Extreme Altruism and the Psychopathic Brain.

in psychology •  7 years ago 

man-2877135_640.jpg

I want to thank my friend and follower @valued-customer for inspiring me to write this post. Please read his post and the link he provides to the National Geographic article comparing altruism and psychopathy to fully understand this analysis.

Those of you (both of you) who read my posts know that I’m obsessed with the role psychopaths play in modern hierarchical society. People in positions of power are almost always psychopathic. But I never considered the role that altruists play until I read the above-mentioned article.

I have to admit that the article was reasonably even handed in its presentation by not overtly promoting altruism in opposition to psychopathy but the reading stirred my emotions and brought certain personal assumptions to the surface for renewed scrutiny.

I loved the 4-category chart box placing scientists just above psychopaths on the altruism scale. I have to admit, that's accurate in some cases since science looks with a cold eye upon the material world. You can't be a whiny baby if you are first breeding specific strains of mice only to inject them with something to see if it causes cancer and then snuffing and dissecting them to analyze and document the results.

Being a scientist does not necessarily reveal hidden psychopathology, however. A person may become a scientist for altruistic reasons: to help mankind or move technology to a less damaging level.

Surgeons fall into that category as well. Nobody wants a bleeding heart surgeon (now there's an image!). A competent surgeon does what he must to be the best body technician he can be. He can't fret about cutting off someone's leg to save his life, worrying about how the guy will make a living or whether or not the guy would rather be dead than a cripple. That stuff can't even enter his mind. He has to be cold and hopefully competent to do his job. Most of the surgeons I've ever met certainly fit the first description if not the second.

Now let's look at the altruist. Whereas the psychopathic brain has regions that remain inactive in certain situations, the altruist’s brain becomes overactive in those same regions.

Extreme altruism is perhaps as pathological as extreme ambition and the extreme altruist brain might be just as defective as the psychopath's. There are aspects of altruism that make it too much of a good thing.

While a psychopath furthers his own interests ahead of others in most circumstances, an altruist will sacrifice his own well being for another's. This goes against the notion of self-preservation, an important survival attribute in autonomous beings.

The National Geographic article mentions an incident where a woman spun out on the freeway to avoid hitting a dog, and then couldn't get her car started again, wherein an altruist risked his life to run across the traffic to save her.

I believe we are dealing with two altruists here. A clear-headed woman would have simply run the dog down. In trying to avoid it she needlessly endangered herself and the other drivers on the freeway, as did the man who ran out into traffic to save her. While their actions seem laudable on the surface, they were both personally and criminally irresponsible.

From the Darwinian perspective, an altruist favors survival of the species, while a psychopath favors self-preservation. For humans in a natural setting, extremes in either direction might be deleted from the gene pool. However, survival would favor the psychopath over the altruist since the altruist could quite possibly die before reproducing, while the psychopath would tend to make it, at least until the group tired of his selfishness and took him down.

We no longer live close to Nature. The rules have changed, but If this hypothesis is true, humanity would become more psychopathic over time and that certainly appears to be happening, at least in the upper social control echelon.

This brings up another point. Society—which is an abstract idea that involves groups of people—values self-sacrifice over self-preservation. This is certainly the case in social meta-organisms like ants and bees, wherein the workers unquestionably sacrifice their own wellbeing in favor of the group.

Altruism focused on humanity might push us in an evolutionary direction toward becoming more bee-like, more concerned with the group as a whole than with our personal interests. This sentiment certainly rises to the surface in times of disaster, when the usual order of society is disrupted, when people spared freely offer assistance to those affected. I also see social programming efforts via media in this direction, and I do see some apparent adoption of this in the greater population, but this could simply be illusion caused by media bias. This may be the only option for survival in an overpopulated world. Only time will tell.

In a political sense, the right wing faction tends to favor the psychopathic, autonomous-self ideal while the left wing faction favors the altruistic collectivist model. Again, this is not a criticism, simply an observation. I don’t want to open up a discussion on political ideology since I feel a central government and its ensuing politics to be pointless. I only point this out for your own self-analysis, to create awareness of all forms of social interaction and your personal reactions to it, perhaps to uncover some unconscious bias.

What do you think? Is extreme altruism an attribute or a handicap? If it is possible to increase altruism at an early age in those diagnosed with a psychopathic brain through psychological conditioning, could it be possible to reduce extreme altruism to normal levels the same way? Would we want to do that? Please comment.

image credit

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Our body is made up of 37.2 trillion individual cells. As all lower life forms evolve to more complex organisms, they join together and reduce entropy.

When the body is injured, the liver cells do not revolt because more resources are now going to a lowly broken pinky toe.

I would suggest taking a cue from nature. When all the cells work in harmony the larger organism thrives. When cells become greedy and work to funnel all resources to themselves, that becomes cancer, killing it's self and the whole organism in the process.

Expand this out into the world and you will see where humanity is going. It's inevitable. The immune system of humanity is consciousness. Medical intervention will not be needed.

I totally believe that beneath the notion of "red of tooth and claw" and "the law of the jungle" that Nature is entirely cooperative, at least withing the boundaries of individual organisms. There is a delicate balance between self-interest and holism.

For instance, certain cells exist only to die for the organism. Mucus is produced by goblet cells that rupture to release that substance. On the other hand, the immune system vigorously fights to protect individual cells from invasion by potentially damaging pathogens. Some cells must not be damaged for the good of the whole.

