Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

[rush242]

He's not asking for pretense during the boy's last moments. He's asking for focus, for choice, for trying to make his mind hold his body together long enough to have a few moments of experiencing that he made the right decisions. He wants to know that the boy, in turn, knows that feeling of success, for more than fleeting moments, before he expires — as he does, shortly, in Rearden's arms, after showing that he had made a moral victory of self-awareness.

The boy was being asked to fake nothing. ~snip~

Rearden made "a command to rise," if only for the last two minutes of one's life. Those in the other story (if it happened) were the fakers and liars, erecting a false achievement. Only the former signifies love. Or, for that matter, kindness.

Now THAT bit of writing gave me an emotional response. Thank you, Greybird.

[georgedonnelly]

Now that isn't the way Rand's fictional characters live. They aren't going around asking themselves, Is this action moral? They aren't putting their behavior through a check list of proper procedures. Their focus is on their goals and how to get there.

But that's fiction. Fiction, being romanticized and based on optimized bits of reality, doesn't directly apply to reality. It's not necessarily relevant to reality. In order to act like that, one must spend a good amount of time thinking, especially when you have been raised and live in an altruistic society. But the thinking part is boring, so it won't ever make into a good novel.

But what happened with so many Objectivists was that they were focusing on the supposed means and making the means in effect the goal. They became rather like the centipede that was thinking about how its legs move and couldn't walk. They were tied in knots of moral self-examination and guilt and kept getting farther from rather than nearer to the supposed goal of enjoying their lives.

Isn't virtue the path to happiness, in Objectivism? I think so. Isn't the means - defined as how you take action - indeed the goal?

That reminds me of the old riddle of sorts: "which is more important: the means or the end?" The easy, and wrong, answer is the end. That leads to people doing anything to achieve their goals. The right answer is that the means is more important. Your end could be full of great intentions but if you murder, steal and lie to reach it, what use is it?

While I find guilt to be useless, self-examination is critical. I wonder if the real problem in this scenario is not the latter, but the former (i.e., the guilt)? Or a lack of clear understanding of Objectivism, or clear thinking?

I thought you probably didn't know any Objectivists. Do you know any guilt-ridden Catholics? Probably some of those. ;-)

Too many! Had I accepted my programming, err upbringing, I would be one. For some reason I rejected all the religion classes and the guilt/sin talk. I think in some sense the experience partially inoculated me against guilt.

It's the same sort of problem. The goal of the Catholic, theoretically, is to go to heaven. Meanwhile life on earth can be an ordeal of fearing being sinful. The Objectivists I'm talking about lived as if "happiness" were "heaven," something to be achieved in the hereafter -- though they'd say that happiness was their goal. In practice fear of sinning was the active force.

Bummer. That doesn't sound like much fun.

[georgedonnelly]

Also: Notice the wording of the quote from Allan Blumenthal (post #37), which you altered in your question.

Huh? I altered a quote? Did I even quote post #37?

I hate it when people make substantive edits after posting.

Edited June 11, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

George,

Because I am not competing against anyone and you are. I'm just examining ideas. Admittedly, you have not understood properly what I am talking about (see earlier in your same post), yet have a slew of negative opinions on it. Those "nameless people" and shadows are in your head, not in my words.

Before I move on, I want to state that I stand by my interpretation of the Rand quotes and I reject the logic twistings I have read to make Rand's words (and mine) seem like what they are not. In your case, we do agree that love is involved, but it is also involved in my opening story from Dyer. The scope is different but the nature is the same—valuing human life.

Back to the issue. My examinations sure seem to threaten some people. Anytime I bring up kindness to the weak, I am used to getting this hostile reaction on Objectivist boards. This happened several times with discussing the morality of letting an infant stranger starve in the wilderness if one encountered him. To me, this is a no-brainer, but all hell broke loose several times.

There is a there there and I am starting to get curious about it. No one can possibly think that, in reality, I am equal to a Rand villain preaching for government controls over every aspect of life and altruism as a smokescreen so I can gain power over others, yet I often get the feeling that the hostile posters want me to be one.

Sorry. It ain't gonna happen.

I am starting to believe that I touch on unresolved conflicts in some people's minds, ones that they prefer not to think about, ones that make them feel ugly to themselves, and this gets them very annoyed. I can't be sure at this point, but the pattern of behavior I am observing over time is adding up to that.

