Ayn's Multiple World

Ok, Tired, but Great School Day

Good morning. It’s us again. We’re going into the second round of work … we’ve been posting and double and triple posting all over the place to make sure that everything is in order. Our mind is still being bogged down with extra detail, but we’re working on it. We would like to zip into the next set of circumstances for the next paper … be nice to have another one done before noon. I think we’re still going to need work on it though because if we get this paper done … then we’re going to be in a situation where we have to read another chapter. For week six on aggression. I think that has to be the way its done though unless I read the work, I would have to second guess on looking just for the immediate answers … although, I can do this, I feel it a disservice to my learning if I haven’t read and understood the material.

I’m really a fanatic about that kind of thing. Let’s see how this next part goes. I think I need to skim over the material first from my notes in the book on the latter part of the chapter. Why don’t we get that started right away. Hmm my arms are getting tired, that’s not such a good thing. Ok, think positive.

We’re moving ahead.

What do I need to do to start? Hmm, just moved keyboard see if that helps … not kitty friendly, but the only next option is to go back to the braces. Hmm, maybe I better try that right away need to be able to type. Ok, a little stiff, but we gotta try something. Ok back. We’ve got something in the microwave and we’re trying a pear in the meantime. The braces are on and we checked our blood sugar. We’re at 123, so that’s not exactly the problem, though we’re feeling bad as if the number is still too low though its right on target … if not a little on top. I don’t want to take a nap while we’re in a stage of seriousness as to the papers getting done. Ok, let’s press on … what’s next?

Beginning of Paper notes …

Ok, this is a situation calling for debate between altruism or egoism. The paper explicitly asks,

u05d2 Altruism :

Your text describes the controversy over whether or not true altruism exists. Does true altruism exist as Batson (1991) claims, or is all prosocial behavior driven by selfish motives such as the rewards of helping? Analyze research on both sides of this controversial issue, and provide support for your conclusion.

Reference

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

So, first let’s state what the controversy is according to the text. Time for some notes.

The authors’ begin the argument by a referral to a situation at Brookfield Zoo with an gorilla who appears to assist a young boy who has fallen into the enclosure by holding and cradling him and maintaining his safety from the other gorillas (p. 360).

It questions if the gorillia had been trained to act per norms in the manner of picking up and fetching things with no kindness or compassion or if it had shown these assets in a sense been concerned with the boys welfare (p. 360).

Batson (2002 as cited p. 361) claimed the side of altruism.
Batson negated the argument of costs and rewards stating that the helpful action of altruism was “in the absence of a clear external reward” (p. 361)and that it also required some kind of personal sacrifice by the giver, although it isn’t clear how this sacrifice is different than a cost. He attempts to make a clear distinction between the helper’s motive as being something more tangible with respect to receiving benefit or suffering cost (p. 361).

Batson asked what is the consequence of empathy, which encompassed taking the perspective of someone else and showing concern over the others distress.

Give example of bus and Norway

The contrast is that if you imagine how the other feels you are being altruistic, but if you pause to reflect on your own feelings, then that would be egoistic because you are then trying to reduce your own discomfort (p. 361).

Internalize?

Act vs. react

The alternatives discussed (p. 363) were that the cost of helping was in part to avoid guilt or to feel good to lessen other poorer feelings that we are having; basically mood enhancement.

Also called to question was that if you could feel “empathetic joy” were you not showing evidence of egotism (p. 363).

Later concluded that there could be multiple motives and that it was more important to feel comfortable with motives expressed for both self and other (p. 363).

The question was also presented that what happen “those in close relationships incorporate the other into the self?” Or, more succinctly, “recognition of self in the other” a feeling of oneness (p. 364).

Reason for the importance stated as to “help us determine whether or not the helping will occur in the first place” (p. 364) especially when there are options to escape.

Is it egotistical to want to gain knowledge and understanding (p. 365) by others within any given community - is this opposed to “humanitarian values and community concern that are more “other-orientated”” (p. 365).

