oh wow!
Because it doesn’t prove the point I was trying to make. First of all, they feel better because they assume that their donation actually makes big difference. They see their donation actually improving the situation a lot, even if in the real world it would hardly make a dent. Second of all, imagining about giving a donation is NOT the same as actually giving a substantial donation. I sometimes dream I’m a billionaire but that doesn’t make me one, and it too will make me feel good for a short while.
Also, they counter giving a donation only with keeping it to themselves, instead of differentiating between giving money to people far away whom they don’t know, and people close by whom they care for.
This study compares caring for people with not caring for people. It does not contrast caring for close relatives with caring for strangers. I bet that if such a study is done that people will naturally give precedence to their loved ones instead of strangers.
And like I said before, I have nothing against helping people, but I simply don’t like it when an organization tries to persuade me to give money to strangers. If I want to help them I will, but I will not be forced to, nor do I liked to be called an egotistical douche just because they think giving a couple of bucks is gonna change the world.
you are not that wrong. You have to start helping people around you before you try helping people Far Far away.
Exactly, I don’t bear them any ill will, I don’t wish for bad things to happen to them, but right now I’ve got more than enough things to worry about than give money to people five thousand miles away.
This is totally irrelevant. The human brain rewards humans when they give to others, even strangers, which proves that altruistic behavior even towards strangers is natural and encouraged by human neurobiology.
Greivious, your ideological faith-based denial of basic biological facts is really going to far. Please take the time to actually analyze the facts at hand before quoting this post and composing yet another irrelevant response.
Okay let’s get one thing straight here, I am NOT a person of faith, I am an ardent supporter of the scientific method. So my “denial” (I haven’t denied the results of the test, just your interpretation) is certainly not faith based.
I have read the entire article so don’t act like I’m some buffoon who simply spouts ill-founded comments to your posts.
The test only contrasts caring for people with not caring for people. AND, it simply states that people feel better THINKING of donating. They’re not actually donating, this is a hypothetical situation to which those same people might react differently in the real world.
The human brain rewards these people for THINKING about donating, not actually donating.
If you ask someone if they would go into a burning building to save an old lady who they don’t know they might say yes, and they might feel good about themselves (measurable with brain scans) for thinking that they would save her. But that’s no guarantee that they’ll actually go through with it.
The human brain might reward this person when they THINK that they’d be so heroic, but when put in this situation where they might die or get severely burned, their brain might not act the same way.
Yes, there are biological roots for helping others. The most well documented cases are the ones I referred to earlier, namely kin selection. There are also forms of helping where they only do it because they’re getting something out of it (like symbiosis or mutualism). And if anything, these tests confirm that people can certainly feel good when helping others without getting anything back.
I think I might’ve gotten a little sidetracked in that I’m not really contesting this, but rather that in all these tests the people and scientists assume that the donation in question actually helps people. And that’s where the problem lies to me, I simply don’t think that any of these donations make a noticeable difference. If course they’re going to feel good when they think that their donation will substantially improve the situation, even if in the real world it would hardy make a difference.
Another thing is that I consider humans to be a bit different from animals and plants when using the term “natural” in that I think humans are usually the exception to the rule amongst animals.
Also, stop acting like you’ve written the damn article yourself! All you probably did was Google it, skimmed through the article and linked it here. And now you’re quoting it in every post, I’ve read the article and I simply think that it doesn’t fully proof whatever you’re saying. No need to quote the feckin’ thing in order to make you look more of an actual scientist. I could start quoting articles about kin selection that corroborate my interpretation but I’ve refrained from doing so.
A little off topic, my name is Grievous. You must’ve spelled it in three different ways, none of them correct.
Grievous, whether people would actually do it is irrelevant.
The brain rewards you for helping strangers, i.e. it rewards when you have helped a stranger. That says nothing about the thought processes or anything before you help a stranger.
As for me, I donate €5 to Oxfam every month. Someone spoke to me on the street asking if I was willing to do that, and I just thought “sure, why not.”
I don’t really feel better for doing it, but I’m not worse off either, so I might as well keep doing it.
I’m quoting the article in every post because it is scientific evidence that proves what I said (“the human brain is wired for altruism”) is true. I’m not a neuroscientist, that’s why I cite the words of neuroscientists as evidence, rather than my own random scientifically unsupported opinions.
No. Proven wrong, see citation that says our biological programming rewards not only caring for relatives but also total strangers specifically via charity. Thinking about an action and doing the action provoke highly similar neurological responses, that’s the basis for many scientific studies.
Yes. I think you get it, even though you are still phrasing your replies as arguments. Helping complete strangers feels good because the brain is wired to reward it.
