I think the issue with "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" is that motivations for NTs can be "leaky." The motivations underlying an action may not change the outcome of that specific action, but it can change the outcome of others. Like, take the case of "Nice Guys," ie. guys who use being nice as a social strategy to get laid. The problem isn't in any kind acts they did. The problem isn't in wanting to get laid. It's the building resentment underneath when they don't get what they feel they are owed. They become assholes (if they weren't assholes from the start), and this leaks out and causes all sorts of trouble.
Helping someone because it's something that needs to be done? That's a right reason. It's just as good for social order as helping someone because it feels good. A wrong reason would be, say, to help someone so that after helping them, you demand money. The outcome is different. Maybe you would say in this case, it was not "the right thing," because the actual right thing would be to help and then get on with your day. But I think we can recognize the first part (helping someone) as right, and the next part (demanding money) as wrong. For NTs the "reasons" tie these two acts together, whereas for you, I think they are two separate considerations.
That is not to say there aren't a people who use the phrase "right things for the wrong reasons" in bullshitty ways, like trying to gain control over others by guilt-tripping them about their motivations. That's definitely a thing, too. (Although in that case, it was never an honest evaluation of motives.)
I can see your point, but isn't that a flaw of the "nice guy"? Actions and the emotions around them, and then the changes those actions promote are different in my estimation. These are all separate steps, and they could decide at any given time to not feed those emotions. The actions would still be the same, and whether or not they had good intentions, the outcome would be positive. If they then decide to take that positive, and turn it into a negative, that is a choice that they make.
I don't disagree -- they are different things. But those different things are different threads are all woven together as a big messy tapestry. You pull one thread, you pull other threads. So bad actions/outcomes come out with the good ones. It's not an inevitability, it's just that for many people it takes conscious effort to separate these things.
Technically speaking the "nice guys" are capable "at any given time" of not feeding negative emotions. But it's kind of like stopping a train... their insecurities are deep and all their beliefs and thoughts and reasoning about it are entrenched; they might literally not know how to do things differently. Like in the same way someone might not know how to do a dance move they're physically capable of. They would have to learn (and, before that, make a commitment to learn).
It can be learned, though, and they do have a responsibility to learn.
When I was younger, I was in the volunteer fire department. As it happened, I found out that I was considered quite a big deal because I did a lot of things to help people. However, I had an ex who wants confronted me about what a rotten person I was because I was doing all that stuff for glory
Anyway I finally got fed up with her confrontations and I told her that the reason that I did all those things was strictly to piss her off because I knew deep down inside. She was a rotten greedy person and doing selfless stuff pissed her off.
I told the other volunteer firefighters. Some of them thought it was funny. Some of them thought I was sick. I’ll leave it to you. Decide which one I think it is.
To me it sounds like she was focusing on herself, in that I can't imagine any motive to say something like that other than soothing her own feelings of inadequacy. People who are not insecure are not overly concerned about whether the people rescuing them from a fire are doing it for glory or not, lol.
I think the two things are separate. I think you became a firefighter for your own reasons. Then I think the goading from your ex brought about your “I did it to piss you off” response.
Essentially, I don’t think you would become a volunteer firefighter just to piss off an ex. Mainly because there are easier pissing off routes to take that would be equally as effective but which would require less effort.
This is a complicated one in many respects. Your question about the charity worker. I don’t think her motivation matters doing it for altruistic reasons or doing it to feel good about herself, in this specific context the end result remains the same, the charity work is done to the benefit of others no matter what the motivation. However, if that same charity worker, then goes home, beats her dog and belittles her husband then her work at the charity shop is just a facade to make a nasty piece of work look like an upstanding member of the community. The charity end result remains the same but her true motivation impacts other aspects of the lives of people around her. So it’s worth assessing motivation as motivation might impact other contexts than the one being examined, ie the charity.
I have an internal moral compass that guides my behaviours without me really thinking about it. Do no harm, do as you would be done by. That’s it. So if I was in a wheelchair caught in the tracks I would hope someone would help. If that man was my dad I’d hope someone would help. Therefore I just help, without deciding to help, I just do because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t help because I know helping will make me feel good. The feel good is a side effect, it isn’t a motivation. I actually cringe at the thought of telling other people what I’ve done to help someone. The thought of that feels like nails down a chalkboard to me.
If people are cataloguing their good deeds in front of others then that points more to facade management than a genuine desire to help. The train track example is unusual, so perhaps recounting that tale could be forgiven as it is the unique nature rather than the praise for helping that might be the motivator there.
As a general rule I help because I’m drawn to help, there is no decision making about it. There would be more decision making involved in choosing NOT to help. Sometimes if my help or support was for an extended period and I set someone back on their feet again, then yes I might feel good about that, but it certainly wouldn’t be what motivated me to do it in the first place.
Overall if your motivation is to do the right thing for selfish purposes I would then consider are those selfish purposes causing harm to anyone else? If the answer is no then morally I can’t see a problem because the outcomes remain the same. Others benefit.
