O noes! The theme is gone!

TheMillenniumRider:

Introduce some shortage in critical items such as healthcare or food, and watch everyone revert to a feral state near instantaneously. Anyone who lives in a hurricane zone afterwards should be somewhat familiar with this.

This is what I really like about The Dark Knight movie. The Joker's insistence that this was true and his attempt to create it. I thought Batman was a terrible hero in the movie, but Gotham as a whole was the real protagonist.

But this is certainly not the case universally and I don't have statistics, but I don't even think it's the case most of the time. There have been many instances where disaster, shortage, and crisis have created greater philanthropy, greater unity, greater generosity. Crises are met with donations, volunteers, prayers (however much you think that's worth) with literally no semblance or physical way for any benefit to get back to the giver. Is generosity just a sucker's game?

You know how there's that game "Two truths and a lie"?

I feel like TheMillenniumRider's posts are all two solid ideas and then some random bat**** Bernie thought.

(And I kid because I love)

ApolloAndy:

Is generosity just a sucker's game?

Ooooh. Good one!

Cold hard answer?

Without expecting at least an equal return at some point, in some way, down the road? Yes.

It's obviously more complex and nuanced than that, but we're on a theme park forum and I'm having fun with talking in fundamentals.

But what benefit is there in subtracting from yourself (in whatever form the generosity takes)? There is no benefit in lessening your standing.

Generosity in the hurricane scenario likely fits my earlier explanation - it's easier to work together than against each other to get out of this. But how often do those hurricane scenarios truly come down to "me or you" and in those cases, would we ever know?

I mean, "I held onto his arm until I had to let go because the water was starting to cover my head" is still a "Me or You" decision in the end.

Lord Gonchar:

Without expecting at least an equal return at some point, in some way, down the road? Yes.

This is pretty much the way classical economists think about it. And, it turns out, it appears not to be true. Or at least, not the only explanation.

My son is a neuroscientist-in-training. He studies altruism, or more informally: the "hellawack shiznit that happens in your brizzle" when you do nice things for people. And, it appears that doing nice things for people lights up many of the same brain regions and chemical signaling pathways that e.g. heroin does. In other words, natural selection has seen fit to make it feel good to do good things. Humans tend to do things that make them feel good, unless there are other competing considerations.

Obviously, there are other considerations most of the time. And this is a statement about brains in general, not every brain in particular. It also depends on what someone (subconsciously) thinks "good" is, and I'm not sure whether or not there is any evidence that that is universal (though there might be some that suggests it, based on the fact that humans are very good at reading the emotional state of other humans.)

Finally, this is not "established science" but something that people are actively exploring. Still, it seems promising.

Lord Gonchar:

I feel like TheMillenniumRider's posts are all two solid ideas and then some random bat**** Bernie thought.

Sigh….. Take my upvote.

ApolloAndy:
Crises are met with donations, volunteers, prayers (however much you think that's worth) with literally no semblance or physical way for any benefit to get back to the giver.

Depends I suppose, if the givers are people from the community, then they are getting returns in bettering their community and getting things fixed and in a better state. Similar to how education or universal healthcare would benefit society overall and lower costs, but many don’t see it that way, the individuality and me vs. them mentality kicks into gear. Maybe the donors or givers satisfy some internal drive or desire and thus put them in a more self actualized state…

Brian Noble:

And, it appears that doing nice things for people lights up many of the same brain regions and chemical signaling pathways that e.g. heroin does.

And there's your equal and opposite reaction.

But I get what you're saying... something seen as good being hardwired.

Newton always screwing things up.

All you need to know is that the wife of Vince McMahon is now 16th in line to be President of the United States; the new head of a department that he has vowed to extinguish.

Your son is doing awesome things, Brian. Random acts of kindness is a front-line part of the treatment plan for any patient who walks through my door dealing with any form of depression. One of many tools in the toolbox, but definitely a tool. When people can actually see the neuroscience behind the things you ask them to do it makes an incredible difference with regards to accountability.

Only qualification he is looking for in cabinet picks is loyalty. He believes he knows more than everyone about everything. So, he is just looking for people who will do what he wants. Having people with relevant qualifications makes it less likely he gets what he wants.

OhioStater:

All you need to know is that the wife of Vince McMahon is now 16th in line to be President of the United States; the new head of a department that he has vowed to extinguish.

Time to put some polish on the old finishing move and practice taking chair shots.

Time to put some polish on the old finishing move

There are people who do good things because they think they'll get something out of it? That sucks.

My life philosophy has always been, "Leave the room better than it was when you entered it." Make the world a better place every day. When I die, I want the world to be a better place because I lived in it. And not because it makes me feel better. Not for kudos or because I want something in return.