Yeah well, I hate it when those leeches come out of the woodworks every time I go to the city. At every corner of every street they’re pestering people, competing with each other for money. If I say no thanks and come back half an hour later those same feckers try again!
Maybe next time I’ll pester them, I’ll ask for money so I can pay my studies or bills, see how they like it :meh:
So it’s not enough that I’d already said I read the article? I’ll keep that in mind next time we have another argument, I’ll just keep quoting the same article over and over again to make my side of the argument seem more founded.
That’s not the basis for many scientific studies, and what I’ve said about this is that they (and you too) keep assuming that the donations actually make a big difference. If they would’ve done the same test but specifically said that there’s a good chance that the donations make little difference than those people wouldn’t feel so good anymore.
If this assumption is wrong than so is the entire test!
My original statements were perhaps a bit rigid in that I did deny the possibility that helping strangers might have a biological basis. But there are still some things that bother me about that. I think you’re generalizing the test results too much.
It doesn’t disprove that caring for close relatives takes precedence over helping a complete stranger. And it still assumes that those donations actually help a lot when they most likely will not help much.
And last but not least, it still only applies to humans. And I consider us a special case when discussing natural behaviour, we’re an exception to many rules that the animal kingdom follows. When I say natural, I mean animals and humans when we follow those rules, but only animals when we don’t follow them.
I think this thing is settled (sort of) so unless you want to continue this debate I’ll call it a day.
It was all a tangent anyway - What I was really hoping to debate was my (I thought) controversial contention that the winners in a capitalist society are inherently responsible for the suffering of the losers because of the system’s structure. I thought that was much more debatable than “helping people makes you feel good.”
But they are STILL non-human animals, even if they “behave differently than their wild cousins”.
“Winner” is a loaded term here. No one, and I do mean no one, makes it to “winner” status all by themselves. Every single person in the “winner” column got there through the dirt, grit, blood, sweat, and tears of those that BUILT the structure in which capitalism can even exist. Without these “losers”, there would be no “winners”.
But that has nothing to do with anything! Who cares if Dolphins will save drowning surfers or whatever? Nobody knows what animals are thinking at any given time; whereas the advantage of human experimentation is we can communicate our mental states each other. Dr. Lilly’s dolphin experiments notwithstanding!
Just like Lord Grievous, I’ll help people around me (even if I don’t know them), but that isn’t charity, that’s basic politeness and helpfulness.
If I see an old woman with a cane trip on the street and can’t get up, I’ll help her up and make sure she’s okay. I won’t, however, give her money to buy a new cane (or buy her a new cane all together). Her bad-cane-issue is her problem, not mine, she should solve it.
you should give the guy a job instead of money
See, that’s the problem, I feel. Businesses, large or small, do not “give” anyone a job. They are required to hire people if they want to sell a product or service to make money. I’ll keep THAT argument to if a thread crops up about “Supply-Side versus Demand-Side economics” though.
If, as you say, they “should give the guy a job”, my question would be “doing what?”
i actually meant if you give him money. İt won’t be enough for him he will probably need more money few days later
I don’t give him money. Giving to people on the street isn’t charity at all, in my book.
I don’t often donate money, but I give blood as often as I’m able. I like the idea that I have sacrificed my health, something much more important that money, and that that sacrifice is going to keep someone alive. I’m also terrified of needles, so I’m always proud when I manage to go through with it.
My, you sure are a few keys short of a piano, aren’t you? Charity involves me being bugged by all sorts of people, trying to work my emotions in order to wiggle out a few bucks so they can waste it on lazy ass people or pointless causes. It involves me doing things for people I have no relation or bond with, a bunch of strangers that won’t thank me nor help me when I’ll be in need. My family and friends, on the other hand, will thank me if I help them (and not just financial) and will help me when I’m in need of help.
Perhaps those strangers you helped in the past, won’t help you in the future, so you wasted time, effort and money on them. Or do you think that those Kenyans, Haitians, etc will help you when your home gets hit by a mild storm?
Yes, it’s a vicious circle, but I’d rather die knowing that I lived a good life with the people I love and care for, than give part of my savings to a feeble and possibly lost cause.
I have better things to do that waste my time on something that won’t make a difference anyway. If I take some of my time and go help out mentally challenged kids, what difference will it make? Will they somehow become less retarded? Will they have a future, a job, a house, a family? Those kids will stay retarded no matter how much time you’ll put in it. Just like how those Haitians will stay poor, just like how Pandas will eventually be extinct.
Sure, sometimes your time and effort may pay off and help one individual back on his feet (and the question here is “for how long?”), but those rare cases aren’t a persuader for me to join in on the charity craze.
In most, if not all, cases, charity doesn’t help or change things for those that “need” it. So I see no reason to spend my time, effort and money on it.