Wraps up the discussion with an introspection on importance of building identity (p. 365)

Bring to recall in discussion Omoto and Snyder’s work on motivation stressing values, understanding, personal development, community concern, and esteem enhancement, which seems to combine self and other orientations (values – either, understanding, development, and esteem – self, and community – other)

Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social psychology [6th ed.]. Boston Houghton Mifflan Company.


Thrasher takes Batson to task in that he seemed to disinclude other branches of psychology such as spiritualism. Here she presented an argument dut to transcendentialism whereas “What happens to one person happens to all peole. Thus, helping a neighbor, stranger, friend, relative, or oneself are all in essence the same thing” (p. 163).

Developmentally, she discusses self-other boundary distinctions. She spoke of earlier ages of development the orientation is in general more egotistical, but that when one grew into maturity and well-health choice in helping patterns became more give and take (p. 163).

Thrasher referred to Maslow (1971) when she wrote that we can “choose the blurred ego boundaries of the transcendent state” (p. 163).

Thrasher thought the argument on sacrifice was irrelevant because the act was natural and unplanned – spontaneous (p. 163).

Thrasher, P. (1991, February). On altruism: Comment on Batson. American Psychologist, 46(2), 163. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

Martz argued angrily against Batson’s on the ground that Batson tried to “give that strawman a brain and a heart” (p. 162).

He said Batson was laying ground for the fallacy that people are only out for themselves and that this concept was based in hedonistic Neanderthaloid concepts of exchange – again cost and reward (p. 162).

Martz introduced the transformation process where for example a child’s glee over a new sweater was transformed into the parents pleasure (reward at diminished costs of purchase) (p. 162).

Martz claimed that Batson held an aversive-arousal reduction hypothesis and that “one can attribute anyone or several of the following outcome transformations to hightly empathetic individuals: (a) maximizing other’s outcomes, (b) maximizing joint outcomes, and (c) maxiinmizing other’s outcomes relative to one’s own” (p. 162).

States Batson “erroneously equated social egoism and ocial exchange. By using pro-social transformational processes, interdependence theory easily accounts for the results obtained in suppot of the empathy-altruism hypothesis” (p. 163) which occurs through reinforcement and count not only for pro-social and anti-social behaviors.

As cited (p. 163) Walachs endorse not adding an attribuitonal rule because it “overlooks the multiple causality of moral behavior and the many psychological processes that mediate it … placing scientific analysis of prosocial behavior into conflict with the everyday processes of moral evaluation.”

“Social exchange analysis does not diminish the value and morality of altruistic behavior. Despite Batson’s insistence, we are no less social because we like to help others” (p. 163).

Martz, J. M. (1991, February). Giving Batson’s strawman a brain … and a heart. American Psychologist, 46(2), 162-163. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.


“Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, and Neuberg (1997) begin their article by pointing out the potential significance for psychology of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which states that empathic emotion evokes motivation to increase the welfare of the person for whom empathy is felt as an ultimate goal (altruism), not as an instrumental means to increase one’s own welfare (egoism, Batson, 1991)” (p. 517).

“In an independent research program, Batson et al. (1997) also sought to test the possibility that the empathy-helping relationship was due to reduced self-other distinctiveness but found no support. They found an increase in helping associated with empanthy that could not be attributed to any of three meansures of self-other merging” (p. 517).

Batson cites Hornstein, Lerner, Wegner, Aron, and others as supporting the thought of the self merging with others (p. 517).

“First, they shift the focus of the hypothesized effects of empathy from motivation to behavior. The empathy-altruism hypothesis makes no claim that empathic concern influences helping; it claims that empathy evokes altruistic motivation. Altruistic motivation does not necessarily lead to helping behavior” (p. 520).

“Once again, that the empathy-altruism hypothesis does not state that empathy leads to helping, whether superficial or substantial; it states that empathy evokes altruistic motivation. Shifting focus from helping behavior to altruistic motivation permits recognition of the presence of other motives that may also influence helping. In any given helping situation, the strength of empathy-induced altruistic motivation relative to the strength of other motives, including egoistic motives associated with the cost of helping, determines its effect on behavior” (p. 521).

