Nice Guy™
MCalavera wrote:
Ok, try to locate a real-life example for this for me to consider.
A good example of this would be kin selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
In such a scenario, a brother might sacrifice himself in order to secure the safety of his family.
Ants are another good example.
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
I don't have access to the full details of that study you linked to, but it seems like they were doing a study on "relative" altruism rather than on what we're supposed to be discussing within the context of this thread. Anyway, altruism is an abstract and, therefore, can have several meaningful definitions (just like intelligence and love and so on). While the study may be looking at one definition of altruism, I'm looking at a more philosophical definition of it.
ok well, back to the subject of the thread, some people do good things for friends with no expectation of reward from the other person, which would be altruistic within that context. so altruism ultimately can exist within that context.
Do you consider good feeling to be a reward?
you misread what i said.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
I don't have access to the full details of that study you linked to, but it seems like they were doing a study on "relative" altruism rather than on what we're supposed to be discussing within the context of this thread. Anyway, altruism is an abstract and, therefore, can have several meaningful definitions (just like intelligence and love and so on). While the study may be looking at one definition of altruism, I'm looking at a more philosophical definition of it.
ok well, back to the subject of the thread, some people do good things for friends with no expectation of reward from the other person, which would be altruistic within that context. so altruism ultimately can exist within that context.
Do you consider good feeling to be a reward?
you misread what i said.
Right, but let's recall what Dillogic said:
Dillogic wrote:
A nice guy would do something for someone else without expecting anything in return (and turning away any "gift" that's not wanted).
Hidden motives a nice guy doesn't make, nor does counting how many sheep each person gives to the friendship.
Hidden motives a nice guy doesn't make, nor does counting how many sheep each person gives to the friendship.
So do you agree there's something to be expected in return by doing something nice even if it's not from the other person?
something in return, by definition, is something from the other person... it's something that is given back. that's what "in return" means.
like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person B gives person A a blender
not like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person A gives themselves a dopamine rush
Dillogic is saying that genuinely nice guys don't expect anything "in return".
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Shau wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Ok, try to locate a real-life example for this for me to consider.
A good example of this would be kin selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
In such a scenario, a brother might sacrifice himself in order to secure the safety of his family.
Ants are another good example.
I would, too, if it ever becomes necessary, but I wouldn't consider this altruism (according to the definition I personally consider). And the reason why is that it would make me feel good that my loved ones were kept safe through my sacrifice. Even if when I die I no longer feel that pleasure. But just the reassurance that they'll be safe is what would drive me to do it. In a sense, it is in my own interest to make sure they are protected.
I guess the trick here is in what each of us considers when seeing the word "altruism".
Last edited by MCalavera on 12 Jan 2013, 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
hyperlexian wrote:
something in return, by definition, is something from the other person... it's something that is given back. that's what "in return" means.
like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person B gives person A a blender
not like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person A gives themselves a dopamine rush
Dillogic is saying that genuinely nice guys don't expect anything "in return".
like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person B gives person A a blender
not like this:
person A gives person B a toaster
in return, person A gives themselves a dopamine rush
Dillogic is saying that genuinely nice guys don't expect anything "in return".
Yeah, I can see it that way now. I was reading it my way at first. Nevermind.
MCalavera wrote:
I have yet to see or hear of such a guy. Or even girl.
You're looking at one, dude. Well, how I described it.
Not that I'm a nice guy, as a nice guy wouldn't do some things I've done, but some people don't mind giving things without expectations attached and don't count up how much effort is put in and feeling entitled due to that, which is the point I'm making. Emotions aren't goods and services to me (doesn't feel like bartering and commerce).
I get something from it, of course, and that's a chance to care for someone and participate in that rare thingy [for people like me] called social interaction. Perhaps I'm just innately happy with someone interacting with me (just them interacting is gift enough), which kinda makes sense when other parts of my life are brought in; I'm a very simple person who's happy with...literally nothing.
I don't feel entitled though, and I'm happy with what's given (and that can be nothing).
Perhaps that's "broken", but I wouldn't know. I just know how I am.
MCalavera wrote:
I would, too, if it ever becomes necessary, but I wouldn't consider this altruism (according to the definition I personally consider). And the reason why is that it would make me feel good that my loved ones were kept safe through my sacrifice. Even if when I die I no longer feel that pleasure. But just the reassurance that they'll be safe is what would drive me to do it. In a sense, it is in my own interest to make sure they are protected.
I guess the trick here is in what each of us considers when seeing the word "altruism".
I guess the trick here is in what each of us considers when seeing the word "altruism".
I would 100% agree that this would unlikely be "true altruism", however in biology altruism has it's own specific definition. It would be a good example of biological altruism.
Dillogic wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
I have yet to see or hear of such a guy. Or even girl.
You're looking at one, dude. Well, how I described it.
Not that I'm a nice guy, as a nice guy wouldn't do some things I've done, but some people don't mind giving things without expectations attached and don't count up how much effort is put in and feeling entitled due to that, which is the point I'm making. Emotions aren't goods and services to me (doesn't feel like bartering and commerce).
I get something from it, of course, and that's a chance to care for someone and participate in that rare thingy [for people like me] called social interaction. Perhaps I'm just innately happy with someone interacting with me (just them interacting is gift enough), which kinda makes sense when other parts of my life are brought in; I'm a very simple person who's happy with...literally nothing.
I don't feel entitled though, and I'm happy with what's given (and that can be nothing).
Perhaps that's "broken", but I wouldn't know. I just know how I am.
Right, so you expect the other person to socially reciprocate, even if you don't feel too bitter about the other person ending up not reciprocating socially.
MCalavera wrote:
Right, so you expect the other person to socially reciprocate, even if you don't feel too bitter about the other person ending up not reciprocating socially.
No, I don't expect it. I feel good if it is done (the happy I mentioned), but that's it. If it's done, it's done, if not, that's how it worked out.
Dillogic wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Right, so you expect the other person to socially reciprocate, even if you don't feel too bitter about the other person ending up not reciprocating socially.
No, I don't expect it. I feel good if it is done, but that's it. If it's done, it's done, if not, that's how it worked out.
Ok, that doesn't seem different from what I said.
You hope for it to happen, but if it doesn't, no big deal.
1000Knives wrote:
Thankfully I never get put into the "friend zone" as I have poor empathy and not much in common with most women.
most women don't have that much in common with "most women" because women are not a monolithic entity or hivemind. just like you don't have that much in common with "most men".
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
hyperlexian wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Thankfully I never get put into the "friend zone" as I have poor empathy and not much in common with most women.
most women don't have that much in common with "most women" because women are not a monolithic entity or hivemind. just like you don't have that much in common with "most men".
Correct.
But hormones affect people mentally just as much as it affects them physically. No law is forcing a man to settle for being just friends; if a man has an "all or nothing" approach, people should accept that and respect his decission if he doesn't want to be friends after a failed date.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
hyperlexian wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Thankfully I never get put into the "friend zone" as I have poor empathy and not much in common with most women.
most women don't have that much in common with "most women" because women are not a monolithic entity or hivemind. just like you don't have that much in common with "most men".
50% correct - 50% false.
Humans aren't bees, true that, but they're apes after all.
Just a quick example regarding women in particular, why most of them like confidence in men? Why most of them prefer older/taller/bigger men?
Saying that there's little in common among most women is false too in my opinion.
Kurgan wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Thankfully I never get put into the "friend zone" as I have poor empathy and not much in common with most women.
most women don't have that much in common with "most women" because women are not a monolithic entity or hivemind. just like you don't have that much in common with "most men".
Correct.
But hormones affect people mentally just as much as it affects them physically. No law is forcing a man to settle for being just friends; if a man has an "all or nothing" approach, people should accept that and respect his decission if he doesn't want to be friends after a failed date.
hormones affecting people different mentally (not necessarily true, but for the sake of argument), does not mean that by default they would necessarily have different hobbies or interests. there is a much stronger argument that these things are sociocultural. but again, "most" women or "most" men don't follow a prescription for that - there is usually common ground that can be found. i sincerely doubt that 2 humans could find absolutely nothing in common with each other.
i don't really understand where you're going with choosing not to be friends. if someone chooses to exclude other people from their circle of friends based on gender alone or because of butthurt feelings, others may judge them harshly for that. i suppose you would have to respect their right to do that.
Boo, he's talking about common interests.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
