Science proves giving feels better than getting

[Technocrat]

Recent scientific evidence has indicated that the brain's reward system (the part that makes us feel good) is more active when someone is giving to others then when they gain something for themselves. This seems to fly in the face of the Capitalist doctrine that people are selfish and lazy. The purpose of this thread is to discuss this recent finding and to post corroborating evidence of such.

If you think about it, Science is just confirming what spiritual leaders have said for millennia.

[Muzk]

Well, for me it's like this, I just love making people happy, I love it when people around me smile.
And anyways, I wouldn't be happy eating my sandwich while others around me starve

...But I don't think everyone feels like this

[Technocrat]

Well, for me it's like this, I just love making people happy, I love it when people around me smile.
And anyways, I wouldn't be happy eating my sandwich while others around me starve

...But I don't think everyone feels like this

Why do you think not everyone feels like this?

Could it be that naturally we all feel similar to the way you just described, but something happens to us in the course of our life that changes our natural inclinations to want to help others?

[Muzk]

Yes, live the bourgeois way - become bourgeois?
... there are many more factors - too many to calculate an outcome

...maybe something is passed along with the genes? 'Instinct'?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

This seems to fly in the face of the Capitalist doctrine that people are selfish and lazy.

Oh were selfish and lazy. After all, we do quite enjoy giving it's why we do it.
It's just we've been genetically programmed with enlightened self interest. And sufficiently enlightened self interest is indistinguishable from altruism.

Capitalisms concept of selfishness is far too limited to grasp how the human puzzle fits together.

[Coggeh]

Humans are naturally selfish in a way , its just rational self interest . If your hungry as hell and u want a hamburger and you see a homeless guy in the street looking for money and all you have is a 2 euro (dollar note or something) are you going to give it to him? some maybe ? most ? no . I know it sounds bad .But thats normal.

I think the self-interest/greed you see on wall street etc however is a product of capitalism and the environment it creates .

:http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=dawkins&emb=0#q=+selfish+gene&emb=0&dur=3

Excellent documentary showing how the 'selfish gene' actually advances humankind and could lead to a much more selfless society .Contradiction much ? watch the documentary .:)

It shows have by using rational self interest we can promote cooperation for our own benefit . Such as the idea that we can promote socialism by means of using the idea of the selfish gene that the individualist concept of capitalism doesn't benefit the majority and thus the majority of 'I' the majority of individuals who contain this selfish gene . But in socialism collectively the individual will benefit far far more than in capitalism .

[Nwoye]

link to the study plz

[Technocrat]

There are many scientific studies which confirm that giving feels better than getting. Part of the point of this thread is to post links to them.

Here is one: http://brainwaves.corante.com/archives/2007/06/18/why_giving_feels_good_your_charitable_brain.php

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This may be of interest: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212)

[Communist Theory]

sex.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Could it be that naturally we all feel similar to the way you just described, but something happens to us in the course of our life that changes our natural inclinations to want to help others?

Perhaps its the 'me first' capitalist system we live in that numbs our disposition towards altruism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

sex.

Don't spam.

[ckaihatsu]

Why do you think not everyone feels like this?

Could it be that naturally we all feel similar to the way you just described, but something happens to us in the course of our life that changes our natural inclinations to want to help others?


Many / most (?), as they grow older, equate the ownership of property with a sense of independence and security. This point is arguable and is also subjective. But -- once ownership is attained, the person *has* to *think* like a piece of property and *act* in the best interests of that property, no matter the impact -- from neglect, etc. -- to those around them, in the process of serving the interests of that property.

Acting in the best interests of wealth is equivalent to hitching your consciousness to that of the markets, in effect *embodying* the inanimate machinations of fluctuating values over time. Depending on how deep a person is in we could call it 'habitual', 'obsessive', 'addicted', 'schizophrenic', 'psychotic', or 'sociopathic'.


Chris



--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Run DMC told me that 15 years ago, fool

give up the dough
give up the dough
give up the dough on christmas, yo!

[Communist Theory]

Don't spam.
wasn't spam i was pointing out giving sex feels better then receiving.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

wasn't spam i was pointing out giving sex feels better then receiving.

