Every action is calculated for self benefit?

[schlitt]

I am aware of a theory which states every action a living organism makes is for its own perceived benefit. Even the most seemingly altruistic acts fall into this category, because there is a perceived benefit resulting in the realization of the altruism.

I have mentioned this briefly at times in conversation. It immediately incenses people, and causes a reactive defensive position.

I am just wondering if anyone can provide me with more information on this, and what is the specific term for this theory.

[Nick73]

I think this is called game theory

I know jack about it, but if you can find it get the BBC docu series (3 parts) called the freedom trap. There is some intersting infor about how game theory affected 80's and 90's western politics

Hope this helps

Nick

[Nick73]

Addendum. the name of the series is


The Trap – What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom?


t shows how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom. This model was derived from ideas and techniques developed by nuclear strategists during the Cold War to control the behaviour of the Soviet enemy.

Mathematicians such as John Nash developed paranoid game theories whose equations required people to be seen as selfish and isolated creatures, constantly monitoring each other suspiciously – always intent on their own advantage.

Hopefully this sounds like what youre getting at

Cheers

Nick

its taken from here

wx3.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk11/unplaced.shtml#unplaced_trap

I have to use Wx3 as i can tpost proper url's yet (the real address is 3 w's)

[Jeff Corkern]

I am aware of a theory which states every action a living organism makes is for its own perceived benefit. Even the most seemingly altruistic acts fall into this category, because there is a perceived benefit resulting in the realization of the altruism.


I don't know who proposed it, but I certainly agree with it.

That theory has a truly radical implication, though.

It requires that people exist eternally, to be eternal beings---to have souls---in order for it to work.

Does it do away with altruism? Yes, it certainly does. But there is a TREMENDOUS benefit.

Everybody is FORCED to take care of each other. To, fundamentally, do the best they can to make everybody, everybody in the whole wide world, happy.

Which makes society stable.

There is a profound physical reason for souls to exist.

Stability.

Souls are all about stability. The stability of society, the stability of the Universe itself, in the end.

I have mentioned this briefly at times in conversation. It immediately incenses people, and causes a reactive defensive position.

Lordy, don't I know it.

They don't think objectively and critically. They just get angry. REALLY angry.


I am just wondering if anyone can provide me with more information on this, and what is the specific term for this theory.

I can.

Tell you what, man.

If you are really, truly interested in this subject---read my little blog. Read The Nine Point Five Theses. The Nine Point Five Theses are an examination of human behavior from a strictly objective, rational viewpoint (without reference to any religion or any call to faith) that comes up with the conclusion that human beings act like they are eternal beings. That they have souls.

Also, there is one essay---ON THE SENTIENT CONSTRAINTS OF A SENTIENT-CONTAINING UNIVERSE---that lays out a reason why souls must exist in the first place, are an absolutely necessary thing to exist in a sentient-containing Universe.

They are all quite simple to read and fairly short. There is nothing complicated or difficult to understand in any of them.

Now, back when I was a kid (when dinosaurs ruled the Earth!), I got handed a geometry textbook filled with proofs.

It was NOT my job to take those proofs on faith. It was my job to examine those proofs critically and objectively and DECIDE FOR MYSELF IF THEY WERE RIGHT OR WRONG.

This is the exact spirit with which I want people to read The Nine Point Five Theses. With their critical-thinking caps ON.

I insist you make up your own mind, using your own ability to think critically.

By way of explanation, I'm a strict rationalist. I'm a believer in pure logic and reason, and I think everybody should think this way.

If I think souls exist, I must be able to demonstrate it by the rules of pure logic and reason. The Nine Point Five Theses are as strict an exercise in pure logic and reason as I can manage.

But whether or not I am correct is your decision to make---NOT MINE.

By way of inducement, I once had what is currently being called a "paranormal" experience.

A cat-soul dived through my chest.:)

I experienced---or perceived, maybe---a soul directly and personally. So this is not quite entirely a theoretical thing with me.

I describe the experience in much greater detail in my blog, in the essay where I propose a scientific experiment to detects souls in the lab.

And watch out for Michael Stone. Michael Stone will rattle your cage. People don't really know what it means for souls NOT to exist---but Michael Stone does, and he will certainly explain it to you. Whether you want to know it or not.

I guarantee you an interesting read.

[Soapy Sam]

schlitt- Observe any baby. Master manipulators and wholly self centred.
As we get older, we learn how to disguise our self centredness, both from others and from ourselves. No criminal or dictator thinks he's a baddie. They do what they do because they have to- it's forced on them.