I think that in the case of the charity worker, she will be judged by the culmination of her input into the world. If she is more negative than she is positive, she will have a difficult life. Her effect of good in the charity isn't negated by her acts at home. However, the acts at home will certainly shift how she is seen. That is her own choice, and the karma that she wrought.
Yes, I like the culmination approach too. Almost like an imaginary set of scales ‘good’ on the one side ‘bad’ on the other. Even there I recognise that the idea is flawed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can be clear cut or a matter of perspective. On the whole though culmination does appeal. It takes account for the fact that humans are flawed, they make mistakes intentionally or unintentionally and the outcome for someone deciding to do the right thing has to be better than always condemning them, thus giving a free pass for poor behaviour because, “Well, I’m a bad person.”
As to Karma, I like to think that Karma exists but in many ways it is a concept that in reality serves to offset my disillusionment that sometimes wholly harmful people continue to do purposefully malevolent things whilst repeatedly getting away with it.
In many ways Karma is a shield for the victims, that doesn’t mean I don’t myself choose to have faith in it! I do recognise that is an emotional rather than a logical response!
They may get away with it, but if you observe their lives and how things tend to go for them, I think you might find, they create exactly the world for themselves that they inflict on others. While they may continue to be malevolent, they also tend to have a lot of difficulties. Interestingly, I also find their tendency to whine about their difficulties to others, amusing.
I think you make a good point. Truly malevolent people might not receive an eye for an eye retribution, but, they don’t have happy or fulfilling lives either. I think that view of Karma is the healthy one.
Your last sentence made me laugh, thank you for that.
Yeah, it's a fun little show about some people entering the afterlife. There's a "Good Place" and a "Bad Place." The main character, she wasn't the greatest person in life, but she's made it into the Good Place... except she's apparently been mistaken for someone else who did all sorts of extremely good things she didn't do, so she starts freaking out. It's based on a point system, so that's what brought it to mind.
Another aside. A year group at the London School of Economics conducted a study into ‘tipping motivation.’ They looked at tip jars in cafes. You see it a lot here, as often service charges are not included on the bill, so tip jars by the cash register are common in coffee shops, bakeries, cafes etc.
Tip jars are labelled. Sometimes the card might read “Tips. Have a great day!” Something like that. The study concluded that the best message to put on the tip jar to yield maximum tips was in fact …
“Feed the karma wheel.”
If that doesn’t sum up doing the right thing for the wrong (selfish) reasons, I don’t know what does!
Something funny that just dawned on me, relevant in light of a previous article. When I was a kid, one of the books my father bought me was ‘The Water Babies’. Two of the characters in that story spring to mind. Mrs Do As You Would Be Done By and her mean sister Mrs Be Done By As You Did.
I understand that sometimes some things need to be done even if you do not feel any inclination to do it. Empathizing with someone's pain is the reason people help each other. This is what sets the basis for acceptable behavior in a community. You know that if you see bread fallen, you will pick it up and return it to the bread section. Why is that the accepted normal behavior of our society? Why not just keep it lying there, it's not your bread, you haven't bought it, it's honestly not your business.
It is acceptable because enough people 'feel' bad that food is lying on the ground, and they do the action of returning it to it's shelf because it 'feels' like the right thing to do.
In most cases, if proper socialization has happened, an individual can rely on their feelings to decide if a behavior is acceptable or not,and act accordingly, which in turn sets the standard for appropriate behavior that other people who have been deficient in socialization can look up to as a reference. In short, not everybody,but majority of people need to do the right things for the right reasons, as it sets a benchmark for good conduct and keeps society civil and in order.
Sure, they will, and they also tend to be insufferable people that no one wants to be around or offer anything to. They are miserable, and they perpetuate their own misery, all the while complaining that they are miserable.
But the things that happen to you that you never have wished for and you can make the silver lining argument but it aint that easy with nt's.Thats why there are things like religion and philosophy.And if it smells like poop it probably is poop.
On 4chan and Reddit, they use the term "based" which I take to mean "extremely overly confident" or "self assured" dependent upon how it's used and who it's used by. Haha. I think Einstein said something about "My life is dependent upon the interaction of thousands of people, so it is my duty to contribute some." We have come far in the past 700 years where most of us were illiterate and worked on farms while people in charge schemed for power. Power was safety and honestly still is. With the university and printing press, more people could access all sortsbof data and wisdom. I like wisdom, although it can get dicey as it can with politics. But it's good to have conversations with interested people. Many people just make it day to day, and this is a thought game. It's an important one in order to grow.
In my estimation, "based" means contrary to the current narrative, and to speak truth, regardless of social disapproval.
It has little to do with confidence or self-assurance. It has to do with the willingness to speak against the approved conversation. Even people that are short in both those attributes can, at times, be "based".
Adding a little nuance, because it “makes you feel good about yourself” is not the only possible emotional motive to help someone. It can be, for instance, that you feel distressed at seeing someone else in a distressing situation, and helping them out if it relieves your own distress.
When you do something that ends up hurting someone it doesn't matter if you had good intentions. The outcome was negative and you have to deal with it. I think the same logic applies here. What matters is that a necessary action was taken regardless of one's reason to act.
