They will not share what they got

[T Paradise]

If someone does not feel sharing with you will give them the benifit they want, they are not wrong to refuse to share with you.

If someone is not giving something of his food to a poor starving kid, he is not wrong, as long as he wouldn't get any pleasure from helping the kid? Interesting point of view.

 

[warlo]

I agree w warlo, anytime you start a convo with "there are two kinds of people in this world..." you start off wrong. There are an infinite number of kinds of people in this world. Gross generalization is always flawed. But given the premise...

why is "sharing" considered a virtue? I have been rich, and poor and homeless. One thing I always agreed with after reading "Atlas Shrugged" is that man's greatest virtue is selfeshness.

Hear me out... why do we help those less fortunate than ourselves? Out of empathy? Sure, but mainly to make ourselves feel good. There is no charitable act or self sacrifice you can perform without receiving something in return even if the return is just smug satisfaction.

Selfishness is why we do everything that we do. If we share its only so that we recieve benifit. If someone does not feel sharing with you will give them the benifit they want, they are not wrong to refuse to share with you.

All the Rand followers keep on saying that the way they are is the way the whole world is... I dont mind if a bunch of people go around saying they dont want to share anything cause they are selfish and if they do it would be for selfish reasons, but i do mind them trying to mask it by saying the whole world is like that.

Out of such people came game theory and look at the state of the world we are in (which is strictly founded upon game theory). funny enough a very important branch of game theory came off the mind of someone diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (check John Nash and Nash Equilibrium theory) who was approved by game theorist immediately and thought stuff on the lines of Ayn Rand, who in my view was quite eccentric and crazy (its all in the eyes and the stories of her close circle of people), so not the combo you want to read from and draw conclusions on the whole world.

One of the greatest comebacks of game theory is that when observing human interactions, not only they instinctively share and cooperate but they do for no clear or apparent reason. some may do it for selfish reasons, some may do it for many different other reasons.

So, in a way, you are doing not just something similar than OP, who said that the world is divided in two classes, but something worst that is to say that the whole world is the same (selfish acting individuals).

 

[T Paradise]

All the Rand followers keep on saying that the way they are is the way the whole world is... I dont mind if a bunch of people go around saying they dont want to share anything cause they are selfish and if they do it would be for selfish reasons, but i do mind them trying to mask it by saying the whole world is like that.

Out of such people came game theory and look at the state of the world we are in (which is strictly founded upon game theory). funny enough a very important branch of game theory came off the mind of someone diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (check John Nash and Nash Equilibrium theory) who was approved by game theorist immediately and thought stuff on the lines of Ayn Rand, who in my view was quite eccentric and crazy (its all in the eyes and the stories of her close circle of people), so not the combo you want to read from and draw conclusions on the whole world.

One of the greatest comebacks of game theory is that when observing human interactions, not only they instinctively share and cooperate but they do for no clear or apparent reason. some may do it for selfish reasons, some may do it for many different other reasons.

So, in a way, you are doing not just something similar than OP, who said that the world is divided in two classes, but something worst that is to say that the whole world is the same (selfish acting individuals).

What bad did game theory bring upon the world in your opinion?
Game theory presupposes selfish agents, but those agents aren't necessarily selfish as the word is commonly understood. It only means that they act in accordance with their desires. Those desires can be anything, also helping others etc.
Also you say that humans usually cooperate, for no obvious reason. Some for selfish reasons, some maybe for completely other reasons. I don't know if I understand the use of "comeback" here (not a native speaker), but I guess you seem to take that as an argument against game theory? If so there is descriptive and normative game theory (or decision theory). Descriptive game theory should consider every reason why humans act as they do, if people cooperate for non-selfish reasons that is not a problem at all for descriptive game theory.
Normative game theory on the other hand is not concerned with how people actually act and for what reasons. It is only concerned with how they should rationally act. If people cooperate for non-selfish reasons that's not a problem for normative decision theory either.

Accepting that one is selfish and not doing charitable acts, because they would ultimately be selfish is a stupid reasoning obviously.