Fainting goats exist within the herd so that when a predator attacks, one member is sacrificed for the good of the rest. I doubt that this is altruism on the part of the fainting goat, simply a genetic attribute that expresses itself given the right stimuli.

Humans live their lives inside their heads. We therefore have choice. From a biological standpoint we can choose to be parasites of the biosphere or symbionts. If we don't make the right choice soon, natural selection will probably kick us out of the gene pool.

Consciousness is not in the head, or brain, or anywhere else in this virtual reality. Consciousness is elsewhere.

It is consciousness that is lowering it's entropy, doing so to evolve. This is not a material system, it is an information system. This reality is computed. This is a "consciousness Trainer." The goal is to grow up and loose fear. To loose fear based belief systems, becoming cooperative toward a common goal.

More decisions can be made by two of something, rather than one, increasing it's complexity. One large consciousness, sectioning itself off into seven billion units, makes for a GREAT DEAL OF COMPLEX CHOICE AND INFORMATION. :)

Just as you play in a virtual reality game, you are not inside your avatar. YOU are elsewhere, on a computer outside that avatars, "reality." You are engaging with player vs player, yet realize that there are times when you are engaging with player vs environment.

The larger consciousness system can program anything it likes into the game. Many times it will give us fear tests. You may notice that you are having scary dreams to start. The dream state is just another virtual reality, with a different rule set.

You can do things in dreams that will not result in harm to the avatar, where as in this reality, the rule set says we can't not fall off a one hundred foot cliff, without damaging the avatar.

Later, you may be given a fear test in this reality, which could result in damage to the avatar. Like saving the life of a woman, who has just swerved to miss a dog on a highway.

Which by the way, is not criminal. Not acting to save a life, that can be saved, is.

I appreciate that you've given much thought to consciousness and the human condition. That is the best path to be on, the only path that leads to reality.

I note that you assign a "purpose" to consciousness. I don't believe there is one. Consciousness simply is: the a-priory to existence. In assigning a purpose to consciousness you deify it, make it egoic. It isn't. Consciousness simply is. The world exists because it cannot not exist. Unity must become duality before the world can unfold. Emptiness begets everything.

You liken life to a game and indeed it is. It plays out to the end and then it's "game over." Then we start again. If we win, we move on to another game. We certainly aren't the avatar, but most of humanity believes that it is. Realizing we aren't is a gigantic step.

But we aren't some extra dimensional being playing avatar either. That is the echo in the head of humanity, the ego echoing out into space in an attempt to prove that it's more than the illusion it is.

Which by the way, is not criminal. Not acting to save a life, that can be saved, is.

I'm sure you are referring to human life. Part of our failing as an integrated part of the biosphere is this belief that humans are more important than everything else. This is understandable because we manifest as humans and have the wiring of a human animal with all of the circuitry this whole post talks about and because other humans that are close to us are more important to us emotionally than that spider weaving its web in the corner of your window or that trial of ants cleaning up that mess you made in the kitchen. Those lives are also important, not to you, but to consciousness. In fact, unless humanity gives up this idea that the Earth is theirs to exploit because of belief that humans are the most important species, we will eventually destroy some important ecological niche that supports our existence and life and consciousness will move on without us.

This goes way beyond what I was trying to point out in the article, that too much altruism is as dysfunctional as too much psycopathy, but I'm glad we had a chance to discuss it.

Thank you.

Consciousness would teach us that thinking of fame and gratitude for saving the life of the woman is not the goal. If the man's motive is this, the test is a failure.

We are never finished learning, growing, becoming more complex, lowering entropy. Nirvana is not the end goal. Silence, nothingness, the void, is where we start.
If the test is mindfulness of lesser creatures, and one spends his existence sweeping ants from his path, so as not to step on them, while passing the child dying of hunger on the street, leaving her in a cloud of dust, the test has been a failure.

Information has been gained from all these actions. Nothing is wasted, Just as in nature.

Psychopaths and extreme altruistic acts ARE just as diseased, If the altruistic deeds are for self satisfaction, acclaim, political gain, brownie points. Doing good without thought of self, is the definition of selflessness.

It's ironic, we come into this reality as individuals, to learn that we are one.

Never fear, the hard drive was backed up long ago and the reset button has been pushed many times. We have no worries about passing our SAT's while still taking naps and having snack time.

You talk of being tested. Who is the tester?

Rewards and punishments are part of the living realm. Consciousness presupposes life.

Saying that altruism is good and psychopathy is bad is judgemental, which is ego.

Extremes are usually unsavory. A little bit of salt on your potato improves the flavor. A cupful of salt makes it inedible.

No sane person would choose ants over a child, but an ant would.

I'm a traveler, not a tourist. I once fed a couple of starving children in Ecuador. It was frightening to watch them eat. They were far too hungry to be grateful, they ate like starving dogs. Likewise, I didn't get any sense of self-satisfaction from the experience. I did it because it seemed the right thing to do. In many ways it was terrifying, perhaps a glimpse of the future.

The guy who owned the restaurant I was in severely admonished me for feeding street urchins. Later in downtown Lima, Peru I got a feeling for what he meant. I gave a coin to a beggar boy. Within seconds I was buried in children with their hands out. I gave up all the coins I had. That only made things worse. Older boys soon joined the group. They started tugging on my clothes and eventually I had to catch a taxi because there were now enough of them to take from me whatever they wanted. It wasn't friendly. It was desperate.

