Chemical Responses and Shame Providing Positive and Negative Feedback to Promote Altruistic Behavior

[Steve81]

One final thought for the evening, if we accept experiments on infants as valid.

Based on the affects identified by Tomkins, coupled with the previously mentioned biological responses to kindness, it seems possible to generate a list of rules to maximize human happiness.

1. Be kind and help others to the best of your ability.

2. Learn as much as possible to maximize personal satisfaction as well as your ability to help others.

3. Do what you enjoy, so long as it doesn’t conflict with #1.

4. Take care of your needs.

Science meets philosophy. Is this a workable model? Are there any flaws you can identify in the rules, or alterations you would suggest? Do these rules appear to conflict with your own observations on how to achieve happiness?

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

6 hours ago, Steve81 said:

One final thought for the evening, if we accept experiments on infants as valid.

Based on the affects identified by Tomkins, coupled with the previously mentioned biological responses to kindness, it seems possible to generate a list of rules to maximize human happiness.

1. Be kind and help others to the best of your ability.

2. Learn as much as possible to maximize personal satisfaction as well as your ability to help others.

3. Do what you enjoy, so long as it doesn’t conflict with #1.

4. Take care of your needs.

Science meets philosophy. Is this a workable model? Are there any flaws you can identify in the rules, or alterations you would suggest? Do these rules appear to conflict with your own observations on how to achieve happiness?

 

I am confused now. Do you suggest that you know what would make other people happy?

[Steve81]

37 minutes ago, Genady said:

I am confused now. Do you suggest that you know what would make other people happy?

In specific terms, no. In broad terms, maybe, hence the follow up questions. A brief survey could be useful as well.

1. Do you tend to feel good about being kind and helpful towards others?

2. Do you tend to feel a sense of satisfaction when you learn something new?

On 3 and 4, I’m not sure they warrant such questions. Clearly you feel good about doing things you enjoy, or you wouldn’t enjoy them. In the same vein, clearly you feel better when you take care of your needs rather than neglect them, else they wouldn’t be needs.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

1. Do you tend to feel good about being kind and helpful towards others?

Depends. I tend to feel good about being kind and helpful toward people toward whom I wanted to be kind and helpful.

 

3 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

2. Do you tend to feel a sense of satisfaction when you learn something new?

Depends. I tend to feel a sense of satisfaction when I learn something new that I wanted to learn.

 

7 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Clearly you feel good about doing things you enjoy, or you wouldn’t enjoy them. In the same vein, clearly you feel better when you take care of your needs rather than neglect them, else they wouldn’t be needs.

Not that clear either.

[Steve81]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Depends. I tend to feel good about being kind and helpful toward people toward whom I wanted to be kind and helpful.

Perhaps as an experiment, you could try being kind and helpful towards everyone. It's possible the other party may not reciprocate your kindness, which would detract from your good feelings; however, it's entirely possible you could make a new friend in a place you didn't expect. 

Quote

Depends. I tend to feel a sense of satisfaction when I learn something new that I wanted to learn.

The affect I'm trying to stimulate with this rule is interest-excitement. Of course you have to be interested in the subject. Learning that the stove is hot by burning yourself isn't going to do anything to generate interest. That said, we aren't born knowing what we are interested in. We do that through broadening our horizons by learning new things.

Quote

Not that clear either.

Please support your statement with logic. Otherwise it is merely your opinion, which isn't valid in this discussion.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Perhaps as an experiment, you could try being kind and helpful towards everyone. It's possible the other party may not reciprocate your kindness, which would detract from your good feelings; however, it's entirely possible you could make a new friend in a place you didn't expect. 

 

 

The affect I'm trying to stimulate with this rule is interest-excitement. Of course you have to be interested in the subject. Learning that the stove is burning hot by burning yourself isn't going to do anything to generate interest. That said, we aren't born knowing what we are interested in. We do that through broadening our horizons by learning new things.

 

 

Please support your statement with logic. Otherwise it is merely your opinion, which isn't valid in this discussion.

I don't want to express here what I think about these suggestions. I think it is better for all just to drop this conversation. Be happy.

[Steve81]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

 Be happy.

You as well.

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, Steve81 said:

I believe the "proof" that Dr. Burgo alluded to related to experiments with infants, ala the Still Face Experiment. Since these infants had little or no opportunity to learn behavior, and presuming an adequate sample size, it would certainly indicate genetics is at play.

There you have to be careful, too. One has to be very clear what one is actually testing with a given experiment. More often than not, infant experiments are behavioural tests and one uses them to check on developmental cues. The underlying biological basis is often not well understood. 

Take the mentioned Still-Face experiment, for example. It does indicate that early on infants are able to recognize and react to facial expressions (the first step in the experiment is about setting up a baseline that the infant learns and distinguishes from the neutral expression step). It does not tell us much about the biology except that infants are able to recognize and distinguish facial expressions and that they build up expectations based on interactions and do get distressed when these expectations are not met. How it actually works is unclear and as such the biological basis. A deviation from a particular behaviour does not necessarily mean genetic change, either. 

