NationStates Jolt Archive

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?

What's so appauling about it?

I feel very uncomfortable about it and try not to think that way, mentally citing a whole load of examples from history/now where this attitude has caused big problems (Darfur?).

w00 go charity! :D

Makes you sound selfish.

As for times, very rarely. I usually say Why.

I ask it daily ;)

Just kidding I almost never ask it... because no one wants my help :(

All the time. But I'm easily pleased, so it's not such a bad thing.

Rarely. Just looking for the benefit to myself in things goes against my closest held beliefs.

But I am human, so I've at least thought it a couple of times.

What's so appauling about it? if i am capable of helping then i'd much rather give my time/help for nothing than be an ass about it, is all

its kinda indicative of a petty and selfish attitude towards others

If you look at the big picture, there is always something "in it" for you. Do something good, make the world a better place, and boom! You get to live in a better world.

You want me to answer that question? What's in it for me?

You want me to answer that question? What's in it for me?
not kicking your ass, thats whats in it for you ;)

you mean OUT LOUD?

it doesnt take much thinking to realize that there is very little in it for me in asking that question. it would just piss people off and then i get nothing. i dont think ive ever said it out loud except perhaps in jest.

It depends who's asking, about what and also it depends on what mood I'm in. If I'm ill (like I am now - poor me) I'm less likely to do something to help which involves being terribly active unless it's a serious situation.

Anyone I like or have no feelings either way for I probably won't ask that question for. Maybe because I already know I'll get some satisfaction from helping. If it's someone I strongly dislike, I'll probably ask myself unless it was as extreme situation such as calling an ambulance if they're dying.

Generally I'll do what I can to help people without thinking about it. A day-to-day example that pops to head is explaining things in lessons to people who don't understand. If someone is trying to figure out what to do and I know, I can't just let them struggle and then get in trouble, even people who I dislike. I'd have to really hate them to not help them.

I'm more likely to ask the question if I'm trying to make a choice about my own life - such as which courses I should take - which I don't think you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong).

well obviously there are some situations whereby you would ask it, no-matter how altruistic you are or try to be... life-changing situations and decisions for starters, yeah. i meant more on a day-to-day basis or, say, in business dealings etc (corrected ;) )

and Amy, you're ill? aww get better soon :fluffle: :fluffle:

well obviously there are some situations whereby you would ask it, no-matter how altruistic you are or try to be... life-changing situations and decisions for starters, yeah. i meant more on a day-to-day basis or, say, in business dealings etc (corrected ;) )I didn't see any point in lying so I thought I may as well be honest in the fact that I'm human and how likely I am to help someone changes depending on who they are, what it is and how I'm feeling. But in general the question isn't one I naturally think of.

I suppose if I was a business person I might ask it. But then I doubt I could be a business person because I don't think like that naturally.

and Amy, you're ill? aww get better soon :fluffle: :fluffle:
Thanks. E-fluffling is good because it means I can't pass on my cold :p :fluffle:

It is a selfish question, because even if you don't ask it, you still get something out of it. But when you ask that question, you might get very dissapointed by the answer. I think it's a typican western question. We refuse to do someting for our fellow humans without asking ourselves this question.

Lol, this is my first post in General. I hate this place.

Yes, just to tick people off.

Honestly, almost ever. The main question I ask is "why?"

Whats in it for me, or WIIFM, was a big thing in sales circles about 5 years ago. Every consumer asks themselves WIIFM, and every person selling a product must answer the question for them. Why do I want the deluxomatic2000 vacuum cleaner instead of just the Walmart Dirt-Devil? Well because 2000 mows the grass, does the laundry, the dishes AND cook diner, while you sit on your lard but and control it via your remote control. In fact with the promotion we are currently running its about the same price!

I just answered whats in it for you. Not really selfish when its questions like this that not only get you the cool vacuum cleaner, but also persuade you to get that new job, or take that promotion, better supplying for your family, or move you out of the bad nieghborhood, where your families security could by you WIIFM.

That's not nasty in the least. Depends upon how well I know them.

Like Leary said, "It's all about set and setting".

Lol, this is my first post in General. I hate this place.

Then what are you doing here? :confused:

not kicking your ass, thats whats in it for you ;)
Well, I'm sure you can guess what my reply to the question will be anyway. :)

Then what are you doing here? :confused:
Trying to recruit us over to II or the UN forum or wherever he hangs out with his elite clique?