There aren't enough Mother Theresas in the world. If you truly believe what you say about serving mankind, I urge you to dedicate your life to doing just that. The need is certainly bottomless and whoever you refer to as the judge would surely be pleased.

  • Frightening
  • Terrifying
  • Desperate
    There is no judge, it's all just data.

Great article! I read it until the end - I don't usually do that lol. Anyway, life taught me enough how shady this world is. I couldn't trust those who take the moral high ground (altruists), imdo, I think it's still for self-preservation. Make others happy in order to make yourself happy (save youself). There seems to be a rush feeling when you help others greatly...or sacrifice yourself (hero) but who knows what people really think and feel? Even someone very close to us can possibly stab us to death, who knows? People are great in concealing their feelings, that's just survival. People are all psychopaths (investors, alpha males, heroes, villains, altruists, those pretending to be weak and fools, etc.)

We only reveal something about ourselves - to preserve a good image. To survive. People just play with it. This world is a game.

I can certainly credit your disaffection regarding society. I have seen much of what you seem to have, also. Where I grew up the Chief of Police used his kids to traffic illegal drugs. Far worse came of that, including child trafficking, murder, and every kind of corruption.

Despite that, I recall that some people do good without trumpeting it. While it is easy to suspect that folks that tell everyone about their good deeds are just as psychopathic as the worst serial killer, folks that do good and don't tell everyone exist.

You might find examples of good-hearted people who have asked nothing as reward for help they gave you, in your own life. I know I can in mine.

Is a game that causes the losers to die really a game? I think there are people that treat life like a game, but that doesn't make it a game.

This is real life.

I didn't question the existence of Good-hearted people who want to help w/o reward - to make themselves feel better. But for some reason, feeling better about ourselves seem like evil these days....

But I don't really fall for the losers idea in this game. Who knows who are the losers? There are losers posing as losers. There are those who didn't really die.

Is this about me or about you? lol that is the question. We cannot impose our kind idealism on others..what do we know about being others? We have different realities.

There are certainly people who give out of an attempt to reinforce an outward image of benevolence.

There are also people who give because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

There are also people who give because they feel it's the right thing to do.

On the other hand there are people who refuse to give because there is no personal reward, no fuzzy feeling, no self-image enhancement.

Perhaps some day they'll map out all those brain circuits as well.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Have you ever considered the real difference between humans is that some of us have a conscience and some of us don't. It makes it easy to understand the guy that can do such unspeakable things.
He doesn't care! He can not care, he is not able to care. There is no drug that can fix him, no prison that can contain him. He will commit the same acts in prison. He has not been stopped, he will never go away.

They understand each other they can tell if you are one of them.
They promote the ones they know will never tell. To tell is to expose themselves.

That is the reality and that is what makes people do justly or just do what ever they want at the moment.

Glad you brought this up. This post was a biological view of the brain circuitry involved in personal behavioral decisions and its potential impact on the rest of us. I believe that conscience represents our ability to access and interpret the neurological activity within those areas emotionally if not critically. It is our gauge of that activity or lack thereof.

Conscience is a learned phenomenon. It also reflects the morals of the society in which it was learned. One common analogy is that of an angle on one shoulder and a devil on the other and therefore it involves judgement and concepts of good and evil, which takes it far beyond the scope of my post.

Your premise is correct in that psychopaths have no feedback from that part of their brain and therefore do not experience conscience. And yes, they do recognize each other and tend to form groups that further their paranoid agendas.

On the other hand, due to the nature of conscience and its conditioning by morality that reflects both personal choices and cultural indoctrination, an extreme altruist may appear to be a psychopath on the surface but is, in fact, acting out in reaction to their conscience. The "angle of death" nurse who gives lethal injections to the terminally ill, or the Nazi eugenicist who spends his career attempting to engineer a better human are probably listening to that inner voice and believe that what they are doing is appropriate and just.

Their activities go far beyond what our society deems normal or moral, but that is a social judgement call unrelated to the functioning of the brain circuitry described in the National Geographic article. "Normal" people perform horrific acts too.

I think also there is one more fact to consider.
The ideology factor.

You know when a group of people that unite themselves with the notion that they themselves are the only real humans and the rest of us are just their cattle.

Then like a rancher culls his herd they do just that as they deem is necessary.

I don't think that takes any special brain waves or connections.
It is just the training they receive from birth and is enforced their entire life.

That they are the only humans, the rest of us are not human therefore there is no reason to feel remorse for wrong, because it is not wrong for a rancher to cull his herd.

That is a social problem and is probably the result of one charismatic psychopath and his "bright" idea. Never forget that the average person is a follower who doesn't develop critical thinking skills. It isn't his fault, but the fault of the society in which he lives. People will always fall prey to "groupthink."

Governments and their controllers do not want people to think, only comply. There is little incentive to instill critical thinking skills in the average person, so charismatic Hitlers can and do and will continue to push societies in evil directions.

Thanks for commenting.

People are all psychopaths (investors, alpha males, heroes, villains, altruists, those pretending to be weak and fools, etc.)

Since both psychopathy and altruism are organic phenominon that originate within the human brain, I don't think that everybody is a psychopath, but I do believe that most people have the potential to exhibit psychopathic or altruistic tendencies. According the the N.G. article linked by @valued-customer, a true psychopath could never be an extreme altruist because these traits involve the same areas in the brain, the psychopath being unable to access them while the altruist neurologically floods them.

