[dreadgeek]

Miss Tick:

I didn't read the article as giving altruism a black eye. I don't think it is saying that *altruism* itself is pathological. It reads, at least to me, to be saying that beyond a certain point altruistic behavior can become pathological. I thought the examples from medicine were actually spot on. A nurse who will go to the wall to insure that her patients get the very best care is behaving altruistically. A nurse who does so and does not develop the ability to detach, thus causing her to leave nursing, thus reducing by one the number of nurses who will go all the way for their patients, is showing pathological altruism. Part of caring enough about one's patients should, I would think, making sure that oneself stays capable of continuing the practice of nursing.

An even more spot-on illustration is the doctor insisting on the spinal tap with the elderly patient. What the article seems to me to be describing is what happens to altruism and how people can manage to take actions that have consequences *entirely* opposite of their intended goals. That doctor did not want to kill the patient. But he was so certain that he had the patient's best interest at heart that he would not stop and reevaluate the situation. He didn't stop and consider the process costs of this decision.

That is not saying that altruism is pathological. It is saying that if one becomes so blinded by one's altruistic impulse that one can no longer stop and consider possible implications of actions, then the altruistic impulse has been taken too far and the results are pathological--in other words they cause harm instead of good.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well since we have the virtue of selfishness, why not pathological altruism.

Although I have to agree some of the examples used to explain this term seem to miss the mark, at least the altruism part, pathological for sure, altruistic not so much.

Others have an odd bend like the empathetic nurses as opposed to aloof nurses or giving generously to one kid (I assume not so generously to the other 2). What happens makes sense, understandably empathetic nurses burn out more quickly than those who are uncaring and kids who watch others receive generously feel hurt. I wouldn’t call the reactions or results pathologies to altruism. But then I wouldn’t call being empathetic an altruistic behavior either. And I seriously question whether you can teach empathy. At least to full grown adult nurses. But perhaps you can.

So while I agree with lots of what the article had to say, like there are always trade-offs, increasing something decreases something else, humans as a species are amazingly cooperative etc, I find myself puzzled as to how it all connects to altruism let alone altruism as pathology.

I don’t think I’ve ever really believed in the existence of true altruism. Perhaps loosely defined it exists in some form when an animal behaves in a way that is bad for it personally but helps ensure the survival of the group. And probably loosely defined in humans as well, especially when it comes to one’s children. However, an argument could be made that parents see their children as an extension of themselves. Personally I don’t think altruism exists in any pure form. I seriously doubt people engaging in pathological behavior that involves an overly involved concern with others are practicing altruism.

I do think that understanding about trade-offs is important. If you take something from one side of the equation you need to balance it by replacing it with something else. Either that or remove something from the other side. People often forget that, I think. Another problem I see is that mostly people want to win, they want to be right. They want to win so much that they will lose rather than compromise.

If you are losing nurses to burn out because you are training them to be highly empathetic (if indeed that is even possible) and their patients love them, train them to be not so highly more in the middle empathetic and their patients will like them and you get perhaps less burn out. Someone mentioned having the opportunity to skip two grades and being in the same class as their brother but their mother refused so as not to upset the brother. Why not skip just one grade? Then you’re not in the same class as your brother, but you get to be more intellectually stimulated.

Still I’m not sure I understand what it all has to do with altruism. But clearly I’m not the sharpest tool in the box.

Anyway it’s probably all just part of a plot by the right to justify why the 1% need not concern itself with the plight of the 99%. Giving altruism a black eye has got to be a good thing for them