The vehemence and aggressiveness of the reactions exist and all this is archived in posts. Maybe those are the "nameless people" in your head? For the record, I am not arguing against them. I am talking about the ideas I laid out in my opening post.

There are two points in the current matter that I brought up that have not even been sniffed at in this discussion (except for a passing comment by Ellen on one of them) as the kneejerk defense mechanisms kicked in.

1. What is the reason the baseball story is so powerful on an emotional level to so many people? What is the nature of that reaction and what are the psychological values involved? (They exist. This is easily observed everywhere. Why rationalize them or ignore them?)

2. Is it true that the serotonin level in the brain is increased by performing, receiving or observing acts of kindness? (Dyer said something about this being measured in urine samples.) If so, isn't kindness to others a profoundly selfish thing to do?

I think both of these questions have critical importance on forming values. Ignoring them is evading reality and I don't want to evade reality.

Michael

[Laure]

Gosh, Michael, I thought we were discussing our reactions to the retarded-kid-baseball story. But really, you were just looking to label people who did not get misty-eyed at the story as evil. You WERE deliberately trying to piss people off. You succeeded.

I don't know what the hell you mean by:

Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

George,

Because I am not competing against anyone and you are. I'm just examining ideas. Admittedly, you have not understood properly what I am talking about (see earlier in your same post), yet have a slew of negative opinions on it. Those "nameless people" and shadows are in your head, not in my words....

George is competing against someone?!? WTF?!?

I thought I was engaged in a reasonable, civil back-and-forth. Now it is obvious that you are including me in your lumping together of unkind Objectivists with unresolved conflicts and normative/cognitive malfunctions. You figured out how to piss off Jim Heaps-Nelson awhile back, and now you've figured out how to piss me off. I've seen "snarky" and "smarmy" used to describe you, and today I have come to agree with those adjectives wholeheartedly.

I hope the folks I have enjoyed interacting with here (Brant, George Donnelly, WSS, Ellen, M. Newberry, Greybird, Chris Greib and others) will frequent RoR more in the future, as that's where I will be spending more of my browsing time.

See y'all on RoR.

[georgedonnelly]

Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

Those "nameless people" and shadows are in your head, not in my words.

I suppose the following 5 quotes are "in my head"? These aren't your words?

I see some very nasty people take advantage of the gap to practice cruelty, spit on kindness as a value, and pretend they are being virtuous. They miss the boat and I do not they are being virtuous. I think they are practicing evil by doing that.

But I have to mention something. I don't mind people not being moved by the story. I do mind people who think kindness is evil. People who believe this rarely say it and even deny it at times, but they show this belief clearly in their acts.

I do think that "some so-called Objectivists" are against kindness. They are very nasty contemptible human beings. I won't name them now (I am starting to get bored with the interforum thing), but I have named them enough so that many readers know exactly who I am talking about. I also despise these petty nasty people.

(EDIT: btw - The boneheads live for the sake of Rand, not for their own sakes. If that isn't faking reality, I don't know what is. From my observation, underacheivement, mediocrity and snarkiness are the essential characteristics of that group.)

My only caveat is that there are some people I have observed who go way beyond this and constantly practice bullying, intimidation, snarkiness, power games, etc., and they know this is bad but they do it anyway because they like it. Objectivism is simply an excuse to be an asshole with a moral sanction. These people would be that way irrespective of the philosophy or religion they advocated.

1. What is the reason the baseball story is so powerful on an emotional level to so many people? What is the nature of that reaction and what are the psychological values involved? (They exist. This is easily observed everywhere. Why rationalize them or ignore them?)

2. Is it true that the serotonin level in the brain is increased by performing, receiving or observing acts of kindness? (Dyer said something about this being measured in urine samples.) If so, isn't kindness to others a profoundly selfish thing to do?

I think both of these questions have critical importance on forming values. Ignoring them is evading reality and I don't want to evade reality.

1. Pity? Religions have many people convinced they should perform acts of disinterested charity and mercy for the less fortunate.

Maybe it's the fact that it involves a child, a child who will never realize the potential others take for granted. A child is by definition innocent and this one is paying for "sins" he did not commit.

Perhaps people sympathize with the boy's feeling of being 'less' than others and getting left out as a result. Maybe they feel the greatest gift is that which is unearned.

I really don't know why but I am not too concerned about it. I class pity right up there with guilt, negative attitudes and apathy - I try to spend as little time on them as possible.