Trying to recruit us over to II or the UN forum or wherever he hangs out with his elite clique?

elite clique? No-ones more elite than the general-forumites. Unless the mods have a mod-only forum. I guess they might be a little more elite.

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?

Rarely if ever. Thats not to imply i am Gandhi or Albert Schweitzer, more that most humans are a complex mix of the selfish and the selfless.

elite clique? No-ones more elite than the general-forumites. Unless the mods have a mod-only forum. I guess they might be a little more elite.
I bet there e-forum has an e-cocktail bar with e-vodka that makes them get e-shit faced and they start e-trolling their own e-forums. When they e-wake up the next e-morning they have e-hangovers and then e-delete their posts to cover their e-tracks.

However, I always ask "Whats in it for me?" (Though I do hold doors open for other people and such, mainly because it takes just as much effort to slam the door shut before the other person gets their) and the answer is generally along the lines of "Laughs later on, and quite possibly the potential to steal the other guys wallet."

elite clique? No-ones more elite than the general-forumites. Unless the mods have a mod-only forum. I guess they might be a little more elite.
They do, in fact. :cool:

I never say it because it sounds extremely selfish and obnoxious, but since I'm human I have of course had selfish thoughts, such as a reluctance to do someone a favor because it would require some effort/sacrifice. :-\

Never, that I am aware of.

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?
I ask it whenever my supposed benefit for $ACTION is not readily known.

But why, pray tell, is this a 'nasty little question?' Someone has to put themselves first, even in an OMG ALTRUIST society. If we go around trumpetting this 'put others first' edict to every man, woman and child in the country, we're creating what amounts to an amazing contradiction. In order for anyone to decide to go to the welfare office for example, he has to decide there's something in it for him. In order to collect a handout, someone has to put themselves first.

And when they do, this sweeping generalization denounces them as an 'egotistical bastard.' Nice.

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?
Every time someone asks me to do something that involves some form of effort on my part. Unless the person is in need, I don't do stuff for free.

I don't think the question was meant to be as global in scope as you (Melkor) are making it out to be. Clearly feeding yourself or breathing could be construed as "putting yourself first" but that is not what this question refers to.

I read it as asking "in most situations where you could help someone and it really wouldn't cost you anything to do so, do you just readily help them or do you ask 'what's in it for me?'" since that is generally when that question crops up.

I read it as asking "in most situations where you could help someone and it really wouldn't cost you anything to do so, do you just readily help them or do you ask 'what's in it for me?'" since that is generally when that question crops up.

Loaded question.

I don't think the question was meant to be as global in scope as you (Melkor) are making it out to be. Clearly feeding yourself or breathing could be construed as "putting yourself first" but that is not what this question refers to.

I read it as asking "in most situations where you could help someone and it really wouldn't cost you anything to do so, do you just readily help them or do you ask 'what's in it for me?'" since that is generally when that question crops up.
Except that nothing is free; everything costs something, whether it's time, effort, money, chickens, or anything else you care to name.

Besides, if that were the implication he had intended, he probably should have specified. In any event, my answer remains the same.

I never have to ask it. It just comes naturally.

Except that nothing is free; everything costs something, whether it's time, effort, money, chickens, or anything else you care to name.

Besides, if that were the implication he had intended, he probably should have specified. In any event, my answer remains the same.

And I think that is what the question is asking: do you value your own time and effort more than you value helping someone else. I.e. do you help a friend move or do you demand payment or three cases of beer? Do you pull over to help someone fix a flat tire on a country road or just drive by? Not tough questions, not requiring a whole lot of philosophising. Just everyday stuff.

And I think that is what the question is asking: do you value your own time and effort more than you value helping someone else.
Yes.

I.e. do you help a friend move or do you demand payment or three cases of beer?
I helped a friend of mine move last month, and refused payment. I had nothing better to do at the time, and since I value the continuation of our friendship, I decided to be a good sport about it. Being friends with someone means that 'payment' for acts like this will come in good time. I'm sure he'll cut me a deal on a bag of weed, or help me move, or give me a good reference when an employer calls or something; the ball's in his court as far as I'm concerned. If he really is a friend, he'd acknowledge my efforts [and he has].

