Presents, a Life with a Plan. My name is Karen Anastasia Placek, I am the author of this Google Blog. This is the story of my journey, a quest to understanding more than myself. The title of my first blog delivered more than a million views!! The title is its work as "The Secret of the Universe is Choice!; know decision" will be the next global slogan. Placed on T-shirts, Jackets, Sweatshirts, it really doesn't matter, 'cause a picture with my slogan is worth more than a thousand words, it's worth??.......Know Conversation!!!
On the backs of opening dialogue today was a starter!! Now as I wait for the technical requirement of my life as I would rather be lucky than good any day I would like to say a simple thanks to whom participated in more than a hand shake.
Thanks for listening and thanks for saying something too. I appreciate the done as it's hard to open up in places of treasured.
I sing to the gentle sound of a time where the tears were our bruised knees,
the sidewalk was the curb that made jumping rope a game of system,
baseball with the AM/FM Radio,
oh fashion how did the burial fling such sadness in sync?
It was the adults that gave that the plug,
nobody listened,
everyone laughed,
everyone else blamed,
the paper company.
Munch gives to the level streets now,
it is the howdy doody gang
oh look its all a loud,
the television goes again,
singing bands and lyrics like the verses had chapters without the reams,
His
Holiness the 14th Dalai lama (and to be clear he is only the spiritual leader for Tibetan and as by example to and from the priests and preachers and pastors running around the U.S.A.) on the road around Britain during his last UK visit before
stepping down as the Political Leader of Tibet, the film offers an
intimate portrait of the man behind the myth with his remarkable warmth,
integrity, humility and playful sense of humour, and his unique gift
for connecting with people on a personal level.
Includes: Complete with rare behind the scenes accessand a candid personal interview.
The Dalai Lama travels around Great Britain sharing his spiritual and humanitarian message.
“Road to Peace is a remarkable film.
This in part has to be true because it is about the Dalai Lama. But
essentially its special quality is because through the lens of Leon’s
camera, the unique personality of the man telling us he doesn’t do
miracles, does indeed perform a miracle as he moves people along the
Road to compassion and World Peace.
When the film ended, we in the audience went on asking questions, making comments, and relating allied experiences.
There was an opening up to each other from different faith positions, in a community concern to be active in peace-making.
Get to see this film. Tell your friends and your enemies to see it!”
Directed by Philip Gardiner an internationally known author has brought my attention to the movie Anunnaki. As I watched the movie from Philip Gardiner the presence of The Viking roared in from a single shot!! The picture as the story goes does fit and I will have to study more of the books and movies that Mr. Philip Gardiner has done as well as the Nuwaupians and Sitchinites right along with the Anunnaki themselves.
1.)
2.)
3.)
Viking helmets from the 7th century are part of 'The Vikings Begin
4.
Depiction of a horned helmet from Plate C of the Gundestrup cauldron
450,000 years ago our ancestors descended from the heavens to
engineer the first human beings. To us they were Giants that ruled as
Gods over mankind. Now new evidence and scientific research acknowledges
their existence on earth but reveals when they will return. The truth
of their real origin and purpose is much more bizarre and amazing than
anything previously believed. From the Garden of Eden to the Great
Flood; from the God of the Bible to the secrets of Enoch all shall be
revealed. (IMDB)
The focus of words to traditions and the defining reason for the width of
time is to recognize the work as depth in a basis of comprehension to the
extent of how a tire can move to the ease of it's curse. A saying that
may bring to this envelope as the letter prints with the point of decimal may
bring to mind for the average-reader a greater than manufactory of
industry. To discuss in open-forum will relieve one-hand and engage the
finger to basis of modern technology as Alan Turing built the computer after
finding machine thinking in the human mind.
Now on the once upon a story stature will not suffice as the older the
better technological business of thought shall deliver an actual format to the
already studied of habit to action. The binary code may introduce to
modern life the technology of the brain in thought to action as altruism and
the study thereof can deliver to a conversation the understanding of more than
"unselfish concern" or the animal nature evoked as complimenting the
conversation of instruct to event "a warning cry that reveals the
location" as defined by dictionary.com at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/altruism.
The nature of a basis is the base unit that delivered more; "A binary
code represents text, computer processor instructions, or any other data using
a two-symbol system. The two-symbol system used is often "0" and
"1" from the binary number system. The binary code assigns a pattern
of binary digits, also known as bits, to each character, instruction,
etc." as per Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code.
These fragments give to autism a calendar to state of being in the thorough
realm of banking the computer and comparison backing to the brain in action of
thought and regard. To see a bit more of the pieces as the picture to
what is the comparison is opening the thought itself by inviting the centuries
past to explain by exploration what has already taken place to produce that
industry right down to the last decimal point that provides the answer of and
not the reason for.To only speak of
such former relevance may produce that industry as the manufactory.
