Jump to content

Talk:Altruism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by U3964057 (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 6 June 2015 (→Proposed addition of individual difference research: Bringing this to a close.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Tags

I've added the two tags for passages such as the following:

Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place.

- FrancisTyers · 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

altruism is neither sufficient nor necessary for desirable social outcomes

Someone should summarise and include Joel Sobel's argument (made in http://www.econ.ucsd.edu/~jsobel/Papers/Rachlin.pdf) that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.


Putting Altruism in Context

Joel Sobel

September 11, 2002 Abstract I argue that Rachlin’s notion of self control is imprecise and not well suited to the discussion of altruism. Rachlin’s broader agenda, to improve collective welfare by identifying behavioral mechanisms that increase altruism, neglects the fact that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.

Crasshopper 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism: Selfishness

No mention?? C'mon!? Resaebiunne 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should include some criticism of altruism by egoists such as Ayn Rand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.234.109.208 (talk • contribs).

David Kelley's criticism is cited in the section Altruism and Politics. He is an Objectivist, meaning a follower of Ayn Rand. The passage quoted is illogical. Ayn Rand is not considered to be a serious philosopher and is therefore largely ignored by philosophers. There are good reasons for this. She also has a political agenda and is a cult leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.46.161.165 (talk • contribs).

I hate to be nit-picky, but technically, at least from within the mental universe of bona fide Objectivism, there was only one Objectivist---Ayn Rand herself. The most that anyone else can aspire to be is a "Student of Objectivism", in good standing with Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz, et. al. Personally, I prefer just to use the more generic term "objectivist", to refer to everyone who basically agrees with Ayn Rand, including David Kelley (who I personally now prefer over most others in the "Randian" fold), but to call him a "follower" of Ayn Rand surely does a disservice to both Rand and Kelley, not to mention infuriate the purist Students of Objectivism. Shanoman

I don't understand why there isn't any comprehensive criticism section. Ayn Rand had thoroughly criticised altruism, take her "Psychology of Altruism" panel discussion for example, its recording is available on ARI website. Also, since altruism is primarily an ethical system, why not start critism section with arguents against its basic moral statement, rather than spray the effort on its implications? 87.103.217.109 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited in writing a criticism section, with the appropriate sources ofcourse. Teardrop onthefire 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" Ayn Rand is not considered to be a serious philosopher ... (etc) " How absurd is this statement on it's face? As if politics and philosophy were somehow always hermetically sealed away from one another... What a transparent attempt to minimise an obviously great mind. Oh and I'm sure the drones who believe in pure Altruism as being the one and only true way to achieve overall "good" in our society, based on the most irrational of forms of logic imaginable, could in no way be considered a cult... Right?

Whereas, if you read Ayn Rand or proponents of her ideas, which are based on rational thought, and it simply makes sense to you, now you're somehow instantly part of a worthless "cult".

Baised much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.49.1 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Rand's positions on Altruism are so opposite those of most philosophers, leaving her position on the subject out of this article seems unforgivable. 63.248.87.149 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Altruism's Existence

So is it actually agreed that altruism does not fully exist? It's noted in Psychology/Sociology. I'm thinking that altruism presents an illusion of non-egocentric goodwill, when in the end all good acts are actually for the betterment of one's self, because they make one feel better about oneself, or have that distinct ring in the head resultant of helping others out - therefore, altruism is yet another selfish thing. It is only incidental that this selfish thing has an output that proves beneficial to others. Externally it may seem selfless, but in actuality it isn't.

The internal feeling argument, typically along the lines : "because they make one feel better about oneself" strikes me as circular. Why does doing something nice make a person feel good? Because they are altruistic. All you've done is identify the mechanism by which altruism occurs.
Of course, that doesn't precisely explain why people sacrifice their lives to save others. A desire to go to heaven, maybe? This could get somewhere. Thing Christianity. As human beings, it is conceptually impossible to do good deeds out of love for God, because time and time again the statement is that you go to heaven if you love God. All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell.
I disagree at some point. This is not a discussion board about views however. Just to briefly explain my objectoin however.
1. Just becasue one receives benefits from such actions does not mean that is why one does such actions.
2. "All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell"-It's true Christians preach condemnation to the unbelievers, but that doesn't change the fact that whats far more exciting is a personal relationship with God, not escaping Hell. It is very possible to do such actions out of love.
3. I'm getting a little long so back on topic, while it is true it easy to desire the gain from such actions that initeself is not selfishness if one's primary reasoning is for the good of others, or because one's love for God. 74.137.230.39 01:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of pure altruism is that although one gives of themself simply because it is good, one must not feel an emotion of having done a good thing, such as happiness. Then again I, as an Objectivist am evaluating it is evil and probably shouldn't be trusted by the altruists reading this page.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099[reply]
The view that pure altruism does not exist is known as Psychological egoism, and is by no means widely accepted or agreed-upon. But remember, WP:NOTFORUM. Augurar (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neitzsche and Altruism

I'm interested in the statement "Nietzsche asserts that altruism is predicated on the assumption that others are more important than one's self and that such a position is degrading and demeaning. He also claims that it was very uncommon for people in Europe to consider the sacrifice of one's own interests for others as virtuous until after the advent of Christianity." While he may have said these things (can we have a reference to where he said it please?), the passage does not really represent Nietzsches values, which I would argue were very much in favour of behaviour not entirely dissimilar to altruism. In "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Nietzsche clearly celebrates the person who "goes-under" for the sake of the Ubermensch, who is the higher-being, mankind's evolutionary successor. To paraphrase, he argues mankind should make Ubermensch as the purpose of our lives and the goal of our succession (while not denying our current existence). bc42 10:13, 24 November 2006 (GMT)

I removed the passage. It is unsourced and biased reading of Nietzsche, who, as you say, wrote positively in Also Sprach Zarathustra about love as the virtue that gives. Nietzsche is, as often, ambivalent, and holds different perspectives on the same object (it is one of the main point of his philosophy). Lapaz (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism - Part of english culture?