Do you pull over to help someone fix a flat tire on a country road or just drive by? Not tough questions, not requiring a whole lot of philosophising. Just everyday stuff.
I keep driving. Helping a friend and helping a complete stranger are two entirely different things. I will invest my time and energy in people who share my values, but I won't make the same investment in some random dude.

And I think that is what the question is asking: do you value your own time and effort more than you value helping someone else. I.e. do you help a friend move or do you demand payment or three cases of beer? Do you pull over to help someone fix a flat tire on a country road or just drive by? Not tough questions, not requiring a whole lot of philosophising. Just everyday stuff.

Why are "self-interest" and "altruism" necessarily mutually exclusive?

Yesterday I was driving on the freeway, and ran into very heavy traffic at an interchange. Where lanes were merging together, people were fighting to keep their position in the lane and not let anyone merge in. Thus, we have piles of cars trying to occupy the same little piece of freeway and traffic was slowed to a dead stop.

Now, I can look at this and say "These self-interested people are only making things worse for everyone, so self-interest is bad" Or I could ask "how can we work together to accomplish our self-interested goals?" The obvious solution to this traffic problem is for people to slow down and allow others to merge into their lanes, as the quicker the merge takes place, the quicker we can all be on our way and the less traffic there will be. So, by acting in an immediately altrusic manner (falling back and letting people merge), we ultimately accomplish our long term self-interested goals (getting were we want to go faster). (EDIT: we would act altruistically because we are self-interested! :eek: :D )

The question, by assuming that one is either self-interested or altrustic, presents a false dichotomy. Self-interest and altruism easily go hand in hand. If only people could recognize this, traffic jams would disappear overnight. :D

EDIT: See Also -
Enlightened Self-Interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Why are "self-interest" and "altruism" necessarily mutually exclusive?
They aren't, and never have been. What is good for the many is usually ultimately good for the one, although it may often be on a scale that is too large or too obscure for the individual to see.

For example if everyone gets a subsistence level of food, nobody dies of starvation. If one person decides to pig out and eat twice as much as he needs, someone somewhere starves to death. The greedy bastard who pigged out may never meet the guy he is responsible for starving to death, and may therefore not see the benefit of having taken only what he needed. But as if by magic, the greedy bastard might just find himself watching his own child die of disease caused by a rotting corpse "somewhere in the compound", or he may find that his company's productivity decreased as a result of some grieving non-productive workers who lost a mother. Or he may find that the people around him no longer chip in to help him with the harvest as readily anymore, and when one of his farmhands is off with the flu he can no longer get anyone to help him, even for a good wage, because he is known as a greedy bastard. And if he continues to gorge himself and people keep starving as a result, eventually a posse of grieving children and spouses will arrive at his doorstep in the dead of night holding machetes and pitchforks.

At that point he will realise what a fool he was for thinking only of himself. But it will be too late, and his bloated corpse will not be found for weeks, because nobody will care to come looking for him.

(/melodrama off)

Sadly enough... I ask myself that all the time...

They aren't, and never have been. What is good for the many is usually ultimately good for the one, although it may often be on a scale that is too large or too obscure for the individual to see.


Altrusitic behavior should originate in the individual, for the benifit of the individual. (EDIT: The "good of the many" naturally emerges as a result of decentralized individual behavior.) Trying to start with and organize the collective at a high level, enforcing "altruism" downward onto the individual, is a one-way ticket to totalitarianism.


For example if everyone gets a subsistence level of food, nobody dies of starvation.


This statement is meaningless, as it essentially argues that "if everyone gets enough food, everyone gets enough food." Besides that, it is certainly possible to be surrounded by plenty of food and still die of starvation due to factors other than scarcity of food (e.g. ill health).


If one person decides to pig out and eat twice as much as he needs, someone somewhere starves to death. The greedy bastard who pigged out may never meet the guy he is responsible for starving to death, and may therefore not see the benefit of having taken only what he needed.


It does not necessarily follow that overeating must cause someone else to starve to death. The statement seems to assume that the only possible factor is limited supply of food. Again, any number of factors may cause someone to starve to death while being surrounded by plenty of food, and these conditions are not necessarily the fault of the "greedy pig."

Altrusitic behavior should originate in the individual, for the benifit of the individual. (EDIT: The "good of the many" naturally emerges as a result of decentralized individual behavior.) Trying to start with and organize the collective at a high level, enforcing "altruism" downward onto the individual, is a one-way ticket to totalitarianism.
Who is trying to force anyone to do anything? He asked how often you say "What's in it for me?" Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, this is all voluntary.