 

[Coywolf]

-"looking out for yourself" and "I've got mine, why cant you get yours?" Are not hand-in-hand beliefs. I always look out for myself first. But you'd better believe I will help someone in need whenever I "can" and that "can" is definitely dependent on multiple factors.

-noone is EVER obligated to share with you. EVER. unless you have given much to them, and they refuse to give back. Entitlement is something we should all get away from

These are two main factors driving the division of this country. People who feel they alone should reap the benefit of their labors (or inheritance, or trust funds...), and people who believe they are entitled to what everyone else has acquired.

Neither is correct. A compromise is in order, and until we figure this out, we are doomed to repeat history.

 

[warlo]

What bad did game theory bring upon the world in your opinion?
Game theory presupposes selfish agents, but those agents aren't necessarily selfish as the word is commonly understood. It only means that they act in accordance with their desires. Those desires can be anything, also helping others etc.
Also you say that humans usually cooperate, for no obvious reason. Some for selfish reasons, some maybe for completely other reasons. I don't know if I understand the use of "comeback" here (not a native speaker), but I guess you seem to take that as an argument against game theory? If so there is descriptive and normative game theory (or decision theory). Descriptive game theory should consider every reason why humans act as they do, if people cooperate for non-selfish reasons that is not a problem at all for descriptive game theory.
Normative game theory on the other hand is not concerned with how people actually act and for what reasons. It is only concerned with how they should rationally act. If people cooperate for non-selfish reasons that's not a problem for normative decision theory either.

Accepting that one is selfish and not doing charitable acts, because they would ultimately be selfish is a stupid reasoning obviously.

Check out John Nash's theories. Game Theory might be all you say, but the ideas that built this world by the end of the XX century was Nash's and Ayn Rand type game theory. Both insisted upon the notion that humans have no sharing nature and that all we do is competing with each other.

If you want a better explanation of what I mean, check this series of documentaries

 

[croc]

Something I want to add that i didn't see anyone blatantly say yet is that if you ask directly "when should I head out?" there's no room for miscommunication. If they're given the opportunity to draw a line and don't (maybe they're trying to be "polite") then that's on them and not ur fault.
And when someone houses me up, I ask before I use anything that hasn't specifically offered. Again, no room for miscommunication or someone feeling disrespected.
I'm the kind of person that will share most things I have with anyone who isn't a dick if it doesn't leave me without. (like someone can't use my jacket if I need it bc it's cold out but they didn't pack one kinda thing. But I'll help them however I can to obtain their own jacket). And I feel disrespected when someone uses my stuff without asking unless I've already said "go ahead n use that when u want". Personally, it comes from having a sibling who would use my shit/break my shit/use the end of my shit without asking or caring that it wasn't his to use.
But I know a lot of people like u who would give someone the shirt of your back without hesitation. I think that's wicked admirable but most people aren't like that and we can't expect them to be.
You're definitely a respectful person from everything I know of u, and we've been friends for over a year now (speaking of which, ain't that cool?). I don't think it's a matter of disrespect but maybe not having put enough consideration into how someone else might function differently or why they do.
You're great and I admire the heck out of your desire to learn and grow and call yourself out and apologize when need be.
<3

 

[All Who Wander]

There are only two reasons humans take any action.
1. To avoid pain.
2. To gain pleasure.

Both reasons are selfesh.
Please describe any action a human might take that could not be attributed to one of these two reasons.

 

[warlo]

There are only two reasons humans take any action.
1. To avoid pain.
2. To gain pleasure.

Both reasons are selfesh.
Please describe any action a human might take that could not be attributed to one of these two reasons.

Ill first proceed to answer your question with a quote from you:

<quote>
"I agree w warlo, anytime you start a convo with "there are two kinds of people in this world..." you start off wrong. There are an infinite number of kinds of people in this world. Gross generalization is always flawed. But given the premise... "
<endquote>

Then I'll proceed to answer, again, with another question:

What pleasure or avoidance of pain do I get from answering to you?