“Most need situations and helping opportunities evoke a jumble of motives, some conflicting and some congruent. The prospect that nonaltruistic concerns can lead people to hwellp, even empathically aroused people, poses no problem for the empathy-altruism hypothesis” (p. 520)

Batson, C. D. (1997, September). Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Reply to Neuberg et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 517-522. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.


“In modern theories of the self, as well as in current evolutionary thought, important features of the self can be located outside of the person and inside others. In addition, those conditions that typically lead to empathic concern (e.g., kinship, familiarity, perspective taking) also lead people to see parts of their selves in others. The possibility exists, then, that empathy-associated helping is not selfless but is rooted in the (usually implicit) desire to help that part of the self that is located in the other” (p. 510).

“In contrast, it is in the arena of meaningful (nontrivial) helping that oneness and egoistic motivators seem to have their greatest influence” (p. 510).
Both Batson and Neuberg argued over testing

“In conclusion, we believe that perceived oneness remains a viable nonaltruistic motivator of helping effects commonly attributed to altruistic motivation. We also believe that evidence relegating the unique impact of empathy on helping to the arena of superficial assistance changes fundamentally the likely interpretation of that assistance. Of course, in light of the long-standing debate generated by this topic, we have little doubt that observers have yet to see its last round” (p. 515).

Neuberg, S. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., & Luce, C. (1997, September). Does empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 510-516. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

End of Paper Notes …

Hi again its mi, its mi.

We’re taking a little study break. It’s now about 11:10 am. As you can see in the above … if you are so inclined to take note, we’ve got our 5 resources. There was one more that I was going to grab from January 2007, but that author was tough to read and not so professional. He was building up a case for people in outside/marriage relationships to be something terrible shame-ridden blah blah blah … Not to say this might not be the case, but I’m in no spirit to enter into that kind of relationship with a writer who has struck such a deep sword into the wound.

Yeeks, and there you go my friend … that’s about as far as we’re going with that. Let’s back up with our other resources. They do meet our personal quota of five. I consider this plenty by Cappella standards. We’ve then shifted our notes, or at least a copy of them over to the OneNote program, and when we resume, it will be time to start sorting out all the elements. I think we’ll begin with hmm, let me think. You know, I think I would like to take them in the order I read. Brehm is the newest at 2005 … so she should hold a pretty good summary view, then we are going back for a couple quick “kill” psychologists who are against the person the text is for the most part supporting, and then we have information from the key participant in this little conversation and then finally a response from his biggest angst. WHO if we may add makes one heck of an argument in that … ok ok … getting ahead of myself, but in reading thus far, I can tell you it seems a lot to do with self-other and how much we are into each other … like I say … just wait a few minutes. Want to get to the psychologist who is calling the main stay a Neanderthal!

Hehehe psychologists they’re so damn witty! God love em!

Ok, We really mean to get another one done early … why don’t we just jump right back in and then hopefully get to the reading assignment to balance the day. Let’s try K?

Begin Paper Here …

Topic: u05d2 Altruism Date: February 19, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: In response to the assignment from Ann

Author: Garvey, Ann
Last edited on: February 19, 2007 1:38 PM

The argument for this unit discussion begins with a reference to a gorilla in Brookfield Zoo, and we wanted to say for the record we live in Brookfield, so am feeling BIRGy thank you very much!

That entire aside … the task here is to describe the controversy of altruism being of existence, telling whether Batson’s claims are grounded, or noting that prosocial behavior is driven by selfish motives such as gaining rewards for helping. We are to analyze research on both sides and present support for our conclusion. I will first look over the work as supported by our text authors; I will then look briefly at two sharp criticisms of Batson’s work, next look at Batson’s work directly, and then follow it with a team’s remarks highly critical of Batson’s results. First though, I would like to tell a tiny story of an experience I once had.

