Every time the holidays come around, feel-good human-interest stories surface. This is a time to give to others, help those in need, and realize that the world is not as cutthroat or as competitive as we may believe.
But is it true? Can people be purely altruistic?
The authors of Superfreakonomics (the followup to the best-seller Freakonomics), says no. Most giving is what economists call impure altruism or warm glow altruism.
You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.
For example, a donor who gives $10 million to her alma mater may want to help her school, but she also wants her name atop a brand new building. Donors to the popular micro-finance site Kiva do so in large part because lending $10 or $50 or $100 makes them feel better. (Also, microlending is a very “trendy” area of philantrophy right now. Bill Clinton is a big fan of Kiva, and the founder of Grameen bank recently won the Nobel Peace Prize).
I may give $2 to a homeless person on the street, but that’s because I feel guilty and uncomfortable that he is walking in the rain while I’m warm in my car. U.S. citizens might give a lot to charities, but many people (especially the wealthy who can benefit to a greater degree) do so partly because of the tax advantages.
Beyond (or even aside from) the desire to help, lies a host of other incentives that makes giving in one instance more worthwhile to us than not giving.
No pure altruism there, no sirree.
So, the authors posit - “Are people innately altruistic?” is the wrong question to ask.
Because
People aren’t “good” or “bad”. People are people, and they respond to incentives. They can nearly always be manipulated – for good or ill – if only you find the right levers.
The authors look to kidney donations as an example. Only 16,000 kidney transplants are performed each year, but there are currently 80,000 people waiting for the organ. Many people have clearly decided that the incentives to donate a kidney are not strong enough to make up for the risks or inconvenience of donation.
When I examine my own behaviors of generosity, I have to agree that my giving are of the warm-glow types. When I gave my parents a stay at Las Vegas’s Mandalay Bay for last year’s Christmas, it wasn’t for purely altruistic reason. I wanted to feel like I am being a good daughter and make my mom proud.
The part that really makes me smile? Is that I know my mom will tell her relatives and friends about this, and that in addition to all the enjoyment she will get out of her luxury hotel, she will also get to feel like she raised a good daughter.
And that? Is money well spent.
Even the kind comments I received on that post was “reward” (i.e. positive incentive) towards that type of behavior.
So, what do you think? Are people innately altruistic? Or do we just respond to a series of incentives, social norms, and references?
image source: thejosevilson.com
You May Also Want To Read :
Giving to panhandlers on the street makes me feel better. That's probably why I do it. I mean, i ...
What's a grown-up present to parents? I see it as a present that I would've have been able to gi ...
My total charitable contributions for 2006 amounted to $0. My 2007 contribution is a $25 donatio ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I completely agree with this. I donated bags and bags of goods to Goodwill and skipped the tax advantages (because I'm an idiot), but even then, I did it to clear out space in my apartment. And having extra space felt good! I can also relate to doing good to get that warm glow feeling.
I think that people are innately altruistic up to a point – but we all have that line drawn in the sand as to how far we would go. I do enjoy the feeling of satisfaction I get when I help someone. On the other hand, maybe I'm being more altruistic when I resist the temptation to tell someone about themselves and instead, let them go on their misguided way? Lol. Hard to say.
I think there are some people who can innately be that good – think of Mother Theresa.
The rest of us? We're probably a little too selfish and too used to our creature comforts to commit ourselves that fully to others. So the way to get us to respond is to give us incentives – whether its bragging rights or just that nice feeling that comes from feeling like we helped others.
Is that right or wrong? I don't know, but it's certainly normal.
Actually, one can argue that Mother Theresa had the most ample incentives of all to do her charity works – she believed she was doing them for God. And what could be a bigger incentive than the favor and approval of God?
As an aside, in recent years, some criticism of Mother Theresa has also popped up. Christopher Hitchens was a prominent critic (wrote a whole book on it!) http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
Years ago an English teacher I had mentioned that there were no truly altruistic tasks. Even something as simple as holding the door open for someone else makes you feel good, thus you get benefit from it. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize it's true. But if something gives both me and someone else joy, I'm content.
I think in general people are altruistic up until the point that it stops benefitting them.
So we're willing to give as much of ourselves, our time and our things until we have to go significantly out of our way to do so. (Obviously the point of "out of our way" differs for each person!)
I think people's action are situational. A person is not purely good or evil or altruistic. I read a few studies (if I was a better internet user I could provide links!) where they tested monk's and had them pass by a severly injured person while they were en route to report somewhere and they would be punished if they were late. Something like 50% of them stopped and those were monk's. Think about the rest of us in that situation.
Definitely incentive-based. One of my own observations even before I read Freakonomics. It's a great book, I can't wait to read the next one!
I think I liked Freakonomics a bit more than Superfreakonomics, but both are very interesting to read. I think the authors must have THE most interesting jobs in the world. Hahah.
Now I'm sitting here trying to figure out what kind of incentive it would take for me to donate a kidney. It would have to be something pretty good!
I believe that people can be innately altruistic.
And there is data to back it up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human...
definitely incentive base or due to another reason. like you WANT people to like you so you act alturistically. you're fear to be criticized, so you donate generously. i don't think people are usually kind out of the goodness of their heart generally. if they are, then it's because it benefits them in some way or does not penalize them.
I think there's always an incentive when giving, whether you get something material or spiritual from it, you're still getting something in return! And the satisfaction of helping someone else is not a bad thing.
@Vee, I know someone who gave her kidney to someone's son so her husband could get one from the mother in return. With the new kidney husband was able to get off dialysis after both kidneys were damaged by a heart attack. She was giving AND getting, and everyone came out better for it. THAT's incentive!
I've heard of those donations too. They had to be conducted simultaneously to prevent one party from backing out after they get their kidney.
Oh my goodness, I just read this book! How funny you should post on it! I think people do things insanly for incentives, although I think it depends on the person per say. I do somethings for incentive (for instance, working at my job) but when I go beyond the call of my job ( for instance, knowing a kids faimly can't afford or fails to get her arm deodorant, buying some for the kid out of my own money and explaining to her how to use it), is done with my own money and out of my own time. Why do I do that? Because I feel bad that no one has done this for her and she's a child.
I think it;s small things like that might be alturistic but bigger things like the 100,000 donations to put your name on the buildings that are not.
Good post!
Serendipity
A retired soldier heard about a man who had been kidnapped by a terrorist group overseas. Without identifying himself, he collected his own intelligence, planned and successfully executed his plan to extricate the hostage, all at his own cost. Upon safely returning the hostage to his home land, the retired soldier left the man to return to his home, without ever identifying himself or asking for anything at all. The retired soldier never shared this with any one. While he may have gained personal satisfaction for this over-the-top heroic effort, or may have gained some other internal gratification that we are unaware of, thereby negating "pure altruism", I believe that a philosophical notion at times needs to be interpreted in a way that is appropriate to the situation. In this instance, if I were the judge, I would favor pure altrusim for the retired soldier.
I happen to agree with that particular philosophy. I think this is because most people are egocentric by design. But to back up the statement, I think few of us truly react out of 100% selflessness. There's always some sort of personal manner as to why a person does this.
I wouldn't call this inherently bad. Not even remotely so! More people ought to come to terms with that, I believe.