Ignoring certain aspects of nature or society is not evading reality. It is taking goal-oriented action. Just because a bear moves his bowels in the woods and I don't go and watch it, does not constitute an evasion of reality.

2. A quick search turns up assertions of this serotonin-kindness relationship, but they all appear to cite Dyer as their evidence for it. Without any kind of evidence, how can anyone reach a judgment on the matter? I can't.

Regardless, I consider kindness - defined as benevolence - an important value.

In fact, I think benevolence is an unstoppable consequence of the optimism that is the natural condition of human beings, and would seem to be the inescapable consequence of valuing your own life above all else.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gosh, Michael, I thought we were discussing our reactions to the retarded-kid-baseball story. But really, you were just looking to label people who did not get misty-eyed at the story as evil. You WERE deliberately trying to piss people off. You succeeded.

Laure,

That is so wrong I am flabberghasted. For example, where on earth did I label those "who did not get misty-eyed at the story as evil"?

Look for a quote. You won't find one. Not even an insinuation of that.

And that's just one thing wrong. If that kind of reasoning suits you, it's your head, not mine.

I also notice that you are not interested in the actual ideas I mentioned (serotonin and so forth).

Anyway, be happy. I wish you well.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

I'm not sure Michael labeled anyone as evil that didn't tear up, and I'm not sure about him being smarmy, but Laure is dead on on all the other counts.

Also Michael I notice you used her one questionable accusation to damn the whole lot. That strikes me as very questionable, if not ill-intentioned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I might have misunderstood you. Since you mentioned people "who aren't participating in this discussion," I took this to mean that I am arguing against them and expecting some kind of rebuttal.

If that was not your meaning, I misunderstood. If it is your meaning, let me make one thing clear.

I'm not discussing anything with those people. I am presenting them and condemning them as disgusting examples of what I am taking about.

When you say, for example, "Religions have many people...," are you arguing against many people "who aren't participating in this discussion" and this somehow puts a shadow over your discussion? Why not give their names? If you don't want to or don't think it is necessary, why hold me to a standard you don't use?

I'm getting bored with interforum back-and-forth, so I prefer not to name names in this thread and read a bunch of insults on other forums. I'm actually interested in the ideas I mentioned (which are still being ignored). That's my ONLY reason. People who follow my writing know exactly who I am talking about, and so do the boneheads.

I'm even getting tired of discussing this here. So unless you are interested in the ideas, I have better things to do. (You actually did give a few remarks on the ideas. I will get to those in a minute.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Anybody have any thoughts?

I personally think this story is a powerful morality tale. If people want moral perfection, this story showed a moment of perfect kindness. I wonder if it would be possible to do this looking up...

Michael.

That is no way to play baseball. Baseball is a game in which the object is for your team to score more runs than the opposing team. I am for fair play, play according to the agreed upon rules, but feel goodness, such as illustrated in your article is not baseball. It is something else.

I will state my position. I prefer fairness and justice (which are both manifestations of truth) to kindness, which is often a pretext for telling feel good lies. Truth is always better than lies.

Reality is not kind, so we should get used to that.

As to "moral perfection" keep in mind that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good. The pursuit of perfection is often a trip down the Trail of Tears.

I give this story three stars out of four on my Phoooy scale.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

On looking over your discussion of the ideas, I see you have given a lot of "maybes," given your opinion of classifications and stated that you gave a superficial search and did not turn up much. Then you later even questioned my motives as ill-intentioned.

Sorry, but I'm done. Please use the forum for whatever you need within the posting guidelines. I'm done discussing with you for now. I need better quality for my time.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Also: Notice the wording of the quote from Allan Blumenthal (post #37), which you altered in your question.

Huh? I altered a quote? Did I even quote post #37?

I hate it when people make substantive edits after posting.

No, you didn't quote post #37, but the question you asked changed the wording of the issue I'd been talking about in a way which changed the issue itself.

You wrote:

Isn't being moral the same thing as living for your own happiness?

However, what Allan had said and what I'd been talking about was "living to be 'moral,'" not "being moral." As I explained, the difference in the 2 wordings is significant to what I'd been saying.

Sorry about adding a paragraph after I'd posted. I rarely do that, especially not when I'm posting when others are on-line; but I realized after I'd submitted the post that I'd forgotten to include something about the difference between "living to be 'moral'" and "being moral." Usually when I edit my posts it's just for typos.

