Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Response to Thought Experiment 44: Till Death Us Do Part

3/4/2016

8 Comments

 
Picture
One of the best rational decisions I ever made...
I thought this week's thought experiment was going to be pretty quick and straightforward, requiring a simple one-off answer. But judging by some of the reader comments that were submitted when I introduced this experiment, I have more to write now, and will probably have more to defend and respond to later as well. Such is the nature of repeated interactions....a point that will become important in a moment. For now, let's remind ourselves of the thought experiment under consideration.

---------------------------------------------------
     Harry and Sophie wanted to take seriously the words the minister would utter as they exchanged rings: "These two lives are now joined in one unbroken circle." This meant putting their collective interest first, and their individual interests second. If they could do that, the marriage would be better for both of them.
     But Harry had seen his own parents divorce and too many friends and relations hurt by betrayal and deceit to accept this unquestioningly. The calculating part of his brain reasoned that, if he put himself second, but Sophie put herself first, Sophie would get a good deal from the marriage but he wouldn't. In other words, he risked being taken for a mug if he romantically failed to protect his own interest.
     Sophie had similar thoughts. They had even discussed the problem and agreed that they really would not be egotistical in the marriage. But neither could be sure the other would keep their part of the bargain, so the safest course of action for both was to secretly look out for themselves. That inevitably meant the marriage would not be as good as it could have been. But surely it was the only rational course of action to take?

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 130.

---------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned on Monday, I very recently celebrated my 14th wedding anniversary. So maybe that coloured my reaction, but honestly, when I read this, I viewed it as such a patently absurd view of marriage that I had to read Baggini's discussion of his thought experiment to understand why exactly he'd invented it. Here is what he said:

This is a form of problem known as the 'prisoner's dilemma', after a well-known example concerning how two prisoners should plead. Prisoner's dilemmas can occur when cooperation is required to achieve the best result, but neither party can guarantee the other will play ball. ... The dilemma reveals the limitations of the rational pursuit of self-interest. If we all individually decide to do what is best for each one of us, we may end up worse off than we could jave been if we had cooperated. But to cooperate effectively, even if our motive for doing so is self-interest, we need to trust one another. And trust is not founded on rational arguments.

​What nonsense! The Prisoner's Dilemma is a very specific situation from game theory where no communication is permitted between the two prisoners who must make a one-time decision that will affect the entire outcome of the game. Does that sound anything like a marriage? Of course not. In the real world, people talk to one another and we have multiple chances to build reputations for trust. The real world is much more likely to be modelled by the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. In this version:

"...two players play prisoners' dilemma more than once in succession and they remember previous actions of their opponent and change their strategy accordingly... The iterated prisoners' dilemma game is fundamental to some theories of human cooperation and trust. On the assumption that the game can model transactions between two people requiring trust, cooperative behaviour in populations may be modeled by a multi-player, iterated, version of the game. Interest in the iterated prisoners' dilemma (IPD) was kindled by Robert Axelrod in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (1984). In it he reports on a tournament he organized of the N step prisoners' dilemma (with N fixed) in which participants have to choose their mutual strategy again and again, and have memory of their previous encounters. Axelrod invited academic colleagues all over the world to devise computer strategies to compete in an IPD tournament. The programs that were entered varied widely in algorithmic complexity, initial hostility, capacity for forgiveness, and so forth. Axelrod discovered that when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest. He used this to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behaviour from mechanisms that are initially purely selfish, by natural selection. The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move."

Using only the cold logic of analysis from this portion of game theory, Harry and Sophie were unlikely to have just arrived at the wedding day with no knowledge or experience of trusting one another. They were much more likely to have begun dating several months or years ago, took many turns proving they were each willing to sacrifice for one another on occasion, and then made a rational decision to believe the other one could be trusted when they promised to do so for the duration of their marriage. The simple answer to this thought experiment lies in the fact that life is not a one-off academic exercise with artificial constraints placed upon it.

That's all I would have written about this experiment, but a couple reader comments expanded the area of inquiry in ways that deserve to be touched upon. First, Dr. John Johnson wrote:


I suspect that Baggini is using this scenario as an example of the prisoner's dilemma or game theory more generally. [my note: Ding, ding, ding, ding! Well spotted, John.] My own take on this problem is that it represents the fuzzy thinking inherent in talking about the "interests of collectives" over and beyond the interests of the individuals who are members of a collective. ... I submit that there is no such thing as the "interest of the collective" that transcends the interests of the individuals. In every case, a particular event can be, to some degree, for or against the interests of all of the individuals, but there is no event that is in the interest of the collective but not in the interests of the individuals. I challenge anyone to give an example of something that is "good for the marriage" but not good for either of the individuals in the marriage. ... Language about "common good" or "good of the marriage" is a rhetorical smokescreen to convince the person whose interests are less served to go along with what the person whose interests are more served.


Again, I think time helps clear up some of this concern about what is good for a collective vs. what is good for an individual. Short-term interests often need to be sacrificed for the sake of long-term gains, and this is what is often the issue when trying to strike the balance between individuals and collectives. For example, in the case of the use of economic "commons", it is detrimental to all individuals now to limit their exploitation of the resource in the common, but it is beneficial to all individuals over the long term to make that sacrifice. Further complicating the issue is the fact that individuals have their own internally competing needs and wants, so some of them must be sacrificed for the sake of other ones too. My short-term gluttonous instincts must regularly be sacrificed for the long-term benefits of my desire for health. In the case of my marriage, both of our short-term urges for pleasurable couplings with sexy strangers should be sacrificed for the long-term benefits of being able to trust that a supportive partner will be there for us when we need it. You could say monogamy is "good for the marriage" but not "good for either individual", but only if you don't look at the benefits the individuals eventually get from the marriage. It's a complicated math, but tradeoffs must be made the longer you look and the larger set of interests you realise you must take into account. As I wrote in this month's cover story in Humanist magazine:

"While the freedoms and liberalism of the Enlightenment can be viewed as understandable and beneficial reactions to centuries of authoritarianism, oppressive governments, and rigid religious dogmas, I would argue we have now taken this too far. Modern communitarianism is a reaction to this; it is a reaction to excessive individualism with its overemphasis on individual rights that has led people to become selfish and egocentric. Communitarian philosopher Amitai Etzioni writes that all societies must have a carefully crafted balance between rights and responsibilities and between autonomy and order. Focusing on one side alone is not enough."

Now for a much deeper question—the meaning of love itself. In a comment on this week's thought experiment, reader atthatmatt wrote:

True love simply means that you prioritize the other person higher than yourself. ... If just one of them truly loved the other, the deal would work, at least abstractly. The game logic wouldn't matter, because one of them would go all in regardless of the other's decision. ... A person who is fully committed to someone who isn't fully committed in return is in a bit of a pickle. They have a hard choice to make.

First, I'll agree with the second half of that comment that a relationship might be sustainable if one person is truly committed and open to being exploitable by another one who is happy to accept that. I don't think such a relationship is optimal though, nor truly sustainable given the possibility the committed person will stop being a sucker some day, at which point it will be awfully difficult to make up the imbalance accrued in the relationship.

As for true love, I think it's not as simple as prioritising one person higher than yourself. Let me share some passages from some great books on love to help me explain my point. First, I recently re-read Trine Erotic by evolutionary psychology professor Alice Andrews, and there was this piece of dialogue:

"Well, you're right. I've been in love. And it's what I tried to explore in [a previous story]. I called it the hot love / warm love meme. It's romantic love versus companionate love, I think. Being in hot, romantic love, there is never a chance to think. Never. Not a gulp of air. Nothing. No control. No sense of self. Just 'other'. Just feeling. No thoughts. No thought about being selfless, just selfless... But the paradox is, we can look at that and see that it's really selfish, right? To be unthinking is selfish. The mechanicalness of it doesn't really leave room for you to consider the other person, even though that's all it feels like you're doing."