Healthy people balance self-interest with concern for others. Also, according to the article, in those who are not necessarily brain damaged, access or attenuation of these brain lobes can be learned. In other words, we can become more psychopathic or more altruistic depending on our intent, just as we can learn to read and to write if we practice those skills.

My intent here is to point out that our culture tends to force us in both directions. Some factions implore us to work hard to acquire and therefore surpass our fellow men for our own good, while other factions tell us that we need to give everything we've worked for away to those who are less fortunate for the good of the society.

I don't believe the average Joe, whether he wants a new car or to open the borders to immigration is the problem here. It's those who wish to further their specific control agenda who we need to recognize and resist, not blindly carry their banner forward without careful examination of their, and our own, motives.

I agree with this

Healthy people balance self-interest with concern for others...

But people tend to lean on the extreme side of things. Maybe it's just the society and culture that really force us in both directions.

It's only at the extremes where life gets interesting. I think it's important to test the envelope, to test the limits of acceptability, especially when you are young. That's the best way to discover what's true and what isn't. Then, when you are older, you can find your comfort zone. For me, any other path is a wasted life.

Just make sure you read the directions first, and contemplate the warnings. Walking life's path with eyes open is always better than with your eyes shut.

"A clear-headed woman would have simply run the dog down. In trying to avoid it she needlessly endangered herself and the other drivers on the freeway, as did the man who ran out into traffic to save her. While their actions seem laudable on the surface, they were both personally and criminally irresponsible."

In hindsight we observe the woman avoiding the dog got in an accident. However, she certainly didn't decide to get in a one car accident and avoid the one car, one dog accident. Had she not avoided the dog, hitting might have caused an accident as well.

It's really impossible to second guess her actions without far more information than is available.

So, her action to miss the dog may not have been unreasonable at all. The action taken to save her life didn't result in an accident, and was successful. It is impossible to call that action reckless, since it demonstrably didn't result in any harm.

Neither act then can be labeled irresponsible or criminal from the available facts. Furthermore, if someone is in danger, and you have a chance to save them, it is not lawful to do nothing. Doing nothing when availed of an opportunity to save someone is a crime.

As for swerving to avoid hitting a mere dog, I have swerved to avoid moths flying at night. I only did so utterly confident of my ability to not lose control, or I would have just hit the moth.

Sooner or later, we all make mistakes, and sooner or later we all die. There's nothing particularly special about that. What we can make special is our good work to help and support one another while we live.

That we die is meaningless. That we live first is important.

I completely agree with you regarding psychopathy and leadership. However, while the megalomania many such figures evidence rarely engenders revolution, because psychopaths aren't burdened by the empathic concerns that weigh others thinking down. They consider their positions objectively, and are extraordinarily manipulative as a result.

They learn that throwing a bone to the pack now and then keeps the pack loyal.

It is for this reason that I believe that revolutions are destined to all fail, and to simply replace one set of psychopaths with another, rather than changing the system. In order to change the system, we need instead to repurpose our assets to a separate system, and leave the psychopaths and their sycophants to their machinations, while we create mechanisms that aren't suitable for that dynamic.

Not revolution, but evolution, will set us free.

Thanks!

I always wondered is this legal or not, thank you very much for explaining:

Furthermore, if someone is in danger, and you have a chance to save them, it is not lawful to do nothing. Doing nothing when availed of an opportunity to save someone is a crime.

Unfortunately, as we are getting used to others' pain and suffering our brain chooses to ignore it. That's why, for example, when someone gets hurt in an accident most people just pass by and do not help. This is also partially due to the crowd effect - "If everyone is just passing by, it's OK for me to just pass by also". It is noted that when someone surrounded by a crowd needs help, it can take a long time for someone to approach him, but once one person approaches, usually many more will follow. Thus, the existence of a certain percentage of altruists brings exponential benefits to the society (in addition to their good deeds, they will also inspire others to join).

Crowds are a much different animal than individuals. I doubt if any one person would go out of his way to burn a witch at the stake or perform a lynching. One psychopath can take control of a situation and turn a crowd in the direction he wants them to go with his cleverness and his need to control.

On the other hand, one altruist has a hard time getting people to follow him unless he is also extremely charismatic since most people in a group have more self-interest than when they are left to their own devices. While love is a powerful force, hatred and fear are greater motivators toward action.

Humans in a disaster situation become more helpful simply because its built into the species. Somehow their empathy circuits kick in and they respond accordingly. Humans are indeed a complex species.

Ultimately, give and you shall receive is true, as is giving being better than receiving. Let's just hope we can get that message across before we wipe each other out following the wrong leaders.

" While love is a powerful force, hatred and fear are greater motivators toward action."

This may be the reason behind psychopaths having easier time to get followers than altruists, but the reason may also be the fact that the evil side of many people is largely suppressed due to social norms and thus just waiting for an opportunity to come out.

In any case, we as individuals can do and lead much and we should not turn our heads away.

Of course not. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Steemit is the perfect example. Lol!

We certainly don't have all the details of this non-accident. But the fact that she lost control of her vehicle to avoid hitting a dog says a lot. I doubt the woman's response was a calculated one but a gut reaction. She saw the dog panicked.

I had a woman swerve into my lane to avoid a freaking ground squirrel, forcing me off the road to avoid a head-on collision. Luckily, I had a bit of shoulder space. When I was a kid, my mother ran down two dogs on the freeway, not small dogs either, a German shepherd and a Schnauzer. The freeway was packed with cars on both sides of us. It happened fast, cars slamming on their brakes and swerving in front of us. Mom didn't see the dogs until the last second. Fortunately for us (but not the dogs) we were in a 1957 Buick. No seat belts in those days. I was shocked, but she looked at me and said, "Thank God it was only dogs."

Doing nothing when availed of an opportunity to save someone is a crime.

This is part of the social programming problems we're dealing with. Does this jibe with voluntarism? Accidentally killing someone while trying to save them might be considered manslaughter and get you a hitch in the pokey. Shouldn't a decision like that be left up to the individual?

Killing a dog is a felony. Is that reasonable? How many dogs are there? You can buy a tag to kill a cougar. How many cougars are there?

I'll never needlessly kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I won't kill an animal if I have to. I've lost count of the number of rattlesnakes I've chased off the warm highway in the early evening. My youngest son wanted me to force a guy off the road so he could beat him up because the guy intentionally swerved to run over a snake basking on the highway. We all have our priorities.

That we die is meaningless. That we live first is important.

Dying to save someone doesn't necessarily make our life meaningful, especially if we have people who depend on us. I remember looking at an old skeleton in a museum and thinking that this person probably lived an uneventful life, but now his skeleton was on display, probably lending him more value now than when he was alive; not to the man himself, but to me now. It's like being a rock star whose best ever career move was to die young.

I totally agree with you about revolution. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa were successful revolutionaries who were hunted down and murdered after winning the Mexican revolution because they were, well, revolutionaries. You have to totally eliminate the power structure or it will once again fill with psychopaths. The best social evolutionary path is to simply stop cooperating, stop playing the game by someone else's rules. Decentralization is certainly a step in that direction.

Thanks for the chance to banter. :)

I think it's much more complex.

My view of people is that they have far more facets than one or the other. Trends: yes. But pure altruists and pure psychopaths I suspect both are in the absolute minority.

What I observe is that there is a fascination for extremes. There is a lot of room on the scale between extreme altruism and extreme egoism. The fascination of dealing with human pathologies is probably due to our interest in investigating human "failure" and finding out about it.

One's own mental condition plays a major role here. If I feel isolated and discouraged in an insecure and dangerous world, I tend to pathologize other people. My willingness to accept someone whom I have identified as the root of an evil is then very small. I do the same thing not only with individuals but with whole groups.

On the other hand, if I feel stable, involved in a community, I am encouraged and my abilities are recognized, my impression of the individual and of groups is different.

The scale is a good visual instrument because it reveals a tensional space between the extremes in which it lives very uncomfortably. Whenever in my daily life, when I feel torn between myself sacrificing myself for others, the point is always inevitably reached where I have to stop doing this and give my egoism the push I need.

As you say, the one who sacrifices himself might therefore even die and the one who thinks only of himself might be isolated from the group. But because life in the modern world is much different from prehistoric times, the visible effects are less extreme.

Basically, the scale viewpoint itself is a narrowing one also and requires that you expand it. Namely to see what is located away from the stress space. Where altruism does not appear in its absolute form, it is called "compassion" and "helpfulness". I'll stick with the latter. "Helpfulness" is a very common and frequently occurring human behaviour. What about psychopathy? The non-extreme form could be called "healthy egoism" and this is also a generally occurring phenomenon. If I now find a good middle way between these two qualities, I do not live under tension but more in harmony. I decide when to help others and when to look after myself. If my well-being is taken care of, I have time and energy for my fellow human beings.

In my opinion, the investigation and examination of my reality cannot take place via the media, but through my connection with what I believe to recognize in my own power of action. For me, the proof that I live out both selfish and helpful parts of my fellow human beings and myself and that I am aware of this is a good indicator of my mental health.

Determining the immediate effects of my actions and omissions in daily life is much more important to me than letting my mentality brood over things over which I have no direct influence (parliamentary decisions, technological developments, etc.). Nevertheless, of course, I have an influence, but this is beyond my control.

I used this extreme example because the scientific article that @valued-customer referred to in his post was a scientific study of the brain and the areas involved. Human beings are certainly not this cut and dried.

We do project our egos onto every situation, especially when we judge. This is part of our survival mechanism. In extreme cases of altruism, that discernment gets suspended. The man who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades does it instinctively. Those who don't jump are saved while the one who jumped is deleted from the gene pool. The psychopathic general who gave the order to go into battle, kicks back and has a shot of whiskey and calculates his next move while the psychopathic politicians who instigated the conflict are trysting their secretary in a beach-front condo back home.

In my opinion, the investigation and examination of my reality cannot take place via the media, but through my connection with what I believe to recognize in my own power of action. For me, the proof that I live out both selfish and helpful parts of my fellow human beings and myself and that I am aware of this is a good indicator of my mental health.

Exactly right. This is the middle path. We look inward to discover our motivations before we act. Anything else is insanity and a shirking of our responsibility to be human. This is why we have higher brain function, to become aware of our motivations.

Media is not reality. It is only a slice of propaganda, someone else's agenda to be examined and dissected to reveal its hidden message.