I never heard a name for the theory you describe. However I've read comments like your's in the OP in articles about human (and more generally animal ) altruism., where one apparently does favours to others at cost to onesself. In many cases, it turns out there is a mutual benefit to altruism. The animal best fitted to it's environment does best- and the human environment is mostly other humans .

Matt Ridley wrote a good book on this a couple of years ago. "The Origins of Virtue".

[Suggestologist]

I don't know who proposed it, but I certainly agree with it.

That theory has a truly radical implication, though.

It requires that people exist eternally, to be eternal beings---to have souls---in order for it to work.

No. It doesn't.

It's pretty much implied by evolutionary forces.
Survival value is very important.
Cooperation and group identification increase survival value -- of the group, which is more evolutionarily important than survival of the individual.
Done.

[baron]

I am aware of a theory which states every action a living organism makes is for its own perceived benefit. Even the most seemingly altruistic acts fall into this category, because there is a perceived benefit resulting in the realization of the altruism.

I have mentioned this briefly at times in conversation. It immediately incenses people, and causes a reactive defensive position.

I've never had anyone interested enough in my opinion to become incensed but I did stir up some confusion when I asked a related question, that being; why do we praise those who help others simply because they like doing so?

Initially the answer seems obvious, yet if you think about it why on earth would you hold someone in higher-than-average regard for indulging themselves in activities that make them happy?

To my mind, it (the elevation of such a person's status) is fundamental survival behaviour that has no compelling explanation outside of evolutionary theory.

[Pyrts]

I am aware of a theory which states every action a living organism makes is for its own perceived benefit. Even the most seemingly altruistic acts fall into this category, because there is a perceived benefit resulting in the realization of the altruism.
It was popularized in a book called "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins which is about how living things behave (including cooperation) in such a way that maximizes their survival chances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

It is a controversial topic for scholars. While you can model populations and evolution in a fairly reasonable way if you assume genetic "selfishness", on individual and group level it simply doesn't account for many of the behaviors (mating and otherwise) that we see in all living things.

One interesting subdiscipline of this is the study of "memetics." Again, while it broadly models things, it often falls apart in the details and in predicting which meme/mind virus will be successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

[schlitt]

schlitt- Observe any baby. Master manipulators and wholly self centred.
As we get older, we learn how to disguise our self centredness, both from others and from ourselves. No criminal or dictator thinks he's a baddie. They do what they do because they have to- it's forced on them.

I never heard a name for the theory you describe. However I've read comments like your's in the OP in articles about human (and more generally animal ) altruism., where one apparently does favours to others at cost to onesself. In many cases, it turns out there is a mutual benefit to altruism. The animal best fitted to it's environment does best- and the human environment is mostly other humans .

Matt Ridley wrote a good book on this a couple of years ago. "The Origins of Virtue".

Thanks for the reccomendation, i will check it out.

[Suggestologist]

I've never had anyone interested enough in my opinion to become incensed but I did stir up some confusion when I asked a related question, that being; why do we praise those who help others simply because they like doing so?

Initially the answer seems obvious, yet if you think about it why on earth would you hold someone in higher-than-average regard for indulging themselves in activities that make them happy?

To my mind, it (the elevation of such a person's status) is fundamental survival behaviour that has no compelling explanation outside of evolutionary theory.

Making alliances with those who can help us, increases one's chances of Survival. Strength in numbers, etc.

[schlitt]

I've never had anyone interested enough in my opinion to become incensed but I did stir up some confusion when I asked a related question, that being; why do we praise those who help others simply because they like doing so?

Initially the answer seems obvious, yet if you think about it why on earth would you hold someone in higher-than-average regard for indulging themselves in activities that make them happy?

To my mind, it (the elevation of such a person's status) is fundamental survival behaviour that has no compelling explanation outside of evolutionary theory.

I agree completely.
Whenever someone says to me "He is such a nice guy!", i can't help but think of it in terms of; "his genetic make-up and situational factors cause his actions to be percieved as likable to an observer".

[schlitt]

on individual and group level it simply doesn't account for many of the behaviors (mating and otherwise) that we see in all living things.



Could this just be a failing to realize the underlying perception of benefit?

[Suggestologist]

I agree completely.
Whenever someone says to me "He is such a nice guy!", i can't help but think of it in terms of; "his genetic make-up and situational factors cause his actions to be percieved as likable to an observer".

Hahahaha hahahaha.

To me, "He is such a nice guy." means: "He gives other's his Survival value, at such a low cost."

Bad boys charge a high price, but have a lot more survival value to offer when (especially a woman) makes an alliance with him.
...

That's why I present myself as a bad boy when I go out to clubs.

[schlitt]

Hahahaha hahahaha.

To me, "He is such a nice guy." means: "He gives other's his Survival value, at such a low cost."