These fictional words are a perfect example of the problem with such "other directed" love as discussed in two passages from Love's Executioner and Other Tales of Psychotherapy by the brilliant existential psychotherapist Irvin Yalom. He wrote:

Every therapist knows that the crucial first step in therapy is the patient's assumption of responsibility for his or her life predicament. As long as one believes that one's problems are caused by some force or agency outside oneself, there is no leverage in therapy. If, after all, the problem lies out there, then why should one change oneself? It is the outside world (friends, job, spouse) that must be changed—or exchanged. (Prologue)

I do not like to work with patients who are in love. Perhaps it is because of envy—I , too, crave enchantment. Perhaps it is because love and psychotherapy are fundamentally incompatible. The good therapist fights darkness and seeks illumination, while romantic love is sustained by mystery and crumbles upon inspection. I hate to be love's executioner. (Opening to Chapter 1)

So, I consider these three passages, and I think you cannot say love is simply prioritising another over yourself. Firstly, you could again look at the iterated version of the prisoner's dilemma and say you don't always have to prioritise an 'other' over yourself. You just have to take it in turns to do so. That would avoid the deadlock of a "clash of martyrs" that Dr. Johnson worried about in his comment on this idea. More importantly, however, is the question of how you decide to prioritise another person. What is the criteria? Where does that criteria come from? These questions show that there is something more fundamental to love than simply prioritising another person.

So what is my position? I argue that true love is driven by long-term admiration of a person's life, as expressed by their personal philosophies that are rationally chosen and conscientiously acted upon. In my writings on How to Know Thyself, I had these two short things to say about spouses:

Finding a romantic partner is natural and useful. A good one will provide the focus of your secure attachment needs in adulthood, thus providing much safety and comfort for exploration. Primal sexual urges lead some to believe that monogamy is not natural, but that is short-term yielding to gratification at the expense of long-term happiness and satisfaction. A spouse can be your companion through life. Find one that can grow and develop with you over the long term. Find one whose life goals are compatible with yours. Find love - love being the admiration of a person’s life.

It takes time to know someone, to hear their stories, know their beliefs, see them in action, see them respond to stress. It takes time to find love. Do not mistake the short-term feelings of desire, lust, and curiosity, strong as they may be, for the long-term feeling of love. Do not believe in the myth of love at first sight—that denigrates the actual meaning of the word. Do not believe that there is only one soul mate out there for you. There are no souls, and there are many people worthy of love if you are worthy of it yourself.

Those were very short, clinical conclusions about spouses and love that I wrote to get the ball rolling for discussions about my philosophical beliefs. I know they need much more to back them up, and I have tried to do that through this blog and my fictional writings. I'm almost done with my next novel, and there happens to be a big passage in it on this topic, which I'd like to share now. To set it up, you need to know that the novel is about a biotechnology firm that is seeking candidates for new life-extension technologies that stop their ageing process and render them effectively immortal in the absence of accidents. This passage is from an interview between one of the candidates and the leader of the biotech firm. (I've changed some names and titles to stop any spoilers from being released.) I hope it clears up some of what I'm trying to say about love.

------------------------------------------
(book excerpt)

     "...What about love? The initial rush of falling in love is so strong, but all great love stories end with saying ‘till death do us part.’ How will we ever say that to someone without death looming over us any more? Will we have to promise to love a person forever? Is that even possible? And if we can’t promise to love someone forever, will we ever promise it at all? I guess I’m wondering what the chances are that this program might actually take love as we know it away from us all.”
     Bob paused to consider Bill's questions for a moment before he was ready to begin. Once he was, he looked directly at Bill and asked him, “Have you been in love before?”
     “A few times.”
     “And what’s the longest amount of time you’ve been in love?”
     “A little over two years once, when I was in college. But our lives sort of just led us on our separate ways. That’s one reason I’m leery of this project. I can’t imagine two lives leading down a shared path for hundreds and hundreds of years.”
     “Well, I’ll be honest with you, Bill. I’m not sure how that will play out either. I can tell you that sometimes love requires sacrifices of the self, but I don’t know how long we might be prepared to sacrifice something—a perfect job for example, or some time apart—in order to make love last.”
     “That’s what I was afraid of.”
     “What I do know though, is that we need to be careful about which kind of romantic love we are talking about. Psychologists currently say there are two, so we should consider each one. The first type is passionate love. That’s the short-term burst of chemicals built on ancient biological responses that makes us feel like we’re falling head over heels and unable to focus on anything else. Do you know that feeling?”
     “Yes. You could say that I do.”
     Bob tilted his head slightly at Bill's use of the present tense, but he continued on without pressing for an explanation.
     “Well, based on our biology, jolts from that type of love won’t ever stop reoccurring, but we already regularly ignore this for the sake of the second type of love, which is what psychologists call companionate love. That’s the feeling one has about a long, slow, deepened relationship between two people that have shared a life together for many years. It may never cause the intense biochemical highs of passionate love, but for many people the strength and breadth of it can far outweigh the temporary pleasures of passionate love.”
     “I’m familiar with that. My parents, for example, seem to have built that kind of love; they’ve been married for almost forty years. But I have no idea if they’d want to make it to four hundred.”
     “I don’t know that either, but here’s what I can say about the possibility of companionate love lasting for a candidate. Leonardo DaVinci once said, ‘Those who try to censor knowledge do harm to both knowledge and love, because love is the offspring of knowledge, and the passion of love grows in proportion to the certainty of knowledge.’ You know that my wife’s life was cut short some years ago, but up until that time, as I grew to know my wife more and more, I became more and more certain of my love for her. This doesn’t happen in all marriages, but when it does, you get the kind of people who are ninety-five years old and have been married for seventy-five years and say they would never want to live apart from their spouse. We can take comfort from those couples and believe that love could last for our candidates. Or they might work harder to find that type of love. Just like many people who are stuck in bad jobs currently wait things out because there’s no time to start again, the same thing is probably true for many people stuck in bad marriages. I’d like to think that our life-extension technology would liberate those people to go and find better matches.”
     “But how would we ever know we had found the right match?” Bill asked, thinking back on his own recent failure at this task. “Isn’t love something that’s out of our control? Wouldn’t the life-extension program just doom us to repeating painful mistakes over and over until we maybe get lucky and get it right?”
     “Ah, well, the passionate love of chemical reactions does seem out of our control, but that’s not the case for companionate love built over the long term. I see why most people don’t think of it that way though. Because the passionate love comes first, and because marriages were unequal partnerships for much of recorded history, philosophers actually have had a long history of considering love as something to be leery of. Eastern philosophies, for example, generally teach that attachment leads to unhappiness. And so love, being one of the greatest attachments, is therefore something these ancient belief systems often say should be held at a distance. In the west, it was even worse. The philosophers there, from Plato all the way through the canon of Christian moralists, believed that love debased us as humans, that love consumed us to the point of irrationality and illogical distractions, and kept us from acting with virtue. While that can certainly be the case under the unthinking spell of passionate love, I believe these philosophers all missed the kind of wisdom that true companionate love requires.
     “That kind of love,” Bob continued, “is directed towards another person’s entire life. It is a response to the values that person embodies, the values that form a person’s character, that give them their goals, that drive their smallest reactions and gestures. It is for those unique and inimitable actions that we grow to adore and cherish someone over time. And they’re all driven by values, which can be rationally constructed and chosen. Does that kind of love sound capricious or like something that is out of our control?”
     “No,” Bill had to admit, “which I have to say is a bit of good news.”
     “It is,” Bob agreed. “One of the worst consequences of rational philosophers ceding discussions about love to the emotional romantics has been the widespread survival of the belief that love is a ‘matter of the heart’, or that ‘the heart wants what the heart wants’, and there is nothing that the mind can do about it. Those beliefs have doomed countless people to weak-willed mistakes and unnecessary heartbreak. Those beliefs may be true for passionate love, but that is the lesser and fleeting of the two loves. That love is blind, whereas companionate love can see, for it is built on the foundation of a shared philosophy.”
------------------------------------------

So with that, I'll just close by saying thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts in an effort to build a shared philosophy with me. I do love you for that.
8 Comments
John A. Johnson link
3/4/2016 09:57:49 pm

I am very much appreciating this discussion, particularly the issues of passionate versus companionate love and short- versus long-term interests. The novel excerpt was very thought-provoking, too. If the Buddhists are correct about change being inevitable, then it seems unwise to promise someone that both of you will find it worthwhile to spend the rest of your lives together (especially if lives can be extended for hundreds of years)!

To my mind, both passionate and companionate love have different purposes designed by evolution, so one is not more "true" than the other. Passionate love leads to mating and passing on genes. The short-term pleasures of passionate love can be accompanied by not-always-pleasant long-term side-effects. As father to four sons, I know directly about the back-breaking work involved in raising the product of passionate love-making. Other unpleasant emotional side-effects can include feelings of longing when separated, fears of abandonment, possessiveness, and jealousy. If pleasure-seeking passions result in extra-pair relationships, those negative feelings are of course amplified. Just like with certain drugs, passionate love leads to intense highs but can be followed by long-term pain. It's as if passionate love is better for our gene propagation than for our own long-term happiness.