I will get back to you on this. Yours is a complex comment and I want to give it the appropriate response. Thanks

Thank you for taking time to answer. You got a lot response on this one.
From the Buddhist approach you should start to "love" the war lord and the "insane ones" as they offer a great teaching :-) I am not saying this is easy. In fact, that is one of the most difficult things to achieve in human relations.

Yes, lots of interest from many minnows and lots of little eyeballs. That's what this is all about for me. It certainly isn't the money. Hah, a little over $1 for all this effort!

I did a ten day Buddhist retreat with this organization. It was one of the best things I have ever done. For one, it's free. There are no fees for the course, meals or even lodging. The whole organization is voluntary and they would rather you serve at one of the retreats than to donate money, which they are also happy to accept. I know there is one in Germany, probably near you. If I ever make it to Thailand, I'll certainly attend one there.

This is a silent retreat. No talking, no reading, no cell phones. They don't even have anything iconic, like statues of the Buddha or mandalas or anything like that. The only thing that smacks of being Eastern is a small gong that a volunteer stikes at 4:30 in the morning to get you up for your 10 hours of daily meditation.

They provide two organic meals, but you cannot eat after noon. Bed time is at 21:00. A dharma talk is provided via video and you do have one opportunity during the day to approach and quietly ask a question of the moderator who sits on a stage and meditates along with the group.

Men and women are fed and housed separately and are also separated in the meditation hall. No commingling for the entire 10 days.

I found out a great many things about myself from this experience. The first thing I learned is that desire is not my stumbling block, but it's mirror image, aversion definitely is. The second thing l learned is that I am filled with fear, though I never would have guessed that if it hadn't erupted from my being as I struggled to sit for an entire hour without moving. That was a crisis I experienced on the 4th day, quite a watershed for me.

Compassion is another thing I struggle with, though I do believe I have the brain circuitry to experience it. I was trained not to be compassionate, that it was a weakness and so relearning how to do this is also difficult. In the evening the group is urged to send compassion out into the world.

At the end of the 10 days I felt that I could probably be content to never leave that temple. I don't know if everyone felt that way. If society were based on S.N. Goenka's meditation retreat model, there would be no scarcity, no excessive wanting, and peace and harmony would rule humanity.

The effects of this 10 day experience lasted at least 2 years. In the beginning I meditated an hour in the morning and then an hour in the evening. I ate healthfully and even quit drinking coffee, which the most addicting drug I've ever encountered (and I've done them all!).

Gradually, however, my meditation waned. I hit some blocks that I couldn't surmount. I needed more guidance but lived where none was available and was unwilling to uproot my life to become a monk, which I feel at this point is the only way for full liberation, which I know is possible from my satori experience in my 20s. Aversion still rules much of my life and compassion is a very dim bulb.

While knowing these things isn't surmounting them, at least I'm aware of my ego when it raises its ugly head. I've learned to let things go and not fret about my failings or gloat on my successes. At my stage of development its all about equanimity and helping others along the path to the best of my abilities in order to save this garden we humans inhabit.

Much of my knowledge is experiential but still intellectual and not visceral as it should be. But I have faith that when the student is ready the teacher will appear. It's happened to me before and it will happen again if that is what is needed. I also know that I cannot force it in that direction and that when I fully ripen I will drop from the tree of my own accord.

This was a very reflective introspective self-analysis. It takes a lot of experience and wisdom to do so realistically. Thanks for sharing.

It is not easy to know the weak points in your own existence so well and to work towards integrating them into your life in such a way that you do not commit self-denial.

Even with a trained and experienced knowledge about the basic rules of life, it is not enough. I buy it from the Buddhists without further ado and find it extremely wise that they are spreading such a conclusive teaching of the Trinity.

We already know the Dharma quite well, but then it is difficult to keep (or even begin to do so) the practice of meditation, and to cultivate a spiritual exchange with people who have a true interest in the value of the maintenance of knowledge in the sense that one talks about the teachings, interpretations, errors, debates. I as a Westerner, on the other hand, am untrained in this kind of thing and usually exchange opinions, or I want to complain and pass on the world's pain to others or stroke my ego - I realize that, when others pass theirs towards me, cause I get frustrated or impatient. The adulation you also spoke of.

I think, however, that I am a quite realistic and clear-thinking person and the experience of life has not made me bitter.

I see some things in common and would say that I definitely lack the "Sangha" and the practice of meditation. Such a retreat experience as you described I would probably not endure to the end.

However, I have the impression that you consider a monastic life and what you associate with it too much as an escape. I think that life on this planet is as it is and empathy and patience with what we are dealing with is essential. The world can only be changed by myself. But you already know that.

It helped me give birth to a child. This is probably the most existential experience I've ever had and it earths me, keeps me on the ground, just like raising a child.

I would be interested in details of your life where you describe experiences that tell a story either at the moment of their creation or in the retrospective. You already have a long life.

Maybe this is going to lead to help aversion and what else you want to work on. Say; the indirect way to deal with it.

Thank you for reminding me that I cannot change the world, only my viewpoint of it. The cosmos contains both good and bad in equal amounts. Energy flows where the mind goes and if we only look for the bad that is what we'll find.

On the other hand, this involves judgement, which I actively try to avoid and yet it's hard to be neutral when confronted with the destruction of the natural world of which I am so enamored and the delusional nature of those who could easily alter that course were it not for all-consuming self-interest.