Bad boys charge a high price, but have a lot more survival value to offer when (especially a woman) makes an alliance with him.
...

:)

Yes, and at the end of the day it is just a difference in calculation determining which actions result in benefit. Due to the different means available for calculation between each organism.

[Pyrts]

Could this just be a failing to realize the underlying perception of benefit?

Nope.

Most of this does not take place on a conscious level. The behavior occurs in plants, in tiny organisms, in humans... the whole spectrum of life.

[Pyrts]

Bad boys charge a high price, but have a lot more survival value to offer when (especially a woman) makes an alliance with him.

Not true on the larger spectrum. The "biggest and baddest" usually ends up having to fight the most and dying early of infections or broken bones and the like (or for humans, tossed in jail.) In certain groups, the females will chase the male off once he gets to be too old.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ldmRTvHAFFQC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=%22sneaky+breeders%22&source=web&ots=vykHjQTzFI&sig=8c8UjGnNRvAK0b4fm4guPIeuwO8#PPA38,M1

The "nice guys", however, get to hang around (this is true in all animals including humans) and stay within the group and share its resources for a much longer time. So they tend to live longer and are usually the ones that the females breed with after their token breeding with "the boss."

[schlitt]

Nope.

Most of this does not take place on a conscious level. The behavior occurs in plants, in tiny organisms, in humans... the whole spectrum of life.

The calculated benefit would not need to be on a conscious level. It could simply be the result of a mechanism, given the variables.
Is there some way to prove that an action can be made which in no way has been determined by the means that orchestrated the action to be beneficial? I do not think there is. (for an organism with the means to choose different actions)

[Suggestologist]

Not true on the larger spectrum. The "biggest and baddest" usually ends up having to fight the most and dying early of infections or broken bones and the like (or for humans, tossed in jail.) In certain groups, the females will chase the male off once he gets to be too old.

The "nice guys", however, get to hang around (this is true in all animals including humans) and stay within the group and share its resources for a much longer time. So they tend to live longer and are usually the ones that the females breed with after their token breeding with "the boss."

That's right, one night stands with bad boys, and then marriage with a nice guy.
Sexual value from the bad boy, material value from the nice guy.

The bad boys are also the ones she'll cheat with after she gets married.

And in humans, a bad boy, does not necessarily mean someone who likes to fight and do drugs. It does imply some "successful risk-taking", though. It can just mean someone who doesn't mind sleeping with lots of girls and making them work for him.

[drzeus99]

I am aware of a theory which states every action a living organism makes is for its own perceived benefit. Even the most seemingly altruistic acts fall into this category, because there is a perceived benefit resulting in the realization of the altruism.

So, if this were the case, that would mean that every physical action taken by every living thing is always beneficial to them, no?

Would the action of a fly landing in the "jaws" of a venus flytrap be a beneficial action to the fly??

Would the action of stepping in front of a bus be beneficial to the person
getting whacked?

Because it implies that EVERY ACTION is beneficial, I think it would have to be narrowed down a bit.

Other than that, I'd say almost all actions, but not every single action.


Cheers,
DrZ

[The Man]

Because the actions we take are the only distinguishing factor defining the choices we “want” to and do make, those actions are self-serving in that they differentiate the choice we did make from those we did not.

It’s really just a matter of us not being unable to escape our own individuality, no matter what choice we make it is still our choice. Even if the choice we do make is to allow someone else to decide.


The calculated benefit would not need to be on a conscious level. It could simply be the result of a mechanism, given the variables.
Is there some way to prove that an action can be made which in no way has been determined by the means that orchestrated the action to be beneficial? I do not think there is. (for an organism with the means to choose different actions)


First we would need to determine if there can be a choice that does not have the possibility of a perceived benefit, which I do not think is possible since it is simply a matter of perspective.



So, if this were the case, that would mean that every physical action taken by every living thing is always beneficial to them, no?

Would the action of a fly landing in the "jaws" of a venus flytrap be a beneficial action to the fly??

Would the action of stepping in front of a bus be beneficial to the person
getting whacked?

Because it implies that EVERY ACTION is beneficial, I think it would have to be narrowed down a bit.

Other than that, I'd say almost all actions, but not every single action.


Cheers,
DrZ



These are the results of the actions taken not the perceived benefits that resulted in taking those actions.

The fly perceived the benefit of putrid meat to feed on or lay eggs, as the flytrap emits odors similar to attract the fly.

The person perceived the benefit of getting to the other side of the street until impacted by the bus or the end of a miserable life might have been the perceived benefit.

The results of the action do not need to be beneficial in order for there to be a perceived benefit in taking the action.