 

Quote

While several models have been advanced to explain this still-face effect (see Mesman, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009 for review), prior work suggests that disruption to anticipated social dynamic built by dyads over time may in part contribute to infants’ distress (see Fogel, 2000; Porter, Jones, Evans, & Robinson, 2009). In other words, infants are becoming increasingly sensitive to interactive patterns with familiar partners, and when interactive errors are introduced, infants become distressed by these errors (Tronick, 1989). 

 

Taken from that, all we can basically just say that without training infants are able to:

- identify faces

- build up expectations based on interactions

- have a mechanism to feel distress when expectations are met

(I am sure one can break this down even finer, but the overall point is that these are really just general insights that are more conceptual still far removed from the underlying biological mechanisms).

Even infant behaviour is often dynamic and responsive to cues and tracing them to a genetic basis (outside of reflexive behaviour) have proven to be very difficult to identify, and there is little in terms of actual "proof" to be found. 

I am not saying that all hypotheses in this regard are automatically wrong, but rather than we start to realize that that we need a higher level of evidence to actually identify the mechanisms. Especially in humans, these are often lacking. 

 

[Steve81]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am not saying that all hypotheses in this regard are automatically wrong, but rather than we start to realize that that we need a higher level of evidence to actually identify the mechanisms. Especially in humans, these are often lacking. 

I don't disagree. More study is always a good thing. We've learned by revisiting topics previously thought to be resolved, and finding something unexpected.

13 hours ago, Steve81 said:

One final thought for the evening, if we accept experiments on infants as valid.

Based on the affects identified by Tomkins, coupled with the previously mentioned biological responses to kindness, it seems possible to generate a list of rules to maximize human happiness.

1. Be kind and help others to the best of your ability.

2. Learn as much as possible to maximize personal satisfaction as well as your ability to help others.

3. Do what you enjoy, so long as it doesn’t conflict with #1.

4. Take care of your needs.

Science meets philosophy. Is this a workable model? Are there any flaws you can identify in the rules, or alterations you would suggest? Do these rules appear to conflict with your own observations on how to achieve happiness?

 

Based on the discussion with Genady, #3 should be reworded to “Try new things, and engage in the activities you enjoy as long as they don't conflict with rule #1.”

Edited August 14, 2023 by Steve81

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Clearly you feel good about doing things you enjoy, or you wouldn’t enjoy them. In the same vein, clearly you feel better when you take care of your needs rather than neglect them, else they wouldn’t be needs.

There are many things I would enjoy doing that I would not feel good about actually having done.  Cultural forces shape us powerfully.  And there are groups of humans (religious ascetics, e.g.) who studiously deny needs and feel much better about themselves. There are also arguments that many people make that we should sometimes engage in activities we do not enjoy, where those activities benefit others, express love and support, take us outside our comfort level in some character-growing way, etc.  I think the relationship to alleles or groups of alleles will always be pretty murky. 

 

[Steve81]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

There are many things I would enjoy doing that I would not feel good about actually having done.  Cultural forces shape us powerfully.  

No doubt about that. The question is, how do we change culture? The answer is by evolving our philosophies, and hoping they are accepted by the general populace. 

Quote

And there are groups of humans (religious ascetics, e.g.) who studiously deny needs and feel much better about themselves. 

This is accurate as well, though I would regard this as more of an outlier than something applicable to the general public. If you ask the average person on the street if they would be happier starving or well fed, I think the answer is easy enough to predict. 

Quote

There are also arguments that many people make that we should sometimes engage in activities we do not enjoy, where those activities benefit others, express love and support, take us outside our comfort level in some character-growing way, etc.  I think the relationship to alleles or groups of alleles will always be pretty murky.

This is why rule #1 of being kind and helpful to others is at the top of the list. Certainly I'm not suggesting people play video games 24/7, assuming that's what they enjoy.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Steve81

[Steve81]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

And there are groups of humans (religious ascetics, e.g.) who studiously deny needs and feel much better about themselves.

Upon further reflection, this case would appear to suggest a conflict between rule 3 (or at least the spirit behind it) and rule 4. I can't say I have any particular objection to it, but it's not something I'd chose for myself.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Steve81 said:

The question is, how do we change culture?

By following the "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism":

Quote

1. Loyalty to Communism, and love of the socialist Motherland and other socialist countries.
2. Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.
3. Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.
4. High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.
5. Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.
6. Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.
7. Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.
8. Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.
9. Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.
10. Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, intolerance to all racial and national dislike.
11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism, peace and freedom of peoples of the world.
12. Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

(adopted at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961) [Moral Code of the Builder of Communism - Wikipedia]

 

2 hours ago, Steve81 said:

and hoping they are accepted by the general populace. 