Fortunately, if companionate love develops, it can offset the shortcomings of passionate love, keeping couples together and providing a degree of satisfaction of life. Again, this benefits our genes (which are now being carried by our children) because an intact couple can care for the children better than a broken couple. But with companionate love, there is contribution to our long-term happiness as well as the viability of our genes, so nurturing this kind of love is in our long-term self-interest.

Notice I said "self-interest." I maintain that collectives such as marriage do not have interests beyond the interests of the individuals in the marriage. Companionate love is in the interest of the marriage in the sense that this love helps to keep the marriage in existence. But it also brings an array of positive benefits to each individual: better physical health, security, well-being, satisfaction, comfort, etc. I still cannot imagine something that is good for a marriage but not good for the individuals in the marriage.

A last note about the so-called "common good" and whether this can be translated into short- versus long-term interest. The Tragedy of the Commons is often trotted out as an example of what happens when people selfishly grab things for themselves without consideration of how it affects everyone. Indeed, such tragedies can happen. But I would not frame this problem as one of balancing one's own interests with the interests of others in the group. Rather, the question is balance between short-term and long-term interests for yourself. If you let your animals overgraze, you are screwed, too, not just your neighbors. So the issue is really one of thoughtful foresight. Now, thoughtful foresight should also make a person realize that the interdependence of humanity requires that we take others into consideration, because undermining others for short-term gains will quite often lead to problems for our long-term self-interests. There's retribution, shunning, and all kinds of bad consequences for not considering how our actions affect others. So, the most rational course of action is not a balance between sacrificing our interests for others and making others sacrifice for us, but, rather, finding activities that lead to happiness for both ourselves and others. Win-win.

Reply
@EdGibney link
3/5/2016 04:58:01 pm

Thanks for the very considered comments! I agree with very much of this so I'll just try to pick out the few things you said I would add points to or challenge. Let's see....

"If the Buddhists are correct about change being inevitable, then it seems unwise to promise someone that both of you will find it worthwhile to spend the rest of your lives together (especially if lives can be extended for hundreds of years)!"

I actually addressed this in the next passage in the novel. : ) In short, change doesn't necessarily mean divergence. It could mean growing together towards an objectively good goal. Of course, such an objective goal has been hard to find, but I've addressed that elsewhere in my philosophy and in the novel as well...

"To my mind, both passionate and companionate love have different purposes designed by evolution, so one is not more "true" than the other."

True, they both have their valid uses, but one is, um, less discerning than the other one. : ) I don't think passionate love is to be entirely squelched; only allowed to roam with reason.

"I maintain that collectives such as marriage do not have interests beyond the interests of the individuals in the marriage. ... I still cannot imagine something that is good for a marriage but not good for the individuals in the marriage."

To be honest, I haven't heard this collective argument used before for marriage. It may be a straw man you are tilting at since, as you said in your first post, the marriage doesn't exist other than as an agreement between two people. I suppose you could say there are benefits of "the marriage" to others outside of this union (children, raised with more stability by parents who are better actors than partners), but that's still not a benefit "for the marriage." In this case, I don't think "a marriage" is an entity that exists. I don't think it is a collective. You sacrifice occasionally for the other one person in the marriage. That's it.

"A last note about the so-called "common good" and whether this can be translated into short- versus long-term interest. ... I would not frame this problem as one of balancing one's own interests with the interests of others in the group. Rather, the question is balance between short-term and long-term interests for yourself."

Not always. For one thing, since we can't predict the future, you don't know if you will be around later to reap any benefits of short-term sacrifice. But then again, that can be said for any individual matter. More important to consider are benefits for the collective that are certain to go beyond yourself, which include, for example, commons that are managed for generations. In that scenario, you as an individual will be worse off your whole life for the good of people that may come after you in a hundred or a thousand years (depending on how well the commons are managed). I still maintain that's an example of the kind of larger & longer considerations that have to be made for non-selfish moral behaviour.

Reply
John A. Johnson link
3/5/2016 11:15:19 pm

This is a delightful discussion. It's a pleasure conversing with someone who thinks and writes clearly on topics that interest me. :-)

Yes, I am quite aware that you mentioned the possibility of people growing together as well as apart over time. To my mind, which happens is largely unpredictable when one is only 23 years old. I feel lucky because next year will be our 40th wedding anniversary, and my wife and I have a strong companionate love. Others are not so lucky. Despite nearly everyone's intentions to stay together 'til death do us part, 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. Promising someone that a coin will definitely come up either heads or tails still seems foolish to me. Your can (and should) work as conscientiously as you can toward a marriage that lasts, but you can't know for sure whether you will grow together or apart. As you say in the last paragraph, we can't predict the future.

The uncertainty about the outcome of a marriage and the uncertainty of whether a short-term sacrifice will result in personal benefit in the long run extends to whether an act directed toward the good of others will actually benefit them. It's all a gamble.

But I still object to looking at human relationships as zero-sum, where my only choices are to sacrifice my happiness for others' happiness or vice-versa. A better roadmap for life, I think, is to seek out interactions with others in which both parties benefit.

@EdGibney link
3/6/2016 11:26:36 am

Oh trust me, the pleasure is mine to not have my hard work on a blog just float away into the ether. Hearing from people like you is exactly why I do this.

So sure, the success of a marriage might be a coin flip *now*, but I blame fairy tales, Hollywood, and mother culture for that. By telling everyone love is ineffable and the heart wants what the heart wants, mother culture is loading the dice on that. I too lucked out to some extent, by choosing the right woman when I was still too young to have formally thought through all these ideas about the philosophy of love, but I think I was already on to something based on how choosy I was.

And of course non-zero sum, win-win, situations are the best and make easy cases for cooperation, but I think we have to remain open to sacrifice for the instances where zero-sum describes reality. I understand the aversion to anyone continually and mistakenly calling for sacrifice, but I have just as much of an aversion to anyone saying we should never sacrifice. (I'm looking at you Ayn Rand!)

Reply
John A. Johnson link
3/7/2016 09:19:13 pm

I think that you can rest assured that none of your blog posts are floating away into the ether. Even if there are no response comments, that doesn't mean people aren't reading and benefiting from them. I read and think about every single one, even if I do not comment. Keep 'em coming.

I think a whole new thread could be started on the topic of sacrifice, Some might argue that there is no such thing as sacrifice without expectation of *some kind of* personal gain. One sacrifices pieces in chess with the expectation of better position, winning back pieces, and/or checkmate. Parents sacrifice for their children with the expectation of feeling good about themselves (or avoiding guilt) by doing something that benefits their children. People sacrifice in a marriage in expectation of avoiding unpleasant behavior from their spouse or receiving a favor in the future. This issue is related to the issue of whether unselfish altruism (behavior in which the person expects absolutely no personal benefits) actually exists.

Coincidentally, on the issue of sacrificing in a marriage versus discussing paths to a win-win solution, a new article on the subject just appeared yesterday on MindBodyGreen: http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-24011/how-compromise-is-actually-hurting-your-relationship-and-what-to-do-instead.html . I think you would like it because it emphasizes rational discussions in conflict situations.

Reply
@EdGibney link
3/8/2016 12:19:19 pm

Thanks for the kind encouragement and for sharing that article, John. I will see if I can find an excuse to talk about this sacrifice / altruism idea sometime soon because I think you are right that it is important and not at all clear. The example of "non-compromise" the author gave in the MindBodyGreen article was, to me, more about how to communicate properly. Scenarios where all individuals can each get what they individually want aren't really interesting--that's just another example of taking care of oneself. I understand why articles like this extolling "selfishness" are popular - who doesn't want to take care of themselves - but I don't think that's an urge that usually needs more encouragement. (Though for some people it absolutely does.) I'll save more thoughts for another dedicated thread though. Good to know this is of interest!

John A. Johnson link
3/8/2016 03:08:39 pm

I do hope that you do a piece on sacrifice/altruism in the near future, Ed. As for whether people need to be encouraged to take care of themselves, most men probably do not need this kind of encouragement, but I think that women do. MindBodyGreen is oriented toward women, and I think that most articles encouraging better self-care are written for women, who so often think about taking care of others before taking care of themselves.

Reply
@EdGibney link
3/10/2016 12:29:20 pm

It will take lots of time to unpack this in real life, but there's an interesting study out on altruism now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-s-your-real-motive-for-being-altruistic/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20160309

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.