--

The discussion has gone poof at this stage anyway, with MSK not being able to resist making psychological analyses of others on the thread and with his consequent pissing Laure off enough she's ready to leave.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The discussion has gone poof at this stage anyway, with MSK not being able to resist making psychological analyses of others on the thread and with his consequent pissing Laure off enough she's ready to leave.

Ellen,

Heh,

You forgot about people pissing me off with direct insults. I don't hold sanction of the victim to be a virtue.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

The discussion has gone poof at this stage anyway, with MSK not being able to resist making psychological analyses of others on the thread and with his consequent pissing Laure off enough she's ready to leave.

Ellen,

Heh,

You forgot about people pissing me off with direct insults. I don't hold sanction of the victim to be a virtue.

Michael

Michael,

This is the way it always goes. You make aspersions straight off the mark; you lead with a chip on your shoulder ready in place; you talk vaguely about various Objectivists, attitudes, etc., not specifying WHO the people are you're talking of. When people disagree with the substantive point you're making, you step up the psychological aspersions; this starts to piss people off; next things it's they who started it, according to you; meanwhile, your psychoanalyzing intensifies, plus you make moral-grand-gestures statements.

Just look at the form of the brief comment you wrote above. The moral pose, you don't hold sanction of the victim to be a virture. I.e., YOU are the victim. Which only adds more fuel to the feeling of being attacked on the part of those who already felt you were attacking them. It gets so that people just don't want to argue with you. Have you not noticed the number of posters who have been drifting away?

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You make aspersions straight off the mark; you lead with a chip on your shoulder ready in place; you talk vaguely about various Objectivists, attitudes, etc., not specifying WHO the people are you're talking of.

Ellen,

That's not true and you know it. When I do mention names like Perigo and so forth, I get responses from people saying I'm talking too much about them.

If you would simply read over some of your own interactions with me, I think you will find enough names to fill a bucket.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

I do not apologize for looking and seeing what I see, then saying it. I will never do that. If that offends some people, that's their problem. They own their own lives. Let them do as they please.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

why hold me to a standard you don't use?

I'm not holding you to a standard. I simply asked a question.

By reacting to people who are not participating in the discussion, you diminish the quality of said discussion.

I'm getting bored with interforum back-and-forth,

I have no idea of this "interforum" whatever, but if true, why do you keep interjecting it into the conversation? For the record, this is the only Objectivist forum I participated in until today. (May change soon!)

I'm actually interested in the ideas I mentioned (which are still being ignored).

False. I answered your questions. If you have no interest in replying, that's your right, but to pretend you're talking to yourself is incorrect.

I'm done discussing with you for now. I need better quality for my time.

That's obviously your right, but it strikes me as a low threshold for excommunication. I have taken your subtle insults about not being able to do my own thinking and imagining things in stride.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is no way to play baseball. Baseball is a game in which the object is for your team to score more runs than the opposing team. I am for fair play, play according to the agreed upon rules, but feel goodness, such as illustrated in your article is not baseball. It is something else.

Bob,

That is 100% correct.

I am interested in the "something else," not baseball per se.

Why is it "feel goodness"? What in man's mind exists that makes it feel good?

(Believe it or not, if you are discussing truth, I think my "phooey scale" rating for the story would even be lower than yours. )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

You make aspersions straight off the mark; you lead with a chip on your shoulder ready in place; you talk vaguely about various Objectivists, attitudes, etc., not specifying WHO the people are you're talking of.

Ellen,

That's not true and you know it. When I do mention names like Perigo and so forth, I get responses from people saying I'm talking too much about them.

You were talking about a lot more people than "Perigo and so forth." Look at the list of quotes George gave for instance. Although I know, unlike George, what the interlist battles you're speaking of are, nonetheless I can't tell just whom you mean in some of those remarks -- and obviously George had no idea. He's said he hasn't been following the material about schisms, etc. I think he said that on this thread. But instead of at least trying to explain to him, when he commented about your seeming to be addressing people not in this discussion, who the people are to whom you're referring, you instead came back with an accusation against him.

Etc. Your responses were unfair. And you've culminated it by brushing him aside when he was trying hard to have a discussion.

Ellen

___

Edited June 11, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And you've culminated it by brushing him aside when he was trying hard to have a discussion.

Ellen,

You mean by calling me ill-intentioned for mentioning only one error in Laure's post?

Heh again.

