Originally posted by scottishinnzHumans are special in the amount of altruistic behavior they engage in as even your sources concede. Maybe you should read your own crap.
I'm just bored of you now. You've done nothing but whine "humans must be special". Well, I may take this up tomorrow, but it's clear to me that I'm never going to get through to you, you've got no inclination to think, or read, whatsoever.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't want to get in between you and no1 on this, but on this point, I thought I'd throw in a bit of my own discipline. In economics, we distinguish between two types of social behaviors when it comes to charitable giving. The first is called 'altruism' and is where an individual gives because they value the recipient's well-being. The second, called 'warm-glow,' is where an individual gives because they get value from giving. This value may be something like social recognition or just the satisfaction that you've done a good deed. In testing these incentives on charitable giving, many studies have found that the 'altruism' behavior accounts for only a small fraction of giving and that the 'warm-glow' effect usually dominates.
I've posted links to papers which demonstrate that "altruistic" behaviour is best described by selfish models, "altruist" models don't work. The fact that you don't read them isn't my problem,
You still haven't told me why we need things like money, or law, prisons, government and things like that - an altruistic society would need none of those thi ...[text shortened]... Communism doesn't work. In short, so far you've been full of abuse, but not answers.
Originally posted by telerionIn SS' paradigm, there would be a major difference between the two types of "warm glow" as you have explained them. And he still hasn't answered the question why anyone would get "social recognition" for altruistic acts IF we are inherently selfish. It appears to me you would get satisfaction precisely because you were doing something without any reciprocal motive, something SS claims is impossible without self-delusion.
I don't want to get in between you and no1 on this, but on this point, I thought I'd throw in a bit of my own discipline. In economics, we distinguish between two types of social behaviors when it comes to charitable giving. The first is called 'altruism' and is where an individual gives because they value the recipient's well-being. The second, called ' ...[text shortened]... r only a small fraction of giving and that the 'warm-glow' effect usually dominates.
Originally posted by telerionhttp://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8023307
I don't want to get in between you and no1 on this, but on this point, I thought I'd throw in a bit of my own discipline. In economics, we distinguish between two types of social behaviors when it comes to charitable giving. The first is called 'altruism' and is where an individual gives because they value the recipient's well-being. The second, called ' ...[text shortened]... r only a small fraction of giving and that the 'warm-glow' effect usually dominates.
Originally posted by PalynkaInteresting. I had the work of James Andreoni in mind. You probably already know this Palynka, but for the good of everyone I'll write a bit more about these phenomena.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8023307
One way to distinguish between 'altruism' and 'warm glow' in the data is to examine contributions to a public good. The greater the degree to which government spending on the good crowds out other donations the stronger is the altruism.
Essentially, if I am motivated entirely by 'altruism' so that I am not getting satisfaction from the actual process of giving, then as the recipients of my charity become better (worse) funded, my donations should decrease (increase). The size of my donation should be negatively related to the size of the donations of others (assuming that at least the sum of these other donations is observed). If I am purely motivated by 'warm glow,' then I really don't care about the condition of the recipient. I am only interested in the happiness I get from giving. Therefore my donations should be much less responsive to changes in the recipients condition and should not be significantly related to the size of others contributions.
There is a famous paper where the author(s?) test this out on public radio donations. It's interesting, though naturally it is not the final authority on the issue.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm afraid Scottishnz is right mate. In evolutionary thinking genes are everything. I may not have scottishnz's knowledge but I have read the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker and although I disagree with his spirituality I can't deny his brilliance as a biologist. All that matters are genes . I wouldn't bother going head to head with Scotty on evolution unless you have at least read these books. He's chopping you to pieces and you don't even know it!
You really should give up on this stupid snobbery; if you want to use the Fallacy of Equivocation to change the meaning of a word to a non-standard one, go ahead - but stop pretending everyone on planet Earth agrees with such Humpty Dumpty tactics.
Originally posted by knightmeisterGet stuffed. You admittedly don't know what you're talking about and the biological explanations he is giving for human behavior are circular reasoning.
I'm afraid Scottishnz is right mate. In evolutionary thinking genes are everything. I may not have scottishnz's knowledge but I have read the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker and although I disagree with his spirituality I can't deny his brilliance as a biologist. All that matters are genes . I wouldn't bother going head to head with Scotty on evo ...[text shortened]... ou have at least read these books. He's chopping you to pieces and you don't even know it!
Originally posted by no1marauderEDIT: Rather amusingly, the two definitions in your post contradict each other.[/b]
I don't care what objective means to you.
EDIT: Rather amusingly, the two definitions in your post contradict each other.
Of course they do , that's the nature of language and definitions. There is often more than one definition , that's why I quoted some different ones. You should go and buy yourself a Thesaurus. !!!
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou should stop being an idiot. If definitions are not agreed to in advance, discussion is meaningless. That's why there are standard definitions which the ones you gave weren't.
EDIT: Rather amusingly, the two definitions in your post contradict each other.
Of course they do , that's the nature of language and definitions. There is often more than one definition , that's why I quoted some different ones. You should go and buy yourself a Thesaurus. !!![/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderA) I'm not an atheist;
A) I'm not an atheist;
B) The fact that there is an objective morality can be used as support for the idea that there is a God, but the claim is a secondary one. We come to the conclusion that there is a HUMAN objective morality based on observations of how humans act, which lead us to conclusions about human nature. How such human nature came about i ...[text shortened]... vidence and the evidence for an entity like the OT God is particulary unpersuasive.
What are you then? You refute scotishnz's biological/ evolutionary explanations for human altruism and yet you have no explanation yourself if you take God out of it. Let me guess...do you believe in a nebulous "life force"? So , Evolutionary forces or God , what else is there? Why are humans the way they are? Do you have a theory?
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot believing the correctness of SS's particular biological/evolutionary explanation of human altruism does not mean that I don't believe in evolution. I do.
A) I'm not an atheist;
What are you then? You refute scotishnz's biological/ evolutionary explanations for human altruism and yet you have no explanation yourself if you take God out of it. Let me guess...do you believe in a nebulous "life force"? So , Evolutionary forces or God , what else is there? Why are humans the way they are? Do you have a theory?
When faced with insufficient information to make a proper evaluation, I'm not uncomfortable with the words "I don't know". As I said to Scott, being able to mouth an explanation is insufficient; that explanation must be consistent with the facts. Your God is a fairy tale created by semi-savages; one of many such Gods. There is no more reason to believe in his existence then there is in Thor (less in fact because Thor is pretty cool).
I categorize myself as a shaky agnostic though I've been thinking more and more about Pantheism has an explanation for various facts about the universe. Anthropomorphic gods don't do it for me; they are what you would expect humans to create not the other way around.
EDIT: Here's some info on Pantheism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/