And I thought that it was not altruism, but greed, camouflaged as success...Ko Soi IX 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note on altruism in evolutionary biology

I'm removing the idea that group selection caused the evolution of altruism. One must focus on the gain to the individual performing the altruistic act (short run=loss, long run=gain in darwinian fitness). I'm quite surprised there no explanation of the evolutionary models of altruism (such as [reciprocal altruism] model or [indirect reciprocity] model). 24.250.22.58 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence seems unconnected.

It mentions the connection between the Golden rule of reciprocity, and altruism; however, altruism involves unselfishness, while the other expects you to treat others as you'd like to be treated. There are a lot of ethical "rules" or guidelines; why make the connection between these two? Is the english version of altruism really the same as reciprocity? They just don't seem to match each other as much as the sentence indicates, which makes the sentence seem out of place.

The Problem of Love

It appears that the article for The problem of love redirects here, while Problem of love does not, and has its own article. Which is more correct? BTW, the love table template points to the separate article. --Bennybp 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger. Let me know what you think. It would probably go into a separate section with the header "Problem of Love" --Bennybp 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a reasonable suggestion. However, altruism is a very general term and does not necessarily imply love or charity. In other words, there are certain scholars who hold that altruistic behavior and the emotion of love should not be intermingled or confused at all! I believe there should be a link to the problem of love to the more general subject of love with the problem of love. This is a very specific philosophical problem and is hotly debated among Thomists and certain Christian virtue ethicists.Frjlove 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I performed the merger. Feel free to edit the new section to help it fit in. --Bennybp 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this will help you guys but in the Cybernetics due to Gordon Pask we define love as "availability for interaction", the term Amity can also be used. It doesn't necessarily imply that lovers like each other. It implies tribal, flocking, shoaling and microbial coalescence can be seen as examples of Amity or love in nature.--Nick Green 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for Tat

I removed the section about "tit for tat," because its definition of altruism is both illogical and incompatible with the article's definition. The article defines altruism as "selfless concern for the welfare of others" (unconditional love), whereas the "tit for tat" section defines altruism as "unconditional cooperation." Obviously the two definitions are incompatible. Unconditional love is incompatible with unconditional cooperation. To define altruism as unconditional cooperation would mean that giving a serial killer a gun upon request is "altruistic." Such a definition also presumes the impossibility of altruism, by suggesting that all social realtions must be "tit for tit," since placing any conditions (even altruistic conditions) upon cooperation is "tit for tat" and hence not altruistic, under this definition. It is thus a circular argument against altruism, very similar to the argument, "you do everything you do because you enjoy it, therefore you do everything you do because you enjoy it." Of course we do. But this doesn't mean that nobody enjoys acting selflessly out of concern for the broader social well-being. History has proven quite the contrary.

71.220.226.58 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

society failing because of altruism

When considering the concept of altruism, however, it is important to articulate the altruistic paradox. In that, if the central value of a society is that of perfect altruism, the society will fail. This is due to the fact the primary desire of an altruist is to help others achieve their desires. However, if everyone's primary desire is to help others achieve their primary desire, then nothing will be achieve because nobody is able to accept any help.

Altruism is not the impulse of wanting to fullfil the others desire but to selflessly help with eachothers (primary) needs. If I take care of my fellow (wo)mans needs (food, drink, shelter, love) in a way that is sustainable and possible for me and my fellow (wo)man aka society does this for me, society will not fail, but bloom. Teardrop onthefire 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A perfect altruist's aim is to fulfill the primary desires of other people. 60.229.65.93 06:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Peter[reply]

I think you are mixing up desire and need. If we look at the definintion of altruism on the article page it says: "Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others."
If we look at what wellfare is we see the keywords : freedom, happiness, art, environmental. All these keywords are needs, every human even an altruist has needs. It is not because you are an altruist that you no longer require food, shelter, hapiness, freedom. A desire is not a need by definition. A desire can also be to have a large home, a bigscreen tv... An altruist would not want to buy this for his neighbour just because it is his desire. This in view to altruism as a whole.
You say "the perfect altruist" we could say buddha or christ where perfect altruist. Did they provide to every desire of their fellow man? No they tried to make them conscious that we have to help our fellow man, they cured, provided food and teached the wisdom of being moderately. They did not have the uncontrolable urge to fullfil everybody's desires, so neither would a "perfect altruistic society". A "perfect altruistic society" would be a selfless society where the needs of people are looked after, a simple and moderate society.
Teardrop onthefire 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the teachings of religious figures always takes the tone of 'teach a man how to fish' over the liberal-welfare view of: 'give a man fish'. This perfectly hypothetical society mentioned above is only focusing on a few points of altruism and thereby cannot be an accurate prediction of the 'perfect altruistic society'. Put your hypotheticals aside and realize if even 20% of the world was mostly altruistic, we would be in much better shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.179.98 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't getting confused between two simple concepts, I was debating the definition of the word itself. ... 129.180.1.224 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/29/1754236--18jahremädchen 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Well than please place a new definition here, with a reference that this is issued by others also Teardrop onthefire 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page says Nothing for you to see here. Please move along, please don't use my signature if I didn't sign please. Teardrop onthefire 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html did you means this, got it via slashdot Teardrop onthefire 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the deletion

Why the deletion of the analysis of the difference between altruism and duty? If no reason is given I will reverse the deletion. Regards John D. Croft 12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed as promised John D. Croft 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism as fundamental human nature

In fact this view was recently argued by the Dalai Lama in Perth recently. He demonstrated that selfless compassion is the source of altruism and that this is a property of the human condition, independent of one's faith or belief. John D. Croft 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But how can human nature be altruistic if to be an Altruist is to be selfless. Taken literally the altruist has no self and therfore cannot be human and have a nature.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Abiter099[reply]