I think if society focuses solely on outcomes as opposed to intentions, then it opens the door on some fairly morally questionable behavior. For example, homelessness is an issue in my city that needs to be fixed. I can think of several quick and efficient ways to fix it that achieve the outcome and solve the problem. I don't think any of them would meet with societal approval though, and in order to enact them I would need to do some fairly heinous things. In this case intentions also need to be weighed. Is my intent to fix homelessness in the quickest most efficient way possible. Who am I helping. etc. There are a lot of complex factors that need to be reasoned out. So, while I see what you are saying, I think it's potentially an oversimplified argument at societal scale.
Interpersonally, it might also be an oversimplification. I am a pragmatic person at heart and fairly emotionally unrattled most of the time compared to the general population. I have "solved the problem" for friends before, because I like solving problems and been met with anger. I've learned that a lot of societal trust and glue is built from people having "good" intentions as defined by whatever that particular group deems them to be. It's how people know that someone can be trusted, and it greases the social gears. If someone does the right thing but for the "wrong" reasons, they are oftentimes viewed as untrustworthy and unpredictable. They might have done the right thing this time, but next time they might not, because they are not beholden to "doing the right thing" in the ways the group has defined it.
I think you might also be creating a false dichotomy between self-interest and altruism. Most human behavior is enacted from a place of multifaceted reasoning and intent, whereas I think you are suggesting that actions must either be purely selfless or self-serving which I'm not sure is a realistic take on neurotypical psychological motivation.
I think human behavior is entirely self-serving. You create the world in which you want to live. Consciously or unconsciously, for good or evil, it all comes down to self-service.
I don't think any of what I wrote above contradicts that viewpoint. I do think, however, that you're underestimating the brake check that emotions provide to non-psychopaths, preventing them from engaging in purely self-serving behavior.
For example, what I want to do right now is leave my two-year-old in her crib all day and focus on myself. I’m exhausted, I don’t get much time for myself, and a hike with my dogs sounds infinitely more appealing than childcare. She’s in a safe spot, and if I feed her and change her diaper occasionally, she’ll be physically fine.
But that would be poor parenting and abusive. Intellectually, I know that leaving her in the crib all day isn’t acceptable. That rational understanding compels me to go get her, because I know in a detached and logical way that it is the right thing to do. And emotionally, I’m bonded to her and don't want to cause her stress or pain. I’d feel guilty if I neglected her, so my emotions also compel me to take care of her.
That said, emotions are not a failsafe against bad behavior. They’re often inconsistently applied due to in-group and out-group dynamics. Most humans tend to feel more empathy for people we identify with, and less for those we don’t. So, while emotions are nature’s shortcut to ethical behavior—helping us avoid harm or feel guilt when we do—they’re unreliable as the sole guide to moral decision-making.
Conversely, relying purely on rationality can also be problematic. It can lead to overly detached decisions when applied without care—for example, the Ford Pinto Case in the 1970s. In this sense, both emotions and rationality are tools. Each has its place, and neither should be the exclusive lens through which (most) people engage with the world. Finding the balance between them is key to making thoughtful, decisions from my perspective.
Avoidance of negative outcomes, either from your guilt, or her harm, is still self-serving. Ethical behavior is also self-serving. Self-serving behavior is not only a negative thing. It often is the reason why people choose to do what is correct for any given circumstances. It's simply how life works.
I don't see the ford pinto case as a rational thought process. If their intention was to make as much as possible and go bankrupt perhaps it could be rational but the fact they were intending to stay in business it's an illogical choice to not fix the gas tanks. They lost millions of customers and dollars due to the negative publicity and loss of trust by consumers in Ford products. Playing the short game is not a smart business decision. That's greed overruling rationality.
The reason motivation and feelings are important is because they are a reliable indicator of future behaviour & actions. Emotional component matters in negative actions as well. A man who robbed a lady on the street because he has money problems will not necessarily harm that lady in another dimension. But a man with rage and jealousy issues who hurts his wife will keep repeating that behaviour in future. That's why emotions behind actions have real significance beyond material and direct impact.
I don't see that being relevant at all. I don't think the person that is saved from drowning cares if their savior is a selfish imbecile, or an abusive jerk. They're alive. In the long run, the savior's general demeanor doesn't impact the important part of their life being extended. A person that is a generally toxic person can still commit deeds that are a net positive for the world, even in their overall life, isn't.
My problem is taking things too seriously and going too far. That is sort of a psychopathic trait. Being nice after that is harder with everyone around me on guard. I have had that feeling at school and at a couple of jobs.
Lacking the ability to experience trust means that people have to demonstrate their intentions with clarity. However, neurotypicals have a very difficult time with clarity due to their emotional state dictating their behavior. It isn't surprising that psychopaths think that neurotypicals are fairly unreasonable due to what we observe. It one of those things that creates a lot of drama between the two camps. Neurotypicals don't think that their emotions are unreasonable, and they think that everyone around them should understand. That remains true to a certain extent, with other neurotypicals. However, with psychopaths, it makes them appear unreliable, as they can be extremely mercurial.