Now, since its a rhetorical question, I'll answer it myself: none of both. I'm not in pain --although my arm kinda hurts lately but I dont engage in online conversations to avoid it, I stretch and take painkillers instead-- and I definitively dont derive pleasure from this conversation. if pleasure was my ultimate goal now I'd eat some of the leftover pizza and drink some of the wine I have and keep on watching a very pleasant documentary I just paused before going to pee and finding out that you answered to this post. In fact, just to prove you're oversimplifying, I dont even know what do I get from answering to you. For sure Im delaying pleasure and gratification by keeping the doc paused, the wine un-drinked and the pizza un-eaten and im maximizing the pain that I know comes from extensive typing and computer usage in the last couple weeks of my life. So should you add a third option to your list, a fourth? or maybe just get rid of such horrible simplicity?

does that answer your question?

Allow me to quote you again:

Gross generalization is always flawed

 

[T Paradise]

Check out John Nash's theories. Game Theory might be all you say, but the ideas that built this world by the end of the XX century was Nash's and Ayn Rand type game theory. Both insisted upon the notion that humans have no sharing nature and that all we do is competing with each other.

If you want a better explanation of what I mean, check this series of documentaries

I am familiar with Nash's theory. Nash's Equilibrium describes a state that holds in non-cooperative game theory, this theory presupposes the "notion that humans have no sharing nature and that all [they] do is competing with each other." for this game. It's not like there isn't cooperative game theory, where the agents can operate (even though they still cooperate to fulfill their own desires).
As far as I can tell Nash's theory makes no assumptions about how people act, it only provides a rational solution to specific problems. I will watch the series you linked once I get the time though. So far I only watched the first 20min. There it is once again said that people cooperate instead of acting selfish, with the example of the prisoners dilemma. But that is not a problem at all for decision theory. It just shows that people don't act rational, if the dilemma was properly introduced, or that they have more desires than simply reducing their prison time, if not properly introduced.

 

[All Who Wander]

Ill first proceed to answer your question with a quote from you:

<quote>
"I agree w warlo, anytime you start a convo with "there are two kinds of people in this world..." you start off wrong. There are an infinite number of kinds of people in this world. Gross generalization is always flawed. But given the premise... "
<endquote>

Then I'll proceed to answer, again, with another question:

What pleasure or avoidance of pain do I get from answering to you?

Now, since its a rhetorical question, I'll answer it myself: none of both. I'm not in pain --although my arm kinda hurts lately but I dont engage in online conversations to avoid it, I stretch and take painkillers instead-- and I definitively dont derive pleasure from this conversation. if pleasure was my ultimate goal now I'd eat some of the leftover pizza and drink some of the wine I have and keep on watching a very pleasant documentary I just paused before going to pee and finding out that you answered to this post. In fact, just to prove you're oversimplifying, I dont even know what do I get from answering to you. For sure Im delaying pleasure and gratification by keeping the doc paused, the wine un-drinked and the pizza un-eaten and im maximizing the pain that I know comes from extensive typing and computer usage in the last couple weeks of my life. So should you add a third option to your list, a fourth? or maybe just get rid of such horrible simplicity?

does that answer your question?

Allow me to quote you again:

Gross generalization is always flawed

Just full of fail.

 

[croc]

There are only two reasons humans take any action.
1. To avoid pain.
2. To gain pleasure.

Both reasons are selfesh.
Please describe any action a human might take that could not be attributed to one of these two reasons.

.... You've never just done anything that wasn't fun bc it was the right thing to do??
A few months ago I helped one of my best friends pack and move even though I felt awful that day mentally, had little sleep, and a bunch of my own shit to do as well. It wasn't to feel good about it, it was because she's been my ride or die for years and years and she'd do that and a million other things for me at any point in time. It was incredibly taxing on me.
Not everything is selfishly motivated.

 

[All Who Wander]

.... You've never just done anything that wasn't fun bc it was the right thing to do??
A few months ago I helped one of my best friends pack and move even though I felt awful that day mentally, had little sleep, and a bunch of my own shit to do as well. It wasn't to feel good about it, it was because she's been my ride or die for years and years and she'd do that and a million other things for me at any point in time. It was incredibly taxing on me.
Not everything is selfishly motivated.