This statement is meaningless, as it essentially argues that "if everyone gets enough food, everyone gets enough food." Besides that, it is certainly possible to be surrounded by plenty of food and still die of starvation due to factors other than scarcity of food (e.g. ill health).
It is setting up a situation, nothing more. You're on the wrong track.

It does not necessarily follow that overeating must cause someone else to starve to death. The statement seems to assume that the only possible factor is limited supply of food. Again, any number of factors may cause someone to starve to death while being surrounded by plenty of food, and these conditions are not necessarily the fault of the "greedy pig."
Once again you have missed the point. I am showing how one selfish action can cause a variety of negative results for the person who committed the selfish action, even while that person doesn't think to link the ultimate cause with the undesired effect. This is a hypothetical situation, that seemed too obvious to warrant stating at the outset. I guess I overestimated part of the audience.

...

Why do we bother? :headbang:

Who is trying to force anyone to do anything? He asked how often you say "What's in it for me?" Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, this is all voluntary.


The bolded part of this sentence raised a red flag in my mind: "What is good for the many is usually ultimately good for the one, although it may often be on a scale that is too large or too obscure for the individual to see."

I've often encountered similar sentiments from individuals who approach altruism in a top-down manner, subjugating the individual to the collective society, a relationship that I claim will inevitiably fail. I only intended to describe how I believe the relationship between "the individual" and "the many" should be constructed; it was not my intention to accuse anyone of anything.

The individual can see and control his own behavior just fine. What may not be immediately obvious is how individual behavior naturally gives rise to the behavior of the collective society.


Once again you have missed the point. I am showing how one selfish action can cause a variety of negative results for the person who committed the selfish action, even while that person doesn't think to link the ultimate cause with the undesired effect. This is a hypothetical situation, that seemed too obvious to warrant stating at the outset. I guess I overestimated part of the audience.

And I'm suggesting that the hypothetical situation makes certain assumptions that are not necessarily true. Thus, the "one selfish action" need not necessarily lead to the given negative results, for either the "selfish" person or his "victim." You haven't shown anything.

And I'm suggesting that the hypothetical situation makes certain assumptions that are not necessarily true. Thus, the "one selfish action" need not necessarily lead to the given negative results, for either the "selfish" person or his "victim." You haven't shown anything.
No, it need not necessarily lead to this particular result, but it clearly has the potential to, and THAT is my point. One may not see the immediate results of not helping your fellow man, one may not see the immediate results of taking a more moderate view of consumption of resources or whatever, but there are results, count on it. I am not in any way advocating a top-down approach to anything. I am saying that from an individual standpoint it will ultimately serve all of us better as individuals (yes, a "me first" concern) to show a bit of compassion and a bit of community spirit in our approach to one another, maybe do a nice thing for someone without thought of recompense, maybe help a stranded motorist just out of compassion, because it might be you next, or because it might be your girlfriend's aunt, or just because that motorist is just a helpless person like you or me and they need a hand that you could easily give, and there would be more gratitude and friendliness in the world as a result.

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?
Never.

No, it need not necessarily lead to this particular result, but it clearly has the potential to, and THAT is my point. One may not see the immediate results of not helping your fellow man, one may not see the immediate results of taking a more moderate view of consumption of resources or whatever, but there are results, count on it.


I guess my point is that when we try to come up with hypotheticals about what might happen, we miss critical details that may have serious concequences. This is part of the reason why I focus on individual behavior towards other individuals. Let people interact freely with each other, and these minor details will take care of themselves and we don't have to worry about trying to figure out all the possibilities or potentials.


I am not in any way advocating a top-down approach to anything.


Again, it wasn't my intention to say otherwise.


...

Why do we bother?


To paraphrase Neo: "Because we choose to." :cool:
<insert cinematic wire-fu here>

how often do you ask yourself, or, more importantly, other people this nasty little question?

I don't think it's "nasty" at all. In fact, I believe that every single decision anyone ever makes in their entire life is based upon the idea contained in this question: self-interest.

So, I'd have to say that everyone asks themselves this question in making any and all decisions, whether they do it consciously or subconsciously.

There isn't one choice that you make which isn't based upon some degree of self-interest.