You can continue your analysis of my character if you want. I'm done for now. All this is nothing but a detour and there are important ideas on the table. (Anybody interested in important ideas instead of bickering?) It's time to make a value judgment and put it in action. So you write about what you value and I will write about what I value. If our values coincide, we will write about the same things. If not, then not.

I just did some research on the serotonin thing and what I found is really interesting in more ways than one. I will be posting on that shortly.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

You mean by calling me ill-intentioned for mentioning only one error in Laure's post?

... for damning her whole post/argument by damning one part of it. That is a tactic that suggests ill intentions, yes. And it certainly is not a tactic one uses when one is interested in examining ideas.

By the way, I wrote about what I value and so did others. So stop pretending everyone but you is bickering or just taking up space on the page.

[Newberry]

1. Pity? Religions have many people convinced they should perform acts of disinterested charity and mercy for the less fortunate.

Maybe it's the fact that it involves a child, a child who will never realize the potential others take for granted. A child is by definition innocent and this one is paying for "sins" he did not commit.

Perhaps people sympathize with the boy's feeling of being 'less' than others and getting left out as a result. Maybe they feel the greatest gift is that which is unearned.

I really don't know why but I am not too concerned about it. I class pity right up there with guilt, negative attitudes and apathy - I try to spend as little time on them as possible.

Ignoring certain aspects of nature or society is not evading reality. It is taking goal-oriented action. Just because a bear moves his bowels in the woods and I don't go and watch it, does not constitute an evasion of reality.

2. A quick search turns up assertions of this serotonin-kindness relationship, but they all appear to cite Dyer as their evidence for it. Without any kind of evidence, how can anyone reach a judgment on the matter? I can't.

Regardless, I consider kindness - defined as benevolence - an important value.

In fact, I think benevolence is an unstoppable consequence of the optimism that is the natural condition of human beings, and would seem to be the inescapable consequence of valuing your own life above all else.

George,

Great comments.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some initial findings from an online Google search about serotonin and kindness.

Before I start, I want to mention that this subject seems to be tickling biases to a strong degree. Most of the writing is from religious people who are more than satisfied with Madison Avenue-like "research shows..." or "it has been clinically proven that..." claims as all the science they will ever need. That, to them, constitutes proof.

On the other hand, there is a large amount of studies by drug companies who avoid the subject of kindness like the plague and stick to scientific language. Here is an example from The Anxiety Community. From the article in the link:

Escitalopram increases the amount of neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain by blocking the resorption of serotonin from the synapse, having little effect of other receptors, which is why it is called a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

btw - Another comment needs to be made at this point and I am quite sensitive about it as a former drug addict. Whenever we discuss something like serotonin, you have people who want a happiness pill. There is one on the streets that messes with serotonin levels in people's heads. It is called ecstasy. If anyone is thinking along these lines, please be careful with what is called the serotonin syndrome. Here is a description of it from an article called Migraine Medications May Cause 'Serotonin Syndrome'. Although this applies to migraine medications, it equally applies to drugs like ecstasy. From the article:

Serotonin syndrome occurs when there is too much of the neurotransmitter serotonin, often because more than one medication that affects serotonin levels has been taken, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Symptoms of serotonin syndrome include mental status changes, overactive reflexes, muscle spasms, fever, uncoordinated movements, heavy sweating and nausea or vomiting.

One of the strongest information leads to the tests I found was the article, Learn to be Compassionate, on PsychCentral. This site seems to be a pretty good place to get layman overviews of mental health experiments and gives leads as to where more information can be found. Although this article did not discuss serotonin per se, the thrust of it was in the right direction and is a good starting point. Here are some quotes from that article, but it bears reading in full:

According to University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers, the ancient technique of meditation can make a person more empathetic to other peoples' mental states They publish their findings in the journal Public Library of Science One.

Scientists used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to indicate that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be learned in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport.

. . .

Each of the 32 subjects was placed in the fMRI scanner at the UW-Madison Waisman Center for Brain Imaging, which Davidson directs, and was asked to either begin compassion meditation or refrain from it. During each state, subjects were exposed to negative and positive human vocalizations designed to evoke empathic responses as well as neutral vocalizations: sounds of a distressed woman, a baby laughing and background restaurant noise.

. . .

The scans revealed significant activity in the insula - a region near the frontal portion of the brain that plays a key role in bodily representations of emotion - when the long-term meditators were generating compassion and were exposed to emotional vocalizations.