You clearly feel very good about what you did. The pleasure of doing right by your ride or die, of fufilling a sense of honor was worth the pain of enduring sleeplessness, physical and emotional discomfort, etc. If anything, pushing through those difficulties just makes your self satisfaction and pleasurable feelings about your sacrifice and dedication all the stronger.

Then theres the reciprocity angle. Shes always been there for you when you needed her. If you dont push aside your pain and discomfort to help her... she might not be so enthusiastic for helping you in the future. How much do you value the security of knowing this person will likely show up to help you if you really need it? A lot I'd bet, you'd probably do almost anything to avoid loosing that feeling.

Sorry, the actions you took were extremely charitable though completely motivated by selfeshness, but selfeshness isn't a bad or negitive thing.

 

[warlo]

Just full of fail.

yeah, totally. Its a big fail when someone says generalization sucks and then goes to generalize like a pro. Glad we agree on that one

 

[warlo]

You clearly feel very good about what you did. The pleasure of doing right by your ride or die, of fufilling a sense of honor was worth the pain of enduring sleeplessness, physical and emotional discomfort, etc. If anything, pushing through those difficulties just makes your self satisfaction and pleasurable feelings about your sacrifice and dedication all the stronger.

Then theres the reciprocity angle. Shes always been there for you when you needed her. If you dont push aside your pain and discomfort to help her... she might not be so enthusiastic for helping you in the future. How much do you value the security of knowing this person will likely show up to help you if you really need it? A lot I'd bet, you'd probably do almost anything to avoid loosing that feeling.

Sorry, the actions you took were extremely charitable though completely motivated by selfeshness, but selfeshness isn't a bad or negitive thing.

We got Freud in the house!

Look man, if all you do is for selfish reasons, thats ok. be as selfish as you want. im not surprised there's people that think the way you do. if you're gonna be selfish, be it, but dont go around trying to mask your shame by saying we all act the way you do. In my opinion, if you can reduce all your actions to avoidance of pain and attainment of pleasure, then you need a bit more experience in life, cause there's a lot of selfless action in this world.

 

[warlo]

Just full of fail.

Also, you might wanna study this a bit so you can get your head out of the bucket for a moment, otherwise you'll never see outside your own ideas.

 

[BusGypsy]

Something I want to add that i didn't see anyone blatantly say yet is that if you ask directly "when should I head out?" there's no room for miscommunication. If they're given the opportunity to draw a line and don't (maybe they're trying to be "polite") then that's on them and not ur fault.
And when someone houses me up, I ask before I use anything that hasn't specifically offered. Again, no room for miscommunication or someone feeling disrespected.
I'm the kind of person that will share most things I have with anyone who isn't a dick if it doesn't leave me without. (like someone can't use my jacket if I need it bc it's cold out but they didn't pack one kinda thing. But I'll help them however I can to obtain their own jacket). And I feel disrespected when someone uses my stuff without asking unless I've already said "go ahead n use that when u want". Personally, it comes from having a sibling who would use my shit/break my shit/use the end of my shit without asking or caring that it wasn't his to use.
But I know a lot of people like u who would give someone the shirt of your back without hesitation. I think that's wicked admirable but most people aren't like that and we can't expect them to be.
You're definitely a respectful person from everything I know of u, and we've been friends for over a year now (speaking of which, ain't that cool?). I don't think it's a matter of disrespect but maybe not having put enough consideration into how someone else might function differently or why they do.
You're great and I admire the heck out of your desire to learn and grow and call yourself out and apologize when need be.
<3

This. It's so important and helpful to establish expectations and boundaries.
How long can I stay?
What may I eat/use?
How can I help?

Of course it isn't fair to crash at someone's place indefinitely.... of course eventually they're gonna want their personal space back.

 

[All Who Wander]

We got Freud in the house!