Altruism of the Vedic Insight ... “Like oil in the sesame seed, Vedaanta manifests in every Veda.” ... oneself at the expense of others is not altruism of insight.
This is just an idea and further consideration to the human brain, Time and
The Ages will have to be explored to back paragraph to original thought, it is
the trough so to speak and that being said "you can lead a horse to water
but you cannot make him drink".
How Alan Turing found machine thinking in the human mind
Turing's youthful bid for fame proved a great mathematician wrong – and accidentally created the modern computer.
IN
1935, Alan Turing set out to build a reputation by outflanking the
world’s leading mathematician. Turing was 22 years old, and a new fellow
at Cambridge. His target, David Hilbert, was the venerated University
of Göttingen professor who had single-handedly set the research agenda
for 20th-century mathematics.
Hilbert was no match for the British upstart. In his book Turing’s Vision,
Chris Bernhardt deftly shows how Turing dashed one of Hilbert’s great
ambitions with a masterful proof – in the course of which he
inadvertently invented the modern computer.
The title of Turing’s paper, “On Computable Numbers, With an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem”
(which means “decision problem”), is hardly inviting, and reading it
takes advanced training. This may explain why, as Turing’s fame
exploded, most popular writing focused on his wartime codebreaking, his
post-war writing on artificial intelligence – or his persecution and
prosecution for being gay and posthumous royal pardon.
But what Bernhardt’s book lacks in drama, it makes up for in lucid explanation. Turing’s Vision
allows careful readers to appreciate the proof that made Turing’s name
and, as a bonus, to understand the basics of modern computers.
The Entscheidungsproblem was part of Hilbert’s work to show
that the basic axioms of mathematics are logically consistent. To that
end, Hilbert sought an algorithm – a computational procedure – that
would indicate whether a given mathematical statement could be proved
from those axioms alone. Turing decisively showed that there was no such
algorithm.
“Turing proved that there was no mechanical set of rules for the solutions of all mathematical problems“
To do that, Bernhardt explains, Turing had to first establish a
working definition for the term algorithm – to define what it means to
compute. Turing looked at human “computers” – people who made
computations. The task involves writing symbols on paper, he noted. “The
behaviour of the computer at any moment is determined by the symbols…
he is observing and his ‘state of mind’.”
Breaking down apparently complex cogitation into simple arithmetical
procedures, Turing made computation explicit and eliminated the human
element. “Turing’s fresh insight was to define algorithms in terms of
theoretical computing machines,” writes Bernhardt. “Anything that can be
computed can be computed by a Turing machine.”
That’s why the machines were central to Turing’s paper. To show there
were algorithms that Turing machines would run indefinitely and
inconclusively was a way of showing Hilbert was mistaken. Turing proved
“that there were questions that were beyond the power of algorithms to
answer”. His triumph was spectacular, and devastating to those who
believed (as Hilbert did) that all problems could be solved.
Yet as crucial as the theoretical machines were to Turing’s proof,
they turned out to have even more impact in their own right, providing a
conceptual model for modern computers. The influence was direct,
informing John von Neumann’s pioneering 1945 design for electronic
computers, and the room-sized machines that applied his architecture.
Like Turing’s machines, the computers used ones and zeroes to encode
programs and data. This remains essential to high-level languages and
networks, so in learning about Turing machines, readers pick up
principles of computer science.
There are also philosophical ramifications today. Having based
computers on human behaviour, Turing noted that people are really Turing
machines. Computers are our mirrors: whether we marvel or shudder at
the latest AI, we’re merely looking at ourselves.
Giving alms to the poor is often considered an altruistic action.
Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for happiness of other human beings and/or animals, resulting in a quality of life both material and spiritual. It is a traditional virtue
in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and
secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern
should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. In an extreme
case, altruism may become a synonym of selflessness which is the
opposite of selfishness.
The word "altruism" was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from the Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3]
Altruism in biological observations in field populations of the
day organisms is an individual performing an action which is at a cost
to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of
survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly,
another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity
or compensation for that action. Steinberg suggests a definition for
altruism in the clinical setting, that is "intentional and voluntary
actions that aim to enhance the welfare of another person in the absence
of any quid pro quo external rewards".[4] In one sense, the opposite of altruism is spite; a spiteful action harms another with no self-benefit.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty,
in that whilst the latter is predicated upon social relationships,
altruism does not consider relationships. Much debate exists as to
whether "true" altruism is possible in human psychology. The theory of psychological egoism
suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be
described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic
reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits".
The term altruism
may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are
morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is usually
contrasted with egoism, which claims individuals are morally obligated to serve themselves first.
