New theory (of mine)

[Coolydudey]

I came up with a new theory of why people act the way they do. It's very very simple. And that's what makes it elegant in a way, because it provides certain insights. So here we go:

People act the way they do because they want to. (want to is defined in detail at the end)

You might think this is BS. Look why I came to this conclusion:

Basically, let's assume you're really annoyed with someone and want to kill them. But you know the consequences, so you don't. I'm saying that, given the consequences of killing someone and you wanting to kill them, you decide that your want not to go to prison for life is more important than your want to kill them. So overall, you don't want to kill them.

So in the context I'm using, "want to" means: the individual's total desire for a certain action given the sum of his personal desires and socially (externally) imposed desires. "Want to" doesn't refer to an individual's particular desire for a certain action, but his total desire for it.
So in the example, the socially (externally) imposed desire is not to want to kill, because of the consequences. The consequences are there because the majority of the representatives of society decided to make it so.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I came up with a new theory of why people act the way they do. It's very very simple. And that's what makes it elegant in a way, because it provides certain insights. So here we go:

People act the way they do because they want to. (want to is defined in detail at the end)

[...]

as opposed to the theory that people do things because they "don't want to" ?

just kidding. I have a more detailed response, but I will let you have my one liner idiotic response for now.

 

[Coolydudey]

as opposed to the theory that people do things because they "don't want to" ?

just kidding. I have a more detailed response, but I will let you have my one liner idiotic response for now.

Heehee... I was looking less at the truth of the theory (still part of the thread though) and more of its consequences on how we analyse people's actions.

 

[Lot]

I would agree with this. Although I wouldn't say this is a new theory. I know a pastor that uses this in his description of free will in his defense for the problem of evil.

 

[Coolydudey]

I guessed that this wasn't completely novel, but I came up with it on my own.

 

[Jennywocky]

I guessed that this wasn't completely novel, but I came up with it on my own.

How do you know someone didn't implant it in your brain after a particularly grueling bout of inception?

Of course people do things because it is the thing they most want to do.

The reality is that any of us any moment could crash our car through a house, shoot someone in the head, take food out of a supermarket, run down the street naked, or a host of other things. We simply choose not to do it because we don't want to pay the price incurred for doing so. everything is that way; we're choosing the thing that we most want and can most live with. Even making sacrifices and expenditures for others is the same deal -- anything good or bad we do, we do because we are most willing to live with that choice.

 

[HeOnlySings]

"Want to" doesn't refer to an individual's particular desire for a certain action, but his total desire for it.

Not a new theory but well-put. I've tried explaining it to others but it was pretty unsuccessful without a penultimate phrase such as ^

 

[NinjaSurfer]

So the interesting point that was introduced, and what I think you might want to explore is:

Our CURRENT SELVES versus our FUTURE SELVES.

Take smoking cigarettes for example-- people who do this value the "want" of the current self over the want of the future self; meaning, the one who smokes knows that it is bad for the "future self" to smoke, yet the satisfaction due to the "current self" outweighs any future negatives like cancer to the future self.

What any individual "wants" involves some function of CURRENT SELF vs FUTURE SELF and how one's perception of the future is in line with reality.

I could see INTPs (and NT's in general) acting more "logically" in relation to valuing future selves more than current selves, giving proper weight to logical outcomes of reasonably foreseeable events.

SF's might be more in tune with "live in the moment" type of attitudes and valuing the CURRENT SELF more than the FUTURE SELF.

Anyways, that's as much as I really care to discuss this topic. It's all really a moot point because we end up dying either way.

 

[Monty]

This is a logical conclusion, OP. You could also say that tossing a coin has a 50/50 outcome.

 

[Coolydudey]

This is a logical conclusion, OP. You could also say that tossing a coin has a 50/50 outcome.

I did want to put "I may be stating the obvious here, but". Alas, I forgot, and I wasn't bothered to edit it. Nonetheless, it means that even acts of selflessness originate from selfishness (I want), which I find very interesting.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

[...]

Basically, let's assume you're really annoyed with someone and want to kill them. [...] your want not to go to prison for life is more important than your want to kill them. [...] "Want to" doesn't refer to an individual's particular desire for a certain action, but his total desire for it.
So in the example, the socially (externally) imposed desire is not to want to kill, because of the consequences. The consequences are there because the majority of the representatives of society decided to make it so.

so what I extrapolate from this is:

1) Humans are inherently evil and
2) there's no such thing as Morality and
3) laws/religion are invented only as a control mechanism/tool to control otherwise beastly creatures with no morals

and that humans innately WANT to murder, rape, and kill, and it is only through external consequences which shape our holistic desire to behave in one way or another.

 

[Coolydudey]

so what I extrapolate from this is:

1) Humans are inherently evil and
2) there's no such thing as Morality and
3) laws/religion are invented only as a control mechanism/tool to control otherwise beastly creatures with no morals

and that humans innately WANT to murder, rape, and kill, and it is only through external consequences which shape our holistic desire to behave in one way or another.

No (we are inherently evil but also inherently good)
No (we define morality)
And no (see below).

Laws/religion are there as a control mechanism for people who happen at the time to have more evil intentions (as defined by morality) than good ones.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I did want to put "I may be stating the obvious here, but". Alas, I forgot, and I wasn't bothered to edit it. Nonetheless, it means that even acts of selflessness originate from selfishness (I want), which I find very interesting.

yes I don't believe in true generosity other than for selfish desires of anxiety relief ==> meaning "If I do not help old lady across the street I will feel guilty, so I only help to relieve my own foreseeable guilt."

 

[ElvenVeil]

I think it seems much more likely that you will understand human behavior and actions the best, by studying general behavior of mamals.. that and chemistry..
or rather.. Combine human psychology with mamal behavior patterns, and understand chemical reactions in the brain.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I think it seems much more likely that you will understand human behavior and actions the best, by studying general behavior of mamals.. that and chemistry..
or rather.. Combine human psychology with mamal behavior patterns, and understand chemical reactions in the brain.

do mice smoke? I wonder if mice choose the buzz of nicotine over the adverse effects of smoke on their lungs

 

[Moocow]

There's a lot of debate among economists and sociologists about whether people make rational decisions, which is what you're really referring to: cost-benefit analysis. People use different ways of framing their costs and benefits though and we all inevitably omit a lot of information either because of memory, awareness, or momentary biases. I think the perception of a decision as irrational comes from the relative differences in the degree that different people's cost-benefit analyses are skewed by those three or more factors.

 

[Coolydudey]

I think it seems much more likely that you will understand human behavior and actions the best, by studying general behavior of mamals.. that and chemistry..
or rather.. Combine human psychology with mamal behavior patterns, and understand chemical reactions in the brain.

Definitely. But it provides a simple, powerful and elegant insight.

On the other hand (slightly random), one wonders whether helping someone else out of a generally sincere desire to is selflessness out of selfishness.

 

[introverted_thinker]

I don't believe this is a new theory, but it is interesting.

What is the basic reason to "want to" do something? Why listen to social values and what impels someone to have a certain desire to "want to" to something?

 

[Coolydudey]

I don't believe this is a new theory, but it is interesting.

What is the basic reason to "want to" do something? Why listen to social values and what impels someone to have a certain desire to "want to" to something?

First point has been covered.

I didn't answer why. I very firmly believe in existentialism. As to what makes them want to do something, you're looking at the process of how this happens, which must inevitably involve you in complex chemistry and understanding of the brain we don't have yet.

 

[redbaron]

Definitely. But it provides a simple, powerful and elegant insight.

I sure am glad that the smell of steaming turd can't be transmitted through the internet, or we'd all be gagging right now.

On the other hand (slightly random), one wonders whether helping someone else out of a generally sincere desire to is selflessness out of selfishness.

The motivations of Altruism have been studied in several fields, both scientific and non-scientific.

 

[Coolydudey]

I sure am glad that the smell of steaming turd can't be transmitted through the internet, or we'd all be gagging right now.



The motivations of Altruism have been studied in several fields, both scientific and non-scientific.

@redbaron
1) hmmm, what pissed you off so much (got the joke?)? Did you think I was bragging?

2)I decided that a sincere desire to help someone is not directed at ourselves but at others and has no aim to achieve something personal, and therefore is not selflessness out of selfishness, but simple selflessness.

 

[Da Blob]

There's a lot of debate among economists and sociologists about whether people make rational decisions, which is what you're really referring to: cost-benefit analysis. People use different ways of framing their costs and benefits though and we all inevitably omit a lot of information either because of memory, awareness, or momentary biases. I think the perception of a decision as irrational comes from the relative differences in the degree that different people's cost-benefit analyses are skewed by those three or more factors.

Most humans don't have a clue as to how to make a rational decision. In fact there is a sizable portion that tends to not make decisions of any sort. Such can be taught heuristics such as the OODA Loop and learn how to make rational decisions.


One term that has not popped yet, although referred to, is that of immediate versus deferred gratification. One of the most accurate indicators of intelligence in early childhood is the ability to defer gratification. Those children who are able to do so, when their peers are still 'addicted' to immediate gratification, usually end up later in life, being quite successful.

'Selflessness' is just a more mature form of selfishness...

 

[Milo]

The part of you that wants to hurt the person is the primitive part of your brain-all mammals have it. The part of you that doesn't hurt the person because of the future consequences is the rational part of your brain.

If you acted only according to your impulses and never considered the future, you would be acting like, say, a rabbit acts naturally. Only going for those things that the dopamine in your brain leads you to do. The dopamine transmits through specific pathways and motivates you to do whatever action that pathway corresponds to. This is what reinforces your habits and tastes for certain things. If you had no dopamine, you would have no motivation at all. It is the primary driver in surviving to "do what you want to do."

So, you're exactly right! Lol

 

[BigApplePi]

So in the context I'm using, "want to" means: the individual's total desire for a certain action given the sum of his personal desires and socially (externally) imposed desires. "Want to" doesn't refer to an individual's particular desire for a certain action, but his total desire for it.

I'm wondering if I should reply to this thread because I want to or because I tell myself I should reply? &#*@ it. Get that gun away from my head. I'll reply! I'll reply!

 

[Hadoblado]

While quantifying motive is a simple and unoriginal concept, it is still very important. It is also not widely understood by people in general.


I did not think of this principle myself, it was an intelligent friend in year 9 I believe. At the time, he could not convince his religious parents of this reality, or the logical negation of altruism from this. They actually punished him for suggesting that all people are selfish.

I believe there was a good argument for the possibility of altruism in Richard Dawkin's book 'The Selfish Gene.' Basically, if altruistic behaviour comes about as a random mutation and is selected for, then generations down the line animals could act altruistically, even if they don't know why. Such a form of altruism would be entirely instinctual.

@Da Blob has a very good point about the deferral of gratification.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I really did not want to reply.
so I am proving the theory incorrect.
that I do not in fact want to reply, but I must do so to prove you wrong.
no what am I saying. I really don't want to hit the reply button.
okay I do.

 

[Milo]

While quantifying motive is a simple and unoriginal concept, it is still very important. It is also not widely understood by people in general.


I did not think of this principle myself, it was an intelligent friend in year 9 I believe. At the time, he could not convince his religious parents of this reality, or the logical negation of altruism from this. They actually punished him for suggesting that all people are selfish.

I believe there was a good argument for the possibility of altruism in Richard Dawkin's book 'The Selfish Gene.' Basically, if altruistic behaviour comes about as a random mutation and is selected for, then generations down the line animals could act altruistically, even if they don't know why. Such a form of altruism would be entirely instinctual.

@Da Blob has a very good point about the deferral of gratification.

Altruism is a form of selfishness. As biological creatures, we are programmed to bond with other creatures so that we may reproduce. We help others because we can identify ourselves with them and can actually feel what they are feeling. Do you ever find yourself holding your breath when you see a movie where a person is drowning? That is a type of empathy. If you see someone you love drowning, you are most likely going to try and save them because if you lost them, you would feel bad. So I would have to disagree that altruism would be a gene. It would be more like a symptom of many neurological and biochemical functions and pathways both genetically acquired and conditioned into the organisms brain.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Milo
I understand the position. The possibility I refer to is purely an instinctual/subconscious one, where even if the only benefit to you is a better chance to reproduce, you will take an altruistic course of action despite not even wanting children. In this way, you are altruistic, but your genes take the 'selfish burden'.

 

[Coolydudey]

In response to the altruism part: we've gone over it already. We decided altruism was selflessness out of selfishness. But I did raise the unanswered question whether a sincere desire to help someone, the desire not aimed at yourself, and not existing for personal gain (don't want to feel bad), would be considered selflessness. Then one must examine whether that desire even exists...

 

[NinjaSurfer]

You have not properly defined "altruism" yet... so therefore the argument has not yet been settled. Please define altruism before we decide what it is and what it is not.

 

[Coolydudey]

You have not properly defined "altruism" yet... so therefore the argument has not yet been settled. Please define altruism before we decide what it is and what it is not.

Oh c'mon. It's not exactly a debatable definition. Here's what Wikipedia says: "Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. [...]. It is the opposite of selfishness".

 

[NinjaSurfer]

Oh c'mon. It's not exactly a debatable definition. Here's what Wikipedia says: "Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. [...]. It is the opposite of selfishness".

my point is, if we are debating whether or not "altruism" is actually a SELFISH act, it becomes a loophole to define "altruism" that way. And, it makes altruism very easy to define as a selfish act.

Concern for the welfare of others (only inasmuch as it benefits oneself)...?

here are a few situations

1) concern for others which in turns benefits oneself
2) concern for others which does NOT benefit oneself

^although "true" altruism can exist in both instances, I find it difficult to distinguish from SELFISHNESS when there are obvious and clear selfish motives.

One example is community service as it is listed on a high school resume in preparation for college applications; now, we all know that high schoolers (for the most part) don't give 2-shits about the community and that 50% of community service is done for the sole purpose of beefing up one's high school resume, and the other 50% listed is just pure fabrication... lol

okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think "true altruism" is what we are trying to define here and the wikipedia definition doesn't cut it for me; there are too many specific examples that can be used to turn the Wikipedia definition into a SELFISH motive.

please put some effort into this one. wikipedia copy/paste isn't doing it for me.

 

[Milo]

@Hadoblado

Well, think about this. If a species is being pressured by natural selection, wouldn't the individual organisms who don't act for nothing in return eventually be the ones that survive. I mean, I guess if there isn't any environmental pressures, this "altruistic gene" could exist, but it would serve no purpose whatsoever if it is actually altruistic. It would then be left to chance on whether individuals in the species are aided by the altruistic acts of other organisms.

Unless, this truly altruistic species is being altruistic towards a selfish species who then sees it as a trade/sign of friendship and helps out that species because of their altruism. I can't think of any other way a truly altruistic species would have an advantage though.

Am I understanding you right?

 

[Coolydudey]

my point is, if we are debating whether or not "altruism" is actually a SELFISH act, it becomes a loophole to define "altruism" that way. And, it makes altruism very easy to define as a selfish act.

Concern for the welfare of others (only inasmuch as it benefits oneself)...?

here are a few situations

1) concern for others which in turns benefits oneself
2) concern for others which does NOT benefit oneself

^although "true" altruism can exist in both instances, I find it difficult to distinguish from SELFISHNESS when there are obvious and clear selfish motives.

One example is community service as it is listed on a high school resume in preparation for college applications; now, we all know that high schoolers (for the most part) don't give 2-shits about the community and that 50% of community service is done for the sole purpose of beefing up one's high school resume, and the other 50% listed is just pure fabrication... lol

okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think "true altruism" is what we are trying to define here and the wikipedia definition doesn't cut it for me; there are too many specific examples that can be used to turn the Wikipedia definition into a SELFISH motive.

please put some effort into this one. wikipedia copy/paste isn't doing it for me.

Why can't you have selfish altruism? Let's define true altruism as altruism that isn't selfish. We're now asking if it exists, given this theory.

 

[Milo]

@NinjaSurfer

My definition of true altruism would be to help others with no intention of getting anything in return. This also includes not intending feeling good by helping. Feeling good after helping is irrelevant, but this first feel good sensation will motivate one to help even more to feel good again and might actually start to be conditioned into you. Once conditioned, you are now engaging in selfish altruism unless you somehow still don't intend to feel good by helping others.

Edit: Also, to add to this, you can't even want to help them because you are satisfying your wants. Even without that feel good sensation.

 

[Proletar]

First off:

Why base such a basic level of human interactions on the ground of the individual? Humans are social beings. There are crabs and snakes that hatch out of their eggs and immediately walk off on their own, whilst humans need many years of care to even have a chance of survival, and many more years of care to maximize their expectancy. Human beings are in need of each other, so therefore, wouldn't the society be a better base to build this on? E.g. - Society does what it does because it wants to.

But that isn't correct either. Society does what it has to do, not what it wants to do, since we live in an age of scarcity.


Now place the human in society at the same place as a cell in a human body. Does this cell do what it wants to? No. It operates what it has to, and has little saying over it's duties, or of the duties of surrounding cells. Society is the human body, and we are it's cells.

You said yourself that you wouldn't murder someone even if you wanted to (because you didn't want to?) because of the laws? This in fact clears out the question; Your will is put aside by the will of society. This doesn't mean that your will is changed, but that you are being repressed. So where lies the triumph of the will? In the persuit of personal freedom, I would say. In this context, the transaction of power between society and the individual. (Though murder would be a bad example. Although, at least the compromise would be between the individual and the collective rather than the individual and the state.)


I've been on this topic before. This is usually where it ends up...

 

[nanook]

nope, minor mistake here, society is not an entity that controls it's inhabitants like a body it's cells. it's important to see that individuals create society out of their vision of society, that's how society has some influence back on this vision (individuals teach their vision via the experience of society) and so it has indirect influence on the rest of the individuals, who choose to align themselves to their freshly updated vision. a jargon way of saying it is that society is not a "dominant monad", unlike the body. it's important for political reasons, because it's the scheme of mythical fascism that tries to picture society as if it were a given godlike entity, which is not created by individuals but a sort of higher spirit, and humans have to "serve" it. it begins with the believe in "gaia". you know that hippy concept. you wouldn't expect fascism from hippies. they don't even know that it's a fascist concept of a trans-human world soul. but they create the believe in it, the vision of it, and then they want everyone to serve it. that's all it takes, to make pluralists regress into ethnocentric group-thinkers (nazis).

 

[Coolydudey]

You said yourself that you wouldn't murder someone even if you wanted to (because you didn't want to?) because of the laws? This in fact clears out the question; Your will is put aside by the will of society. This doesn't mean that your will is changed, but that you are being repressed. So where lies the triumph of the will? In the persuit of personal freedom, I would say. In this context, the transaction of power between society and the individual. (Though murder would be a bad example. Although, at least the compromise would be between the individual and the collective rather than the individual and the state.)


I've been on this topic before. This is usually where it ends up...

You have totally misunderstood my point. You say my will is put aside by that of society. I say society's will is imposed upon me, and affects my will. You say my will isn't changed, that I am being repressed. I say (what I said before).

To clarify: society's will, not to have people killed, has generated laws that heavily penalise those who kill. I don't want to undergo this heavy penalisation (it is my will not to). I also want to kill someone. But my will not to undergo heavy penalisation is more powerful than my will to kill someone, and therefore I don't kill them. The sum of my wills and the wills society has imposed on me yields that my total will is not to kill someone.

 

[Lot]

nope, minor mistake here, society is not an entity that controls it's inhabitants like a body it's cells. it's important to see that individuals create society out of their vision of society, that's how society has some influence back on this vision (individuals teach their vision via the experience of society) and so it has indirect influence on the rest of the individuals, who choose to align themselves to their freshly updated vision. a jargon way of saying it is that society is not a "dominant monad", unlike the body. it's important for political reasons, because it's the scheme of mythical fascism that tries to picture society as if it were a given godlike entity, which is not created by individuals but a sort of higher spirit, and humans have to "serve" it. it begins with the believe in "gaia". you know that hippy concept. you wouldn't expect fascism from hippies. they don't even know that it's a fascist concept of a trans-human world soul. but they create the believe in it, the vision of it, and then they want everyone to serve it. that's all it takes, to make pluralists regress into ethnocentric group-thinkers (nazis).

Not to make this a circle jerk, but well put.

 

[nanook]

credit goes to ken wilber, somtimes i'm just channeling him, cuz he sais all the best and most important things on most relevant subjects

 

[Hadoblado]

@Milo
I guess the definition of altruism is being stressed a little here. I'm talking about randomly mutated altruistic behaviour without intention being selected for. An example of how this could happen is if altruistic behaviour was selected for in males. Nice guys get layed right? What if they weren't intentionally nice, but instinctively nice? They would have more niceguy babies who would also be selected for.

 

[Da Blob]

credit goes to ken wilber, somtimes i'm just channeling him, cuz he sais all the best and most important things on most relevant subjects

Pfft! Just because Wilber is able to provoke thought, does not necessarily mean he had any correct thoughts of his own, to share.

Wasn't it Lao Tsu who was always going on about the characteristics of the 'superior Man"?

Concerning altruism, the superior man is altruistic in that in order to be altruistic one has to be superior. That is to say, one has to possess a thing in abundance in order to share it. The Haves are superior to the Have Nots.

The problem is that most people do not realize all that they have, that could be shared. I knew a man who owned very little, but he made a point of giving something to everyone he met - something he felt they needed. Sometimes it was a smile, sometimes he paid attention to them, he listened. He would divvy up his days off between the old widows of the town, doing those things that they could not do for themselves, such as mowing lawns or moving stuff around. He was a superior man and a true altruist. The question was whether he was an egotist or something greater?

I think that a billionaire that gives a few million away might not be either an altruist or a philanthropist, but merely could be trying to assuage a guilty conscious by a token effort.

As far as those who claim that there is no inherent purpose to human life, could I suggest our purpose to to serve a cause? To become a willing effect of a cause, by serving Others, certainly can provide meaning to one's life.

 

[nanook]

credit goes to all-reading all-synthesizing wilber for making me say these things, cuz i wouldn't read the 1000 best guys who say the best things on 1000 subjects

some people act from the believe, that they are lacking something. it may not be more than a feeling. feeling separated for instance could make you feel, that you need company. some people have the spirit to feel complete. they live from a need to give, it's more like a desire, but it would turn into a need, when suppressed, a desire to be creative, alive. from overflow. they are a pleasant company to others and enjoy being that, they are creative and entertaining and enjoy it, and they can listen and be fascinated and bring any other quality to life, without taking all of these energetical breaks, that come with an identity of neediness. being fully self-aware is feeling self-sufficient, is the birth of genuine altruism.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

Why can't you have selfish altruism? Let's define true altruism as altruism that isn't selfish. We're now asking if it exists, given this theory.

Okay, I am saying that altruism, as you have defined it, does not exist, because it is just an advanced form of selfishness; in a sense, altruism would not develop unless it was "good" in some way for the subject; maybe we can trace this to some sort of survival mechanism built into the brain. I argue that one "wants" to do things that have a net positive total overall effect on oneself, and altruism is an evolutionary construct developed because we are social creatures-- and to benefit another is to ultimately benefit oneself in a social society.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

@NinjaSurfer

My definition of true altruism would be to help others with no intention of getting anything in return. This also includes not intending feeling good by helping. Feeling good after helping is irrelevant, but this first feel good sensation will motivate one to help even more to feel good again and might actually start to be conditioned into you. Once conditioned, you are now engaging in selfish altruism unless you somehow still don't intend to feel good by helping others.

Edit: Also, to add to this, you can't even want to help them because you are satisfying your wants. Even without that feel good sensation.

I like this definition of altruism and I care to find out if it *really* exists. Many (most?) acts of perceived "altruism" are just deluded acts of selfishness with the subject in denial of his or her true desires and feelings about the situation.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

[...]


Now place the human in society at the same place as a cell in a human body. Does this cell do what it wants to? No. It operates what it has to, and has little saying over it's duties, or of the duties of surrounding cells. Society is the human body, and we are it's cells.[...]

I like the cell in the body example...
of course it a'int gonna be a perfect analogy-- but the main poignant factor is that cells work together to benefit the system; and unless there's a malfunction or cancer, a normal healthy cell won't reproduce endlessly (like a virus) to the system's (body's) detriment.

Thus, the human body is sort of a Nash Equilibrium, the cells "know" that working together is in their best interest somehow-- so supporting the system is in turn supporting the individual (cell).

Take a virus for example. The reproduction of a virus necessarily has the result of destroying the host-- and this is not (in the short term) good for the individual virus. But, by design, viruses also have other mechanisms for total species survival, like mutation and transportation (from host-to-host). So it is arguable whether or not the non-stop reproduction tactic of viruses is good or bad for the subject.

I do like the human body/cell analogy and think it works to point out the value of altruism as a selfish mechanism. I guess I only like the analogy because it supports my own position though

 

[mu is mu]

I came up with a new theory of why people act the way they do. It's very very simple. And that's what makes it elegant in a way, because it provides certain insights. So here we go:

People act the way they do because they want to. (want to is defined in detail at the end)

You might think this is BS. Look why I came to this conclusion:

Basically, let's assume you're really annoyed with someone and want to kill them. But you know the consequences, so you don't. I'm saying that, given the consequences of killing someone and you wanting to kill them, you decide that your want not to go to prison for life is more important than your want to kill them. So overall, you don't want to kill them.

So in the context I'm using, "want to" means: the individual's total desire for a certain action given the sum of his personal desires and socially (externally) imposed desires. "Want to" doesn't refer to an individual's particular desire for a certain action, but his total desire for it.
So in the example, the socially (externally) imposed desire is not to want to kill, because of the consequences. The consequences are there because the majority of the representatives of society decided to make it so.

I found this extremely interesting, Coolydudey. Perhaps this is so because I independently experienced a very similar personal insight two months ago. However, I decided to refer to this (obviously unoriginal) idea as "stress-reduction theory," an idea which basically suggests that some of the chief motivations underlying human behavior are desires to reduce stress or to increase pleasure or happiness--with "stress" being an undesirable force caused by anything that adversely affects a person's equilibrium. The idea also shared your notion that people can have multiple, simultaneous desires regarding a situation but that they'll tend to submit to the desire whose corresponding action they personally believe involves the greatest amount of stress reduction. But of course, their personal judgments as to which actions they consider to involve the greatest amount of stress reduction are determined by things as diverse as age, morality, culture, gender, weather, hunger, metaphysics, fatigue, possible actions available, etc.

Examples:

1.) A hungry person waiting in cold weather for an extended period ascribes a lesser value to the stress sources of hunger and cold weather than he ascribes to the act of finally being able to reunite with his son returning from war--and hence reduce or eliminate the stress caused by his son's absence which simultaneously results in pleasure.

But ordinarily a hungry person in cold weather would opt to leave this environment in order to eliminate their hunger and coldness. What determines which course of action a person chooses depends on which source(s) of stress they personally ascribe the highest value to.

But here's an example somewhat more complicated:

2.) A shy young man intent on asking a certain girl out for a date is confronted by these contrasting forces: his desire to date someone and his desire to abide by his shyness. If he ascribes higher value to his desire to date someone than he does to his shyness, he'll proceed to ask the girl out in spite of the stress he experiences by his own psyche resisting this action. If he ascribes higher value to his desire to abide by his shyness, he'll chicken out, although this failure itself may become a new source of stress if he wishes to attempt asking the girl out again. If this is so, then his desire to eliminate the stress sources of his singleness and the shame of his previous failure may outweigh his desire to abide by his shyness, leading him to ask the girl out in spite of the inevitable stress he experiences by this act.

This is definitely interesting stuff to think about. It also seems to have the potential for personal application if we stop to contemplate which stress sources we ascribe the highest value to and why, with regard to both short-term actions and long-term goals.

 

[Coolydudey]

Okay, I am saying that altruism, as you have defined it, does not exist, because it is just an advanced form of selfishness; in a sense, altruism would not develop unless it was "good" in some way for the subject; maybe we can trace this to some sort of survival mechanism built into the brain. I argue that one "wants" to do things that have a net positive total overall effect on oneself, and altruism is an evolutionary construct developed because we are social creatures-- and to benefit another is to ultimately benefit oneself in a social society.

For the evolutionary part: oh yes (in my opinion)

I like this definition of altruism and I care to find out if it *really* exists. Many (most?) acts of perceived "altruism" are just deluded acts of selfishness with the subject in denial of his or her true desires and feelings about the situation.

Oh yes.

Notice how you said many. You weren't referring to all, and these others are the acts of altruism I'm on about. Is there such a thing as a sincere desire to go out and help someone without expecting personal gratification in any form? And doing it? I think there is.

 

[Sanctum]

I would disagree with this theory, I would say that people act the way they do because they are conditioned to, although we "want" to do things are wants are a product of our institution and conditioning. You want to kill because someone in the external world (institution) is annoying and we are conditioned by society and media that killing permanently terminates someone, we have not yet killed anyone be we know this fact based on conditioning. and the person who is annoying could have been conditioned to do so by the institution that is his family. There are many ways to look at it

 

[GeneralPatton]

It's little more than a calculated gamble you must decide on, and whether the odds are in your favor and if the gain is worth the potential cost. While there are people who we all think deserve to die, there are many avenues of thought we all neglect in those desires. Yes, it may benefit us to be relieved of such an asshole, but on what level would it change others lives who depend on them?