Rationale of Altruism

[Pattern-chaser]

Hello Sy Borg,

My motive is to actually provide "food for thought" to people with selfish/narcissistic tendencies.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behaviour would be the opposite of selfish behaviour?

It's definitely a collective effort. I suppose sociopaths in society set examples of what is generally considered toxic behavior. Perhaps that is why the "good guy" usually wins in most stories told. If there is a logical basis behind the ethos, then "evil" tendencies will eventually be defeated.

Phobias, which are mostly irrational, are considered to be "curable". If self-centered behavior is also considered irrational, then why can't that be overcome also?

Trouble is, a person who does not care about others, who cannot empathise, would not consider their self-centred behaviour to be irrational, quite the contrary. If aware of various taboos, their focus will be on trying to obscure, distract or use fear to avoid damage to their image for selfish behaviour.

Yes, TV detectives often assume that the offender always acts rationally in their own eyes. There is always a rationale that makes sense to them, no matter how perverse it might seem to others. This rings true to me. The sociopath — for that is surely who you describe here? — sees their own actions as being rational and sensible. More importantly, in this context, no-one who sees their own actions as rational has any inclination or reason to change.

So, if we think, or hope, that certain individuals could or should change their behaviour, how could we persuade them to do so? It would appear we must first convince them that their behaviour is not rational, and then rely on them to act on that realisation. But how? Is it actually real-world-possible, I wonder?

In my limited observation, most people seem to value ethics and relationships enough to usually play nicely with others. Of course, three days without food for themselves or their children reduces many to something akin to what we see in wild animals. The upcoming food shortages as a result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine will leave many people without enough food and growing ethical quandaries.

Yes, and your thinking usefully extends beyond war to the ecology, where soils are exhausted and washed away by storms and floods, and where there is not always enough fresh drinking water to go around. It's not a pretty picture.

[Paul91]

Real societies, just like most individuals, possess a desire to belong to a group (typically through either cooperation or leadership) as well as a desire to be a winner (typically through competition). It's a balance. A balance that has been shifted heavily towards competition since the advent of mass media, this has accelerated rapidly since social media.

Hi LuckyR

If there is respect for your opponents, then you can still win a competition without taking all credit. The win is just a natural outcome of (relatively) performing your best.

Actually winning isn't about performing your best, it's about performing better than your competition. The reality is that if 99 want to cooperate and 1 wants to complete, you'll have a 2 tiered system. In other words the few competitors shape the society.

I based my statement about competition on my experience with playing an individual competitive sport for 10 years. A "good game" would naturally involve some cooperation from your opponent/s (it takes two to tango). If you come out on top, it can demonstrate joint qualities have having, during your period of reign, greater grit and skill than your opponent/s. Some people obviously have environmental and genetic limits that place a ceiling on their status, despite their best efforts. Of course, there can be corruption in social systems that brings unfairness, but this is obviously driven by selfish desires.

[Paul91]

Hello Sy Borg,

My motive is to actually provide "food for thought" to people with selfish/narcissistic tendencies.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behaviour would be the opposite of selfish behaviour?

I see selfish behaviour as driven by fear. The perceived need to guard your sense of self comes with a level of fear and is ultimately selfish in orientation, is it not?

It's definitely a collective effort. I suppose sociopaths in society set examples of what is generally considered toxic behavior. Perhaps that is why the "good guy" usually wins in most stories told. If there is a logical basis behind the ethos, then "evil" tendencies will eventually be defeated.

Phobias, which are mostly irrational, are considered to be "curable". If self-centered behavior is also considered irrational, then why can't that be overcome also?

Trouble is, a person who does not care about others, who cannot empathise, would not consider their self-centred behaviour to be irrational, quite the contrary. If aware of various taboos, their focus will be on trying to obscure, distract or use fear to avoid damage to their image for selfish behaviour.

Yes, TV detectives often assume that the offender always acts rationally in their own eyes. There is always a rationale that makes sense to them, no matter how perverse it might seem to others. This rings true to me. The sociopath — for that is surely who you describe here? — sees their own actions as being rational and sensible. More importantly, in this context, no-one who sees their own actions as rational has any inclination or reason to change.