Then explain so beyond one-word posts that could be taken any which way.

[Coggeh]

wasn't spam i was pointing out giving sex feels better then receiving.
Varies from person to person .

[Communist Theory]

Then explain so beyond one-word posts that could be taken any which way.
Yes, my commissar!

[LeninKobaMao]

I can believe that for at least I think that I am a generous person and it feels good to make others happy. :)

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Altruism and Egotism are lies.Strictly speaking we are all egotists because we all do (or seek to do) what we like.A person will not seek to do what he doesn't want to as long as he has the choice.If a person likes to give,he will give,if he likes to take,he will take,if he likes to cause pain, he will cause pain, if he likes to receive pain, he will receive pain.Some persons have the social side inside them much stronger and therefore like to share and help while some cannot feel that and only find satisfaction from exploitation and merciless competition.Which one is normal?The answer is that the human being is much more complex than to be analyzed that easily and that many tendencies,often opposite to each other rest inside each of one's brain.The enviroment's part in this is also big, in a society dominated by egotistical messages,greed and un-social individualism you can expect more to be consumed by that part of their nature.And thus science finds that even in such a society the joy of being social is still strong.Maybe that's a hint that the human being is supposed to evolve through more humane and social-friendly societies, and natural evolution is pressing to that part.
P.S Kropotkin said most of these before me,the man knows :thumbup1:

[Technocrat]

Some persons have the social side inside them much stronger and therefore like to share and help while some cannot feel that and only find satisfaction from exploitation and merciless competition.Which one is normal?

Such a person is technically called a sociopath, and in a society of human beings they can be seen as being mentally handicapped, and they tend to not be very successful and often get into trouble. I personally like the theory of "enlightened self interest". Basically, this says that the ideal outcome for both the individual and the group is reached when a person considers not just what is best for themselves, but what is best for the group as well. It's a mistake to think that concern for the group means that the person isn't still thinking about their own self interest. Humans have been dependent on each other since before we came down out of the trees.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

It's a mistake to think that concern for the group means that the person isn't still thinking about their own self interest
I didn't say anything else than that,and heck I wouldn't be an anarchist if I didn't believe in that :D, but the fact that in today's society there are people that are overly the top greedy and mercilessly exploitive cannot be countered.How else do you justify the existence of the bourgeoisie:confused:

[Technocrat]

I didn't say anything else than that,and heck I wouldn't be an anarchist if I didn't believe in that :D, but the fact that in today's society there are people that are overly the top greedy and mercilessly exploitive cannot be countered.How else do you justify the existence of the bourgeoisie:confused:

We are in agreement then. Perhaps I just misunderstood something in your post.

[Orange Juche]

Recent scientific evidence has indicated that the brain's reward system (the part that makes us feel good) is more active when someone is giving to others then when they gain something for themselves. This seems to fly in the face of the Capitalist doctrine that people are selfish and lazy. The purpose of this thread is to discuss this recent finding and to post corroborating evidence of such.

If you think about it, Science is just confirming what spiritual leaders have said for millennia.

Humans are social creatures. Our nature for compassion is a direct result of evolution. The protection of the "tribe" or "group" or whatnot was always pivotal in one's own survival, being that we are social creatures, and that the individual's welfare was always reliant on the welfare of the group. From an evolutionary standpoint, the protection and welfare of others is in human nature. It's instinctual.

[Technocrat]

Humans are social creatures. Our nature for compassion is a direct result of evolution. The protection of the "tribe" or "group" or whatnot was always pivotal in one's own survival, being that we are social creatures, and that the individual's welfare was always reliant on the welfare of the group. From an evolutionary standpoint, the protection and welfare of others is in human nature. It's instinctual.

Perhaps this has something to do with group size?

In a hunter/gatherer type society, it is immediately apparent how the well-being of the group impacts one's own well-being.

In a large industrial society, it appears to be less apparent.

So, how can you have a large industrial society while keeping the benefits of a small group size?

[ckaihatsu]

So, how can you have a large industrial society while keeping the benefits of a small group size?