Look man, if all you do is for selfish reasons, thats ok. be as selfish as you want. im not surprised there's people that think the way you do. if you're gonna be selfish, be it, but dont go around trying to mask your shame by saying we all act the way you do. In my opinion, if you can reduce all your actions to avoidance of pain and attainment of pleasure, then you need a bit more experience in life, cause there's a lot of selfless action in this world.

There is no such thing as a selfless action. None. Every action you take benifits you in some way. Just like there is no such thing as true altruism. Even if you annonymously gave all your money to some needy guy and didnt tell anyone about it ever, you'd still feel good about it. You'd still recieve reward.

And thats just it... if your really honest, you dont need to feel shame or guilt. If I do something charitable, I know im really doing it for myself. I dont sit around thinking "oh clearly i'm a much better and more giving person than those selfesh hording bastards! I have... a heart... of gold..."

It also stops the bs reciprocity fantasy "HEY! I gave food to people when they were hungry... so now somebody should be giving food to me! Im owed damnit!'

Just accept the truth... your no more "selfless" than anybody else. Or reject it and explain why your so much better and more special than everyone else. How did you become so saint like?

 

[All Who Wander]

Also, you might wanna study this a bit so you can get your head out of the bucket for a moment, otherwise you'll never see outside your own ideas.

Great wiki, read it all. But I think you need to go re-read it. Reductionism can be beneficial and does not in itself create fallacy. Example: All matter is made of energy and non energy. Completely true and completely reductionist.

 

[warlo]

There is no such thing as a selfless action. None. Every action you take benifits you in some way. Just like there is no such thing as true altruism. Even if you annonymously gave all your money to some needy guy and didnt tell anyone about it ever, you'd still feel good about it. You'd still recieve reward.

And thats just it... if your really honest, you dont need to feel shame or guilt. If I do something charitable, I know im really doing it for myself. I dont sit around thinking "oh clearly i'm a much better and more giving person than those selfesh hording bastards! I have... a heart... of gold..."

It also stops the bs reciprocity fantasy "HEY! I gave food to people when they were hungry... so now somebody should be giving food to me! Im owed damnit!'

Just accept the truth... your no more "selfless" than anybody else. Or reject it and explain why your so much better and more special than everyone else. How did you become so saint like?

You go fallacy after fallacy. first, your comparison about matter being conformed of energy and any example of the sort is invalid, cause that is a scientific fact. what you are saying doesn't even borders with science, it belongs to the philosophical world of ideas. When you reduce based on facts, its unquestionably good, not because of the reducing but because its based on scientifically proven facts, but when you reduce in thought its only mere speculation, so be like any decent philosophy student and propose ideas for the sake of argument, expansion of knowledge and hope to get closer to the truth, not to look like you are a fact driven scientist of philosophy (as if such thing exists) figuring out the universe.

You are making the mistake of first saying we are all selfish because knowingly all we do is because it will help us avoid pain and gain pleasure and then when somebody says "Wait, I dont know why i did this, it made me uncomfortable even though I knew it would, I was exhausted so I would rather have done something else but I still did and it made me feel like shit afterwards" (which ends your argument) you switch your premise to something like "yeah, but then 3 months later you feel good about it when thinking in retrospective" so now its not why we do things but what we derive from them whether we are aware of them to begin with or not... also, acting like you know what people feel, think and what happens to all of humanity since the dawn of history till today which by the way its a hideous thing to go around doing (it shows that you believe yourself a superior omnipotent genius). So if somebody tells you that they ddint feel good afterwards what you gonna do? call them liars cause you know better than themselves how they feel? or say that eventually or somehow its gonna give them pleasure or pain avoidance? thats what you do, put out a premise and change it when it fails and if it fails again attack the people that proven you to be wrong. which makes you fallacious and a sophist

It's great to do some far out philosophy as a mental exercise and play with ideas, like yours for example. but when you end up believing yourself to have figured it all out and you are nothing but a stranger in a tiny forum on the internet its annoying. Nobody, so far, has figured out anything trough philosophy. cause its not a science! so, if you feel that your ideas explain your behavior and guide your life for the better, go ahead! I love to discuss philosophy with people like that, but find it extremely annoying when I meet the "I figured y'all out assholes!" because, well, cause its just annoying.