So, if we think, or hope, that certain individuals could or should change their behaviour, how could we persuade them to do so? It would appear we must first convince them that their behaviour is not rational, and then rely on them to act on that realisation. But how? Is it actually real-world-possible, I wonder?

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

[Sy Borg]

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

If cognitive therapy made a difference to sociopaths, it would be standard treatment. At this stage, there is no known way to cure sociopathy. Some machines are too damaged to be repaired.

[Paul91]

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

If cognitive therapy made a difference to sociopaths, it would be standard treatment. At this stage, there is no known way to cure sociopathy. Some machines are too damaged to be repaired.

So, what would you consider to be the best approach?

[Sy Borg]

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

If cognitive therapy made a difference to sociopaths, it would be standard treatment. At this stage, there is no known way to cure sociopathy. Some machines are too damaged to be repaired.

So, what would you consider to be the best approach?

CBT is probably the best. However, at this stage it's not considered to be a cure, as such, unfortunately. The hardest part is for them to admit having a problem to present to therapy.

[LuckyR]

Real societies, just like most individuals, possess a desire to belong to a group (typically through either cooperation or leadership) as well as a desire to be a winner (typically through competition). It's a balance. A balance that has been shifted heavily towards competition since the advent of mass media, this has accelerated rapidly since social media.

Hi LuckyR

If there is respect for your opponents, then you can still win a competition without taking all credit. The win is just a natural outcome of (relatively) performing your best.

Actually winning isn't about performing your best, it's about performing better than your competition. The reality is that if 99 want to cooperate and 1 wants to complete, you'll have a 2 tiered system. In other words the few competitors shape the society.

I based my statement about competition on my experience with playing an individual competitive sport for 10 years. A "good game" would naturally involve some cooperation from your opponent/s (it takes two to tango). If you come out on top, it can demonstrate joint qualities have having, during your period of reign, greater grit and skill than your opponent/s. Some people obviously have environmental and genetic limits that place a ceiling on their status, despite their best efforts. Of course, there can be corruption in social systems that brings unfairness, but this is obviously driven by selfish desires.

All true on the field of play between competitors. But I was addressing the idea of cooperation in relation to competition. Fact is, in a situation of the cooperative vs competitive , the competitive are almost always going to come out on top.

[Sy Borg]

Hi LuckyR

If there is respect for your opponents, then you can still win a competition without taking all credit. The win is just a natural outcome of (relatively) performing your best.

Actually winning isn't about performing your best, it's about performing better than your competition. The reality is that if 99 want to cooperate and 1 wants to complete, you'll have a 2 tiered system. In other words the few competitors shape the society.

I based my statement about competition on my experience with playing an individual competitive sport for 10 years. A "good game" would naturally involve some cooperation from your opponent/s (it takes two to tango). If you come out on top, it can demonstrate joint qualities have having, during your period of reign, greater grit and skill than your opponent/s. Some people obviously have environmental and genetic limits that place a ceiling on their status, despite their best efforts. Of course, there can be corruption in social systems that brings unfairness, but this is obviously driven by selfish desires.

All true on the field of play between competitors. But I was addressing the idea of cooperation in relation to competition. Fact is, in a situation of the cooperative vs competitive , the competitive are almost always going to come out on top.

That comes down to game theory. Below are the results of repeated games of Prisoners' Dilemma

Axelrod’s Tournament (1980)
• 14 Entrants (mostly PD experts) wrote a computer program to play PD [Prisoners' Dilemma] in a round robin with other entrants, a RANDOM program, and itself (one game of 200 move)
• History to date in the current game is available to the program.
• Winner was TIT FOR TAT: 1st move: cooperate, then mimic the last move of the opponent. Simplest program entered (4 lines of code)
• Top eight entrants were *nice*: would not defect first
• Remaining 6 were *not nice*