You know I am trying to help. In my sincerity, I see value in the post.
Please mi amor, if it is unhealthy or unwanted, please say in truth.
In my opinion, Loren is easily played.
I would own him in prison. He would be my torpedo. A relatively low value one.
I would consider him a one hitter. The hole would break him.
So I tell him the best I can; Hey Bud. I am only a minor player. Take my heed:
I don't know if it is appropriate.
But I write to thank you!!! Are you not my theripist these past months? Ministering to me in love and kindness? Yes, you have.
In your love for me. There is a love you can feel. But it is hard to find.
You make me find mine again. Not a lot. But we can not expect much at first. We have to heal ourselves with things we don't have much of.
But I feel a new person. I think I was happy or something like that. It was good baby. To feel.
Maybe two days ago or three. I have been traveling.
Pardon me for going on and on. I do know you read each word we write. You help many others, not just me. You know them and I don't.
PS: Consider the interaction, in earnest, between your friend, Jess and yourself, Athena, could be an ongoing series in itself??????
If you should happend to consider it. Work it out BEFORE giving thoughts to monetizing. Make it the very best you can do: Set in writing the time projected, both in terms of "episode: 2 pages or 25 pages AND how long you are committed to run: 4 one hour shows? 13 one hour weekly?
here is the most aggression: A live content show daily. Funded by blocks. one time unit as agreed.
The motivation for altruism is important to determine which situations people will be altruistic.
Let’s say someone saves your life because of all the praise they’ll get from others. In the moment you may not care, but would you trust this person to save you when no one’s around? Sure, they might decide to save you so that they can tell it to others later, but they may also decide it’s not worth the effort especially if no one will know if they DIDN’T save you.
You’re right in the sense that there are a lot of things that are “selfish” that we don’t need to worry about. Doing the right thing because it makes you feel good is “selfish”, but by that logic, having any sort of motivation to do anything is considered selfish. I doubt this is how most people want to think about their lives.
They might not. But then, that might be true of anyone, regardless of motivation. They may be too scared to move, or sadistic and want to watch another person suffer. It might be that they act because they are afraid of getting in trouble. I don't care what the reason is that they decide to act, the outcome should be a good one. If they are a garbage individual that would rather watch someone die, then they do society a net negative. They lose one person that may well have been a good contributor, and they, the garbage one, is left behind.
Granted, the person saved might be a serial killer. Who knows.
The point was that reliability of results provided by that person is lower and so we are invested in vetting those reasons to weed out such unreliable fellows, or to ensure potential allies do not become unreliable because they cognitively missed the point, but with proper explanation at formative time they might get on track. To know what can be expected of whom under which circumstances.
If our reasons are at the same page it is also more likely we will keep working towards the same goal in compatible way. With incompatible reasons we might end up with different goals in mind well, different expectations that translate to different actions, while calling them the same thing. A bit of recipe for collision.
The recipient of the kind act/right thing benefits and is able to continue living and possibly bring themself into a more rewarding life, which is the goal of both thee psychopathic person and the neurotypical.
I understand when someone needs help so I stop and help.
If it were my partner he would too, but he would be so worked up about her hard life, upset that bastard she was living with was abusing her and he would not stop talking about it all day. Like the author i would not think afterwards. I would however be aware of the time and effort i expended, i always count the cost of every interaction-transaction with humans.
But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that a suffering creature was helped and their life force/energy/mind/soul/heart whatever it is inside them that keeps that creature up and running was strengthened and it has a chance to continue on in life
Indeed. Why would you think about her life or her choices in any significance? She needed help right then. It was provided. After that, it has nothing to do with you. Even if she goes back and stays with the gut until he murders her, that's a 'her' problem. I helped when I did. What she does with it, that's her choice.
But when I decide to do good, I often feel smarter and even superior. Not everyone would apologize and try to make amends for instance. It's different from the vetting process in friendships. But some internal dialog comes up when I consider why others do what they do. Sometimes someone helps me with this, by giving me an easy answer. Like if a man just quit after a disagreement, the answer is "he didn't need or want the job." You've had more experience than me and I'm glad I get to read some of it.
I think the issue with "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" is that motivations for NTs can be "leaky." The motivations underlying an action may not change the outcome of that specific action, but it can change the outcome of others. Like, take the case of "Nice Guys," ie. guys who use being nice as a social strategy to get laid. The problem isn't in any kind acts they did. The problem isn't in wanting to get laid. It's the building resentment underneath when they don't get what they feel they are owed. They become assholes (if they weren't assholes from the start), and this leaks out and causes all sorts of trouble.
Helping someone because it's something that needs to be done? That's a right reason. It's just as good for social order as helping someone because it feels good. A wrong reason would be, say, to help someone so that after helping them, you demand money. The outcome is different. Maybe you would say in this case, it was not "the right thing," because the actual right thing would be to help and then get on with your day. But I think we can recognize the first part (helping someone) as right, and the next part (demanding money) as wrong. For NTs the "reasons" tie these two acts together, whereas for you, I think they are two separate considerations.