I have a ton of situations in my life where i put myself consciously that ended up draining me, causing me pain and annoyance and i cant derive any pleasure nor i believe I will anytime in the future, some of them i made repeatedly. sometimes for a reason even knowing what would come afterwards, sometimes for no reason that i can think off. It drives me mad and its something I pay close attention to in my life because it puzzles me. so what you say about that? am i so special that i broke the rules of your universe? I dont think so, I believe it to be very common.

Id say get off your high horse, study more and go out and experience more. get your head out of the box you put it on when you thought you figured it all out. you are not a genius who figured it all out, be humble. geniuses who get close to that sort of truth are humble when presenting their ideas and dont come and argue their thesis in a forum with some scumbag like me, they write books and give lectures, and somethings tells me that you are not the type that ends up in the pages of history.

and by the way, pretty lame ad hominem in your last comment, learn to think and argue properly. Arguing endlessly about such subjects should be enjoyable, your lack of humbleness ruins any hope for it.

now my hand hurts and im annoyed, am I supposed to derive some sort of pleasure or pain avoidance based on this argument? Im pretty sure it will not, and I knew that from the first time I decided to argue with you. If that's not a good example then simply stop this.

 

[All Who Wander]

ugg god I wanna write "just full of fail" here too, because just like the other one you start out wrong, then go wrong for a long time, and I just don't want to spend all that time picking apart a broken argument... but you're kind of demanding it so...

1) he did not say he did not know why he did it, he said very clearly she had always been there for him in the past so the selfish motivation was very clear. all the points you make following that line of reasoning are off.
2) I never switched my premise, and it didn't fail. Any action you take is motivated by avoiding pain or gaining pleasure. I never said there was a time limit (three months? where did you get that?)
3) philosophy is not a science... but psychology sure is and it deals directly with human motivation to action. You may disagree with my modality but it does not make it false.

lastly... the one thing you really hit on here... when you don't understand why you took an action it confuses you. yep, and those are the actions most interesting to therapists.

example of transference (and this really blows me away...) woman gets molested when she's 5. 25 yr old mom sweeps it under the rug tells her it didn't happen. later the woman is in her 20's she meets a great guy, marries him and has a daughter. 5 years later she cant stop picking fights with him and gets a divorce. then brings home a series of really terrible dudes until somebody molests her 5 year old daughter. she treats her daughter completely differently than her mother treated her. later she has no idea why she picked fights with her great guy ex husband, or why she dated such scumbags and brought them home.

she never dealt with the negative emotions of her molestation, or the anger towards her mother. subconsciously she's been being pushed to deal with those emotions ever since. she took actions she could not explain but through my premise you can see why. she did this exactly at her daughters age when she herself was molested. It brought her pleasure to comfort her daughter, allowed her the chance to deal with the emotions she never dealt with previously, and allowed her to establish herself as a good mom and not a terrible mom like her's was.

the worst thing about all this... it happens all the time.

I'm not saying the reasons people do things are rational, or even that they themselves know the real reasons why, but given time you can almost always find those reasons even if they are really screwed up subconscious ways of gaining pleasure or avoiding pain.

So no you did not break the premise or my universe. We just need to ask bigger deeper questions to better understand why you do things that you don't think bring you pleasure or avoid pain. I'm sorry but our time is up, please make your next appointment with the receptionist. (lol)

ok look... I spent 12 years working with dual diagnosed adolescents all over. I've had a hell of a lot of experiences. I really need less and not more. There are some things I figured out for myself over those 12 years that help "me" understand humans and human interactions better. so for "me" those things I figured out is over and done. They have been proven true so many times for me I do not question them.

Though I have hundreds, here's a couple more just if your interested.

All communication is relationship defining.
Nobody goes to God when they are happy.
The goal of a good life is to live without regret.