🤣

[Steve81]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

🤣

Are you suggesting the only way to spread a philosophy is through violence? It may be a quick method of doing so (at least superficially), but it certainly isn't the best way of going about things. Socrates, to the best of my knowledge, never needed to use weapons to disseminate his thoughts (which isn't to say his fellow Greeks were non-violent). Ghandi played an integral role in Indian independence from an Empire that was at best indifferent to the suffering of his people, all without taking up arms. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man influential enough to have a federal holiday observed in his honor, was also a man of peace.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Steve81 said:

Are you suggesting the only way to spread a philosophy is through violence? It may be a quick method of doing so (at least superficially), but it certainly isn't the best way of going about things. Socrates, to the best of my knowledge, never needed to use weapons to disseminate his thoughts (which isn't to say his fellow Greeks were non-violent). Ghandi played an integral role in Indian independence from an Empire that was at best indifferent to the suffering of his people, all without taking up arms. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man influential enough to have a federal holiday observed in his honor, was also a man of peace.

I don't understand. Where is violence mentioned in my post?

[Steve81]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't understand. Where is violence mentioned in my post?

Perhaps you can explain your thoughts in a manner superior to posting an emoji in response to the statement:

Quote

and hoping they are accepted by the general populace. 

Certainly the implication seems to be that you think I'm naive for thinking a more evolved philosophy can spread in such a manner. Your notes on the "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism" also suggest a great deal of violence, given the history of the USSR. Please, enlighten me as to what you really meant. I do not wish to misinterpret your thoughts. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Steve81 said:

Perhaps you can better explain your thoughts in a manner superior to posting an emoji in response to the statement:

 

 

Certainly the implication seems to be that you think I'm naive for thinking a more evolved philosophy can spread in such a manner. Your notes on the "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism" also suggest a great deal of violence, given the history of the USSR. Please, enlighten me as to what you really meant. 

Which manner?

I don't know where to start. There is no historical connection between the "Moral Code" and the violence. Your understanding is wrong.

I think that your principles are as good as this "Moral Code", where the latter is an example.

[Steve81]

31 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't know where to start. There is no historical connection between the "Moral Code" and the violence. Your understanding is wrong.

So you're suggesting the Soviet Union was a free society when the "Moral Code" was published and in the years following? No repression of the populace that you can think of? It is connected to the violence by the society that disseminated it. 

Quote

I think that your principles are as good as this "Moral Code", where the latter is an example.

The "Moral Code" isn't 100% evil in and of itself. That said, my principles demand no loyalty unto themselves. You can opt to follow them or not, and if you find they work for you, so much the better. Further, my principles in no way promote intolerance against things like careerism, acquisitiveness, or the enemies of my little philosophy. You don't like it? Ignore it, which I thought you were going to given this snippet. 

Quote

I think it is better for all just to drop this conversation. Be happy.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

So you're suggesting the Soviet Union was a free society when the "Moral Code" was published and in the years following? No repression of the populace that you can think of? No gulags? It is connected to the violence by the society that disseminated it. 

There were certainly no gulags then and the entire "dissemination" of the "Moral Code" was publishing it in Pravda and including it in several lessons in schools. It was quickly ignored in the years after that. No repressions related to it ever occurred. No violence was there in connection with it or its dissemination.

Yes, I don't like your cartoon picture of humans. And I am free to express my dislike here, as long as I don't violate the forum rules.

What I suggested to drop earlier was specifically the conversation about MY experiences. Not generally about your proposal.

[Steve81]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

There were certainly no gulags then and the entire "dissemination" of the "Moral Code" was publishing it in Pravda and including it in several lessons in schools. It was quickly ignored in the years after that. No repressions related to it ever occurred. No violence was there in connection with it or its dissemination.

Yes, I realized that fact on gulags after I posted and edited right as you replied. The dissemination may have been peaceful, but what meaning does that have in a society that is not free? The greatest violence may have preceded the publishing of the moral code, but the implicit threat of violence is just as powerful. That it was ultimately ignored is neither here nor there. 

Quote

Yes, I don't like your cartoon picture of humans.

Please tell me which part you dislike? Do you dislike kindness towards others? Do you dislike learning? Do you dislike enjoyment? Do you dislike self-care? Which of these offends you? Be specific, and include your reasoning. 

Quote

What I suggested to drop earlier was specifically the conversation about MY experiences.

Why don't you wish to share your experiences on kindness, learning, enjoyment, and self-care? They are relevant to the discussion. I'm not asking you to share your deepest darkest secrets. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Please tell me which part you dislike? Do you dislike kindness towards others? Do you dislike learning? Do you dislike enjoyment? Do you dislike self-care? Which of these offends you? Be specific, and include your reasoning. 

Such set of simplistic questions... No, thank you.

 

12 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Why don't you wish to share your experiences on kindness, learning, enjoyment, and self-care? They are relevant to the discussion. I'm not asking you to share your deepest darkest secrets. 

No.

[Steve81]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Such set of simplistic questions... No, thank you.

It's a pretty simple philosophy. 

Quote

No.

Do you fear sharing your experiences with others? That's not meant to be a rhetorical question, even if you opt not to reply. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

Just now, Steve81 said:

Do you fear sharing yourself with others?

No, I do not. 

[Steve81]

Just now, Genady said:

No, I do not. 

Then why do you not wish to reply? You can PM me if you prefer not to say publicly. I'm not here to shame you. 

[Genady]

Just now, Steve81 said:

Then why do you not wish to reply? You can PM me if you prefer not to say publicly. I'm not here to shame you. 

Why would I do so?