You are just having a play of words with the word self, this has nothing to do with altruism. Selfless in this context means egoless, not being without a self. Not having an ego is perfect for altruism. Btw according to buddhist philosophy the self is the non-self an vice versa. Teardrop onthefire (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rands novels, among many other books, argue that Humans are naturally the opposite. We are naturally hungry for our own success. 70.79.226.234 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? Why is it the moment says anything about altruism, Ayn Rand always has to be present? You can barely get a sentence out about the Dalai Lama out before someone chimes in with: "Yeah, but Ayn Rand said.." So what? Who cares what Ayn Rand said about it? I don't see famous atheists being omnipresent in discussion about the nature of God, or famous murderers being ubiquitous in discussions about peace. Why does Rand always have to be the counter argument to every single damn mention of altruism? Be a little more like her, if you belive that ego driven right wing stuff, and come up with your own arguments at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism and ethology

This part is not well explained and, for lack of development, is really obscure. Beside, I do not understand why the handicap principle is called forth here, in so far as Amotz Zahavi explicitly rejected the altruist interpretation of such behaviour, claiming such behaviours were in fact ways to increase prestige. Here's the passage (Lapaz (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

"Recent developments in game theory (look into ultimatum game) have provided some explanations for apparent altruism, as have traditional evolutionary analyses. Among the proposed mechanisms are: 

   * Behavioural manipulation (for example, by certain parasites that can alter the behavior of the host)
   * Bounded rationality (for example, Herbert Simon)
   * Conscience
   * Kin selection including eusociality (see also "selfish gene")
   * Memes (by influencing behavior to favour their own spread, for example, religion)
   * Reciprocal altruism, mutual aid
   * Sexual selection, in particular, the Handicap principle
   * Reciprocity (social psychology)
         o Indirect reciprocity (for example, reputation)
         o Strong reciprocity[5]
   * Pseudo-reciprocity

"

Definition Prosocial behaviours

The following was set in by 130.216.1.16: [1]:

Definition Prosocial behaviours: “Behaviours that are carried out with the goal of helping other people.” (text p. 513) Altruism – “the prosocial behaviours a person carries out without considering his or her own safety or interests” (text p. 513)

It may be a useful definition put it is not quite in context and what book does it refer to… — fnielsen (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Kitty Genovese

"Research on altruism was sparked in particular after the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964,[1] who was stabbed for over half an hour in front of passive witnesses who refrained from helping her." - this description of the circumstances of the murder is guilty of perpetuating the misconceptions surrounding her murder. She was never really "in front of" anyone, as the wiki article on her will attest, but rather, various people saw or heard small parts of the overall incident. Woodrox (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Moreover, the incident caused research to be done on diffusion of responsibility and the Bystander effect, not altruism. I'm going to remove this sentence unless anyone can think of a reason not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodrox (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Altruism

We need some sources for this document. In my search I could not find any published or academic sources. So if the author is out there, I think he was here in August. If the term 'Digital Altruism' cannot be verified from reliable sources It may have to be removed. savasas (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source where this term seems to come from, so instead of removing it, I just sourced the original because it seems a common term in the blogospere. It may fit in better with article expansion.

I agree with Empireheart. The bit about digital altruism uses weasel words. "In online blogs there is a new phrase called Digital altruism...." It's just a term used loosely by a group of bloggers, and I have not been able to trace it back to a more reputable source. It is not up to Wikipedia's standards. I move to have this subsection deleted. --Catch153 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this section. I have never seen this term outside of the blog that coined it. Furthermore, it's misleading in this entry because it suggests that there is something different about altruism online or on user-generated content sites. This is just hype, IMHO. Otherwise, we'd need to create terms for (fill-in-the-blank) altruism and create a section for each one. Judd (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we resurrect this term which was removed 3 years ago because it of a lack of "reliable sources". Dr. Dana Klisanin now references digital altruism in her writings and will be publishing a book on this topic in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.221.224 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Expansion

Article needs to have more subs, Altruism according to each religion and according to philosophy and psychology, ie, social sciences. This is my new pet project.savasas (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor M. Knox

Okay I need some help, if anyone can verify if this person who is quoted in the article is actually and academic and notable. If you can find him or will I have to clean this article of its Knoxist elements. I don't like removing material since the original author considered this to be important. Anyone out there even maye Trevor M. Knox.Empireheart (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Trevor M. Knox, reporting for duty. While in graduate school, I published an article on altruism and economic man, which seems to have been referenced here. Academic? Yes. Notable? Well, my more recent research has been in the economics of organization. I am a professor of Accounting and Economics at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.64.146 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious viewpoints

A recent edit added a section on Islam (said to be a translation from the Arabic Wikipedia). I have moved the new section from the article to here because I don't think it should be used until some references are added. Also, I think the "Religious viewpoints" section is going to need care; as its intro says, pretty well all religions promote altruism, so simply listing the features of each religion is not very helpful in an encyclopedic article on altruism. I think secondary sources should be required for each religion; such sources should discuss altruism in the context of the religion. By my reasoning, some of the existing descriptions may need pruning; any thoughts? Moved section follows. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam
Altruism is an essential character of the Muslim believer. The Koran describes the true believers as the ones that put others needs before their own especially when they are themselves are in need more than others. It's giving water when you are more thirsty, and give food when you are more hungry and cannot replace it, and giving your new cloth and stay with your old ones. The profit said "you are not a believer until you love for your brother what you love for your self." That's the reason; {Mohammed poh} never slept full from food for three continues days until his last day, He always preferred to give others when he needed it the most. If he wanted to sleep full he could've, but he never did.