Imagine that there is a scale of good deeds and selfish deeds. Every moment, the actions and thoughts of all of us collectively add to one side or the other. I assume most people are like me, and want the scale to tip towards the side of good. All the bad things happening in the world makes me want to work even harder to do that.

It hurts me to know that there are people in this world only out for themselves. If Trump does everything he says he's going to do, not just our country, but humans in general, will be see the opposite of progress.

That's my perspective on this conversation.

GoBucks89:

Only qualification he is looking for in cabinet picks is loyalty. He believes he knows more than everyone about everything.

It's more sinister than him thinking he knows better.

January 6th could have turned out a lot worse, if not for Trump's cabinet threatening mass resignation. Trump wanted the Pentagon to seize voting machines, and even had a draft EO written up, but this was, thankfully, stopped by folks around Trump who weren't loyal "yes men/women." Basically, the worst of Trump's impulses were thwarted by people around him doing right by the Country.

This time around, Trump has made it quite clear that he won't make the same mistake of surrounding himself with people who are loyal to the rule of law, the Constitution, etc. The only thing that matters, as you say, is fealty to Dear Leader.

Combine all of that with Trump's mostly-successful argument all the way up to SCOTUS that a president should have legal immunity to, say, order the military to stage a coup in order for the president to remain in power, or, stunningly murder political rivals so long as it was considered an "official act", and the table is set for an authoritarian power grab that we in the US have so far had the luxury of witnessing only on TV.

OhioStater:

Your son is doing awesome things, Brian. Random acts of kindness is a front-line part of the treatment plan for any patient who walks through my door dealing with any form of depression.

Can I ask this (and also to Brian as far as he understands what his kid is doing) because I gotta be me?

Is the "good" in this case a nurture, not nature, thing? That is to say society has defined "good" and doing those things gives us those neuro rewards because we've been taught they are good things to do?

Like if in some bizarro world we all thought punching each other in the face was a really nice thing to do for someone else - would punching someone in the face give the same "kindness reward"?

As I understand it and TL;DR: Probably not, because "punched in face" is (neurologically/physically) painful, human brains have evolved to react to pain negatively, that pain and attendant reaction is reflected in non-verbal communication, and humans are astoundingly good at reading nonverbal emotional cues.

But I have to run to lecture and then have a bunch of stuff to do after, so it might take me a minute to get to it.

Lord Gonchar:

Like if in some bizarro world we all thought punching each other in the face was a really nice thing to do for someone else - would punching someone in the face give the same "kindness reward"?

I think we should send this for trials and testing.

Brian Noble:

Probably not, because "punched in face" is (neurologically/physically) painful, human brains have evolved to react to pain negatively,

Bad specific example.

You guys know what I mean though. Is it learning a basic response or something more ingrained?

And then the next question is, "If it is ingrained, does this prove a sense of 'good'?"

I would tend to believe more along the lines of anything we evolve being a survival advantage in some way - completely void of moral implication.

Kinda like sex feels good so we procreate. People try to put all kind of moral implications on that too in various directions.

Random thoughts.

Even setting the example aside: all of this is subconscious. So, it depends on your brain recognizing what "good" is without having to think about it---and that depends on reading the emotional reaction of the other person. If the other person is pleased by what you have done for them, you'd read that reaction and have this response. (Again: I think. I am way out over my skis here).

And, I'm not arguing whether or not morality is a thing. Only that quid-pro-quo is not the only reason why person A might do something good for person B.

The neuro/psych background for this is explained very well by one of the faculty members at UCLA:

https://www.goodreads.com/b...217-social

Brian Noble:

And, I'm not arguing whether or not morality is a thing. Only that quid-pro-quo is not the only reason why person A might do something good for person B.

Cool.

Then I guess I'd have to split the hair further as say if we really got picky, could that response be the goal of the action?

In other words, like sex, I do this because it feels good and, in turn, it's evolutionarily beneficial.

As I talk, I realize I'm making it a zero sum thing, and I don't think I necessarily agree with that when said that way, but I'm still somehow good with the steps that got me here. *shrug*

(and yes, I'm being lazy just asking for these answers, but I trust you guys to have relatively solid info presented at the CoasterBuzz level)

But in the end, whether or not you get something in return for an action is a different thought line than whether what you did was morally "good". It seems at this point that we've separated the morality of the action from the why of the action and the conversation is veering off from where I'm trying to be - that pesky morality slider.

Unless you guys can put it back together for me.

Lord Gonchar:

In other words, like sex, I do this because it feels good

Brian Noble:
And, it appears that doing nice things for people lights up many of the same brain regions and chemical signaling pathways that e.g. heroin does. In other words, natural selection has seen fit to make it feel good to do good things. Humans tend to do things that make them feel good, unless there are other competing considerations.

So, Gonch has sex for the same reasons that people do Heroin, or, volunteer or donate?

How does this all tie back into the theming at Disney.... It has to somehow.