6 ms·

I don't see what your anecdote has to do with kindness. Presumably both Guttmann and his colleagues were all kind enough to want to reduce suffering; Guttmann j

I don't see what your anecdote has to do with kindness. Presumably both Guttmann and his colleagues were all kind enough to want to reduce suffering; Guttmann just happened to be more correct about how to do so. Neither approach was more or less kind than the other, but one was more effective.

ajross 14y ago
Additionally: I don't see what the anecdote has to do with the linked article, which was about marketing and customer relations. No one sane is saying that the world would be better off with no clever people, or that it's somehow a choice. The point was simply that for a business with customers, merely "executing well" doesn't work as well as being genuinely nice to your customers. Then jdietrich turned the whole thing into a giant strawman about an obscure doctor using a different interpretation of "kind".
jdietrich 14y ago
The effective approach was seen as deeply unkind, for reasons I elucidated - it resulted in a great amount of suffering in the short-term, for reasons which seemed futile to everyone but Guttmann. Kindness is essentially a static phenomenon - it can offer nothing more than a slight temporary improvement. Clever is permanent and revolutionary. Clever is what eliminates smallpox, clever is what puts airbags in cars, clever digs irrigation ditches and makes pesticides. Kindness is personified by Mother Teresa - a well-meaning person who can offer only succour to the dying. Clever is Guy Henry Faget discovering promin and Calmette and Guerin creating a TB vaccine. Clever goes totally unnoticed most of the time, but its impact immeasurably outweighs compassion. How many humanitarians do you need to feed as many mouths as Norman Borlaug did? Who did more to alleviate suffering due to HIV/AIDS, the hospice movement or GlaxoSmithkline?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- derleth 14y ago
  > Kindness is personified by Mother Teresa - a well-meaning person who can offer only succour to the dying. Ooooh, bad example: http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm > One of Mother Teresa’s volunteers in Calcutta described her “Home for the Dying” as resembling photos of concentration camps such as Belsen. No chairs, just stretcher beds. Virtually no medical care or painkillers beyond aspirin, and a refusal to take a 15-year-old boy to a hospital. Hitchens adds, “Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so... is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism > She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[1] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."[2] [1] Byfield, Ted (20 October 1997). "If the real world knew the real Mother Teresa there would be a lot less adulation". Alberta Report/Newsmagazine 24 (45) [2] http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.ht... I probably wouldn't have even mentioned this if you hadn't explicitly said "succour to the dying". 'Succour' is the last thing Mother Teresa offered. After all, Suffering Is Good.
  - wisty 14y ago
    ... by how Mother Teresa is usually portrayed ...
- nollidge 14y ago
  > The effective approach was seen as deeply unkind What I'm getting at is you have an overly narrow definition of the word "kind". I would argue that Guttmann was actually MORE kind, regardless of how shortsighted people may have seen it.
pjscott 14y ago
This has turned into an argument over the definitions of words, instead of an argument over anything in reality. Is it "kind" to subject spinal cord injury patients to short-term misery in order to give them longer-term relief from their injuries? Or would "kindness" flinch away from this and try to minimize their short-term pain? You're using the former definition of kindness, and jdietrich and the article are using the latter. Both are useful concepts.

ajross 14y ago

Additionally: I don't see what the anecdote has to do with the linked article, which was about marketing and customer relations. No one sane is saying that the world would be better off with no clever people, or that it's somehow a choice. The point was simply that for a business with customers, merely "executing well" doesn't work as well as being genuinely nice to your customers. Then jdietrich turned the whole thing into a giant strawman about an obscure doctor using a different interpretation of "kind".

jdietrich 14y ago

The effective approach was seen as deeply unkind, for reasons I elucidated - it resulted in a great amount of suffering in the short-term, for reasons which seemed futile to everyone but Guttmann. Kindness is essentially a static phenomenon - it can offer nothing more than a slight temporary improvement. Clever is permanent and revolutionary. Clever is what eliminates smallpox, clever is what puts airbags in cars, clever digs irrigation ditches and makes pesticides. Kindness is personified by Mother Teresa - a well-meaning person who can offer only succour to the dying. Clever is Guy Henry Faget discovering promin and Calmette and Guerin creating a TB vaccine. Clever goes totally unnoticed most of the time, but its impact immeasurably outweighs compassion. How many humanitarians do you need to feed as many mouths as Norman Borlaug did? Who did more to alleviate suffering due to HIV/AIDS, the hospice movement or GlaxoSmithkline?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
derleth 14y ago
> Kindness is personified by Mother Teresa - a well-meaning person who can offer only succour to the dying. Ooooh, bad example: http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm > One of Mother Teresa’s volunteers in Calcutta described her “Home for the Dying” as resembling photos of concentration camps such as Belsen. No chairs, just stretcher beds. Virtually no medical care or painkillers beyond aspirin, and a refusal to take a 15-year-old boy to a hospital. Hitchens adds, “Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so... is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism > She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[1] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."[2] [1] Byfield, Ted (20 October 1997). "If the real world knew the real Mother Teresa there would be a lot less adulation". Alberta Report/Newsmagazine 24 (45) [2] http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.ht... I probably wouldn't have even mentioned this if you hadn't explicitly said "succour to the dying". 'Succour' is the last thing Mother Teresa offered. After all, Suffering Is Good.
- wisty 14y ago
  ... by how Mother Teresa is usually portrayed ...
nollidge 14y ago
> The effective approach was seen as deeply unkind What I'm getting at is you have an overly narrow definition of the word "kind". I would argue that Guttmann was actually MORE kind, regardless of how shortsighted people may have seen it.

pjscott 14y ago

This has turned into an argument over the definitions of words, instead of an argument over anything in reality. Is it "kind" to subject spinal cord injury patients to short-term misery in order to give them longer-term relief from their injuries? Or would "kindness" flinch away from this and try to minimize their short-term pain? You're using the former definition of kindness, and jdietrich and the article are using the latter. Both are useful concepts.