in improving the lives of the people around me, so, although my actions are altruistic, it still benefits me in a sense. But, that's not a very popular way of looking at it; by definition, when people talk about "benefits" and "costs" associated with altruism, they're talking about things like money or physical health. So, again: if your actions cost you money and benefit others, then you are acting altruistically. I would say that choosing a life of academia fits that rather nicely. By the way, you and I have gone 'round about this subject not all that long ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906). Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things I've ever heard in this subject, so I don't expect you to agree with what I'm saying.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > I think you misunderstand altruism. Let's see if we disagree. > Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. That's basically what I said, so I'm not wrong about altruism. The remaining question is whether folks who don't appear to maximize their expected monetary return are typically altruistic. Consider an econ professor vs a strategist at a hedge fund. The econ professor has a much less stressful life. She's got interaction with students, etc. Some people value those things more than they do the chance at an extra $500k/year. > "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. The claim was that folks who aren't receiving monetary rewards are necessarily/mostly altruistic. I pointed out that they're often receiving non-monetary rewards. It's not clear whether you're saying that someone who does something for non-monetary rewards is being altruistic, but if you are, you're wrong. (Consider working for apples, or so you can live some place that you like.) > Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things What's odd about it? People who are concerned about how they're doing relative to other people behave differently than people who are concerned solely about how they're doing. Yes, it's possible to "implement" greed by taking from others, but that's seen as bad. For the envious, that's seen as good.