Sociopath Community

Poutine, I really like your perspective and there are some great points in here.  One question I have is, whose to say they run back because of morality?  What if they run back because of logic?

"He's the only hunter, must save him or we die."

How different is morality from logic?  Isn't the outcome the same?  What is the difference between:

"I saved him because it's the right thing to do."

"I saved him because he is the only hunter, without him we die."

We could argue that the individual roles and responsibilities are followed not because of morals.  But because it is the most sound action for personal benefit.  "If I go to my job, I can buy food, which is a lot easier then hunting and growing it."

To the observer, you would have a great morals an outstanding member of your community.  You go to work, pay your taxes, raise a family.  In reality, this may just be the path of least resistance.  The benefits outweigh the costs.

Is perceived morality different than actual morality?  

I believe morality is just a sugarcoated term the world uses to mask the fact that they are all in it for themselves.

 "If I hurt this person it is the wrong thing to do." vs. "If I hurt this person it will be a pain in the ass to go to jail."

 In general I believe it is positive for group survival, but as your example demonstrates it is not always positive.

 Could you elaborate upon when morality has caused negative outcomes?

 Mmmm Poutine. Prefer pizza and beer though.

All Failed businesses.  No child left behind.  The crusades.

I think the problem with logic is twofold. One, it's a process that takes some effort, skill, and time. When you're running from the predator you just don't have the time and energy to commit to that.You need a shortcut, something quick and powerful, to motivate you to turn back and save that person. AAffection for the person or, failing that, a moral code or impulse that's been drilled into you. 

The second issue may be that it isn't so logical to turn back. You may be someone who doesn't care for the fallen person or is more concerned with your own survival or just not smart enough to work out the why but with morality you don't need any of that, you have the shortcut that tells you what to do and the genes (and group culture) that engender those traits survive to be passed on. 

For your last bit I'm going to out myself as an empath. By MEs definition  I'm probably an uber-empath, I'm not a very weepy person or even quick to pick up on emotions at times but i tend to find it very easy to slip into other people's perspectives and understand their POVs. That aside i outed myself because the only response I have to your belief that everyone is out for themselves is that it's not so.  Satisfying, eh?:)

I think it's hard for you to accept because it's outside your experience, not because it doesn't exist.  You operate from self-interest so that's the frame through which you view the actions of others. Not that self-interest is ever  completely lacking in what i do but it's generally not a priority in the way i think it is for you. It feels good to do altruistic things or to put the interests of others ahead of mine at times. II think that's some more natural selection there as its a boon to group dynamics and helpful in survival to have people with that trait.

I think there are probably some advantages conferred by having a certain number of sociopaths in a group as well. I suspect it would be more to do with advantages in competition with other tribes and groups rather then against challenges in the natural world.

 I had pizza for dinner.

"It's the meaning of life," as my dad likes to say.

I think you give too little weight to stupidity with the business example, cynical politics with the second and on the third...I got nothing. Morality, like most things in life, can be a double edged sword. 

 Poutine,

Thank you.  My ego is sufficiently stuffed but my curiosity wants seconds.  I'd rather not break down your two top points because I'm 100% positive you have a good idea of what I will say or how I will respond.  You mentioned that "it feels good to do altruistic things," since you have so generously made yourself vulnerable I will respond without embelishment and defenses:

I just don't understand that concept.

I see altruistic things like Windows releases.  They are unfinished.  The logic goes as follows: A does this for B, then B does this for A that directly or indirectly benefits A.  From your response, "A does this for B" The End.   There is no balance.

Thinking a little further, could it be that when doing altruistic actions the brain unconsciously knows that it will benefit from the experience?  Maybe morality is a blanket to make a shortcut, something quick and powerful, on a set of roles or actions that society understands to benefit the individual.

"If you feed the homeless, there is a higher probability of being perceived as a good person, which will have advantages to you later in life."

Adding to that, if we feed the homeless, anonymously, one could internalize the memory, conjure it up with the understanding that "people who feed the homeless are good, I am a good person" This benefits the individual using the same principle of "action can dictate emotion." (See smile experiments, and body language experiments).

My last point that I'm extremely curious to hear your response on is:  the process of logic can be internalized.  I say "good morning, how are you doing?" every day to my boss.  In the hallway I do a full smile and greet everyone by name.  I ask people how they are feeling.  I offer to help them.  These are all conscious decisions based on logic.  Repeated so many times its internalized.

Maybe I am projecting somewhat, but how can anyone care how another person is feeling.  I assume that they are doing it for the same reasons.  Some are just better at it than others.  Is there some invisible force, some hidden experience inside of society that triggers by asking "What did you do last weekend Bob?"

What an alien experience, its like trying to imagine a 6th sense.  Impossible yet so very interesting.

 I am sure it is net positive for the group though.

I think you've got a point with the, "I did a good thing so I'm a good person," bit. I also think there's some conditioning going on. I was praised through out childhood for doing good things for people so the feeling of pleasure from that is internalized by now. 

But I think there's a parallel for how altruism feels in what I've read from you. There's a thread about ruining people that you started and that sort of baffles me. I can't understand the logic behind it and am left with the thought that it's just about that emotional payoff, the satisfaction and such, at the end of the game. Much like it is with me and doing something good fomOor someone.

On to your next question, I think that generally it's about social lubrication, and fitting into the group. It feels good to be accompanied by others when you get to work, you understand that and extend that others, the mood is a little closer and happier so the group functions a little better. I don't think most people are honestly looking for how the other person is feeling and would probably be a little shocked to hear a run down of their feelings.  Honestly,  there are a lot of times when I really don't give a rat's ass what someone else is feeling as I ask that question and if someone seemed to be too earnest, too concerned when asking a superficial question like that it would be a red flag to me, a sign that something was off about that person.

I think the carrying about co-workers would happen more when they're displaying some behavior that indicates they're disturbed or depressed or very happy about something. Then empathy might kick into play as you try too help/share with them. But don't sweat too much about those trivial interactions.