To my recollection this story stands in my mind as the most altruistic experience I’ve ever had. Basically, I was in Norway as part of a scholastic semester abroad. We traveled and learned with primarily the same group of about 25 students from various universities throughout the United States. The courses were taught in English and we had many opportunities to be out in the community both locally and afar. On one of the trips we had gone to Denmark. We did the normal things students traveling do and when the time came to go, we all gathered on the school bus that had been rented to find our way back to the hostel. The director of the program was very schedule-driven. I recall sitting on the right side of the bus about 7-8 seats back. The question was what happened to three of my peers who had not found their way back to the bus.

Sonja the director decided we couldn’t hold up everyone so she mumbled something about “We’ll just have to leave them.”

I was known for being very quiet and unobtrusive, but baring all that I thought and then found I had said out loud, “You can’t do that! They won’t know where we are!” Her response was something like “well that’s too bad if you want to help them go find them yourself.” Well, no, it wasn’t said like this exactly, but it might as well have been. I remember within seconds climbing past the others seats’, shooting out past the door way, and then turning back to see the bus leaving. Every head was turned toward the windows and I felt about the size of a snail. I didn’t need to look around to know I knew absolutely nothing about where I was. I wasn’t able to speak the language and I was pretty sure I didn’t know where the other three were. I didn’t have map or money. I just knew they couldn’t be left without knowing what happened. That would have been abandonment. To my great and ever-long lasting thanks and appreciation the girls found me standing where the bus should have been, one of them could speak Norwegian; between them there was enough money to figure out how the bus system worked. We made it home feeling like quite the adventurers. Point being … it was the most altruistic thing we’ve ever done.

I’ll come back to the story in a bit. As to the text treatment of the altruism-egotism issue, Brehm, Kassin & Fein (2005, p. 361) argue for Batson against the cost-reward argument because altruism was going to be explained as not having external rewards. They suggest that there be a sacrifice from the giver and that it be an empathetic consequence where the giver took the perspective of someone else and showed concern over the others’ distress (p. 361). This act was in contrast to another where you reflected on your feelings, which were egotistical and react as if reducing some internal discomfort. We were unsure at this point whether or not this still wasn’t an explanation of reward-cost because in being self-installed there would necessarily be a gain or loss primarily because to stay the same would be in disregard for change. I think this is a mute point though at this time. It was argued that to feel joy might be considered evidence of egotism (p. 363).

Batson’s theory argues the point of incorporation of self into other where the boundary or border between the two parties becomes merged and they become one (p. 364). The authors conclude it is important to understand whether or not you can be altruistic without egotistical motivations in this manner of giving because it will help us to determine if helping occurs even though we could escape, would we still in fact hold “humanitarian values and community concern that are more “other-orientated’ and went one last step forward in saying that the construct assisted us in developing an identity (p. 365).

The next psychologist Thrasher (1991) thought that Batson’s theory disengaged the value of spirituality by not qualifying the value of transcendentialism and other branches of psychology. She stated that “What happens to one person happens to all people. Thus, helping a neighbor, stranger, friend, relative, or oneself are all in essence the same thing” (p. 163). She constructed her argument based from Maslow in that people “choose the blurred ego boundaries of the transcendent state” (p. 163). Lastly, she mentioned developmental evolution in that children are more egocentric and that as one matures in a healthy fashion that we chose patterns where we learned to “give and take” (p. 163).

Between the first two positions it seems that although Thrasher portrayed herself as contradicting Batson’s work, she actually helped to demonstrate the principle of oneness. It was difficult to accept Maslow here though as an argument, because using his terms out of context would imply there was a general understanding of “ego boundaries,” which would be helpful to understand, but not exclusive in every psychological design. It would also seem that transcendentialism might be a term that’s perhaps carries other connotations, such as being based in religion. In fact the oneness that Thrasher implies sounded like various accounts of accepting God in all of us, which is out of the realm of psychology.