Tournament Analysis
-------------------------
• Why were nice strategies so successful? Nice strategies did so well against each other.
• Not-nice strategies often beat nice strategies, but both players got low scores.
• TIT For TAT won because it also did well against not nice strategies.
– Key quality here is forgiveness, the propensity to cooperate after partner’s defection.
– FRIEDMAN was worst performing nice strategy – never forgave a defection for rest of game
• Clever algorithms sought to manipulate. The most successful strategies showed clear reciprocity and insensitivity to manipulation.
• Algorithms failed to account for 3rd order: the response to my response.
• Three other rules were found that would have won if entered, including TIT FOR TWO TATS.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1429470

Here we see that non-cooperation beat cooperation, but neither did well. By contrast, cooperators working with cooperators was the most effeictive option.

[Paul91]

Thank you, Sy Borg, for this fascinating slideshow on game theory: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1429470

It looks promising. Perhaps we are living in a massive simulation of game theory. Here are practical points worth highlighting from the slideshow:

"Practical Lessons
• For a player:
o Don’t be envious
o Don’t be first to defect
o Reciprocate both cooperation and defection
o Don’t be too clever (kills clarity, etc.)
• To create an environment for cooperation
o Enlarge the shadow of the future
 Longer period of interaction
 More interactions per unit of time
o Change the payoffs
o Teach altruism
o Teach reciprocity
o Improve recognition abilities"

It does seem that co-operative, altruistic systems are not just "kind", but also advantageous both for the individual and society in the long-run. There's evidence of altruism in other animals as well (we are not so special).

[LuckyR]

Actually winning isn't about performing your best, it's about performing better than your competition. The reality is that if 99 want to cooperate and 1 wants to complete, you'll have a 2 tiered system. In other words the few competitors shape the society.

I based my statement about competition on my experience with playing an individual competitive sport for 10 years. A "good game" would naturally involve some cooperation from your opponent/s (it takes two to tango). If you come out on top, it can demonstrate joint qualities have having, during your period of reign, greater grit and skill than your opponent/s. Some people obviously have environmental and genetic limits that place a ceiling on their status, despite their best efforts. Of course, there can be corruption in social systems that brings unfairness, but this is obviously driven by selfish desires.

All true on the field of play between competitors. But I was addressing the idea of cooperation in relation to competition. Fact is, in a situation of the cooperative vs competitive , the competitive are almost always going to come out on top.

That comes down to game theory. Below are the results of repeated games of Prisoners' Dilemma

Axelrod’s Tournament (1980)
• 14 Entrants (mostly PD experts) wrote a computer program to play PD [Prisoners' Dilemma] in a round robin with other entrants, a RANDOM program, and itself (one game of 200 move)
• History to date in the current game is available to the program.
• Winner was TIT FOR TAT: 1st move: cooperate, then mimic the last move of the opponent. Simplest program entered (4 lines of code)
• Top eight entrants were *nice*: would not defect first
• Remaining 6 were *not nice*

Tournament Analysis
-------------------------
• Why were nice strategies so successful? Nice strategies did so well against each other.
• Not-nice strategies often beat nice strategies, but both players got low scores.
• TIT For TAT won because it also did well against not nice strategies.
– Key quality here is forgiveness, the propensity to cooperate after partner’s defection.
– FRIEDMAN was worst performing nice strategy – never forgave a defection for rest of game
• Clever algorithms sought to manipulate. The most successful strategies showed clear reciprocity and insensitivity to manipulation.
• Algorithms failed to account for 3rd order: the response to my response.
• Three other rules were found that would have won if entered, including TIT FOR TWO TATS.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1429470

Here we see that non-cooperation beat cooperation, but neither did well. By contrast, cooperators working with cooperators was the most effeictive option.

Sure, that data is from PD, with it's particular set of outcomes (which determine the winner, relatively speaking). In Real Life, in a competition between someone who gives a damn vs someone who doesn't, isn't really a fair comparo. The good news is in such a system, the loser doesn't care that he lost, so one could ask: did he really lose?

[Paul91]

In "TIT for TAT" there is only defection when it is discovered that an individual defected in the last game. Otherwise, the default mode is cooperation.

Here is my current understanding of "TIT for TAT" in the real world:

There are individuals in society, call them narcissists or sociopaths, who made an initial decision to defect, out of temptation to have both freedom from the "bondage" of conditional love (the force behind reciprocal altruism) and to have greater wisdom than an empath (to actually know and practice "evil"). The consequence is that there would be external shame/judgment by "good" people once they see through the narc's façade (the façade that hides their "shameful" decision to defect). The consequence of this abandonment is eventual death for the selfish/narcissistic individual.

I believe that a better system would be to acknowledge that any initial "favour" is actually free, and to "return the favour" would involve cooperative acts that extend beyond mere selfish gain, with such a successful outcome demonstrated in the Prisoner's Dilemma experiments. There would be no actual or perceived obligations or sacrifices.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behaviour would be the opposite of selfish behaviour?

I see selfish behaviour as driven by fear. The perceived need to guard your sense of self comes with a level of fear and is ultimately selfish in orientation, is it not?

I would not contradict you, but I think there are other contributory factors too, maybe many of them.

We are talking about a very basic behaviour here, and a spectrum of behaviour, from the extremes of selfish to altruistic, covering the middle area in between. I would be surprised to find that there is only one 'cause' for such behaviours.

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

There are many people — bright, intelligent and well-informed people — who say this, but it really doesn't seem to be the case. Logical persuasion does not change people's minds. We only have to refer to our own life experience, in the real world, to confirm this. Purely logical argument often causes people to double down on their beliefs and/or behaviour. It can make matters worse. Human being are not logical or rational creatures. Yes, we can behave logically and rationally, on occasion, but we definitely can't keep it up.

[Paul91]

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behaviour would be the opposite of selfish behaviour?

I see selfish behaviour as driven by fear. The perceived need to guard your sense of self comes with a level of fear and is ultimately selfish in orientation, is it not?

I would not contradict you, but I think there are other contributory factors too, maybe many of them.

We are talking about a very basic behaviour here, and a spectrum of behaviour, from the extremes of selfish to altruistic, covering the middle area in between. I would be surprised to find that there is only one 'cause' for such behaviours.

Well, I suppose in order to have productive conversation, we can't make false assumptions, but neither is it helpful to make ideas unnecessarily complex. I don't mean to oversimplify just for the sake of argument. I'm still open to other ideas as well.

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

There are many people — bright, intelligent and well-informed people — who say this, but it really doesn't seem to be the case. Logical persuasion does not change people's minds. We only have to refer to our own life experience, in the real world, to confirm this. Purely logical argument often causes people to double down on their beliefs and/or behaviour. It can make matters worse. Human being are not logical or rational creatures. Yes, we can behave logically and rationally, on occasion, but we definitely can't keep it up.

So, what role do you think philosophy plays?

[Pattern-chaser]

I hope that logical persuasion can and will convert sociopaths. I don't believe all of them are "too far gone" or a "necessary (natural) evil" either.

There are many people — bright, intelligent and well-informed people — who say this, but it really doesn't seem to be the case. Logical persuasion does not change people's minds. We only have to refer to our own life experience, in the real world, to confirm this. Purely logical argument often causes people to double down on their beliefs and/or behaviour. It can make matters worse. Human being are not logical or rational creatures. Yes, we can behave logically and rationally, on occasion, but we definitely can't keep it up.

So, what role do you think philosophy plays?

In persuading sociopaths to change their ways? None whatsoever, IMO.

[Paul91]

There are many people — bright, intelligent and well-informed people — who say this, but it really doesn't seem to be the case. Logical persuasion does not change people's minds. We only have to refer to our own life experience, in the real world, to confirm this. Purely logical argument often causes people to double down on their beliefs and/or behaviour. It can make matters worse. Human being are not logical or rational creatures. Yes, we can behave logically and rationally, on occasion, but we definitely can't keep it up.

If you say "logical persuasion does not change people's minds" and we are "not logical or rational creatures", then what role do you think philosophy plays in society in general? To me, your argument makes the art/science of philosophy seem a bit vain.