I was a chiropractor because I wanted to help people learn to deal with their pain, to teach them how to take care of themselves. I quit after 16 years of practice because people just wanted me to fix them the way they go to a mechanic to get their car fixed. I tried to inform them that the body doesn't work that way, that you have to eat right, keep fit and most importantly, stop abusing it. A few responded and their health improved. The vast majority wouldn't or couldn't or weren't interested in exchanging their bad habits for good ones. While my colleagues made lots of money over-treating patients instead of educating them, my entire motivation was to help my patients, not cater to their ills for profit. My general opinion of people suffered greatly from that experience.

Here I am on Steemit trying to do the same thing. I want people to think for themselves, to evolve, to develop critical thinking skills, to reject being enslaved, but people want to feel good about their delusions, not overcome them. They want to see pictures of beautiful sunsets, of kittens and cupcakes and learn better ways to clean their frying pans, trivial stuff that keeps their minds cluttered and closed and focused on inanity.

I certainly can write about that tripe, but I have little motivation to do so. It's very frustrating.

In the end, this desolate outward quest to inform has taught me that perhaps the monastic life of quiet self-contemplation in quietude is the only journey worth undertaking; that all I can do is to let it all go and feel compassion for the mentally blind and this beautiful planet as it quietly dies under their weight.

It makes me wonder, though, why I was given this gift of communication if it is to fall only on deaf ears. I suppose in the big picture none of this matters a whit. Thanks for this opportunity to vent.

Loading...

"From the Darwinian perspective, an altruist favors survival of the species, while a psychopath favors self-preservation."

That first part is not necessarily accurate. While there are some group-selectionists out there, I think Dawkins is a better representative of the Darwinian perspective. And based on his books, true altruists cannot really be evolutionarily viable. Mostly this is because it is particular genes that are being selected for, rather than "species".

Meaning: if a gene or set of genes makes it more likely for the individual to sacrifice itself for other individuals which do not carry those genes, those genes will fail to replicate through reproduction.

In this way, your thought about extreme altruism as being defective would seem to have some merit.

That being said, natural selection has now jumped from biology to culture; so in that sense, altruistic ideals could be passed on effectively, even while individuals holding those ideals sacrifice themselves for the group. Cultural memes can spread broader and quicker than a sperm or an egg. :)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not familiar with Dawkins.

...natural selection has now jumped from biology to culture; so in that sense, altruistic ideals could be passed on effectively, even while individuals holding those ideals sacrifice themselves for the group. Cultural memes can spread broader and quicker than a sperm or an egg. :)

This is certainly true. Along with that, society's elimination of natural selection also allows other potentially undesirable traits to perpetuate. For instance, we save babies born with congenital heart abnormalities allowing them to pass these genes along. The list is long but you get the point.

We could change this but there is much social resistance to anything that smacks of Eugenics since Hitler gave it a black eye and the undeniably slippery slope of what is "desirable" and what is not.

Via top-down social programming extreme altruism is viewed as desirable when, in fact, it is probably one of those traits natural selection would keep attenuated in the human species.

If you're interested, I'd highly recommend The Selfish Gene, by Dawkins. It's not a book about a gene that makes a person selfish, but instead how genes themselves are selfish replicators. It's a look at evolution from a very different perspective (at least from how I thought of it before I read this book).

"society's elimination of natural selection also allows other potentially undesirable traits to perpetuate"

True, and that may lead to problems. At the same time, I think the evolution of culture has made certain traits more valuable and beneficial - for life and the ease of suffering - where such traits could not have survived the harsh necessities of life in the wild.

Thank you for that recommendation. I'll look into it.

Very good post! I really like the way you approach the problem, even though I think that whether is extreme altruism an attribute or a handicap is a never ending dilemma.
I'm interested in your opinion about how not living close to nature has changed the rules (of Darwinian evolutionary theory I suppose); I never thought about it, but it seems a reasonable statement up to a certain limit

Thanks for your comment. This is why I write.

I'm interested in your opinion about how not living close to nature has changed the rules

Society has taken over the role that Nature once did. Nature dictates survival of the fittest. Society, which favors altruism, dictates that everyone must survive. Babies that would have died at birth because of genetic defects are now saved and live to reproduce to pass on those defects. Old people who would have died because they abused or simply wore out their bodies are now saved through technological miracles. Drug addicts who overdose are saved. I could go on and on. Again, I'm not advocating here one way or the other. Only answering your question.

I know this smacks of eugenics (which is science, and therefore weighted toward the pathogenic end of the spectrum), and seems Hitlerian (the poster child of psychopathy), but what I've alluded to above gives us another chance to look inside ourselves and see how we are affected by social memes, by ideas and ideas implanted into our heads via culture and media. If it makes you uncomfortable, it is an opportunity to examine why.

What you say it's true, although harsh and in some sense mean. But in my opinion, in some cases science has accelerated what nature would have done by itself. Consider vaccination and smallpox for example: if it's true that nature dictates survival of the fittest, and someone having smallpox is far from being the fittest, it means that in the long run the disease would have disappeared anyway. And I think that science, medicine in this particular case, is pushed by altruism in the first place, and here we come back to the never ending dilemma: do you save lives because you care about the others, or you do it because you feel better with yourself? Is altruism just another form of egoism?

it means that in the long run the disease would have disappeared anyway.