Another opposition to Batson was Martz (1991) who argued that Batson had tried to “give that strawman a brain and a heart” (p. 162). He went further down the road in stating that Batson’s theories were hedonistic and that his concepts of exchange were Neanderthal because they implied that man was really out for only himself (p. 162). He presented the argument of a child getting a new sweater as being a transformational act that gave the parents pleasure (although there were a cost)” (p. 162). He stated that in transformations of strong empathetic relationships several things could occur including maximizing the others’ outcomes, maximizing joint outcomes, and maximizing others’ outcomes relative to one’s own (p. 162), which he appeared to tie into a theory of interdependence. Lastly, Martz claimed that Batson confused social egoism with social exchange and then he stated that ‘social exchange analysis does not diminish the value and morality of altruistic behavior” (p. 163).

It was strange for me to hear this level of animosity expressed in the professional journals, but I’m thinking now this happens frequently when people argue concepts. In arguing that Batson’s concepts were other than what they were in negative terms, seemed to help nothing except to imply that Martz had trouble controlling his temper and wit. In looking at the example that Martz presented with the child and the sweater, I would think the situation didn’t apply in that there was some equation of distress involved with the model that Batson presented through Brehm, et al. I’m sure this is most likely not a full interpretation of Batson’s work. Martz relationship seemed much more robust in that he included the other, the self, and the mix of outcomes all being satisfied. This seems closer to the truth … on any given Sunday. I am unsure of the difference of social exchange and social egoism, but it would seem Martz is arguing that Batson egoism (selfishness) is being compared to cost/reward and that Martz thought even if egoism and exchange could be comparable it did not make either less moral or of less value. I’m unsure as to whether this was Batson’s intent.

In the fourth article, Batson speaks for himself and particularly to a group lead by Neuberg. He argues strongly that Neuberg’s group was mincing motivation theories with behavior. Specifically, “shifting focus from helping behavior to altruistic motivation permits recognition of the presence of other motives that may also influence helping” and he further states, “In any given helping situation the strength of empathy-induced altruistic motivation relative to the strength of other motives, including egoistic motives associated with the cost of helping, determines its effect on behavior” (p. 521). In this respect, he seems to be saying that for one there is a clear distinction between motives and behavior and secondly that the outcome of the empathy driven motive is an outsourcing of weaker motives whether egoistic or altruistic. He stated more strongly that empathy evokes altruism (p. 520) and lastly he stated that “The prospect that non-altruistic concerns can lead people to help, even empathically aroused people, poses no problem for the empathy-altruism hypothesis” (p. 520).

This seems to support the discussion on motivation not lead all the time to expected behavior.
The last to enter in on the conversation was Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown, & Luce (1997, p. 510). Both Neuberg and Batson had been presenting experiments each on behalf of their own cause. Each argued that the other’s tests did not cover what they were purported to cover. So for that reader that seemed to break down hope in that the theories and tests to explain the theories could be so confounded in lack of co-tolerance. The sum total of the arguments to this point seemed to be that Batson presented a theory which included that altruism was a coming together of people, which disinclined egotism as if focusing on self would deter from the act of altruism because there was to be a clear absence of an external reward. Reward seemed heavily tied to egocentrism. It seemed that a good part of what was discussed as altruism was not carrying preconceived notions … and as our kids argued along their way growing up, “Do you love me unconditionally.”

The biggest difference I saw Neuberg contributing was that although he challenged Batson, he thought that “perceived oneness remained a viable non-altruistic motivator of helping effects commonly attributed to altruistic motivation” (Neuburg, et. al, 1997, p. 515). In this manner it seemed they both agreed that there were more paths to altruism than just the rosy one of selflessness. Lastly, I enjoyed most of the arguments when Neuberg stated “In modern theories of the self, as well as in current evolutionary thought, important features of the self can be located outside of the person and inside others. In addition, those conditions that typically lead to empathic concern (e.g., kinship, familiarity, perspective taking) also lead people to see parts of their selves in others” (p. 510).

In concluding the paper I thought this thought alone was very swaying. It recognized like with the theory we’ve been learning with attachment styles that part of us becomes ingrained in our attachments to other people. So, if my primary attachment was someone I could empathize deeply with it would stand to reason we would defend them altruistically and hence ourselves. This is a critical thought in well-being that is just this instance very real and worthy of consideration. Secret would be in making the self not just the bearer of their projected bad child. In this regard in speaking of rewards and costs, the cost would be recognized in life-long burdens and the reward would be a sense of wholeness in finding another whom in turn turns out to be oneself as well. Nice.