That is not to say there aren't a people who use the phrase "right things for the wrong reasons" in bullshitty ways, like trying to gain control over others by guilt-tripping them about their motivations. That's definitely a thing, too. (Although in that case, it was never an honest evaluation of motives.)
I can see your point, but isn't that a flaw of the "nice guy"? Actions and the emotions around them, and then the changes those actions promote are different in my estimation. These are all separate steps, and they could decide at any given time to not feed those emotions. The actions would still be the same, and whether or not they had good intentions, the outcome would be positive. If they then decide to take that positive, and turn it into a negative, that is a choice that they make.
I don't disagree -- they are different things. But those different things are different threads are all woven together as a big messy tapestry. You pull one thread, you pull other threads. So bad actions/outcomes come out with the good ones. It's not an inevitability, it's just that for many people it takes conscious effort to separate these things.
Technically speaking the "nice guys" are capable "at any given time" of not feeding negative emotions. But it's kind of like stopping a train... their insecurities are deep and all their beliefs and thoughts and reasoning about it are entrenched; they might literally not know how to do things differently. Like in the same way someone might not know how to do a dance move they're physically capable of. They would have to learn (and, before that, make a commitment to learn).
It can be learned, though, and they do have a responsibility to learn.
When I was younger, I was in the volunteer fire department. As it happened, I found out that I was considered quite a big deal because I did a lot of things to help people. However, I had an ex who wants confronted me about what a rotten person I was because I was doing all that stuff for glory
Anyway I finally got fed up with her confrontations and I told her that the reason that I did all those things was strictly to piss her off because I knew deep down inside. She was a rotten greedy person and doing selfless stuff pissed her off.
I told the other volunteer firefighters. Some of them thought it was funny. Some of them thought I was sick. I’ll leave it to you. Decide which one I think it is.
I think that she was overly concerned regarding your motivations, and probably should have focused on herself.
You have succinctly stated the core issues of that failed relationship
To me it sounds like she was focusing on herself, in that I can't imagine any motive to say something like that other than soothing her own feelings of inadequacy. People who are not insecure are not overly concerned about whether the people rescuing them from a fire are doing it for glory or not, lol.
I can see that being the case
I think the two things are separate. I think you became a firefighter for your own reasons. Then I think the goading from your ex brought about your “I did it to piss you off” response.
Essentially, I don’t think you would become a volunteer firefighter just to piss off an ex. Mainly because there are easier pissing off routes to take that would be equally as effective but which would require less effort.
Haha!
This is a complicated one in many respects. Your question about the charity worker. I don’t think her motivation matters doing it for altruistic reasons or doing it to feel good about herself, in this specific context the end result remains the same, the charity work is done to the benefit of others no matter what the motivation. However, if that same charity worker, then goes home, beats her dog and belittles her husband then her work at the charity shop is just a facade to make a nasty piece of work look like an upstanding member of the community. The charity end result remains the same but her true motivation impacts other aspects of the lives of people around her. So it’s worth assessing motivation as motivation might impact other contexts than the one being examined, ie the charity.
I have an internal moral compass that guides my behaviours without me really thinking about it. Do no harm, do as you would be done by. That’s it. So if I was in a wheelchair caught in the tracks I would hope someone would help. If that man was my dad I’d hope someone would help. Therefore I just help, without deciding to help, I just do because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t help because I know helping will make me feel good. The feel good is a side effect, it isn’t a motivation. I actually cringe at the thought of telling other people what I’ve done to help someone. The thought of that feels like nails down a chalkboard to me.
If people are cataloguing their good deeds in front of others then that points more to facade management than a genuine desire to help. The train track example is unusual, so perhaps recounting that tale could be forgiven as it is the unique nature rather than the praise for helping that might be the motivator there.
As a general rule I help because I’m drawn to help, there is no decision making about it. There would be more decision making involved in choosing NOT to help. Sometimes if my help or support was for an extended period and I set someone back on their feet again, then yes I might feel good about that, but it certainly wouldn’t be what motivated me to do it in the first place.
Overall if your motivation is to do the right thing for selfish purposes I would then consider are those selfish purposes causing harm to anyone else? If the answer is no then morally I can’t see a problem because the outcomes remain the same. Others benefit.
I think that in the case of the charity worker, she will be judged by the culmination of her input into the world. If she is more negative than she is positive, she will have a difficult life. Her effect of good in the charity isn't negated by her acts at home. However, the acts at home will certainly shift how she is seen. That is her own choice, and the karma that she wrought.
Yes, I like the culmination approach too. Almost like an imaginary set of scales ‘good’ on the one side ‘bad’ on the other. Even there I recognise that the idea is flawed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can be clear cut or a matter of perspective. On the whole though culmination does appeal. It takes account for the fact that humans are flawed, they make mistakes intentionally or unintentionally and the outcome for someone deciding to do the right thing has to be better than always condemning them, thus giving a free pass for poor behaviour because, “Well, I’m a bad person.”
As to Karma, I like to think that Karma exists but in many ways it is a concept that in reality serves to offset my disillusionment that sometimes wholly harmful people continue to do purposefully malevolent things whilst repeatedly getting away with it.
In many ways Karma is a shield for the victims, that doesn’t mean I don’t myself choose to have faith in it! I do recognise that is an emotional rather than a logical response!
They may get away with it, but if you observe their lives and how things tend to go for them, I think you might find, they create exactly the world for themselves that they inflict on others. While they may continue to be malevolent, they also tend to have a lot of difficulties. Interestingly, I also find their tendency to whine about their difficulties to others, amusing.
I think you make a good point. Truly malevolent people might not receive an eye for an eye retribution, but, they don’t have happy or fulfilling lives either. I think that view of Karma is the healthy one.
Your last sentence made me laugh, thank you for that.
Have you seen The Good Place? The good and bad scales thing is giving me flashbacks to it. ;)
Yes, I have seen it. I thought it was a very interesting and amusing take on heaven/hell.
Hi Ni,
No I haven’t, is it good? (bum, tish!)
Ha!
Yeah, it's a fun little show about some people entering the afterlife. There's a "Good Place" and a "Bad Place." The main character, she wasn't the greatest person in life, but she's made it into the Good Place... except she's apparently been mistaken for someone else who did all sorts of extremely good things she didn't do, so she starts freaking out. It's based on a point system, so that's what brought it to mind.
That sounds like something I’d watch. I’ll give it a whirl!
Another aside. A year group at the London School of Economics conducted a study into ‘tipping motivation.’ They looked at tip jars in cafes. You see it a lot here, as often service charges are not included on the bill, so tip jars by the cash register are common in coffee shops, bakeries, cafes etc.
Tip jars are labelled. Sometimes the card might read “Tips. Have a great day!” Something like that. The study concluded that the best message to put on the tip jar to yield maximum tips was in fact …
“Feed the karma wheel.”
If that doesn’t sum up doing the right thing for the wrong (selfish) reasons, I don’t know what does!
That is interesting. I didn't know that one.
Something funny that just dawned on me, relevant in light of a previous article. When I was a kid, one of the books my father bought me was ‘The Water Babies’. Two of the characters in that story spring to mind. Mrs Do As You Would Be Done By and her mean sister Mrs Be Done By As You Did.
Looks like it stuck with me too!
Stories are great teachers.
I understand that sometimes some things need to be done even if you do not feel any inclination to do it. Empathizing with someone's pain is the reason people help each other. This is what sets the basis for acceptable behavior in a community. You know that if you see bread fallen, you will pick it up and return it to the bread section. Why is that the accepted normal behavior of our society? Why not just keep it lying there, it's not your bread, you haven't bought it, it's honestly not your business.
It is acceptable because enough people 'feel' bad that food is lying on the ground, and they do the action of returning it to it's shelf because it 'feels' like the right thing to do.
In most cases, if proper socialization has happened, an individual can rely on their feelings to decide if a behavior is acceptable or not,and act accordingly, which in turn sets the standard for appropriate behavior that other people who have been deficient in socialization can look up to as a reference. In short, not everybody,but majority of people need to do the right things for the right reasons, as it sets a benchmark for good conduct and keeps society civil and in order.
You create the world in which you want to live. If you choose chaos, it will continue to haunt you.
I am sure you know most people will accept living in the haunted state, as long as everybody does it.
Sure, they will, and they also tend to be insufferable people that no one wants to be around or offer anything to. They are miserable, and they perpetuate their own misery, all the while complaining that they are miserable.
What about the things that happen to you that are considered bad that you have no influnce on it?
What about them?
You said that you create the the world you want, so I set that question.
How you respond to such things will continue to create the world in which you live.
But the things that happen to you that you never have wished for and you can make the silver lining argument but it aint that easy with nt's.Thats why there are things like religion and philosophy.And if it smells like poop it probably is poop.
On 4chan and Reddit, they use the term "based" which I take to mean "extremely overly confident" or "self assured" dependent upon how it's used and who it's used by. Haha. I think Einstein said something about "My life is dependent upon the interaction of thousands of people, so it is my duty to contribute some." We have come far in the past 700 years where most of us were illiterate and worked on farms while people in charge schemed for power. Power was safety and honestly still is. With the university and printing press, more people could access all sortsbof data and wisdom. I like wisdom, although it can get dicey as it can with politics. But it's good to have conversations with interested people. Many people just make it day to day, and this is a thought game. It's an important one in order to grow.
In my estimation, "based" means contrary to the current narrative, and to speak truth, regardless of social disapproval.
It has little to do with confidence or self-assurance. It has to do with the willingness to speak against the approved conversation. Even people that are short in both those attributes can, at times, be "based".
Yeah, pretty much - https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/based/
Thank you for the "based"- I've seen that around lately.
Good observations too.
best
Adding a little nuance, because it “makes you feel good about yourself” is not the only possible emotional motive to help someone. It can be, for instance, that you feel distressed at seeing someone else in a distressing situation, and helping them out if it relieves your own distress.
Which is still self-serving
Yes, obviously!
When you do something that ends up hurting someone it doesn't matter if you had good intentions. The outcome was negative and you have to deal with it. I think the same logic applies here. What matters is that a necessary action was taken regardless of one's reason to act.
I think if society focuses solely on outcomes as opposed to intentions, then it opens the door on some fairly morally questionable behavior. For example, homelessness is an issue in my city that needs to be fixed. I can think of several quick and efficient ways to fix it that achieve the outcome and solve the problem. I don't think any of them would meet with societal approval though, and in order to enact them I would need to do some fairly heinous things. In this case intentions also need to be weighed. Is my intent to fix homelessness in the quickest most efficient way possible. Who am I helping. etc. There are a lot of complex factors that need to be reasoned out. So, while I see what you are saying, I think it's potentially an oversimplified argument at societal scale.
Interpersonally, it might also be an oversimplification. I am a pragmatic person at heart and fairly emotionally unrattled most of the time compared to the general population. I have "solved the problem" for friends before, because I like solving problems and been met with anger. I've learned that a lot of societal trust and glue is built from people having "good" intentions as defined by whatever that particular group deems them to be. It's how people know that someone can be trusted, and it greases the social gears. If someone does the right thing but for the "wrong" reasons, they are oftentimes viewed as untrustworthy and unpredictable. They might have done the right thing this time, but next time they might not, because they are not beholden to "doing the right thing" in the ways the group has defined it.
I think you might also be creating a false dichotomy between self-interest and altruism. Most human behavior is enacted from a place of multifaceted reasoning and intent, whereas I think you are suggesting that actions must either be purely selfless or self-serving which I'm not sure is a realistic take on neurotypical psychological motivation.
I think human behavior is entirely self-serving. You create the world in which you want to live. Consciously or unconsciously, for good or evil, it all comes down to self-service.
I don't think any of what I wrote above contradicts that viewpoint. I do think, however, that you're underestimating the brake check that emotions provide to non-psychopaths, preventing them from engaging in purely self-serving behavior.
For example, what I want to do right now is leave my two-year-old in her crib all day and focus on myself. I’m exhausted, I don’t get much time for myself, and a hike with my dogs sounds infinitely more appealing than childcare. She’s in a safe spot, and if I feed her and change her diaper occasionally, she’ll be physically fine.
But that would be poor parenting and abusive. Intellectually, I know that leaving her in the crib all day isn’t acceptable. That rational understanding compels me to go get her, because I know in a detached and logical way that it is the right thing to do. And emotionally, I’m bonded to her and don't want to cause her stress or pain. I’d feel guilty if I neglected her, so my emotions also compel me to take care of her.
That said, emotions are not a failsafe against bad behavior. They’re often inconsistently applied due to in-group and out-group dynamics. Most humans tend to feel more empathy for people we identify with, and less for those we don’t. So, while emotions are nature’s shortcut to ethical behavior—helping us avoid harm or feel guilt when we do—they’re unreliable as the sole guide to moral decision-making.
Conversely, relying purely on rationality can also be problematic. It can lead to overly detached decisions when applied without care—for example, the Ford Pinto Case in the 1970s. In this sense, both emotions and rationality are tools. Each has its place, and neither should be the exclusive lens through which (most) people engage with the world. Finding the balance between them is key to making thoughtful, decisions from my perspective.
Avoidance of negative outcomes, either from your guilt, or her harm, is still self-serving. Ethical behavior is also self-serving. Self-serving behavior is not only a negative thing. It often is the reason why people choose to do what is correct for any given circumstances. It's simply how life works.
I don't see the ford pinto case as a rational thought process. If their intention was to make as much as possible and go bankrupt perhaps it could be rational but the fact they were intending to stay in business it's an illogical choice to not fix the gas tanks. They lost millions of customers and dollars due to the negative publicity and loss of trust by consumers in Ford products. Playing the short game is not a smart business decision. That's greed overruling rationality.
Which is the exact topic of this week's post
The reason motivation and feelings are important is because they are a reliable indicator of future behaviour & actions. Emotional component matters in negative actions as well. A man who robbed a lady on the street because he has money problems will not necessarily harm that lady in another dimension. But a man with rage and jealousy issues who hurts his wife will keep repeating that behaviour in future. That's why emotions behind actions have real significance beyond material and direct impact.
I don't see that being relevant at all. I don't think the person that is saved from drowning cares if their savior is a selfish imbecile, or an abusive jerk. They're alive. In the long run, the savior's general demeanor doesn't impact the important part of their life being extended. A person that is a generally toxic person can still commit deeds that are a net positive for the world, even in their overall life, isn't.
My problem is taking things too seriously and going too far. That is sort of a psychopathic trait. Being nice after that is harder with everyone around me on guard. I have had that feeling at school and at a couple of jobs.
Lacking the ability to experience trust means that people have to demonstrate their intentions with clarity. However, neurotypicals have a very difficult time with clarity due to their emotional state dictating their behavior. It isn't surprising that psychopaths think that neurotypicals are fairly unreasonable due to what we observe. It one of those things that creates a lot of drama between the two camps. Neurotypicals don't think that their emotions are unreasonable, and they think that everyone around them should understand. That remains true to a certain extent, with other neurotypicals. However, with psychopaths, it makes them appear unreliable, as they can be extremely mercurial.