I think there is some truth to that. The Europeans brought diseases to the new world that were previously unknown. Up to 90% of the natives died. The 10% that didn't die reproduced and now have natural resistance to things like mumps, measles and smallpox. Sometime in the 1980s the native population again reached its pre-conquest peak, not because of vaccination but because of natural selection. The black plagues is another example: 75% population collapse and the disease fell back to manageable levels long before any sort of vaccine was available. Vaccination may give the appearance of accelerating disease elimination but in fact it allows people who would have died to reproduce and pass on those genes. If there ever comes a time when vaccinations are not available, the ensuing plague will be just as bad or worse than the plagues of the past.

On the other side of the equation is the fact that antibiotics, vaccinations and fossil fuel resources have given us a gigantic population boost in just the last 30 years: many more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe in need of places to live. In biology any untoward population bloom always re-balances with a population crash. This is unprecedented with humanity and we might possibly be able to stabilize it without too much misery, but the reality of the situation is that we cannot continue overpopulating at the present rate without disastrous results.

The ego can certainly hijack the altruistic brain circuits and I think that exalting altruism too much can lead people to stop thinking clearly, to do stupid things because they feel to do otherwise would be too cruel instead of appropriate. One must look at long-term consequences rather than short term solutions. In everything, there needs to be balance.

I'm not trying to be mean but harshness comes with the territory. I'm trying to look at this from an anylitical stance. It seems true to me and quite often truth hurts.

I've said this before. Pain is not something to be avoided but something to investigate because it's an indication that something is amiss. I had a toothache one time in Mexico. I didn't want to deal with it until I got home so I went to the pharmacy and bought codeine. Every time that tooth started hurting I'd pop a pill. One morning I woke up and discovered a big hole in my mouth next to the painful tooth. At that point I went to a Mexican dentist. He said that the tooth had abscessed and rotted through the bone into my mouth. He shook his head and told me I was very lucky, that it just as easily could have formed that path into my cranial vault and infected my brain, killing me. It's not good to ignore pain.

Check out Darwin and his connection with the Huxley brothers...

Those guys were all Fabians, a silly secret society of the British upper crust. My father was a Mason. That's how people used to network. Some people join churches. Other's belong to power-broker organizations. We belong to an international "community" that supports financially disruptive technology. We're insurgents.

Darwin's connections are what got him passage on the Beagle and allowed him to observe and compile his information. In fact, he probably would not have been able to publish without membership in the Fabian network. Such is the way of the world.

Very interesting article, I love these thoughts:

However, survival would favor the psychopath over the altruist since the altruist could quite possibly die before reproducing, while the psychopath would tend to make it, at least until the group tired of his selfishness and took him down.

This brings up another point. Society—which is an abstract idea that involves groups of people—values self-sacrifice over self-preservation. This is certainly the case in social meta-organisms like ants and bees, wherein the workers unquestionably sacrifice their own wellbeing in favor of the group.

As you more or less pointed out, I believe that extreme altruism is good for the society, but bad for the individual. However, if we would all be extremely altruistic, that would be fantastic for everyone. I hope that the genetic selection will push the mankind towards being more bee-like and less individual!

Regarding your note about surgeons: every human trait is good for some purposes and bad for other, as @katarinamiliv explained through a surgeon example in a comment to one of my posts. .

Cheers! : )

Like everything else, a little bit of something can be good while too much can be poisonous. Surgeons are a good example. Then there is the surgeon who was branding his initials into his patient's livers. Not a deadly thing, but certainly narcissistic and a bit north of appropriate.

Can't really agree with you that extreme altruism will make the world a better place. I do think that less self-concern and more concern with the bigger picture is the way we need to head, but too much altruism wouldn't necessarily lead to those ends. We need people who can make tough decisions and perhaps do things that might be bad for us all in the short term but better in the long term.

We westerners consider half the world's population to be poor. Let's be altruistic and take all the money in the world and distribute it equally. I'm not sure of the numbers exactly but lets say that there is 10 trillion dollars and only 5 billion people. That would give everyone $2000. While those who were desperately poor would now be far richer, they still would be poor by western standards and the westerners would be much, much poorer, while consumption would ramp up putting even more pressure on scarce resources. In other words, everyone would now be poor and the biosphere would be even more stressed. My numbers might be wrong, but I doubt they are that far off.

A more bee-like existence wouldn't sit well with me. But my generation is handing the baton over to your generation and I'm not going to have to live in the world you want to create. It might be fantastic, and you well suited to live in it, but I know that I'll never see it and that's okay with me.

Thanks for the comment.

"Then there is the surgeon who was branding his initials into his patient's livers." - OOOK. A lot north of appropriate. : )

I agree that the tough decisions with long-term benefits might be somewhat in contrast with altruism, thanks for pointing out. Making this sort of decisions somehow comes naturally to me and I personally consider them altruistic, although my terminology might be wrong (I consider everything that ends up as beneficial for the society - everything that improves the total happiness/unhappiness ratio - as ultimately altruistic).

Your logic with money makes sense to me. The feeling or poorness/wealthiness comes from what we are used to and what we see around us. I've always considered that it is unnecessary to insist on some sort of ideal wealth distribution. That said, the current imbalances are horrible, with 1% of the population controlling the majority of the total money.

As long as we continue to work toward a better world it will get better. In many ways it has gotten better. Of course, in many ways it has gotten worse too. Remains to be seen who will prevail.

Congratulations @citizenzero! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment