Image

Pathological Altruism

User avatar
[img]/images/Pathological_Altruism.png[/img]

Love_to_Death.png
The notorious thought-criminal James Taranto, in his latest WSJ column, exposes the Holy of Holies of progressive morality - Pathological Altruism. That puts the entire Progdom in danger, as Pathological Altruism is the innermost and most sacred area, which can never be exposed to the uninitiated, and is only permitted to be handled by specially trained High Priests of Progress. All others, it is said, will turn blind and burn on the inside at the sight of it. The only hope for the continuation of the progressive orthodoxy, as always, is that no one will pay attention - praise be the mainstream media!

Let James Taranto know that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of Pathological Altruism.

Speaking of the "scientist" Barbara Oakley who wrote the book on Pathological Altruism, she is worse than Benedict Arnold, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden all put together. Revealing the most sacred and closely guarded secrets of progressive morality is a crime against Progdom, which must be punished with all the severity of revolutionary justice.

Need I mention that the original Holy of Holies was constructed as a perfect cube? Enough said.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pathological Altruism

By James Taranto

Pathological_Altruism_Book.jpg
We don't think we'd ever heard of Oakland University, a second-tier institution in suburban Rochester, Mich., but Barbara Oakley, an associate professor in engineering, may help put the place on the map. Earlier this week Oakland's Oakley published a fascinating paper, "Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism," in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The paper is a concise summary of an innovative idea that informed Oakley's two recent books: "Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts" (Prometheus, 2011) and "Pathological Altruism" (Oxford University Press, 2012). The former has been described as a true-crime thriller; the latter is a dense, 496-page collection of 31 academic papers, edited by Oakley and three other scholars.

The PNAS paper has the virtue of brevity, running only eight pages despite including 110 footnotes. Yet it's remarkable for its breadth and depth. It introduces a simple yet versatile idea that could revolutionize scientific and social thought.

Barbara_Oakley.jpg
Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable." Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.

As the latter example suggests, the idea of "codependency" is a subset of pathological altruism. "Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior," Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.

Yet according to Oakley, "the vital topic of codependency has received almost no hard-science research focus, leaving 'research' to those with limited or no scientific research qualifications." That is to say, it is largely the domain of pop psychology. "It is reasonable to wonder if the lack of scientific research involving codependency may relate to the fact that there is a strong academic bias against studying possible negative outcomes of empathy."

That is a provocative charge, and one that Oakley levels more generally at the scientific establishment:

Both altruism and empathy have rightly received an extraordinary amount of research attention. This focus has permitted better characterization of these qualities and how they might have evolved. However, it has also served to reify their value without realistic consideration about when those qualities contain the potential for significant harm.

Part of the reason that pathologies of altruism have not been studied extensively or integrated into the public discourse appears to be fear that such knowledge might be used to discount the importance of altruism. Indeed, there has been a long history in science of avoiding paradigm-shifting approaches, such as Darwinian evolution and acknowledgment of the influence of biological factors on personality, arising in part from fears that such knowledge somehow would diminish human altruistic motivations. Such fears always have proven unfounded. However, these doubts have minimized scientists' ability to see the widespread, vitally important nature of pathologies of altruism. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt notes, "Morality binds and blinds."

"Empathy," Oakley notes, "is not a uniformly positive attribute. It is associated with emotional contagion; hindsight bias; motivated reasoning; caring only for those we like or who comprise our in-group (parochial altruism); jumping to conclusions; and inappropriate feelings of guilt in noncooperators who refuse to follow orders to hurt others." It also can produce bad public policy:

Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted to the cost of this "altruism" to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.[

The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we've argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their "disparate impact" on minorities.

[img]/images/Pathological_Altruism_Skeleton.png[/img]
Universities altruistically established admissions standards that discriminated in favor of minorities, a policy that proved pathological because underqualified minority students struggled to succeed and even qualified ones face the stigma of being assumed to be "affirmative action" beneficiaries. The institutions tried to help by setting up separate orientations, which of course only reinforced their separation from the broader student body.

And when, in 2003, the discriminatory admissions standards faced a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court upheld them. In Grutter v. Bollinger, a five-justice majority declared that administrators' declaration of altruistic intent--"obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body"--was sufficient to meet the court's purportedly exacting standard of "strict scrutiny." It was left to Justice Anthony Kennedy, in dissent, to note the absence of "empirical evidence." The court is currently revisiting the question-- Fisher v. Texas is expected to be decided in the next few weeks--and one hopes that, if it stands by the "diversity" rationale, Kennedy will finally succeed in imposing some scientific rigor.

Pathological altruism is at the root of the liberal left's crisis of authority, which we discussed in our May 20 column. The left derives its sense of moral authority from the supposition that its intentions are altruistic and its opponents' are selfish. That sense of moral superiority makes it easy to justify immoral behavior, like slandering critics of President Obama as racist--or using the power of the Internal Revenue Service to suppress them. It seems entirely plausible that the Internal Revenue Service officials who targeted and harassed conservative groups thought they were doing their patriotic duty. If so, what a perfect example of pathological altruism.

Oakley concludes by noting that "during the twentieth century, tens of millions [of] individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism." An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity.


User avatar
"An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity."


Image
At this point, what difference, does it make?


FORWARD!

User avatar
There are firefllies in Michigan. Fireflies are a sign of witches. Therefore, this <spit> person must be a witch and must be burned at a stake of the choosing of the IRSS, NSS, ABC, DHS, DOJ and/or, at the behest of The Annointed One!

fireflies1.jpg


User avatar
Well, if altruism is pathological, can pathology be altruistic? So if you can be this, can you be that? Or if you can be that, can you be this? Is a toe-may-toe a toh-mah-toe? Can you be a Communist and still be a Communist if you are telling others you are not a Communist? Can one and one equal one? If you say yes, do you really mean no? Can you answer your own question if you ask yourself a question? This is the hardest I have worked my brain in more than 40 years, so I really need an aspirin. One from a ration canteen, not from the capitalist pig Bayer.


Comrades isn't altruism a dish of beets best served with side of crony-Goobermit power/profit motive? The gender traitor Annie Oakley (or whatever) uses a classic Best in Class example of 'Altruistic/Profit at the Point of Goobermit's Bayonet' case study of Fannie/Freddie.

On the one hand you had your Barney Frank 'Single Family Units for Prols' class struggle hero aligned with reactionary private property social conservatives..............and then on the other hand you had a lot of Realtor, builder, housing supplier, skilled trade construction worker union, banker mortgage originator money and votes on the other.

Our Founding Fathers wanted a system that patched together disparate interests to promote national unification and stability....and we got it....in spades.

A more current example would be the GOP donors who are employers of unskilled undocumented future Democrat Party voting Americans (imported from politically unassimilated socialist cultures) on the one hand and on the other hand.........
the altruist who truly will be able to get things done once a single party runs all three branches of the Goobermit without reactionary opposition and dissent.

There is more than one way to skin Capitalist FatKats comrades!

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
KOMRADES!!!

Komrade Barbara Oakley is on to something!

The preventative health benefits of Altruistic behaviors...then what benefits must accrue to those with PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM... When we take the NEXT logical step...

IMAGINE the cost effective improvement in the collective health if we subject the entire population to OBLIGATORY ALTRUISM???

Perhaps we may still yet save the Bitter Klingers from themselves.

FORWARD!!!

User avatar
Raum Emmanual Goldstein wrote:IMAGINE the cost effective improvement in the collective health if we subject the entire population to OBLIGATORY ALTRUISM???
Ahem. Comrade. Have you ever heard the phrase "your tax dollars"?




 
POST REPLY