Its a good catch, as the section was not npov and had no sources. I never really intended to cover each religion in depth which is why I choose a specific example from each religion. If we wanted to cover each religion than that would take a large massive article. General pages like this one can't be extremely detailed. The main thing about having both science and religion, is that if you just have science than eventually someone will add religion viewpoints and that can mix up the whole article. It was a good edit in that Islam is represented by sufism. If we take one religion and think of doing a quick section comprising all viewpoints, that would be impossible. Empireheart (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this is the Koran is very light on altruism. In fact, a majority of the Koran is anti-non-Muslim. The only altruism is for those individuals that are Muslim, while non-Muslims are to be despised, attacked or viewed with suspicion (not very altruistic in my opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.4.4 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. You might to want to try reading the Qu'ran, if you are going to go around making claims about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism in animals

There's a Wiki article called Altruism in animals. It should be merged and redirected to this article to give a broader understanding of altruism as a universal concept. Anyone have any thoughts on that? --TCorp 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

I think the expanded section on Buddhism is inappropriate for this article. "Altruism" has a specific meaning, and this article is not the place to explain details that are only vaguely related to the topic. A short paragraph or two for each religion is entirely appropriate, but anything more should require secondary sources with an analysis of how the religion relates to altruism. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring vandalism from May 2008 that removed etymology

I noticed that given that the term was coined by Comte we have this orphan sentence well down in the article, "Comte was probably opposing this Thomistic doctrine, now part of mainstream Catholicism, in coining the word Altruism, as stated above.".... but Comte is not mentioned above. Looking back over the history I see that on 1st May 2008 [2] some IP vandalised the article. I guess they are a vandal as if you look at [3] for that time then you see other nonsense. Actually looks like all edits from that IP are nonsense. Do an IP lookup and sure enough (2.newfolden.k12.mn.us) so we can only guess some school at Newfolden,_Minnesota where they let the 'K' in K12 access the Internet unsupervised. I'll be restoring it if there are no objections. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism no longer in style

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned here, but according to many analysts, altruism is no longer in vogue. Greed however is all the rage these days 64.222.101.251 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism in Judaism?

How is altruism a part of Judaism? Just looking at what Israel is doing to the Palestinians makes it clear what kind of people the Jews are. --213.130.252.119 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This critic is confusing Judaism with Israeli national policy. He is also impling that this policy is anti-Palestinian which is an unbalanced picture of the whole situation.Macrocompassion (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's unbalanced. It's an occupied, brutalized people ruled over by a powerful Zionist power. How could it be balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Existence

...does not include altruism. Self interest cannot be adjudicated. The closest instance is coincidental mutual self interest. i.e. My self satisfaction prevails upon your self satisfaction, aka love. Ironically, the most sadistic action of someone in this situation is to "give" their life for the one they love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.226.66 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and Rand

I'm surprised that there is no mention at all of philosophy. Ayn Rand is notable as one of few people who have argued that alruism is a bad thing in principal. 1Z (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now noticed that this is discussed under Altruism (ethics). Maybe the articles should be merged. 1Z (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like reasonable. Besides, while Ayn Rand being an annoying fool, she is very much in the popular minds of subjectivist political right activists, so right there too. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Altruism|p0038x9c}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ethology

In section 1, I can't help wondering if ethnology is not the intended term here. Before today I was not aware of the field of ethology, and that may correct, but ethnology seems to fit better, being an aspect of anthropology. I don't want to make the change, as I don't know for sure. Ragityman (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

altruism vedanta

why is there a section about vedantas view on karma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.179.171 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

There are entire sections here that are entirely unreferenced, and read like a mixture of OR and POV. They may well be good material. But I would urge editors supportive of the material remaining to add refs. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Altruism (ethics) be merged into Altruism. I think that there is no significant distinction in scope between the two articles, and this article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of the non-duplicate content of Altruism (ethics) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable - it makes sense to have perspectives from different disciplines on the same concept in one place, especially when the articles overlap. LockheedVega5 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This Altruism page is quite bloated likely to become more so. Combining this with the Altruism (ethics) page might lead to an incredibly long and meandering article. Would another reasonable option be to rename the latter artice Altruism (doctrine). In my mind (and I am no expert in the doctrine) it does reasonable to have two articles and a title scheme along these lines might communicate the rationale better. And actually, the article was origionally titled Altruism (ethical doctrine) and it was changed in the interested in brevity. Perhaps the mistake was dropping of the wrong word. Cheers all Andrew (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism in conflictless situations.

Research on altruism focus far too much on situations with interest conflict, largely ignoring conflictless situations. In conflictless situations it is possible to do a favour with neither any personal gain nor any personal loss. When ethologists debunked the old theory of harmonious mutual aid in nature, they ONLY used arguments based on interest conflicts, making modern research on altruism perfectly valid in conflict situations, but leaving the old theory still valid in conflictless situations. The only thing that makes any scientific sense is to consider each situation separately to judge whether or not it contains conflict, with exceptions only for instrumental demonstrativeness conscious or semi-conscious about the existence of other situations (and then only if the being thinks about the other situation or a principle conditioned by the other situation or its analogs). The TV show Human Ape and the book The Ascent of Mind contains documentation of apes being egoistic in conflict situations but altruistic in conflictless situations. Most warning signals in animals are best explained by altruism in conflictless situations. They gain nothing on the warning, but lose nothing on it either, and mutual aid applies as long as there is no conflict and therefore no motifs for deception. Such warning signals are even common in animals that are not naturally social at all, and often extend to other species as well. This aligns with the fact that brains are based on statistical processing and not computer-like inflexibly specialized modules, showing that altruism and empathy are not specific modules but emergent behavior in conflictless situations. There is of course interest conflict and brutality in nature as well, but animal egoism, no matter how solitary the animal normally is, shall be understood as purely as a result of actual interest conflict, and patently NOT as simple indifference to others. There is however one factor involved in altruism that is uniquely human, and that is naïve dupeness. The oldest evidence of care for the sick and disabled is from Dmanisi, Georgia, shortly after proto-humans first left Africa, so it was the Great Decompression that ended rivalry among our ancestors. For almost 2 million years they successfully avoided competition with each other, and that lack of motifs for deception made the genetic memory of what it is like to be duped fade away. The last 7000 years of congestion and rivalry explains why the frequency of autism are increasing, natural selection now favour people with genetic memories of what it is like to be duped, slowly exterminating the uniquely human dupeness. 217.28.207.226 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg[reply]

"Genetics"

The article wrote: A study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, US, is seen by some as breathing new life into the model of group selection for altruism, known as "Survival of the nicest". Bowles conducted a genetic analysis of contemporary foraging groups, including Australian aboriginals, native Siberian Inuit populations and indigenous tribal groups in Africa. It was found that hunter-gatherer bands of up to 30 individuals were considerably more closely related than was previously thought. Under these conditions, thought to be similar to those of the middle and upper Paleolithic, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group. This is however simply a form of inclusive fitness – one vehicle helping other vehicles likely to contain the same genes.

If an individual defends the group, risking death or simply reducing his reproductive fitness, genes that this individual shares with those he successfully defends (group members) would increase in frequency (thanks to his defence supporting their reproduction). If such helpful acts are rewarded with food sharing, sexual access, monogamy or other benefits, there is no average "cost" of altruistic behaviour to be repaid. Bowles assembled genetic, climactic, archaeological, ethnographic and experimental data to examine the cost-benefit relationship of human cooperation in ancient populations. In his model, altruism is selected for when members of a group bearing genes for altruistic behaviour pay a cost – limiting their reproductive opportunities – but receive a benefit from sharing food and information. If their acts increase the average fitness of group members, altruism increase so long as group members tend also to maintain or increase their inter-relatedness (in-group mating). Bands of such altruistic humans could then act together not only defensively, but aggressively, to gain resources from other groups.[1]''

Altruist theories in evolutionary biology were contested by Amotz Zahavi, the inventor of the signal theory and its correlative, the handicap principle, based mainly on his observations of the Arabian Babbler, a bird commonly known for its surprising (alleged) altruistic behaviours.

The evolutionary aspects of altruism are dealt with at length in the article. The paragraphs here do not say how they separate Genetics from the evolutionary aspects mentioned. Then, the paragraph starts with weasel words describing an approach that is at best a minority view. This stuff belongs to specialised articles, if at all, and not to articles dealing with altruism as such. -- Zz (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba

The article wrote:Meher Baba proposed that altruist or selfless action is one of the means by which selfishness can be overcome: "Selfishness must be transmuted into selflessness before the domain of duality is completely transcended. Persistent and continuous performance of good deeds wears out selfishness. Selfishness extended and expressed in the form of good deeds becomes the instrument of its own destruction."[2] This selflessness is ultimately a reflection of the unity of all life: "The height of selflessness is the beginning of the feeling of oneness with all. In the state of liberation there is neither selfishness nor self-lessness in the ordinary sense; but both of these are taken up and merged into the feeling of selfness for all. Selfness for all brings about undisturbed harmony without loss of discrimination, and unshakeable peace without indifference to the surroundings.[3]

The text is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform, but is little discernible relevance to the article or in general. The part about religions should redesigned anyway. -- Zz (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism and Jewish Religion

The so called "Golden Rule" or "love your neighbor as yourself" was not the sole criterion for Jewish altruistic behavour. This rule was added to or modified by Hillel the Elder when answering the Prosylite who wanted a summary of Hillel's faith "whilst standing on one leg". (Ref. Avot or Ethics of the Fathers). Hillel said "don't do to your neighbor things that are offensive were they being done to you. This is the basis of the Law (Torah), now go and study it".

This important corollary has some wide philosophical implications and it takes the thinker outside the more basic relationship with ones neighbor in the above simple altruistic manner. Hillel is saying that to go out of ones way not to cause offense is also a kind of altruism, and in many cases it requires a degree of self-sacrifice too. This can be seen to have a wider spread and in practice to apply to many more actions than the giving of alms that the original rule implies. Thus Judaism has extended the nature of altruism to the taking of an ideal approach to a larger part of the community.Macrocompassion (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altruism should be called "an ideal"

Unless I'm misreading the main article, it doesn't seem to state clearly (or rather not very clearly) that altruism (and more specifically 'true altruism') is an ideal, not an idea. An ideal implies perfection, intangibility, and a goal strived for, not an idea, which is something that is real, tangible, or even attainable. For the record, I say this as a fan altruistic endeavors and altruism in general. I think much of the criticism against altruism stems from people's misunderstanding or lack of understanding about how ideals critically and fundamentally differ from ideas.Darqcyde (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darqcyde. The content you are looking for might be over at the Altruism (ethics) page. Be aware of the merger proposal though. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also - Altruism in animals

I have moved the "see also - Altruism in animals" to the top of this article. This is because I feel that altruism in animals is such a popular concept in animal ethology that anyone looking for this would be frustrated at ploughing through an article that clearly (and rightly) relates mainly to humans. I'm simply trying to help the reader.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy. At this stage I am not convinced that a hatnote pointing to the Altruism in animals article is warranted. This is because I have doubts about the veracity of your claim that there is an epidemic of readers who are visiting the 'altruism' page in search of information about altruism in animals. My suggestion would be to leave the link in the usual 'see also' section until someone has the time to add appropriate content to the article. That being said, I do not have a strong opinion on the topic, and so will make no moves to change it. I would be interested in your further thoughts, as well as the thoughts of others. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. Like you I do not feel strongly about this, I am just trying to be helpful to readers of animal behaviour. I am interested to know what further information you feel should be added to Altruism in animals.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrChrissy. When I said that appropriate content should be added to the article, I was talking about the altruism article. I think a small section on altruism in animals in that article would be appropriate. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Perhaps this would be a subsection with the heading "Altruism in animals" with a
Main article: Altruism in animals
underneath this.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential addition to further reading

The below conversation moved to here from my talk page

You deleted an external link for being "too niche". The link is by all measures comparable to the already-existing link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; the two should stand or fall together. Indeed, the deleted link is less niche than many of the preserved links (it addresses both philosophical and scientific aspects of altruism).

Could you please either explain your action, or undo it (or adopt a consistent editorial hand)?

