One also has to factor in second dimension which is behavior towards in-group and out-groups.
I understand that as we become more multi-cultural, there is a decrease in the percieved kinship between city dwellers and thus less alturistic behavior.
Basically, in diverse cities people are more likely to be assholes to each other.
> Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. Moscow beggars receive more gifts from fellow ethnics than from other ethnies [sic]. A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities.
I understand that as we become more multi-cultural, there is a decrease in the percieved kinship between city dwellers and thus less alturistic behavior.
Maybe more multi-ethnic, but I'm not sure about multi-cultural. If anything, at least we globally share a baseline of culture because of the internet and I only see that increasing...hopefully.
Hopefully not. Monocultural world would be a very boring place. We need true cultural diversity on planet earth. Not this mono-culture-but-multiple-colors-and-dongles bullshit.
The selfish–selfless spectrum is valuable for technical leaders to improve teamwork, in my experience.
We call this social value orientation (SVO) which involves an individual’s natural preference with respect to the allocation of resources.
During technical leadership this comes up with e.g. feature prioritization, competitive/collaborative agile planning, and how to create "nudges" to increase team success.
Very interesting. My only criticism? Perhaps too much of a focus on procedural justice.
Peter Thiel has a great talk on how one of the biggest problems in western societies is that we have moved away from having a determinate view of the future, to an indeterminate one. This has been driven in big part on the idea that process matter more than substance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZM_JmZdqCw
E.g. Lawyers are more concerned with society having a fair process or procedure for doing things, than its advancement.
"E.g. Lawyers are more concerned with society having a fair process or procedure for doing things, than its advancement."
And I allways thought most lawyers are more concerned with winning their case and making money than "fair process". I know exceptions though, but heard and read horrible things about the average.
But the future is undeterministic? Its a tree with lots of branches- of which one of those with variations will become reality.
To assume one knows the exact path, might be a helpfull tool for a small group working towards a goal, but from the eagle perspective, that is what all these companies are. Exploring branches of a tree of propabilites.
Thiel basically argues for not having his view as a large scale investor. But that is bogus, if you want to be a succesfull CEO you might have to pivot, pivoting essentially means giving up your branch- and navigate to another branch of the scenario tree, whos succes-propability is closely related to your tech. Which is why you should think about what is possible with the stuff you develop, not about one product.
This of course is demoralizing for the individual coder. If you write code that is product-bound, that code could go to the bin at any second. That is why they usually do not get told. At some level- there is only one product, on mission, one group against all others.
But at project management level, one should realize there might even within the same companys, several projects clustering around the same core-tech, trying to use what is possible for diffrent approaches.
It's quite annoying to see emotion tied in with altruism, for they are largely orthogonal concerns.
Emotion only leads to altruistic behavior in a small set of circumstances that we have been programmed to react to. And just following your emotions often makes things worse, so if you care about helping people it should be avoided.
Being an unemotional altruistic, one who does it for rational reasons, it more reliable and scalable.
"And just following your emotions often makes things worse, so if you care about helping people it should be avoided."
Sources or arguments?
Because I see things different. If I don't feel like helping, I don't. I made the experience if I force myself to it, it often leads to a worse outcome. (Like breaking things)
Fun fact:
Hitler felt that Antisemitism is wrong, but at some point he choose his rational over his feelings and became what he became.
Because his rational reasons were that the jews were clearly poison to the good aryan people so to help them, he had to fight the enemy.
("literally stated somewhere in Mein Kampf")
... but feelings and emotions and rational and instinct and intuition often gets mixed up and I doubt you clearly seperate it.
I don't understand your personal story - if your helping is likely to break things, then it's not rational to keep doing it.
Charities are a good example - lots of people donate to charities to feel good, regardless of the effectiveness of that donation. Most of that money is wasted, for example on fundraising. What sense does it make to donate to charities that spend more on fundraising?
But if your goal is altruistic, instead of selfish, you should donate to charities that give the best results.
This debate seems over the top.
It’s pretty simple. A person who has a strong sense of self (“selfish”) is the one that can truly empathize. Empathy drives true selflessness because u can connect with another person and feel their needs transparently. Once you feel someone’s needs transparently it’s pretty hard to get not take care of those needs (to the empathizers best ability).
If we tap into that empathy (which I believe everyone living on planet earth has a strong dose of) imagine how much better our world would be.
Readit News
I understand that as we become more multi-cultural, there is a decrease in the percieved kinship between city dwellers and thus less alturistic behavior.
Basically, in diverse cities people are more likely to be assholes to each other.
> Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. Moscow beggars receive more gifts from fellow ethnics than from other ethnies [sic]. A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
Meaning that an altruist has a wider sense of in-group, while a psychopath has a much narrower one.
I guess this however opens up the possibility that one can "learn" to be a psychopath by narrowing ones in-group.
Also, many people are not altruistic even to their in-group.
Maybe more multi-ethnic, but I'm not sure about multi-cultural. If anything, at least we globally share a baseline of culture because of the internet and I only see that increasing...hopefully.
We call this social value orientation (SVO) which involves an individual’s natural preference with respect to the allocation of resources.
During technical leadership this comes up with e.g. feature prioritization, competitive/collaborative agile planning, and how to create "nudges" to increase team success.
https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/social_value_orientat...
Peter Thiel has a great talk on how one of the biggest problems in western societies is that we have moved away from having a determinate view of the future, to an indeterminate one. This has been driven in big part on the idea that process matter more than substance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZM_JmZdqCw
E.g. Lawyers are more concerned with society having a fair process or procedure for doing things, than its advancement.
And I allways thought most lawyers are more concerned with winning their case and making money than "fair process". I know exceptions though, but heard and read horrible things about the average.
To assume one knows the exact path, might be a helpfull tool for a small group working towards a goal, but from the eagle perspective, that is what all these companies are. Exploring branches of a tree of propabilites.
Thiel basically argues for not having his view as a large scale investor. But that is bogus, if you want to be a succesfull CEO you might have to pivot, pivoting essentially means giving up your branch- and navigate to another branch of the scenario tree, whos succes-propability is closely related to your tech. Which is why you should think about what is possible with the stuff you develop, not about one product.
This of course is demoralizing for the individual coder. If you write code that is product-bound, that code could go to the bin at any second. That is why they usually do not get told. At some level- there is only one product, on mission, one group against all others.
But at project management level, one should realize there might even within the same companys, several projects clustering around the same core-tech, trying to use what is possible for diffrent approaches.
Emotion only leads to altruistic behavior in a small set of circumstances that we have been programmed to react to. And just following your emotions often makes things worse, so if you care about helping people it should be avoided.
Being an unemotional altruistic, one who does it for rational reasons, it more reliable and scalable.
Sources or arguments?
Because I see things different. If I don't feel like helping, I don't. I made the experience if I force myself to it, it often leads to a worse outcome. (Like breaking things)
Fun fact: Hitler felt that Antisemitism is wrong, but at some point he choose his rational over his feelings and became what he became. Because his rational reasons were that the jews were clearly poison to the good aryan people so to help them, he had to fight the enemy. ("literally stated somewhere in Mein Kampf")
... but feelings and emotions and rational and instinct and intuition often gets mixed up and I doubt you clearly seperate it.
Charities are a good example - lots of people donate to charities to feel good, regardless of the effectiveness of that donation. Most of that money is wasted, for example on fundraising. What sense does it make to donate to charities that spend more on fundraising?
But if your goal is altruistic, instead of selfish, you should donate to charities that give the best results.
If we tap into that empathy (which I believe everyone living on planet earth has a strong dose of) imagine how much better our world would be.
Dead Comment