AW: I just posted on your current thread.
You know I am trying to help. In my sincerity, I see value in the post.
Please mi amor, if it is unhealthy or unwanted, please say in truth.
In my opinion, Loren is easily played.
I would own him in prison. He would be my torpedo. A relatively low value one.
I would consider him a one hitter. The hole would break him.
So I tell him the best I can; Hey Bud. I am only a minor player. Take my heed:
I don't know if it is appropriate.
But I write to thank you!!! Are you not my theripist these past months? Ministering to me in love and kindness? Yes, you have.
In your love for me. There is a love you can feel. But it is hard to find.
You make me find mine again. Not a lot. But we can not expect much at first. We have to heal ourselves with things we don't have much of.
But I feel a new person. I think I was happy or something like that. It was good baby. To feel.
Maybe two days ago or three. I have been traveling.
Pardon me for going on and on. I do know you read each word we write. You help many others, not just me. You know them and I don't.
PS: Consider the interaction, in earnest, between your friend, Jess and yourself, Athena, could be an ongoing series in itself??????
If you should happend to consider it. Work it out BEFORE giving thoughts to monetizing. Make it the very best you can do: Set in writing the time projected, both in terms of "episode: 2 pages or 25 pages AND how long you are committed to run: 4 one hour shows? 13 one hour weekly?
here is the most aggression: A live content show daily. Funded by blocks. one time unit as agreed.
Bye for now.
Possibly. We'll see. It will be up to her
PS: every day some new and terrifying truth comes to me:
I knew I worked in professional politics. At a state level.
But I only admitted to myself, in this minute, right now: I was a dirty tricks guy.
Athena, perhaps that means it is my character. I have the character of a political trickster.
Self discovery is not all good I guess. Maybe I will change simply by the realization??? Any chance do you think?
Yes, of course!!
The motivation for altruism is important to determine which situations people will be altruistic.
Let’s say someone saves your life because of all the praise they’ll get from others. In the moment you may not care, but would you trust this person to save you when no one’s around? Sure, they might decide to save you so that they can tell it to others later, but they may also decide it’s not worth the effort especially if no one will know if they DIDN’T save you.
You’re right in the sense that there are a lot of things that are “selfish” that we don’t need to worry about. Doing the right thing because it makes you feel good is “selfish”, but by that logic, having any sort of motivation to do anything is considered selfish. I doubt this is how most people want to think about their lives.
They might not. But then, that might be true of anyone, regardless of motivation. They may be too scared to move, or sadistic and want to watch another person suffer. It might be that they act because they are afraid of getting in trouble. I don't care what the reason is that they decide to act, the outcome should be a good one. If they are a garbage individual that would rather watch someone die, then they do society a net negative. They lose one person that may well have been a good contributor, and they, the garbage one, is left behind.
Granted, the person saved might be a serial killer. Who knows.
The point was that reliability of results provided by that person is lower and so we are invested in vetting those reasons to weed out such unreliable fellows, or to ensure potential allies do not become unreliable because they cognitively missed the point, but with proper explanation at formative time they might get on track. To know what can be expected of whom under which circumstances.
If our reasons are at the same page it is also more likely we will keep working towards the same goal in compatible way. With incompatible reasons we might end up with different goals in mind well, different expectations that translate to different actions, while calling them the same thing. A bit of recipe for collision.
“ Compassion to me is action without feeling.”
That’s what compassion is I thought?!
Instinctive, immediate action and forgotten. It’s kind of boring accounting events previously in the day to me.
I wrote an aphorism about it.
“To give freely one must be willing to throw it away.”
Hope all is well Athena!
Martin
Hey, Martin. It's been awhile.
I don't think it matters either way.
The recipient of the kind act/right thing benefits and is able to continue living and possibly bring themself into a more rewarding life, which is the goal of both thee psychopathic person and the neurotypical.
I understand when someone needs help so I stop and help.
If it were my partner he would too, but he would be so worked up about her hard life, upset that bastard she was living with was abusing her and he would not stop talking about it all day. Like the author i would not think afterwards. I would however be aware of the time and effort i expended, i always count the cost of every interaction-transaction with humans.
But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that a suffering creature was helped and their life force/energy/mind/soul/heart whatever it is inside them that keeps that creature up and running was strengthened and it has a chance to continue on in life
Indeed. Why would you think about her life or her choices in any significance? She needed help right then. It was provided. After that, it has nothing to do with you. Even if she goes back and stays with the gut until he murders her, that's a 'her' problem. I helped when I did. What she does with it, that's her choice.
But when I decide to do good, I often feel smarter and even superior. Not everyone would apologize and try to make amends for instance. It's different from the vetting process in friendships. But some internal dialog comes up when I consider why others do what they do. Sometimes someone helps me with this, by giving me an easy answer. Like if a man just quit after a disagreement, the answer is "he didn't need or want the job." You've had more experience than me and I'm glad I get to read some of it.
TLDR: Great read, I mean!