Thank you for your consideration. Aubrey Bardo (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aubrey. The fact that the link is comparable to other subpar 'further reading' links is not a case for inclusion, and the fact that I have not made the time to review those other links is irrelevant. If you feel that other further reading links also do not meet Wikipedia standards then by all means remove them yourself. As per wikipedia guidelines further reading links should "cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject" (see Wikipedia:Further_reading). Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "The fact that the link is comparable to other subpar 'further reading' links is not a case for inclusion."
I quite agree (that if an item is comparable to something subpar then it's not fit for inclusion). The question is: are the links currently on the page actually subpar? The point I was trying to make (I agree it wasn't very clear) is this: the current links on the Altruism page have survived editing by you, by all previous editors, and by me; indeed, comparable links have been posted, and survive, on countless other Wikipedia pages. All of this gives a very strong prima facie reason to believe that they are not subpar. Not a conclusive proof, but a reason that stands valid until/unless a substantial counter-case can be made.
You say, 'As per wikipedia guidelines further reading links should "cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject".' If you look at the original context, however, you will see that this rule applies only preferentially, and only normally. An external link to an encyclopedia article that concerns every aspect of altruism is preferable to one that is mostly just about its scientific aspect, but if the former is unavailable then the latter would have to do.
As it stands, the Altruism article is about 60k, which I believe is twice the length of a normal Wikipedia article; about half is devoted to altruism and religion, and about half is devoted to altruism and science. The ext link which you removed is devoted to altruism and science. It is linked to a notable source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29
The external links section may contain "a reasonable number of works". If you believe the current number is unreasonable, the least controversial thing to do would be to start by cutting the one link that is least notable and/or most overly specific. The link that you propose to cut qualifies as neither. Cheers, Aubrey Bardo (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aubrey. Thanks for your response. Firstly, it may be a prima face argument, but it isn’t much of one. As you are likely well aware, there is a lot of terrible content on Wikipedia, and in particular a lot of terrible external linking. Spam is probably one of the biggest nuisances facing Wikipedia and its presence is certainly observable when it comes to ‘further reading’ sections. It is also not true to say that those links have survived editing by me. I have not looked at those links, and I suspect they have been largely ignored by the many other editors who have meandered past the site. The quality control of external links and further reading is hardly a sexy way to contribute to Wikipedia. Does this sound reasonable to you? If so we can move on to the more substantive topic of the appropriateness of your links in the context of Wikipedia guidelines.
On that note, I readily accept that there is no hard rule that external sources covering only a portion of the article topic are to be omitted. It is instead, as you say, preferable that those external sources are comprehensive. In the context of altruism, however, where there are thousands upon thousands of comprehensive reviews and classic works, I see no reason to include in the further reading list the very narrow in scope essay. Despite your claims, it is not a link “devoted to altruism and science”. It is instead a recently published short essay on the relationship between altruism and group selection. This to me is obviously only an extremely small part of the total altruism picture. To continue to add items of this nature would be a fast track to exactly what the relevant guideline seeks to avoid. That is, “Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works”.
In all honesty I do wonder whether you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Your enthusiasm for including this link in the face of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, along with your contribution history, suggests to me that your main reason for contributing to Wikipedia is to promote the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. However well-intentioned you are, It might therefore be worth asking yourself a few questions about your motivations for being here.
Anyway, I am keen to hear your thoughts and look forward to your response (as well as the response of other editors who might offer an opinion). Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition of individual difference research

Hi Chealer. As promised here is some elaboration on my removal of your recent contributions. For the benefit of other editors, here is an extract of our conversation brought over from my talk page:

As for the above case, you commented the change with "The concern isn't lack of detail. It is lack of integration (as well as undue weight). Please attend to the psychology section.[4]". This comment was related to your comment in the reversion performed during the section's redaction, "Content not integrated with extant article.[5]". These comments suggest you considered that the content added would have been more appropriate elsewhere, apparently in the Psychology section. You are free to move content in an article. In this case though, note that the content's location was carefully considered. Unfortunately, the content is as much related to evolution as to psychology, so I'm afraid Psychology wouldn't be the right location. However, I did end up creating a new section after giving up on finding an appropriate existing location. I also feel something is wrong in the article's structure, but I can't picture how it should be. I encourage you to open a discussion on the article's talk page if you can't find a location which pleases you. --Chealer (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to ‘lack of integration’, there were a couple of things that made me think that the edit had been made on a bit of a whim and without meaningfully considering the rest of the article. For me, content that covers purported individual differences in altruism is clearly psychological, and if not psychological, clearly scientific. It does not warrant its own 1st tier section. Moreover, this is a general encyclopaedic article on altruism and the article is necessarily going to cover some fairly broad and popular philosophical, religious, and scientific topics. A three sentence point about individual difference in altruism does not trump these topics and I cannot understand why this would be given prime position in the article.

This is where undue weight comes in. Given the apparently haphazard addition, I started to suspect that this was little more than subtle spam. That is, an effort to raise publicity for a particular piece of marginal research with little consideration given to its relative importance in the study of altruism. Your further addition of information about when and where the research was conducted only increased my suspicion.

Anyway, those were my thoughts on the matter. If you think I am off the mark then I would be pleased to have my fears assuaged. That being said, I also think it might be worth quickly checking your motivations for these edits. And, of course, I would be keen to hear what other editors think on the topic. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content is definitely psychological. The problem is we don't want to duplicate the content to each section where it fits, at least for maintenance efficiency. The content is clearly scientific, but isn't a scientific viewpoint. I also don't think that content warrants its own first tier section. As I said, I only reluctantly created a section after failing to find an appropriate existing section. Anyone is welcome to merge this in an existing section if possible, to rearrange the article so it fits elsewhere, or to add content to the new section if appropriate. Regarding the second option, I always found the "Scientific viewpoints" title awkward, and went as far as to check how this structure was obtained (see [6]). In the end, I was about one centimeter from proceeding to renaming "Scientific viewpoints" to "Science". If you want to proceed with such a change, I am certainly not going to oppose. --Chealer (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The choice of the section's positioning was made to get a thematic order. I could not find another way to keep the viewpoints sections side-by-side and the new section adjacent to Scientific viewpoints. You are free to reorder if you find a better solution. Giving the section prime position was not part of the considerations (although I recognize that ordering by importance is better than random order). The second edit was not about when and where the "research" from the first edit was conducted. The first edit's main purpose was to introduce the findings on heritability the second edit refers to.--Chealer (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to research my motivations or to request more opinions, though if your concern is the first research, you might want to consider that it was published before I was born, and although I share a name with its [lead] author and live in Canada, I may very well be genetically closer to you than to Rushton ;-) Thanks for explaining your concerns, and feel free to implement any potential improvement you see. --Chealer (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chealer. Our wikipiedia guideline is 'be bold, revert, discuss'. It is not 'be bold, revert, discuss, edit war. Please make a sincere effort to reach consensus here before attempting to push through with your edit.
I will have a think on your comments and do my best to get back to you with my thoughts over the next couple of days. Also, I hope you do not mind but I rearranged your responses so that the flow of my post was preserved and also so that other editors could more easily follow the chronology of the discussion. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Chealer. First of all, I agree that “scientific viewpoint” is an awkward name for a section. I would propose “scientific research” as an alternative. With this in mind, would you agree that it would be logical to situate the proposed content under the Psychology subtitle? I don't think that the content would need to be covered in other sections. Cheers Andrew (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi U3964057, I'm not sure about the title "Scientific research" as the section contains findings. Although these findings are of course the result of scientific research and the title wouldn't be a lie, I would expect a section "Scientific research" to cover current (or future) research on the topic, not the results of past research. The title "Scientific findings" may be better, however at least the Sociology section is a little particular, treating how altruism can be encouraged. I question the need to cover all scientific content in a single section.
As for your merging proposal, I don't think I would agree. Again, I consider the content to be related to psychology, so if I had read the article and found that content in the Psychology section, I would not have found it misplaced. However, as duplicating the content should be a last resort, the content should not only have a valid location, but a location as good as possible. And since heritability is a genetic topic, I think if it's not found in a section on heritability, the best sections should be Genetics, Biology, Science(?) or the lead. Many articles on traits also cover heritability in a Causes section, which is currently not found in this article. There is no Biology or Genetics section, but there is an "Evolutionary explanations" section on those, which could be generalized. --Chealer (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi U3964057. The "be bold, revert, discuss" essay is just that, not a guideline. A "BRD cycle" may be fine, just like any sequence. I imagine the objective of the essay's authors was to promote favoring action over discussion, and discussion over confrontation. One doesn't need to ask if others agree with a change before implementing it. A single-article change can be easily reverted, so if the change is not expensive, it's best to just do it and see if others find issues than to discuss it and risk that the change is never made.
However, if it turns out that editors disagree on a change, the reasons should be discussed before spending more efforts doing changes likely to be wasted. You can take as long as you wish to think about this. However, please consider that if nobody would prioritize resolution, everyone would be reverting continually and conflicts would have no end. --Chealer (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I am back. I could pretend that I spent a month carefully considering this, but in reality I got distracted with other things. Sorry about that.
Anyway, what you are doing is edit warring. Slow edit warring, with commentary, but edit warring nonetheless. Yes, BRD is not a formal guideline, but it is a widely accepted Wikipedia norm, and is incredibly valuable. I have significant concerns with the location and language of your addition. So far we have begun discussing the first of these, but you insist on reintroducing your unaltered edits in a way that completely disregards article stability. Please stop doing this and make a concerted effort to reach consensus here before proceeding. Or in the words of BRD "when the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion" (emphasis added). If you think BRD is not useful in this particular case then I am all ears, but what you have contributed on that topic so far is somewhat unintelligible to me ("spending more efforts doing changes"? "if the change is not expensive"?).
So on the topic of your addition, and in the context of our nascent discussion, could you please explain what you mean by "duplicating content"? I do not understand why locating the subtopic within the psychology section would necessitate duplication. I also don't know why you think that "scientific research" cannot naturally refer to a body of historical work, but that might be a discussion for another time. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. Don't worry about letting some time pass, we all have a life outside Wikipedia ;-)
The "be bold, revert, discuss" essay is not a norm. It may be valuable, but collaboration is unfortunately a lot more complex than the linear process it depicts.
If you're concerned about the addition disrupting "article stability", please explain. "spending more efforts doing changes" refers to the efforts on the article which could be wasted by continuing with unjustified reversions. When I speak of non-expensive changes, I speak of such simples additions to articles, as opposed to - for example - global project changes which would require editions of multiple pages. By "duplicating content", I meant copying the content, resulting in the content showing in several sections of the article. Basically, either we find a good place for a content to go, or we put it in several not-so-good places. Putting a content in 2 or more places should be a last resort, as it may put unwarranted emphasis on the content, makes articles "unnecessarily" long, and complicates article maintenance, although it is sometimes unavoidable. Duplication is problematic both for readers and contributors. There's also the alternative of referring to a section from another one.
As I explained, I don't think I would agree with simply merging the content with the Psychology section. This would leave the options of duplicating the content or covering it somewhere other than the Psychology section.
As for renaming the section to "Scientific research", as I wrote, the title wouldn't be a lie, but I would expect a section "Scientific research" to cover current (or future) research on the topic, not the results of past research. That might be a personal expectation, or other may expect the same, but I am not going to perform such a change, although I won't necessarily oppose if you decide to perform such a change anyway. --Chealer (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chealer. Obviously we still disagree about healthy editing behavior, but perhaps it will be better to relegate that issue to the relevant thread in my talk page. I would be keen to focus on trying to reach consensus about article content here.