I think this is a spurious formulation -- would we *need* to politically organize around a small-group model if we had a society that fully leveraged the automated industrial production capabilities of our current (and future) technology?

As things stand now the natural resources of the world we all happened to find ourselves living on are being diverted *away* from fulfilling the basic human needs and desires of the 6-2/3 billion people on earth. There is no satisfactory rationale for this current mode of asset administration, and that's exactly why humanity *requires* an anti-capitalist revolution to (further) collectivize the means of mass production, out of the control of pockets of hegemonic and/or competing interests, and into the hands of those who actually *work on* the equipment themselves.

Once the location-bound labor force has constructed the factories and other equipment needed for automated industrial production the running (administration) of the factory could conceivably be done entirely remotely, over the net. This would mean that the size, location(s), and configuration of the factory's administrative group could *all* be entirely *arbitrary* in a post-capitalist society -- (arguably).

Certainly if people prefer to *socially* spend their days in small groups, that's outside of our concern here with *political* matters....

[Technocrat]

I think this is a spurious formulation -- would we *need* to politically organize around a small-group model if we had a society that fully leveraged the automated industrial production capabilities of our current (and future) technology?

As things stand now the natural resources of the world we all happened to find ourselves living on are being diverted *away* from fulfilling the basic human needs and desires of the 6-2/3 billion people on earth. There is no satisfactory rationale for this current mode of asset administration, and that's exactly why humanity *requires* an anti-capitalist revolution to (further) collectivize the means of mass production, out of the control of pockets of hegemonic and/or competing interests, and into the hands of those who actually *work on* the equipment themselves.

Once the location-bound labor force has constructed the factories and other equipment needed for automated industrial production the running (administration) of the factory could conceivably be done entirely remotely, over the net. This would mean that the size, location(s), and configuration of the factory's administrative group could *all* be entirely *arbitrary* in a post-capitalist society -- (arguably).

Certainly if people prefer to *socially* spend their days in small groups, that's outside of our concern here with *political* matters....

What I'm concerned with is how those people will be motivated to take difficult jobs like factory manager or engineer. Even in a post-scarcity society, there will still be some jobs which are more difficult than others (it requires more hours of training to be a doctor than a nurse, for example). In a small group, the impacts of an individual's actions on the well-being of the group can be immediately seen by the individual, and the impact of the well-being of the group on the individual is also immediately apparent. In a large group, it is not so readily apparent how an individual's actions impact the group's well-being, and therefore not as readily apparent how the group's well-being impacts the individual.

I'm not saying a small-group model is necessary. I think education could spread the same kind of group awareness in a large group that exists in a small group.

[ckaihatsu]

What I'm concerned with is how those people will be motivated to take difficult jobs like factory manager or engineer. Even in a post-scarcity society, there will still be some jobs which are more difficult than others (it requires more hours of training to be a doctor than a nurse, for example).


This topic of motivations / incentives has been taken up on other threads -- as I recall, the discussions have covered the fact that people have always tended to pursue their own self-chosen interests outside of concerns for material compensation or social esteem, no matter what the economic or political structure of the time happened to be.

Of course we can't *forecast* the ratios of professional vocations pursued by the population of a possible future, post-scarcity society, nor could we reasonably forsee the concrete numbers of these professions needed by the same society -- I happen to have my *own* ideas for the *finessing* of these societal concerns of labor supply.... (See my blog entry, available at the link in this post's header, or at my user profile page.)





I'm not saying a small-group model is necessary. I think education could spread the same kind of group awareness in a large group that exists in a small group.


Right -- you're answering your own question here by identifying "education" as the link between the individual and the larger group. I would replace the term 'journalism' for 'education', pointing to a more-political atmosphere of operations than the small-group model.

If careerism could be neatly detached from a person's drive for amassing an established position of political power and accompanying material rewards -- something only possible in a post-capitalist society -- then we could realistically anticipate a large-group, or local-workplace-sized labor force that would feature its own ecosystem-like political economy, with habitually self-motivated "movers and shakers", a likewise self-selected journalistic team to cover the news of the day, and less active, more peripheral layers of the population to keep tabs on how well policy is formulated in response to societal / political issues that arise.