. . .

Activity also increased in the temporal parietal juncture, particularly the right hemisphere. Studies have implicated this area as important in processing empathy, especially in perceiving the mental and emotional state of others.

Here is mention of a study on serotonin levels and sense of fairness, which is a cousin to kindness: Brain chemical helps us tolerate foul play. From that blog post:

From Nature:

Controlling your anger and reacting sensibly when someone treats you badly can be a problem. And if you have low levels of serotonin, it can be even more of a problem, a new study has found. Molly Crockett at the University of Cambridge, UK, and her colleagues gave volunteers a drink that temporarily lowered their levels of serotonin, a brain 'neurotransmitter' linked to happy mood. They then had them play 'the Ultimatum Game', which involves accepting or rejecting offers of money. Those with lower serotonin levels showed increased retaliation to offers that they perceived to be unfair. "We've suspected for years that there's a link between serotonin and impulsive aggression and emotional regulation," says Crockett. "Until this study it wasn't clear whether serotonin was playing a causal role."

This study by Crockett is described more in depth in an article on PsychCentral: Serotonin Levels Determine Sense of Fairness. From the article:

The new study, reported in the June 5 issue of Science, had people play what is called the Ultimate Game, which is being used widely in psychological and neurological studies. The game has one player proposing a way to split a pot of money. If the offer is accepted by the other player, both get paid. If it is refused, neither gets a payment.

The researchers had some players make deliberately unfair offers: "I get 80 percent, you get 20 percent." They found that players given a chemical that lowered serotonin levels were more likely to reject an unfair offer.

Serotonin levels have that effect, because the chemical is involved in the activity of the prefrontal region of the brain, explained study author Molly J. Crockett, a doctoral student at the University of Cambridge in England.

"One recent study on the Ultimate Game showed that when an unfair offer is accepted, you see activity in the prefrontal cortex," Crockett said. "Down-rating the emotional response makes it more unlikely that an unfair offer will be accepted."

In other words, lower serotonin levels also meant a higher level of resentment, so that an offer that wasn't as good as it might be would be turned down. Conversely, higher serotonin levels would make it easier to live in an imperfect world.

I find this last statement to be intriguing. Maybe kindness increasing serotonin levels developed in human evolution as a defense against anxiety of the unknown and a way of mitigating threats. If someone is kind, they are less likely to fight. That's just speculation, but it is an interesting thought.

There is more out there and I am going to have to dig hard to find it. Drug companies want you to buy the serotonin pill instead of producing it yourself (say, by being kind) and religious folks want you to go to their church and buy their brand of religion. Both are fierce competitors for public attention. The poor scientists who actually did the testing do not get much space.

One thing that kills enthusiasm for this issue for Objectivists is that some of the research is blatantly labeled "altruism." However, I think this is a good time to temporarily suspend value judgments and learn exactly what is going on in those studies. I have a strong feeling that much of the problem will be semantics once the concepts are analyzed. I do know it is a terrible mistake to dismiss hard facts just because you don't like a word.

On a lighter note, we will be seeing something in the mainstream news about all this. A David Lynch movie is coming: Serotonin Rising.

To me, this is all the more reason for a serious Objectivist inquiry—to be able to have some good analyses to present to refute the religious hype that will inevitably come with the film. I suspect just repeating quotes from Rand or making statements thick with Objectivist jargon will not do much. Look at the following quote from the film's synopsis linked above for an example of what I am talking about:

In a groundbreaking experiment, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have discovered that humans are hard-wired to be unselfish. During functional MRI brain scans, scientists learn that altruism makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

Combine a heart-warming, funny and semi-autobiographical storyline about two reporters who uncover this altruistic revolution with actual interviews from leading scientists, artists and philosophers and you have the World's First Truly "Feel Good" Movie, Serotonin Rising.

Join Mike (a selfish, success-driven television reporter) and Katie (his shy, compassionate counterpart) as they follow our experts into the world of the magnanimous mind and reveal the truth about how doing, receiving and observing good deeds can bring us love, happiness and health. With their guidance, Katie helps Mike face his life-long demons and ultimately change his outlook on life.

Through the insightful perspectives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama; author Deepak Chopra; film director David Lynch; folk singer Donovan; and many others, this film gives voice to the scientific proof that leading an altruistic, kind and compassionate life will raise serotonin levels and strengthen the immune system.

We can definitely expect more of this coming, not less.

Now, on a really light note, here are a couple of gems I uncovered. The first is from Mind Hacks.

In response to my throwaway comment about a finding a suitable chat-up line for someone with the molecular structure of serotonin tattooed on their butt, I am eternally grateful to the commenter 'tmplikeachilles' for suggesting the inspired line:

"Your place or monoamine?"

You sir, are a genius.

The second is from a place called Awarding the Wrong People? Way Out Research on Obscure Topics. From there:

The chemistry prize went to an Italian-Californian team for discovering that, bio-chemically, romantic love may be indistinguishable from a severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. ("Alteration of the Platelet Serotonin Transporter in Romantic Love" - ah, amore.)

This was fun. There is a lot more and this is only scratching the surface. I will probably be posting other findings as I go along.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Just want to throw this question out there:

Did the boys playing baseball really give up a value by allowing Shaya to play (and let him feel "normal" for a few minutes)? Whilst I certainly understand concerns about altruism, lets remember that it is only a sacrifice if you give up something good in favor of something worth less (or worthless).

Just remember the following:

Shaya's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said, "We're losing by six runs, and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team, and we'll try to put him up in the ninth inning."

Translation: "We are going to lose anyway so having Shaya on our team won't change the outcome so there is no harm done to us by letting him play."

Thus it sounds to me like they didn't exactly make a sacrifice in the first place.

Also, one other consideration, some (and based on my childhood experience, potentially most) children play team sport more for a desire to prove they are better than others, as opposed to pure enjoyment. So its quite possible (although by no means guaranteeable) that the motives of some of the children involved (pre-Shaya's entry into the game) were not consistent with Objectivist morality. So we cannot say these were happy little Galts forced to lower themselves to the level of a pathetic a priori.

I should add, I found that story so saccharine (in the bad way) it gave me diabetes. However I think that one should carefully consider the entire story for at least a significant time before we go on an altruism-hunt.

[Mike11]

Just want to throw this question out there:

Did the boys playing baseball really give up a value by allowing Shaya to play (and let him feel "normal" for a few minutes)? Whilst I certainly understand concerns about altruism, lets remember that it is only a sacrifice if you give up something good in favor of something worth less (or worthless).

Just remember the following:

Shaya's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said, "We're losing by six runs, and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team, and we'll try to put him up in the ninth inning."

Translation: "We are going to lose anyway so having Shaya on our team won't change the outcome so there is no harm done to us by letting him play."

Thus it sounds to me like they didn't exactly make a sacrifice in the first place.

Also, one other consideration, some (and based on my childhood experience, potentially most) children play team sport more for a desire to prove they are better than others, as opposed to pure enjoyment. So its quite possible (although by no means guaranteeable) that the motives of some of the children involved (pre-Shaya's entry into the game) were not consistent with Objectivist morality. So we cannot say these were happy little Galts forced to lower themselves to the level of a pathetic a priori.

I should add, I found that story so saccharine (in the bad way) it gave me diabetes. However I think that one should carefully consider the entire story for at least a significant time before we go on an altruism-hunt.

Good points.

100% confident they will be dismissed as EVUL.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did the boys playing baseball really give up a value by allowing Shaya to play (and let him feel "normal" for a few minutes)?

Andrew,

I am glad you made that question and your comments because I wanted to complete a thought earlier and this hits it squarely in the middle. You made an excellent observation. In an earlier post, I said:

That is no way to play baseball. Baseball is a game in which the object is for your team to score more runs than the opposing team. I am for fair play, play according to the agreed upon rules, but feel goodness, such as illustrated in your article is not baseball. It is something else.

Bob,

That is 100% correct.

I am interested in the "something else," not baseball per se.

Why is it "feel goodness"? What in man's mind exists that makes it feel good?

What I forgot to mention was that by the end of the game in the story, the boys had stopped playing baseball and started doing something else.

They didn't sacrifice anything. While in the middle of doing one thing (baseball), they merely changed their minds about what they were doing and used baseball, since it was at hand, as a form of doing it.

Since I seem to be hell-bent on getting people pissed off by checking premises that are best left unchecked and the idea of art came up. let's check that premise, too.

As you said, and I mentioned in the opening post, this story is really sappy. It is probably an email that was polished over time while going from one person to another. Now let us suppose that it is false and actually is a parable-like tale. How would you rate it according to the following value?

"Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments."

Michael