To that end, it sounds like you are happy with the idea that the present section on 'scientific viewpoints' is awkwardly titled and really covers past and present scientific research. For starters then, would you be comfortable locating this information about scientific research on individual difference in altruism somewhere in the 'scientific viewpoints' section? Perhaps we can start from there.
I would also like to reassure you that I would also not be happy with duplicating the content within the article. I, however, don't think this will be a problem if we discuss further the appropriate location. And I would of course be hopeful that other editors will chime in on this process. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew, I wouldn't find it appropriate to locate the content in a section titled "Scientific viewpoints". However, I would have no problem to put it together with the contents of the Scientific viewpoints section, if an appropriate title can be found. That being said, I question again the need to cover all scientific content in a single section.
Of course, I'd also welcome opinions, ideas or bold moves from other editors. --Chealer (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary like "unjustified reversion" suggests a lack familiarity with WP:BRD. A quick look at the history suggests that a new section was added in August, and has been edit warred back into the article four times since then: addition, re-add, re-add, re-add, re-add. Naturally everyone has good intentions, but the diffs show what is known as edit warring which is not permitted. The procedure is that if a new addition is challenged, the addition is not re-added until a consensus on talk supports the new material. The edit summary in the first removal ("Content not integrated with extant article") is a valid concern which does not appear to have been addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in Johnuniq. It is good to have that little bit of reassurance that I haven't gone completely crazy.
To the task at hand. Chealer, given that you object so strongly to the subheading 'scientific viewpoints' (although I think you might be missing the forest for the trees here), would you be happy with individual differences being placed in a subsection titled something like 'scientific research' or 'in science'? Regards Andrew (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above for my opinion on renaming the section "Scientific research". As for 'in science', as I wrote, when I looked for a way to fix the structure, I stopped one centimeter before reaching the point where I would have renamed the section to "Science". Nevertheless, I think "Science" is strictly better than the current title, and the new content could definitely fit in a section called "Science". I suppose what stopped me from performing the rename was the impression that such a change would have hidden a problem - i.e. the presence of an unneeded section to group all scientific content. Giving the section a new name would have felt like legitimizing its existence, but I won't oppose if others do that. --Chealer (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whooooo! A concession! Alright, that is one down. A couple more to go.
Given that you are happy with placing the content within a section renamed 'in science', the question now becomes; where within that section should it go? I would suggest, as I did earlier, that an appropriate place given the current article structure would be within the 'psychology' section. I think the fact that two of the three sources are from psychological journals leads us to this solution, as does the third source's heavy invocation of psychological concepts. I do not see any risk of duplication and any necessary cross referencing can be achieved using intra-article wikilinks. Consequently then, would you (or other editors for that matter) be happy placing the content under a sub-heading of 'individual differences' within the psychology section? Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you, but...
As I wrote, I wouldn't consider it inappropriate to find this content in a section on psychology, but I would not expect to have to read a section on Psychology to find this information, so I would find it undesirable not to have this content elsewhere than in the section on psychology. Altruism being a psychological topic itself, its coverage will indeed often come from psychological journals, but that doesn't mean the whole article should figure in a Psychology section (however, it does mean the article can be added to the Psychology category). Unless a part of the article is particularly psychological, another section is probably preferable - in this case one on genetics. As there was no section on genetics or biology, I created a dedicated section. However, there was already genetics- and biology-related content, and it is possible to create such sections by grouping content. --Chealer (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chealer. Thanks for your response, and I am willing to let this second idea go. That is, I would be happy to see a new section within the sciences section labelled something like 'individual differences'. I do agree that structuring the this section around scientific disciplines is probably not the way to go anyway, and perhaps this will be the watershed moment toward some more nuanced structures. Does this sound ok to you?
If so, the last concern I want to raise relates to undue weight. Specifically, in a general article like this on altruism, which is a massive topic, it seems inappropriate to be making specific mention of things like the location the research was performed in and exact statistical results. Would you be happy for me to perhaps reinsert the content with these sorts of details omitted? Cheers Andrew (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. As I wrote, I do not mind if the new content is moved inside a section on science, as long as that section has an appropriate title. You are also free to change the title to "Individual differences".
As for undue weight, the entirety of the second paragraph in question here constitutes approximately 42 words out of the article's 6448, which I don't consider as heavy. I'm all for shorter, but there have been 2 studies on the topic which generated very different results (in a sense, the results of the 2009 study are 150% different from the 1986 study). I would find it inappropriate to remove a mention of one study keeping the results of the other without good reasons. Unless we would synthesize results, but that seems very delicate as well as less informative.
I already used 2 notes to keep the size minimal. The role of one of these notes is precisely to let us present the results of the 1986 study in very condensed form, somewhat protecting the paragraph from accusations of oversimplification. That being said, if you're confident some change is desirable, please be bold as always. Mentioning the MIT is not essential. --Chealer (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. It's been a while but I want to return to this. As will be apparent from the above discussion, I have long had concerns about the addition of this content. Unfortunately chealer, my antagonist here, wore me down with persistent edit warring and prolonged and circuitous argumentation. In the end it was too much of a time suck for me and I felt like the best approach was to give up for the meantime and wait until Chealer got blocked. It took longer than I thought, but that has recently happened. Unless anyone objects then, my plan is to remove the content for now due to concerns about undue weight, original research, and a lack of integration with the rest of the article. If anyone thinks that the content should be included in some form, we can start the conversation afresh, with the burden of argumentation on those who wish to see the content added. How does that sound to everyone? I'll give it at least a week before taking any action. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Just letting everyone know that I have gone ahead with the removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "otherism" redirect here? not mentioned in page.

Why does "otherism" redirect here? not mentioned in page. 86.160.127.102 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chen's comment on this article

Dr. Chen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


There is a recent closely related literature in economics, called "social preferences," which studies altruism both theoretically and experimentally. Representative publications include the following:

Rabin (1993), David K. Levine (1998), Fehr and Klaus M. Schmidt (1999), Gary E. Bolton and Axel Ockenfels (2000), Gary Charness and Matthew Rabin (2002), Amin Falk and Fischbacher (2006),

James C. Cox, Daniel Friedman and Steven Gjerstad (2007).


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.


Dr. has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Liu, Yang, et al. "I loan because...: Understanding motivations for pro-social lending." Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 2012.


ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Fisher, Richard (7 December 2006) "Why altruism paid off for our ancestors" (NewScientist.com news service)
  2. ^ Baba, Meher (1967). Discourses. 1. San Francisco: Sufism Reoriented. p. 31. ISBN 1-880619-09-1.
  3. ^ Baba, Meher (1945). Gems from the Discourses of Meher Baba. New York: Circle Productions. pp. 20-21.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Altruism&oldid=665693600"