RE: Extreme Altruism and the Psychopathic Brain.
"A clear-headed woman would have simply run the dog down. In trying to avoid it she needlessly endangered herself and the other drivers on the freeway, as did the man who ran out into traffic to save her. While their actions seem laudable on the surface, they were both personally and criminally irresponsible."
In hindsight we observe the woman avoiding the dog got in an accident. However, she certainly didn't decide to get in a one car accident and avoid the one car, one dog accident. Had she not avoided the dog, hitting might have caused an accident as well.
It's really impossible to second guess her actions without far more information than is available.
So, her action to miss the dog may not have been unreasonable at all. The action taken to save her life didn't result in an accident, and was successful. It is impossible to call that action reckless, since it demonstrably didn't result in any harm.
Neither act then can be labeled irresponsible or criminal from the available facts. Furthermore, if someone is in danger, and you have a chance to save them, it is not lawful to do nothing. Doing nothing when availed of an opportunity to save someone is a crime.
As for swerving to avoid hitting a mere dog, I have swerved to avoid moths flying at night. I only did so utterly confident of my ability to not lose control, or I would have just hit the moth.
Sooner or later, we all make mistakes, and sooner or later we all die. There's nothing particularly special about that. What we can make special is our good work to help and support one another while we live.
That we die is meaningless. That we live first is important.
I completely agree with you regarding psychopathy and leadership. However, while the megalomania many such figures evidence rarely engenders revolution, because psychopaths aren't burdened by the empathic concerns that weigh others thinking down. They consider their positions objectively, and are extraordinarily manipulative as a result.
They learn that throwing a bone to the pack now and then keeps the pack loyal.
It is for this reason that I believe that revolutions are destined to all fail, and to simply replace one set of psychopaths with another, rather than changing the system. In order to change the system, we need instead to repurpose our assets to a separate system, and leave the psychopaths and their sycophants to their machinations, while we create mechanisms that aren't suitable for that dynamic.
Not revolution, but evolution, will set us free.
Thanks!
I always wondered is this legal or not, thank you very much for explaining:
Unfortunately, as we are getting used to others' pain and suffering our brain chooses to ignore it. That's why, for example, when someone gets hurt in an accident most people just pass by and do not help. This is also partially due to the crowd effect - "If everyone is just passing by, it's OK for me to just pass by also". It is noted that when someone surrounded by a crowd needs help, it can take a long time for someone to approach him, but once one person approaches, usually many more will follow. Thus, the existence of a certain percentage of altruists brings exponential benefits to the society (in addition to their good deeds, they will also inspire others to join).
Crowds are a much different animal than individuals. I doubt if any one person would go out of his way to burn a witch at the stake or perform a lynching. One psychopath can take control of a situation and turn a crowd in the direction he wants them to go with his cleverness and his need to control.
On the other hand, one altruist has a hard time getting people to follow him unless he is also extremely charismatic since most people in a group have more self-interest than when they are left to their own devices. While love is a powerful force, hatred and fear are greater motivators toward action.
Humans in a disaster situation become more helpful simply because its built into the species. Somehow their empathy circuits kick in and they respond accordingly. Humans are indeed a complex species.
Ultimately, give and you shall receive is true, as is giving being better than receiving. Let's just hope we can get that message across before we wipe each other out following the wrong leaders.
" While love is a powerful force, hatred and fear are greater motivators toward action."
This may be the reason behind psychopaths having easier time to get followers than altruists, but the reason may also be the fact that the evil side of many people is largely suppressed due to social norms and thus just waiting for an opportunity to come out.
In any case, we as individuals can do and lead much and we should not turn our heads away.
Of course not. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Steemit is the perfect example. Lol!
We certainly don't have all the details of this non-accident. But the fact that she lost control of her vehicle to avoid hitting a dog says a lot. I doubt the woman's response was a calculated one but a gut reaction. She saw the dog panicked.
I had a woman swerve into my lane to avoid a freaking ground squirrel, forcing me off the road to avoid a head-on collision. Luckily, I had a bit of shoulder space. When I was a kid, my mother ran down two dogs on the freeway, not small dogs either, a German shepherd and a Schnauzer. The freeway was packed with cars on both sides of us. It happened fast, cars slamming on their brakes and swerving in front of us. Mom didn't see the dogs until the last second. Fortunately for us (but not the dogs) we were in a 1957 Buick. No seat belts in those days. I was shocked, but she looked at me and said, "Thank God it was only dogs."
This is part of the social programming problems we're dealing with. Does this jibe with voluntarism? Accidentally killing someone while trying to save them might be considered manslaughter and get you a hitch in the pokey. Shouldn't a decision like that be left up to the individual?
Killing a dog is a felony. Is that reasonable? How many dogs are there? You can buy a tag to kill a cougar. How many cougars are there?
I'll never needlessly kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I won't kill an animal if I have to. I've lost count of the number of rattlesnakes I've chased off the warm highway in the early evening. My youngest son wanted me to force a guy off the road so he could beat him up because the guy intentionally swerved to run over a snake basking on the highway. We all have our priorities.
Dying to save someone doesn't necessarily make our life meaningful, especially if we have people who depend on us. I remember looking at an old skeleton in a museum and thinking that this person probably lived an uneventful life, but now his skeleton was on display, probably lending him more value now than when he was alive; not to the man himself, but to me now. It's like being a rock star whose best ever career move was to die young.
I totally agree with you about revolution. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa were successful revolutionaries who were hunted down and murdered after winning the Mexican revolution because they were, well, revolutionaries. You have to totally eliminate the power structure or it will once again fill with psychopaths. The best social evolutionary path is to simply stop cooperating, stop playing the game by someone else's rules. Decentralization is certainly a step in that direction.
Thanks for the chance to banter. :)