Nobody likes a do-gooder: Study confirms selfless behaviour is 'alienating'

[Daniel Davis]

I'm reading a book by David Rock, "The Mind at Work", which is a gernal analysis 
of the mind in terms of behavior and functioning. One of the models he has 
developed is SCARF - Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Fairness, where 
violations of any of those are perceived as primary threats, like physical 
threats.

So I'll give an analysis of the study in terms of his model.

Giving gifts is often a means of asserting status - I am so strong that I can 
give things away, and if I'm stronger than you, I can give them to you. The 
person giving their voucher away is basically giving charity to the group, 
asserting their superiority over the group, and the group resented it.

Aren't people offended by violations of perceived fairness either way, whether 
positive or negative? They don't like people who take unfair advantage, and they 
don't like people who let themselves be taken advantage of. Either undermines 
fairness. And I would expect that fairness is asserted particularly in matters 
of trade. Their designated altruist is acting more like a chump in terms of 
fairness.


Also, the fact that a minority of one engaged in behavior deviating from the 
group automatically puts that person in the Them category, provoking automatic 
dislike. (The Relatedness dimension.)

The violation of the fairness rules no doubt also pinged the Uncertainty button, 
because it was unexpected, which then presented further uncertainty of whether 
others would follow suit, and whether you should too. 


So to the extent that I can tell what was going on in the study, which I find 
difficult, I don't see any attempt at all to control for a number of relevant 
factors. Also, a person could just value the possible money more than the 
vouchers, so that was a particularly bad design choice.

Altruism in action as opposed to Altruism in pontification really isn't doing 
good to others, it is doing good to others that are significantly worse off than 
yourself, or in a significantly worse position to deal with an issue. The less 
related a person is, the more differential is required.

Who would classify sending Bill Gates a check for $10 as altruism?

The other day I saw a woman at the hardware store trying to get down a 4x4 from 
a rack. I could do it easier, so I offered to get it down for her. She smiled 
and thanked me, and I got it down. I guess that would be altruism, with some 
habitual sucking up to the ladies - though I had no such aims in this case.

I wouldn't have offered that help to any man with all his parts, not just 
because men don't float my boat, but because a man would likely perceive it as 
an insult, whether or not it was manifestly obvious to both of us that I was 
better able to get it down.

I think people have some innate sense to help others in their group, and name 
that altruism. Isn't it likely that much of the philosophical arguments about 
altruism occur because that innate sense is not accurately conceptually 
identified, and the issues are further clouded because the inaccurate conceptual 
models are often applied in argument in ways that contradict that innate sense?

A thought has occurred to me with increasing frequency - maybe other people just 
aren't as obsessively analytical and tediously pedantic as I am, and don't feel 
the same compulsion for conceptual clarity that I do. For example, when people 
are in favor of altruism, they are for their innate sense, and completely 
disregard the explicit conceptualizations of it used in philosophical arguments, 
except as references to that innate sense.

- Dan



________________________________
From: Svein Olav Nyberg <i at i-studies.com>
To: David McDivitt <david at subjectivist.org>
Cc: nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 4:41:07 AM
Subject: Re: Nobody likes a do-gooder: Study confirms selfless behaviour is  
'alienating'

Interesting study, but isn't using it as a credibility witness for 
egoism a bit like "Proof by Peer Pressure"?


Best regards,
        Svein Olav


At 14:52 +0200 26-08-10, David McDivitt wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1305716/Nobody-likes-gooder-Study-confirms-selfless-behaviour-alienating.html#ixzz0xbmhK0QL
>
>
>Nobody likes a do-gooder: Study confirms selfless behaviour is 'alienating'
>By Daily Mail Reporter
>Last updated at 1:31 AM on 25th August 2010
>
>
>They probably think their selfless behaviour makes them popular but the
>truth about 'do-gooders' is nobody really likes them, according to new
>research.
>
>A series of studies found that those who volunteer to take on unwanted tasks
>or who hand out gifts without being prompted, quickly alienate themselves.
>
>Psychologists believe this is because it makes the rest of us feel guilty
>and puts pressure on us to behave in an equally selfless fashion.
>
>Researchers say do-gooders come to be resented because they 'raise the bar'
>for what is expected of everyone.
>
>It suggests that people might want to think twice before waxing lyrical
>about their charity work or volunteering to put in extra hours at the
>office.
>
>Social psychologist Professor Craig Parks said: 'The fear is that this new
>standard will make everyone else look bad.
>
>'It doesn't matter that the overall welfare of the group is better served by
>someone's unselfish behaviour.
>
>'What is objectively good, we see as subjectively bad.
>
>'The do-gooders are also seen as deviant rule breakers. It's as if they're
>giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other
>players no end.'
>
>Professor Parks, of Washington State University, carried out a series of
>four tests with groups of people which showed that do-gooders got people's
>backs up.
>
>In each case others reacted by wanting them thrown out of the group.
>
>Prof Parks added: 'It's perhaps not hard to think of examples of this but we
>were the first to show this happens and have explanations for why.'
>
>Parks led the research entitled 'The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from
>the Group.'
>
>During the research, participants were handed an allocation of points they
>could keep or give up for an immediate reward of meal service vouchers.
>
>They were also told that giving up points would improve the group's chance
>of receiving a monetary reward to be shared between them.
>
>Generally those within the group would make seemingly fair swaps of one
>point for each voucher.
>
>However, in each group one was briefed to make lopsided exchanges - greedily
>giving up no points and taking a lot of vouchers or unselfishly giving up a
>lot of points and taking few vouchers.
>
>As expected, most participants later said they would not want to work with
>the greedy colleague again.
>
>But a majority of participants also said they would not want to work with
>the unselfish colleague again.
>
>Prof Parks added: 'They frequently said 'the person is making me look bad'
>or is breaking the rules.
>
>'Occasionally, they would suspect the person had ulterior motives.'  Further
>research is planned to look at how do-gooders themselves react to being
>rejected.
>
>While some may indeed have ulterior motives, Prof Parks said it's more
>likely they actually are working for the good of the wider group.
>
>He speculated that, once excluded from the group, they may simply give up.
>
>'But it's also possible,' he added, 'that they may actually try even
>harder.'
>
>The research is published in the current Journal of Personality and Social
>Psychology.
>
>--
>dgm
>_______________________________________________
>nonserviam mailing list
>nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
>http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam

-- 

Svein Olav Nyberg
http://i-studies.com/i/

   "Did you ever contribute anything to the
    happiness of Mankind?"

   "Yes, I myself have been happy!"

                 - John Henry Mackay
_______________________________________________
nonserviam mailing list
nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam