Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to get away from this personality detour, so I am reposting a request in case anyone would like to get back to discussing this topic.

I, for one, am very interested in it.

I am curious about something.

Has anyone else besides me found anything on scientific studies of the impact of behavior on sorotonin levels? I will be finding more than the ones I presented, but I would appreciate any leads.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a story about a cousin to kindness. It is from "Aristotle's Challenge" in Emotional Intelligence (p. xix) by Daniel Goleman.

It was an unbearably steamy August afternoon in New York City, the kind of sweaty day that makes people sullen with discomfort. I was heading back to a hotel, and as I stepped onto a bus up Madison Avenue I was startled by the driver, a middle-aged black man with an enthusiastic smile, who welcomed me with a friendly, "Hi! How you doing?" as I got on, a greeting he proffered to everyone else who entered as the bus wormed through the thick midtown traffic. Each passenger was a startled as I, and, locked into the morose mood of the day, few returned his greeting.

But as the bus crawled uptown through the gridlock, a slow, rather magical transformation occurred. The driver gave a running monologue for our benefit, a lively commentary on the passing scene around us: there was a terrific sale at that store, a wonderful exhibit at this museum, did you hear about the new movie that just opened at that cinema down the block? His delight in the rich possibilities the city offered was infectious. By the time the people got off the bus, each in turn had shaken off the sullen shell they had entered with, and when the driver shouted out a "So long, have a great day!" each gave a smiling response.

I can easily see the serotonin level of these people rising from listening to the happiness of the bus driver. Of course, he started with the kindness of a smile and warm greeting to the strangers getting on the bus.

In addition to looking into this serotonin thing, I have been doing some soul-searching and I have decided that I want to surround myself with these kinds of people. I want to do this for the most selfish reason of all: they make me feel good on a deep level. Maybe it's nothing more than getting a serotonin fix, but I know I like it.

I am a premise-checker by nature, so I almost can't help but seek out conflict. People hate it when you barbecue one of their sacred cows and they get really spiteful when you do. But life is too short to be constantly dragged down by grumpy people.

This is tricky with the online Objectivist world. For one thing, Rand's emotional message in her fiction is often to celebrate attitudes I know I would not tolerate in real life. It is almost a moral sanction to be obnoxious.

If you mix that negative emotional load to extreme high competence and an underlying compassion for the best in man, which was how I observe Rand did it, I suppose you can get away with it. The downside is that it often seems like she is selling obnoxiousness qua obnoxiousness as a virtue. I am sure she would never have endorsed that, but that's what some people buy.

There is another problem. Emotional life corresponds to chemical processes in the brain. I suspect that too much of any negative emotion will poison or mutilate the process on a biochemical level alone.

I know that I see obnoxiousness held as a virtue in some online authors in Objectivist-land, more through their acts than through their stated beliefs. I have decided I want no part of them. In my attempt to establish a clear brand of Objectivism as I practice it (i.e., as a framework of ideas only), I am definitely including this. Tempers can flare at times, and that's even a good thing in small doses. But I want people around me who emanate good vibes the majority of the time.

To hell with grumpy and obnoxious people. Let them stew in their own bile.

I want to be happy. Let the good times roll.

Michael

[william.scherk]

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.

Thanks for doing a little bit of keybard poking on the pair kindness and serotonin. I don't think 'kindness' is the operational term in use in previous studies I have come across. Do you think kindness is a good cognate for fairness? I would guess the spiritual mavens like Dyer and the 'religious' people are folding into their own matrix of belief whatever scientific bits they find congenial.

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:

[ . . . ]

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.

[ . . . ]

One thing that kills enthusiasm for this issue for Objectivists is that some of the research is blatantly labeled "altruism."

The research you cited below does not carry a label of altruism, nor make any statements that seem violently at odds with Objectivist conventions . . .

It may be a mistake to mix up research into altruism (generally in primates, not only humans) with research into 'kindness' -- I don't believe the studies you have noted (as with the UW-Madison research) are on quite the same ground as with research into altruism . . .

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.

For me, a Deepak Chopra recommendation is the kiss of death.

Michael, there are interesting threads here in themselves, a thread on research (if good research it is) into 'kindness,' another thread on altruism research and its associated strands of studies in empathy, fairness, etc.

I too think you were far too ready to lump comment on the Shaya story into a doctrinal pile. I think the research should be approached with fairly light philosophical baggage. It is too bad that Laure feels insulted and lumped -- your kindness, generosity, sense of fairness, as well as other evil vestiges of altruism might help you put yourself in her shoes, and try to mirror in your own mind the emotions she might feel. If you want to have a lively and open forum, you should be careful not to clip the toenails of your erstwhile allies as well as the demon objectivists.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I too think you were far too ready to lump comment on the Shaya story into a doctrinal pile. I think the research should be approached with fairly light philosophical baggage. It is too bad that Laure feels insulted and lumped -- your kindness, generosity, sense of fairness, as well as other evil vestiges of altruism might help you put yourself in her shoes, and try to mirror in your own mind the emotions she might feel.

William,

I have probably expressed myself poorly about what you just called doctrine. I accept the fact that there are some studies on serotonin and kindness because of several reasons: mainly the mileage this idea has gotten, but also because I remember reading some things in the news as they came out. Obviously, I cannot state this as a 100% bona fide fact until I find the tests. The fact that they are so hard to find is honking loudly at me, too.

My real readiness is to find the studies and analyze them, seeing where the hype is and where the facts are. (A report on this would make a wonderful Internet marketing product for the general public.)

I might be seen as too quick to agree with the conclusions of the religious folks because I also have a readiness to be overly-emphatic when faced with a strong insinuation that such inquiry is folly and offensive.

About your second point, I almost wish it were true because it was so clever. I really like the way your mind operates. (I loathe hypocrisy, but that is another discussion.)

Since you stated a suggestion in a manner that I presume you want it in reality, I also presume you will be overjoyed to learn something. From my privileged observation post of the content of my own conscious cognitive operations, I can confirm to you that I have actually put myself in Laure's shoes and tried to feel as she feels. I have done so more than once—probably more intensely that you were suggesting. I have given it my best shot and can do no better unaided.

My conclusions may differ from yours, though, since I have gone into introspecting on this at depth.

On the surface, I deem that she is a big girl and knows her own mind. I don't think she needs babysitting at all on delicate matters. One of the practices I encourage on OL is for everyone to use his own mind and not develop any party lines. Not only do I like Laure, but I think she has done this perfectly (despite my disagreements with her on several issues).

Now let's dive deeper, although I know here comes another round, another bomb. (I hope not, but I strongly suspect so.) Believe me, I am not trying to offend anyone. I merely refuse to fake reality on a discussion like this and pretend that I don't see what I do see. I take my right to think for myself very seriously.

There are three extremely delicate matters that I would like to draw your attention to. They run very often as subtexts in Objectivist discussions of Objectivism and the "soft side," so to speak (being nice, kindness, taking care of babies and sick folks, and so forth). As an interesting aside, they also run in radical anti-Objectivist discussions, but with diametrically opposed results.

I will not say that this is Laure's case, although I suspect it is, but in the end she has a privileged observation post of the content of her own conscious cognitive operations that I do not and cannot share. So I could be wrong. I can only observe acts, notice them and draw conclusions.

(I am only discussing Laure specifically because she was focused on in this discussion. I don't mean to single her out or anything of an aggressive derogatory nature. Like I have said more than once, I like her and respect her. I have observed the patterns I am going to mention with several people and there are degrees of intensity ranging from mild offense to outright irrational rage. Laure, of course, has never exhibited anything close to irrational rage.)

On with the show:

1. There is a Southern manner of upholding one's honor that has thankfully gone the way of the covered wagon: a slap on the face with a glove and a challenge to a duel. This practice used to keep people in line and maintain power structures, although this purpose was never stated as such. It made people afraid to say certain things for fear that they were staking their lives on a misunderstanding.

For instance, one person would say to another, "You are wrong. This is what I see." The answer: "Are you calling me a liar?" Slap. Challenge. Boom.

You are better off keeping your observation to yourself.

I find the attitude behind this custom present in many online Objectivist discussions. Verbalized, it would go something like this (as merely one possibility out of oodles): "You say that some Objectivists are snarky? Who? Who, dammit! Give me some names! I personally am "some" Objectivist and I will be damned if you are going to say that about me!"

I see this over and over. Is it any wonder I speculate on the motives? Can you think of anything other than insecurity or love of power at root that would prompt this? I can't.

But there is something even more delicate.

2. Since I have been doing some mighty online premise-checking for a while, I have been able to notice certain patterns develop.

Before I get into the meat, I want to say something about my own attitude. I have an almost childlike delight in noticing integrations and parallels. In essence, when I discover something new or come across a new idea, I hold it up to the world and, inside my heart, there is pure joy, expressed something like, "Hey, folks! Look what I found!"

I have often been accused of the vilest motives for doing this and there is one area more than most where this is so: Rand's work.

I suggest, as an experiment in observation if you have the time, that you go to some of the former discussions where I have brought up parallels in Rand's writing to "soft-side" ideas that permeate our culture. You will usually find people being testy until a line gets crossed. Then all hell breaks loose.

I first noticed that line with an essay I wrote on turning the other cheek. (Now remember that I am talking about a certain kind of mind, the duelist or honor-sensitive person, if you will, not all people interested in Objectivism.)

I think things would have stayed only at the testy level with these people until I mentioned that there existed an Objectivist form of turning the other cheek: Galt telling his torturers how to fix the motor, or Francisco not reacting to Hank Rearden's slap. My God! If this were Islam, you would have thought that I presented a painting of Mohammad with horns and a tail.

It didn't help when I explained that the values were different than Christianity, although the act was the same. (And that is the truth.) Some people were highly offended at this observation and went after me with a vengeance. (Should I have been kind to them? )

I found it enormously interesting that most people agreed with me until the fanatics started a yelling campaign. Then those who had approved slowly turned. Ironically, they turned the other cheek with even another meaning. That's actually a powerful theme as it is so rich.

(If you want to check, this essay is among the top-voted ones on RoR and the Solo Passion SoloHQ archives. The history of what I described is in the comments and a later boneheaded essay by Perigo. My essay is called "To Turn or Not to Turn: A Question of Cheek.")

In the present discussion, I mentioned that Rearden asked Wet Nurse to live for him. I contrasted this against the oath to get into Galt's Gultch, where you had to vow never to do that. Can anyone deny that on a words-only level, there is a contradiction here?

I suggested that this was a form of kindness and that asking someone to live for you is, strictly speaking, a form of faking reality. In my mind, Rearden valued Wet Nurse so much—for reasons given in the story—that he fell off into "love is exception-making" mode (to use another Rand quote). (Incidentally, the main message I get from Rand is that valuing itself is deeper than any oath.)

I suspect that these observations and example were the real slap in the face to those who got offended and the rest was the rest, although, as I said, my intention was never to slap anyone. It was to say, "Look what I found!"

3. I notice behavior and cannot help speculating on motives and causes. I am a big fan of discovering causes. As I said in an earlier post, I suspect some Objectivists get offended and hostile during discussions about kindness and Objectivist ethics because this brings them face to face with unresolved issues inside themselves they would prefer to remain undiscussed.

Then I notice that some Objectivists (or Objectivism-friendly people) are not phased at all by this observation. They usually don't contest it nor do they disagree with it. They merrily go about their lives living them. To them, (I speculate that) they think I am not talking about them at all. (They are right.)

And I notice that some people get really wound up, make outright mistakes in inflammatory accusations, attribute wrong meanings to what I wrote, start baiting and generally act hostile soon after I say things like that.

What should I conclude?

Should I conclude nothing and pretend that this does not exist?

Or better, should I just shut up and not mention the things I observe?

Should I be intimidated into silence about reporting what I see to keep from offending people?

Would that be kind?

(All right, this last question was catty. )

Michael

[Judith]

I understood both Barbara's and Judith's posts. And I do have the opposite view for a couple of reasons: watch an excellent athlete practicing, especially when they are young and feel that they have to do everything to improve themselves. Out of that group of boys, there would have been at least one, if not several, that would have felt let down and used by the father and their selfless teammates. If I were playing I would have quit the team, and gone on to another sport in which I could complete my heart out and enjoy the that exhilarating feeling. I might help out a lesser player and I have, but on my own conditions...but I can tell you the feeling doesn't come with in 1% of how awesome it feels when you are competing at your full limit.

...

Let me change it around for Judith and Barbara. I can't sing nor carry a tune. Lets say I was 12 and my dad took me to a Met rehearsal and interrupted for an hour so that his tone deaf son could learn to sing on the stage. No that isn't right, lets say a highschool chorus--I can't imagine a worse night mare than to listening to a tone deaf person for more than five seconds, but imagine taking an hour away from the 20 or so people in the choir--it ain't going to happen, it is not based on reality, it is not a prescript to how to do it right.

I wonder if some of the disconnects we are seeing among ourselves here are because we're envisioning different kinds of events. I am seeing an average, standard, friendly neighborhood baseball game among kids -- a normal, repeatable, unremarkable event among kids who don't see themselves as athletes, but as friends having a good time. That's the context in which I see the story Michael described. I concede readily that if you transplant it to a training camp for gifted athletes it might not work, or at least might me much more debatable. The kids will be training at a much more serious level and of course at least some of them would resent the situation as described.

Do average kids really take neighborhood baseball games that seriously? Are they really that intense about winning and losing when it's just you and your brother and Johnny from next door? Are they really competing their hearts out and "in the zone" in the way that you're describing? I know the feeling you describe, and I understand what you're saying. And I can see your point of view if that's the situation in which the story occurs. I'm not saying that it still couldn't happen, as Michael described in his symphony story, but it is a much finer and more debatable point.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Judith, average kids playing an unremarkable game (to them), would have given up and gone home 6 runs down. They would not have still been playing. That's why I only see a contrived story. If they had been still playing, observing all the rules, etc., then that game would have still been very, very important to everybody playing. Along comes doofus: let the retard play, please, please--just unreal and a supreme diss to that game and its players. Michael needed a better story, but disregarding the number one rule of parallel parking and the sublimation of ego to the master reality--if you screw it up start over--he refused to provide one, or even comment on my several suggestions.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Do average kids really take neighborhood baseball games that seriously? Are they really that intense about winning and losing when it's just you and your brother and Johnny from next door? Are they really competing their hearts out and "in the zone" in the way that you're describing?

In my experience, "average" kids take sports very seriously. Playing well and winning, even in a pickup game in a park, means a lot to them. But they also usually recognize that there's going to be a diverse range of talents in such games, and sometimes you cut lesser-skilled kids a little bit of slack, or, on rare occasions, you interrupt the game and give a kid who can't really play a taste of what it's like.

People keep mentioning that the Shaya story is unrealistic. Well, I don't remember ever playing a game in which a learning-disabled kid asked to join, but I remember several times (while playing baseball, basketball and football) in which kids who were way too young wanted to play, including my younger brothers, and the rest of us would give them a chance at bat (or at bringing the ball up the court, or at taking a handoff). When it would happen, all of the players understood that the temporary new purpose of the game was to suddenly be as good as possible at being not quite good enough to make the out, to block the shot or to tackle the kid.

I've been in almost exactly the same situation described in the Shaya story so many times that I assumed that anyone who had spent even a single summer of their childhood playing sports in parks and backyards would have identified with it, and remembered slightly overthrowing the first baseman on purpose or tripping and just barely missing a tackle. The thing is, after the kid got his moment in the sun, the game usually continued where it left off, if not immediately, then the next time everyone got together again, which was usually right after supper or the next day. If the Shaya story is indeed true, I'd be surprised if, after Shaya and his father left, the other kids didn't return to the point in the game prior to Shaya's joining it.

J

[Judith]

Judith, average kids playing an unremarkable game (to them), would have given up and gone home 6 runs down. They would not have still been playing. That's why I only see a contrived story. If they had been still playing, observing all the rules, etc., then that game would have still been very, very important to everybody playing.

Perhaps it's a male/female thing in terms of competitiveness and why I'm not seeing your point here. What you're saying seems to me to be a choice of two extreme positions: either the game is intensely important or it's not even worth playing at all. When I was a kid, play was kind of something one did to pass time; it was sufficiently important to be worth one's time, but if something better came along, one could drop it at any time. That's how I'm seeing this particular game. I didn't play mostly with girls as a kid, either; I had a lot of friends who were boys and often I was the only girl in a bunch of kids playing. But in those cases we weren't playing competitive sports such as baseball; we were playing cowboys and indians, or dissecting fish, or building treehouses, or playing with matchbox cars and lego, etc. So, as I said, maybe my lack of understanding here has something to do with my not getting the typical male "competitive" attitude when playing a competitive sport.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

I have to defer to J and J here about what really goes down in these games. However, the story referred to by Michael still strikes me as phony on its face. I too have some childhood memories of playing team sports.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Did you ever play a sport where a person was given a handicap? Or is that an example of evil altruism infiltrating the very essence of the heroic in man?

btw - If you want some more tear-jerkers, I have a million. I am now reading A Third Serving of Chicken Soup for the Soul. (I haven't read the other books in that series.) There's a story called "The Bonehead" in there (by Larry Terherst), but it isn't about the kind of bonehead I have been bashing recently. This is about a guy in a prison school who shaved himself bald and had an enormous Harley-Davidson wings tatoo on his head.

Wanna hear it?

When I wrote that question just now, it was a joke, but on second thought, I think I will present the story. I found an online version here. The morale of this story is tied to the value of what the kids chose in the baseball story you love so much.

Here goes:

Bonehead

As long as I live, I won't forget when I met Alvin C. Hass for the first time in 1991. The other inmate in the prison class didn't use the name "Alvin Hass" when he introduced us - not even close! He introduced Alvin as "Bonehead." Immediately, I felt uncomfortable with Alvin's nickname. The tall, soft-spoken inmate wouldn't look at me as he shook my hand. Needless to say, "Bonehead" was bald-headed. The hair that he had on the sides went way down past his shoulders. I felt as though I were staring at him and tried not to look. But there was a large (and very intimidating) tattoo on top of his bald head. (Yes! A tattoo on his head!) The tattoo was of Harley-Davidson wings and covered the entire top of his head.

As a teacher, I try to maintain excellent composure during stressful times, and I made it through that first day of class. At the end of the period, "Bonehead" slipped me a note while he was filing out of the classroom. I thought, "Oh no! He's telling me that I'm going to be 'taken out' by his other "Harley" buddies if I don't give him a good grade or something like that." A little later, I had a chance to read the note. It said, "Teach (he always called me "Teach"), breakfast is an important meal and if you're not in by then you're in big trouble! - Bonehead, the Mountain Hippie."

Bonehead completed a series of six classes with me over many months. He was an excellent student who seldom spoke. However, he handed me a note nearly every day with some type of saying, tidbit, anecdote or other wise advice for life. I looked forward to receiving them and became a little disappointed if by chance he didn't give me one. I still have them all today.

Bonehead and I clicked. Somehow, I knew that each time I opened my mouth to teach, he understood me. He silently soaked up everything I said. We were connected.

At the conclusion of the course, each student received a certificate. Bonehead had completed the course doing excellent work the entire way through and I was excited to give him his certificate.

We were alone when I presented his certificate of completion. I shook his hand and briefly told him what a pleasure it was to have had him in my classes and that I appreciated his hard work, excellent attendance and superior attitude. His response stayed with me and continues to make a deep impression on my life. In that soft voice of his, Bonehead said, "Thank you, Larry, You're the first teacher in my life that ever told me I did anything right."

As I walked away, I was awash with emotion. I could hardly hold back the tears thinking that in all of Bonehead's growing-up years, no one ever told him he had done anything right.

Now, I'm from the "old school." I was raised in a conservative setting and I believe criminals must pay for their wrongdoings and be held accountable. Yet I've asked myself several times, "Could it be, by chance, just by chance, that Bonehead's never hearing 'You did that right' or 'Good job' might have had anything at all to do with why he ended up in prison?"

That moment's experience implanted into my heart the desire to make sure I acknowledge, in a positive way, every student that does something "right."

Thanks, Bonehead, for telling me that I, too, did something right.

I'm going to go out on an Objectivist limb and say I like this kind of story. I really like it and I'm tired of apologizing for it.

I'm sappy.

So shoot me.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps it's a male/female thing in terms of competitiveness and why I'm not seeing your point here. What you're saying seems to me to be a choice of two extreme positions: either the game is intensely important or it's not even worth playing at all. When I was a kid, play was kind of something one did to pass time; it was sufficiently important to be worth one's time, but if something better came along, one could drop it at any time. That's how I'm seeing this particular game. I didn't play mostly with girls as a kid, either; I had a lot of friends who were boys and often I was the only girl in a bunch of kids playing. But in those cases we weren't playing competitive sports such as baseball; we were playing cowboys and indians, or dissecting fish, or building treehouses, or playing with matchbox cars and lego, etc. So, as I said, maybe my lack of understanding here has something to do with my not getting the typical male "competitive" attitude when playing a competitive sport.

You're not the only one. I liked to play, but had little interest in the competitive element and while playing was fun, I didn't find it terribly important.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm sappy.

So shoot me.

Michael

Bang! Oops. I missed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

I too think you were far too ready to lump comment on the Shaya story into a doctrinal pile. I think the research should be approached with fairly light philosophical baggage. It is too bad that Laure feels insulted and lumped -- your kindness, generosity, sense of fairness, as well as other evil vestiges of altruism might help you put yourself in her shoes, and try to mirror in your own mind the emotions she might feel.

I have probably expressed myself poorly about what you just called doctrine.

Re: doctrine and doctrinal lumping, I meant that it looked like you clumped a couple of the (former) listmembers into the Bad Boys Club.

I accept the fact that there are some studies on serotonin and kindness because of several reasons: mainly the mileage this idea has gotten, but also because I remember reading some things in the news as they came out. Obviously, I cannot state this as a 100% bona fide fact until I find the tests. The fact that they are so hard to find is honking loudly at me, too.

Re: the 'serotonin and kindness' connection, explored in neuroscientific research, it's relatively clear that there isn't such a thing per se.** You are looking for the varied findings from research, you will find that serotonin levels are associated with variations in aggression and comcomitant social effects. Use keywords like 'serotonin aggression' 'serotonin sociality' 'serotonin fairness' 'serotonin depression.' There is a wealth of findings that inform some aspect of social functioning, but Dyer has conflated a lot of findings and mislabeled their collective import. That is why you find the kindness/serotonin connection only on woo sites.

The minor error I pointed out was that searching for the study Dyer referenced meant finding the actual operational definition used in the study. I thought it quite likely that 'kindness' was not that term.

"You say that some Objectivists are snarky? Who? Who, dammit! Give me some names! I personally am "some" Objectivist and I will be damned if you are going to say that about me!"

I see this over and over. Is it any wonder I speculate on the motives? Can you think of anything other than insecurity or love of power at root that would prompt this? I can't.

Firstly, where does the 'some objectivists are snarky' come from? In this thread you introduced this idea: "The feelings this story evokes and the values involved are totally ignored in Objectivism. 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" (emphasis added)

It's the perfect invitation to say 'Who are these awful people?' At this point in the argument Laure, George and Newberry had gagged on the tale, and you had written, " So you guys are saying that making an exception in the normal course of things to perform an act of kindness is evil?"

Making an analogy with Southern 'honour' is strangely apt, Michael, since your wording allows that those who disagree are dishonourable, especially when their emotional reactions do not conform to your own.

There may be an autistic contingent who inhabit Randland (I'm thinking of Luke Setzer and Diana Mertz Hsieh) and a co-existent contingent who curl their lips at 'altruism research,' and there may be an overlapping cohort who are actually small-hearted, unkind and of dreary humanity . . . but in this instance the argument presented has not named them or their arguments or drawn the explicit connection. This allows a very personal interpretation of your remarks, by George, Newberry, and Laure. It's that extra room for misinterpretation that your arguments have allowed, and that you are responsible for.

When one grants linguistic charity, when one examines the utterances for their intended meaning, it is likely that the take-home message is: 'You, George, Laure and Michael Newberry are such a cohort.'

In your first post, you noted Dyer, a purveyor of woo woo, and purported research asserting "there are studies that prove that the serotonin level in the brain increases when we are kind (giver, receiver and observer) and our immune systems are strengthened." You also noted that the mystical folk are inclined to accept the congenial assertions without taking pains to examine the studies . . .

The Shaya tale put my hackles up . . . maybe a some similar incident occured, but we have no input from the players, only the father's telling. We are invited to think that we know what the player's motives were, and to assign them roles in a morality play: gawd made Shaya imperfect; he draws out (moral) perfection in others.

I suspect the action and story was engineered by the father to make himself feel better. Engineered to tug the heartstrings and obviate for a moment the distress and hardship that care for a disabled child will engender.

That I reject the story and its supposed implications doesn't tell you much about my personality or motives. This doesn't mean that Michael, Laure and George and I are anything but warm, kind, benevolent and generous in our encounters with the world.

As I said in an earlier post, I suspect some Objectivists get offended and hostile during discussions about kindness and Objectivist ethics because this brings them face to face with unresolved issues inside themselves they would prefer to remain undiscussed.

Such psychological speculation is what gets up peoples' noses, maybe? It is not enough to suspect some unnamed Objectivists of unresolved issues . . . if you leave that gap in the argument, the identities, that lets people paste their own faces to the voodoo doll you have stuck together.

And I notice that some people get really wound up, make outright mistakes in inflammatory accusations, attribute wrong meanings to what I wrote, start baiting and generally act hostile soon after I say things like that.

I'm looking at this thread and the flow of discussion. I see things like your sharp and unpleasant reaction to George in post 27 (where a misunderstanding is ramified) and your sharp and unpleasant reaction to Greybird in post 36 (where you mention you cringe at his posts, and list his defects in a dismissive tone).

What should I conclude?

Should I conclude nothing and pretend that this does not exist?

Or better, should I just shut up and not mention the things I observe?

Should I be intimidated into silence about reporting what I see to keep from offending people?

Would that be kind?

It would be a kindness or fairness to yourself if you did not put forth a diffuse argument that brings in 'them' and 'they' and the assorted nasty folk. If you could recognize that you occasionally poison the well, it would be a kindness, and it would let you get to your goals for discussion. Your goal was not to get Laure feeling insulted and belittled. Your goal was not to damn people for being revolted by the Shaya story. Your goal was not to lump those revolted with the hardline discompassionate Objectivists who annoy and appall you.

But all things considered, that's the lumping that happened. George asked (in post 40) "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."

How did you react to this? Well, you dismissed it: "I am not competing against anyone and you are." and "Those 'nameless people' and shadows are in your head, not in my words."

Now, how are we to read that? Or this? -- "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."

To my eyes, it's plain. You are ruffled and you lash back. You lash back by questioning the "some people's" minds, speculating on an ugliness of soul.

Michael, with respect, this is a type of uncharitable mean-spiritedness that irks me.

Bear in mind I don't agree with Laure or George that the tale of Shaya implicates 'faking reality,' and by no means do I agree that the players' actions in the tale were evul.

** Here's a note from some somebody that went looking for the purported studies on kindness and serotonin. This person's experience mirrors mine.

Yesterday on the Ellen Show, Dr. Wayne Dyer was promoting his new book. He spouted a lot of rhetoric about kindness curing depression, i.e. being in the vicinity of acts of kindness causing increased serotonin levels. I spent an hour today searching through the entire Medscape library and 25 pages of Google references, looking for a published scientific study that confirms that. I couldn't find a single one. It seems that an entire world of new age, self-proclaimed experts and amateurs are all quoting Dr. Dyer's position without any documentation in evidence.

[link] Edited June 17, 2008 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I am very busy right now and your post touches on several important matters. I will get to it in due time as I am mightily interested.

(My interest is in the ideas and not my behavior per se. If people choose to get offended with me, well, they get offended. I sometimes get offended, too. Matters on OL are within a pretty good civility level, so I am not too concerned if people cannot take what they dish out.)

If I go into this disussion right now, I will be distracted from my main goal. So please do not take silence as ignoring it. You will be hearing from me about this.

Thank you for finding that last link. I will be looking into it. This parallels my own experience.

If Dyer is perpetrating a fraud, he should be exposed. The reasonable thing to do right now is to keep probing and see if there is a source.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

C'mon Michael, if you apologized I missed it. If I asked for an apology, I forgot I did.

Good story, this time, though.

In regard to a child's education and the fostering of authentic self-esteem: it's not through phony, diffuse, fatuous praise. It's acknowledging and thus encouraging success at a task and acquisition of a skill. It's treating the child's work and efforts seriously. It's letting him know that a failure or even a bunch of them are only stepping stones on the way to sucess and competence. The virtue of perseverance. Etc.

--Brant

[Newberry]

I am seeing an average, standard, friendly neighborhood baseball game among kids -- a normal, repeatable, unremarkable event among kids who don't see themselves as athletes, but as friends having a good time. That's the context in which I see the story Michael described. I concede readily that if you transplant it to a training camp for gifted athletes it might not work, or at least might me much more debatable. The kids will be training at a much more serious level and of course at least some of them would resent the situation as described.

Do average kids really take neighborhood baseball games that seriously? Are they really that intense about winning and losing when it's just you and your brother and Johnny from next door? Are they really competing their hearts out and "in the zone" in the way that you're describing? I know the feeling you describe, and I understand what you're saying. And I can see your point of view if that's the situation in which the story occurs. I'm not saying that it still couldn't happen, as Michael described in his symphony story, but it is a much finer and more debatable point.

Judith

Judith,

I appreciate your comments, though I doubt we come from a similar place. Morality tales are like guides of wisdom for living a good life. They don't all agree on what a good life is: The Thousand and One Nights and Superman Comics for example. Each of us can view those kinds of stories in a way that would further our lives or not. Living a life of normal, repeatable, unremarkable events doesn't sound like a good life to me. In fact, it sounds like a very boring, passionless existence. If you could prescribe a great way to live or if your write morality tales would you want to recommend a tame existence is the way to go?

Michael

[Newberry]

I too think you were far too ready to lump comment on the Shaya story into a doctrinal pile. I think the research should be approached with fairly light philosophical baggage. It is too bad that Laure feels insulted and lumped -- your kindness, generosity, sense of fairness, as well as other evil vestiges of altruism might help you put yourself in her shoes, and try to mirror in your own mind the emotions she might feel.

I have probably expressed myself poorly about what you just called doctrine.

Re: doctrine and doctrinal lumping, I meant that it looked like you clumped a couple of the (former) listmembers into the Bad Boys Club.

I accept the fact that there are some studies on serotonin and kindness because of several reasons: mainly the mileage this idea has gotten, but also because I remember reading some things in the news as they came out. Obviously, I cannot state this as a 100% bona fide fact until I find the tests. The fact that they are so hard to find is honking loudly at me, too.

Re: the 'serotonin and kindness' connection, explored in neuroscientific research, it's relatively clear that there isn't such a thing per se.** You are looking for the varied findings from research, you will find that serotonin levels are associated with variations in aggression and comcomitant social effects. Use keywords like 'serotonin aggression' 'serotonin sociality' 'serotonin fairness' 'serotonin depression.' There is a wealth of findings that inform some aspect of social functioning, but Dyer has conflated a lot of findings and mislabeled their collective import. That is why you find the kindness/serotonin connection only on woo sites.

The minor error I pointed out was that searching for the study Dyer referenced meant finding the actual operational definition used in the study. I thought it quite likely that 'kindness' was not that term.

"You say that some Objectivists are snarky? Who? Who, dammit! Give me some names! I personally am "some" Objectivist and I will be damned if you are going to say that about me!"

I see this over and over. Is it any wonder I speculate on the motives? Can you think of anything other than insecurity or love of power at root that would prompt this? I can't.

Firstly, where does the 'some objectivists are snarky' come from? In this thread you introduced this idea: "The feelings this story evokes and the values involved are totally ignored in Objectivism. 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" (emphasis added)

It's the perfect invitation to say 'Who are these awful people?' At this point in the argument Laure, George and Newberry had gagged on the tale, and you had written, " So you guys are saying that making an exception in the normal course of things to perform an act of kindness is evil?"

Making an analogy with Southern 'honour' is strangely apt, Michael, since your wording allows that those who disagree are dishonourable, especially when their emotional reactions do not conform to your own.

There may be an autistic contingent who inhabit Randland (I'm thinking of Luke Setzer and Diana Mertz Hsieh) and a co-existent contingent who curl their lips at 'altruism research,' and there may be an overlapping cohort who are actually small-hearted, unkind and of dreary humanity . . . but in this instance the argument presented has not named them or their arguments or drawn the explicit connection. This allows a very personal interpretation of your remarks, by George, Newberry, and Laure. It's that extra room for misinterpretation that your arguments have allowed, and that you are responsible for.

When one grants linguistic charity, when one examines the utterances for their intended meaning, it is likely that the take-home message is: 'You, George, Laure and Michael Newberry are such a cohort.'

In your first post, you noted Dyer, a purveyor of woo woo, and purported research asserting "there are studies that prove that the serotonin level in the brain increases when we are kind (giver, receiver and observer) and our immune systems are strengthened." You also noted that the mystical folk are inclined to accept the congenial assertions without taking pains to examine the studies . . .

The Shaya tale put my hackles up . . . maybe a some similar incident occured, but we have no input from the players, only the father's telling. We are invited to think that we know what the player's motives were, and to assign them roles in a morality play: gawd made Shaya imperfect; he draws out (moral) perfection in others.

I suspect the action and story was engineered by the father to make himself feel better. Engineered to tug the heartstrings and obviate for a moment the distress and hardship that care for a disabled child will engender.

That I reject the story and its supposed implications doesn't tell you much about my personality or motives. This doesn't mean that Michael, Laure and George and I are anything but warm, kind, benevolent and generous in our encounters with the world.

As I said in an earlier post, I suspect some Objectivists get offended and hostile during discussions about kindness and Objectivist ethics because this brings them face to face with unresolved issues inside themselves they would prefer to remain undiscussed.

Such psychological speculation is what gets up peoples' noses, maybe? It is not enough to suspect some unnamed Objectivists of unresolved issues . . . if you leave that gap in the argument, the identities, that lets people paste their own faces to the voodoo doll you have stuck together.

And I notice that some people get really wound up, make outright mistakes in inflammatory accusations, attribute wrong meanings to what I wrote, start baiting and generally act hostile soon after I say things like that.

I'm looking at this thread and the flow of discussion. I see things like your sharp and unpleasant reaction to George in post 27 (where a misunderstanding is ramified) and your sharp and unpleasant reaction to Greybird in post 36 (where you mention you cringe at his posts, and list his defects in a dismissive tone).

What should I conclude?

Should I conclude nothing and pretend that this does not exist?

Or better, should I just shut up and not mention the things I observe?

Should I be intimidated into silence about reporting what I see to keep from offending people?

Would that be kind?

It would be a kindness or fairness to yourself if you did not put forth a diffuse argument that brings in 'them' and 'they' and the assorted nasty folk. If you could recognize that you occasionally poison the well, it would be a kindness, and it would let you get to your goals for discussion. Your goal was not to get Laure feeling insulted and belittled. Your goal was not to damn people for being revolted by the Shaya story. Your goal was not to lump those revolted with the hardline discompassionate Objectivists who annoy and appall you.

But all things considered, that's the lumping that happened. George asked (in post 40) "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."

How did you react to this? Well, you dismissed it: "I am not competing against anyone and you are." and "Those 'nameless people' and shadows are in your head, not in my words."

Now, how are we to read that? Or this? -- "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."

To my eyes, it's plain. You are ruffled and you lash back. You lash back by questioning the "some people's" minds, speculating on an ugliness of soul.

Michael, with respect, this is a type of uncharitable mean-spiritedness that irks me.

Bear in mind I don't agree with Laure or George that the tale of Shaya implicates 'faking reality,' and by no means do I agree that the players' actions in the tale were evul.

** Here's a note from some somebody that went looking for the purported studies on kindness and serotonin. This person's experience mirrors mine.

Yesterday on the Ellen Show, Dr. Wayne Dyer was promoting his new book. He spouted a lot of rhetoric about kindness curing depression, i.e. being in the vicinity of acts of kindness causing increased serotonin levels. I spent an hour today searching through the entire Medscape library and 25 pages of Google references, looking for a published scientific study that confirms that. I couldn't find a single one. It seems that an entire world of new age, self-proclaimed experts and amateurs are all quoting Dr. Dyer's position without any documentation in evidence.

[link]

William,

Kudos to spelling out the more subtle things.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And the more obvious things? Like getting stuff wrong and just letting it lie there?

(Sorry. Couldn't resist that.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I appreciate your comments, though I doubt we come from a similar place. Morality tales are like guides of wisdom for living a good life. They don't all agree on what a good life is: The Thousand and One Nights and Superman Comics for example. Each of us can view those kinds of stories in a way that would further our lives or not. Living a life of normal, repeatable, unremarkable events doesn't sound like a good life to me. In fact, it sounds like a very boring, passionless existence. If you could prescribe a great way to live or if your write morality tales would you want to recommend a tame existence is the way to go?

Michael,

I don't want to pick on you, but this is the kind of statement where I see a double-standard operating. This is precisely the kind of thinking I object to.

I have no problem with someone choosing the passions he wishes to encourage in his life. I am all for selective focus exercised volitionally. I do it myself.

But I do not understand how a person can look, see something right in front of him and deny its existence in order to make a value judgment—especially one where he claims to be superior. How do you judge a person who claims to be superior when he get the facts wrong? I know how I do. It's not flattering. And I do not want to do that with you because I value you so highly.

Let's do the obvious thing. Let's push prejudice aside and look and see what exists before deciding if it is good or bad. There is plenty of time to do that after we discover what exists.

1. You strongly insinuate that the message of the baseball morality tale is "living a life of normal, repeatable, unremarkable events..." Is it? Let's look.

In the tale, from what I read, the whole point was that an extraordinary opportunity appeared and the boys took advantage of it. How is the appearance of a mentally incompetent person in the middle of a game a "normal, repeatable, unremarkable event"? Maybe you see it that way, I don't know. I do know that the common interpretation is that the background was normal, repeatable and unremarkable (a neighborhood game), but the event was an exception, unique and totally remarkable. These qualities are part of the reason the tale is so powerful. In fact, the boys in the tale are said to have achieved God's perfection because they took advantage of a unique moment and rose.

2. You talk about this kind of tale reflecting "... a very boring, passionless existence." All I can say is look at what people are doing. They are sticking their hands into their pockets and forking over oodles of cash voluntarily to a man who tells them this kind of tale precisely because of the passion it arouses in them. If you look at the video of the lecture, you see many people in the audience with tears streaming down their faces. They do not pay for boredom. Nobody pays for boredom. In fact, they pay in droves and make people like Dyer gazillionaires because they can't get enough of the passion he sells. Nobody forces them to do this. Only passion can drive them to do that voluntarily to the extent they do.

You are a great artist. You are supposed to notice things like that.

Now here is the double standard. You and some others object to me using a general "they" in my complaints about Objectivist oversimplifications, claiming that I am talking about you personally. What am I to conclude when you mis-identify the entire existence of humanity, knowing that I am part of that existence? Does this "they" standard apply when you judge others but not apply when I do? Why? Simply because Rand said something? That's not good enough for me when I have two functioning eyes in my head and a rational mind of my own to use.

There is an implicit dichotomy in your statement: that one can have passion in his life by adopting the values you hold dear (and incidentally so do I), or not have passion at all, but boredom instead. I hold (adamantly hold) that you should be accurate in your identification before judging anything at all—on pain of misrepresenting the very values you hold dear, starting with reason. It's an epistemological issue. How can you judge something when you don't even know what it is (as evidenced by your statement)?

How can you expect anyone that you disagree with to take you seriously when they exist in a certain manner (as evidenced by their behavior like showing up and paying good money, tears and so forth) and you tell them that they do not feel what they feel, and that only your manner provides passion? They will not even try to communicate with you. They will think you are blind and a crackpot. And they will continue to buy the other guy's intellectual products.

You haven't even begun to make a case or sales pitch to these people. You cannot sell any art or idea to anyone by telling him he is not what he actually is, but something terrible or defective instead (and needs to be redeemed—does that sound familiar?...). That may work nowadays with some fundamentalist religions where guilt is used as a tool for keeping the flock in line, but it works poorly on the open market.

(As an aside, if you are building a tribe, you can and actually need to scapegoat a group of people to create a demon, and that is quite common, but that is another issue.)

If you and the pertinent others in this thread are concerned that I climbed into your head and reported what I obviously cannot see because I cannot be in your head, what are you doing in the heads of practically all of humanity doing the same thing?

It's one thing to not have light to perceive. It's quite another to close your eyes and say there is no light.

If you want to discuss what passions are aroused by morality tales, why they are aroused, which passions are better, how philosophy and art induces passion and so forth, I'm all for it. I stated that in my opening post. My own passions are aroused by that sappy tale and I am interested in why. What is the source of that?

If you want to deny that these passions exist at all in people you disagree with, sorry. I look at the multitudes acting on their passion, see the money and tears flowing in abundance, even feel the same passion within myself, and have to conclude that you are observing reality incorrectly. This leads me to discard your evaluations, or at least take them well salted.

In my thinking and in how I understand Objectivist epistemology, "should" derives from "is," not the contrary. In the jargon, the contrary is called primacy of consciousness.

For the record, I have no such restrictions when I look at your paintings.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I am very busy right now and your post touches on several important matters. I will get to it in due time as I am mightily interested.

I look forward to this, Michael.

Thank you for finding that last link. I will be looking into it. This parallels my own experience.

If Dyer is perpetrating a fraud, he should be exposed. The reasonable thing to do right now is to keep probing and see if there is a source.

Is there a source? Doubtful. Don't waste time looking, and don't waste much more time on Dyer. He is only a fraud in the sense of a purveyor of woo and gawd-awful cliches and unsupported religio-mystical claptrap and just-so stories. On second thought, I bet Dyer gives an inaccurate rendering of what actually happened to Shaya and his dad one day in the park. I expect that the real story might pull a few heartstrings, whereas the dolled-up version gives an ick feeling to a few of us here.

As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, "Shaya, run home." Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate, and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a 'grand slam' and won the game for his team.

All 18 boys lifted him up? The boys from both teams ran behind him screaming? Blech.

Me, I only get choked up at tales of great valour and 'otherism' as with the Potomac rescue I noted in the "Altruism" thread of Barbara's.

If you have a look at the book of Dyer's in which the Shaya story is published (The Power of Intention), you can see there are zero references for his serotonin claims. So to find out what particular studies he is talking about** you have not a chance of tracking it down, given the emptiness of the claim 'research proves.' I suspect he is making shit up, which is no surprise, given his career track. Bah.

________________________________

**

[Newberry]

Michael,

I was replying to Judith's take that the boy's game was a "normal, repeatable, unremarkable event." So we shifted to the game minus the retarded boy.

Consequently, I had trouble following your post.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I can do it from that angle, too.

But you did write: "Each of us can view those kinds of stories in a way that would further our lives or not. Living a life of normal, repeatable, unremarkable events doesn't sound like a good life to me. In fact, it sounds like a very boring, passionless existence." And you even continued discussing morality tales. I thus presmumed you were interested in the impact of morality tales on life and not just baseball or quality of life per se.

But I still have a problem. Even if playing neighborhood baseball, say every weekend, is a "normal, repeatable, unremarkable event," I still don't know how this translates into boredom and lack of passion. The regular sports events I participated in while growing up, including school events, always included a good dose of passion and excitement.

Even as a football spectator, I remember more than once yelling myself hoarse: "We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One!" Things like that.

If you have trouble following my reasoning, I find myself having trouble following your reasoning as given in your posts. What is the connenction between the morality tale, normal, repeatable, unremarkable events and lack of passion and boredom? Or is there no connection and I am floundering around without seeing something obvious?

Michael

[Judith]

I am seeing an average, standard, friendly neighborhood baseball game among kids -- a normal, repeatable, unremarkable event among kids who don't see themselves as athletes, but as friends having a good time.

Living a life of normal, repeatable, unremarkable events doesn't sound like a good life to me. In fact, it sounds like a very boring, passionless existence. If you could prescribe a great way to live or if your write morality tales would you want to recommend a tame existence is the way to go?

Hell, no! Precisely the opposite! That was the point of my original post.

First of all, I'm saying that daily baseball games among kids are, almost by definition, normal, repeatable, unremarkable events. It's what they do every day, with little differences among the daily games. Not much changes from game to game. Same players, same moves, pretty predictable. Kind of hard to get passionate about.

Second, I'm saying that they then have an opportunity to have an extraordinary experience INSTEAD OF this boring, passionless, tame experience that they're having, and they go for it. OF COURSE they go for it! Who in their right mind wouldn't? A grown-up, perhaps, but not a kid.

I think that's what Michael was trying to say in his post as well, but his answer was a lot longer and more convoluted.

Judith

[Newberry]

Judith:

First of all, I'm saying that daily baseball games among kids are, almost by definition, normal, repeatable, unremarkable events. It's what they do every day, with little differences among the daily games. Not much changes from game to game. Same players, same moves, pretty predictable. Kind of hard to get passionate about.

I would think that if you comprehend being passionate about doing your best at something, you would be able to see that there are many participants in sports that do it with passion--it really doesn't matter if it is your thing or not.

[Mindy Newton]

Judith:

First of all, I'm saying that daily baseball games among kids are, almost by definition, normal, repeatable, unremarkable events. It's what they do every day, with little differences among the daily games. Not much changes from game to game. Same players, same moves, pretty predictable. Kind of hard to get passionate about.

I would think that if you comprehend being passionate about doing your best at something, you would be able to see that there are many participants in sports that do it with passion--it really doesn't matter if it is your thing or not.

I agree with you, Michael. After playing tennis for many, many years, I still want to hit every ball "sweetly," and hate every poor hit I make. The more you do something, the greater depth the performance has for you. Most of the people in tennis feel that way. Part of that is the public observation of what you are doing, I admit, but most of the really good players are that way with every stroke they make, in practice or in a game. Performing music is the same, (even when your sound in buried by cellos and trombones,) though, in that case there is more difference among people. Practices CAN get boring.

I love your point, Michael Kelly, about thinking to be good to people we personally judge to be better than oneself in some way. I recently sent a post to a writer at another site. I was complimentary and admiring. I didn't get any resonse from that person. After feeling exposed and a little rejected, I went over why I wrote what I did, and I felt fine with it. If people considered what it says about them, to say what they do or don't say about various others, I think they'd "say" differently. Envy is endemic and pernicious. Part of taking yourself seriously is being careful about what you do and don't say.

--Mindy

Edited August 27, 2008 by Mindy