One last thought … as to the example given at the beginning of this paper. Without postponing the end of this paper much longer, my thoughts as to its importance is now conceived as the greater fear became lessened in the motivation of the girls that were to be left behind … now thinking ourselves that day in that we’d made a marker for ourselves. That day, we in them were not abandoned, well we were, but we survived nonetheless. To make the story that much more delectable was the factor that we made it back to the proverbial womb not only safe and sound, but in camaraderie of being so capable. It was a miraculous feeling of freedom to be let go of the fear that the original abandonment had left. The last thought that always closes that segue of thought in our memory was the picture on of the girls took of us running through a flock of birds that lifted as well, if not in spirit, gracious well-timing.

References

Batson, C. D. (1997, September). Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Reply to Neuberg et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 517-522. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social psychology [6th ed.]. Boston Houghton Mifflan Company.

Martz, J. M. (1991, February). Giving Batson’s strawman a brain … and a heart. American Psychologist, 46(2), 162-163. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

Neuberg, S. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., & Luce, C. (1997, September). Does empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 510-516. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

Thrasher, P. (1991, February). On altruism: Comment on Batson. American Psychologist, 46(2), 163. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from PsycARTICLES data base.

END OF PAPER YOOOOHOOOO!!!!

Doing the little snoopy dance!! Well that and eating some cereal. Me an Chief … whatever made the boss cat wake up sheesh!

Ok, Just us and you now. We’re almost halfway done … did some getting of homework assignments prepared. I keep thinking it’s an off Monday and I’m going to hear from Sweetie pie, but I think he’s with his youngest looking at colleges today. WoohOOO Do you know they are thinking that he might go to my youngest son’s alma-matta? We’ve never talked directly about it, so that’s really cool. I think it was the idea of his youngest son. The school actually does make a lot of sense as far as being relatively close to home – 45 minutes, but at the same time somewhere totally different. It’s a good school not top of the line, but adequate. I think my son got a good education. The hard part is getting through the experience where you are studying more than partying – oh and doing some regulated things is nice too!

Ok, so enough reminiscing

Ahh … we’re back again. We’re taking a dinner break … it’s now about quarter to 6 pm. We are about 60% through with the reading assignment, but we’ve put 3 hours into it. Yeeks. It’s a little more harrowing than normal, because its all about violence and aggression. YEEKS!!! There is still those 12 supplementary pages too, but at this pace I’d be happy to finish around 9 or 9:30 pm. It will help me to avoid the depression I’m starting to feel about having to go back to work tomorrow. I see no way out of it. I’m not sure what the kitties will be doing, but I imagine I’m going to find party hats again. Hmpf!

Somebody is going to need picking up a check that’s for sure. Haven’t been paid for quite some time. I would like to pay our friend back some, but I’m not sure how that all goes at all. Good … just checked the bank … she’s holding steady at $44 … We’re not spending too much. Still haven’t taken care of the credit card either. Not sure what’s happening on that score. I suppose the final test would come from washing the extra clothes, but we’re not ready for that. Getting the kitchen, dining room, and living room picked-up were pretty big deals … just some pressure … can’t do the whole thing yet. I know that I have to look at our schedule as to school work. But, maybe we can do that in a few moments when we have dinner and no kitty. Hmm, maybe some news too?

Ok …. That about does that. We’re on the slow plan now … Almost finish up tonight … we’re willing to put about 2 more hours in or fall asleep trying. We had a leisurly dinner with on-line news think we’ll turn on some kind of music.

Hey guess what? We stayed up … It’s 9:12 pm and we’re figuring its definitely time for bed … But we got the 44 pages of text read this afternoon/night AND wrote 2 papers … WOOHOOOO! We’re going to make it … just gotta keep doing things … more good days.

posted by Ann Marie @ 2/19/2007 09:16:00 PM Comments: 1