The concept has a long history in philosophical and ethical thought. The term was originally coined in the 19th century by the founding sociologist and philosopher of science, Auguste Comte, and has become a major topic for psychologists (especially evolutionary psychology researchers), evolutionary biologists, and ethologists.
Whilst ideas about altruism from one field can affect the other fields,
the different methods and focuses of these fields always lead to
different perspectives on altruism. In simple terms, altruism is caring
about the welfare of other people and acting to help them.
Scientific viewpoints
Anthropology
Marcel Mauss's book The Gift
contains a passage called "Note on alms". This note describes the
evolution of the notion of alms (and by extension of altruism) from the
notion of sacrifice. In it, he writes:
Alms are the fruits of a moral notion of the gift and of
fortune on the one hand, and of a notion of sacrifice, on the other.
Generosity is an obligation, because Nemesis avenges the poor and the
gods for the superabundance of happiness and wealth of certain people
who should rid themselves of it. This is the ancient morality of the
gift, which has become a principle of justice. The gods and the spirits
accept that the share of wealth and happiness that has been offered to
them and had been hitherto destroyed in useless sacrifices should serve
the poor and children.
In the science of ethology (the study of animal behaviour), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[5] In evolutionary psychology this may be applied to a wide range of human behaviors such as charity, emergency aid, help to coalition partners, tipping, courtship gifts, production of public goods, and environmentalism.[6]
Theories of apparently altruistic behavior were accelerated by
the need to produce theories compatible with evolutionary origins. Two
related strands of research on altruism have emerged from traditional
evolutionary analyses and from evolutionary game theory a mathematical model and analysis of behavioural strategies.
Some of the proposed mechanisms are:
Kin selection.[7]
That animals and humans are more altruistic towards close kin than to
distant kin and non-kin has been confirmed in numerous studies across
many different cultures. Even subtle cues indicating kinship may
unconsciously increase altruistic behavior. One kinship cue is facial
resemblance. One study found that slightly altering photographs so that
they more closely resembled the faces of study participants increased
the trust the participants expressed regarding depicted persons. Another
cue is having the same family name, especially if rare, and this has
been found to increase helpful behavior. Another study found more
cooperative behavior the greater the number of perceived kin in a group.
Using kinship terms in political speeches increased audience agreement
with the speaker in one study. This effect was especially strong for
firstborns, who are typically close to their families.[6]
Vested interests. People are likely to suffer if their friends, allies, and similar social ingroups
suffer or even disappear. Helping such group members may therefore
eventually benefit the altruist. Making ingroup membership more
noticeable increases cooperativeness. Extreme self-sacrifice towards the
ingroup may be adaptive if a hostile outgroup threatens to kill the entire ingroup.[6]
Direct reciprocity.[9]
Research shows that it can be beneficial to help others if there is a
chance that they can and will reciprocate the help. The effective tit for tat strategy is one game theoretic example. Many people seem to be following a similar strategy by cooperating if and only if others cooperate in return.[6]
One consequence is that people are more cooperative if it is
more likely that individuals will interact again in the future. People
tend to be less cooperative if they perceive that the frequency of
helpers in the population is lower. They tend to help less if they see
non-cooperativeness by others and this effect tend to be stronger than
the opposite effect of seeing cooperative behaviors. Simply changing the
cooperative framing of a proposal may increase cooperativeness such as
calling it a "Community Game" instead of a "Wall Street Game."[6]
A tendency towards reciprocity implies that people will feel
obligated to respond if someone helps them. This has been used by
charities that give small gifts to potential donors hoping thereby to
induce reciprocity. Another method is to announce publicly that someone
has given a large donation. The tendency to reciprocate can even
generalize so people become more helpful toward others in general after
being helped. On the other hand, people will avoid or even retaliate
against those perceived not to be cooperating. People sometimes
mistakenly fail to help when they intended to, or their helping may not
be noticed, which may cause unintended conflicts. As such, it may be an
optimal strategy to be slightly forgiving of and have a slightly
generous interpretation of non-cooperation.[6]
People are more likely to cooperate on a task if they can
communicate with one another first. This may be due to better
assessments of cooperativeness or due to exchange of promises. They are
more cooperative if they can gradually build trust, instead of being
asked to give extensive help immediately. Direct reciprocity and
cooperation in a group can be increased by changing the focus and
incentives from intra-group competition to larger scale competitions
such as between groups or against the general population. Thus, giving
grades and promotions based only on an individual's performance relative
to a small local group, as is common, may reduce cooperative behaviors
in the group.[6]
Indirect reciprocity.[10] The avoidance of poor reciprocators and cheaters causes a person's reputation
to become very important. A person with a good reputation for
reciprocity have a higher chance of receiving help even from persons
they have had no direct interactions with previously.[6]
Strong reciprocity.[11]
A form of reciprocity where some individuals seem to spend more
resources on cooperating and punishing than would be most beneficial as
predicted by several established theories of altruism. A number of
theories have been proposed as explanations as well as criticisms
regarding its existence.
Pseudo-reciprocity.[12]
An organism behaves altruistically and the recipient does not
reciprocate but has an increased chance of acting in a way that is
selfish but also as a byproduct benefits the altruist.
Costly signaling and the handicap principle.[13]
Since altruism takes away resources from the altruist it can be an
"honest signal" of resource availability and the abilities needed to
gather resources. This may signal to others that the altruist is a
valuable potential partner. It may also be a signal of interactive and
cooperative intentions since those not interacting further in the future
gain nothing from the costly signaling. It is unclear if costly
signaling can indicate a long-term cooperative personality but people
have increased trust for those who help. Costly signaling is pointless
if everyone has the same traits, resources, and cooperative intentions
but become a potentially more important signal if the population
increasingly varies on these characteristics.[6]
Hunters widely sharing the meat has been seen as a costly signal
of ability and research has found that good hunters have higher
reproductive success and more adulterous relations even if they
themselves receive no more of the hunted meat than anyone else.
Similarly, holding large feasts and giving large donations has been seen
as ways of demonstrating one's resources. Heroic risk-taking has also
been interpreted as a costly signal of ability.[6]
Volunteers assist Hurricane victims at the Houston Astrodome, following Hurricane Katrina.
Both indirect reciprocity and costly signaling depend on the
value of reputation and tend to make similar predictions. One is that
people will be more helping when they know that their helping behavior
will be communicated to people they will interact with later, is
publicly announced, is discussed, or is simply being observed by someone
else. This have been documented in many studies. The effect is
sensitive to subtle cues such as people being more helpful when there
were stylized eyespots instead of a logo on a computer screen. Weak
reputational cues such as eyespots may become unimportant if there are
stronger cues present and may lose their effect with continued exposure
unless reinforced with real reputational effects.[6]
Public displays such as public weeping for dead celebrities and
participation in demonstrations may be influenced by a desire to be seen
as altruistic. People who know that they are publicly monitored
sometimes even wastefully donate money they know are not needed by
recipient which may be because of reputational concerns.[14]
Women have been found to find altruistic men to be attractive
partners. When looking for a long-term partner, altruism may be a
preferred trait as it may indicate that he is also willing to share
resources with her and her children. It has been shown that men perform
altruistic acts in the early stages of a romantic relationship or simply
when in the presence of an attractive woman. While both sexes state
that kindness is the most preferable trait in a partner there is some
evidence that men place less value on this than women and that women may
not be more altruistic in presence of an attractive man. Men may even
avoid altruistic women in short-term relationships which may be because
they expect less success.[6][14]
People may compete for social benefit from a burnished reputation, which may cause competitive altruism.
On the other hand, in some experiments a proportion of people do not
seem to care about reputation and they do not help more even if this is
conspicuous. This may possibly be due to reasons such as psychopathy
or that they are so attractive that they need not be seen to be
altruistic. The reputational benefits of altruism occur in the future as
compared to the immediate costs of altruism in the present. While
humans and other organisms generally place less value on future
costs/benefits as compared to those in the present, some have shorter
time horizons than others and these people tend to be less cooperative.[6]
Explicit extrinsic
rewards and punishments have been found to sometimes actually have the
opposite effect on behaviors compared to intrinsic rewards. This may be
because such extrinsic, top-down incentives may replace (partially or in
whole) intrinsic and reputational incentives, motivating the person to
focus on obtaining the extrinsic rewards, which overall may make the
behaviors less desirable. Another effect is that people would like
altruism to be due to a personality characteristic rather than due to
overt reputational concerns and simply pointing out that there are
reputational benefits of an action may actually reduce them. This may
possibly be used as derogatory tactic against altruists, especially by
those who are non-cooperators. A counterargument is that doing good due
to reputational concerns is better than doing no good at all.[6]
Group selection. It has controversially been argued by some evolutionary scientists such as David Sloan Wilson
that natural selection can act at the level of non-kin groups to
produce adaptations that benefit a non-kin group even if these adaptions
are detrimental at the individual level. Thus, while altruistic persons
may under some circumstances be outcompeted by less altruistic persons
at the individual level, according to group selection theory the
opposite may occur at the group level where groups consisting of the
more altruistic persons may outcompete groups consisting of the less
altruistic persons. Such altruism may only extend to ingroup members
while there may instead prejudice and antagonism against outgroup
members (See also in-group favoritism). Group selection theory has been criticized by many other evolutionary scientists.[15][16]
Such explanations do not imply that humans are always consciously calculating how to increase their inclusive fitness
when they are doing altruistic acts. Instead, evolution has shaped
psychological mechanisms, such as emotions, that promote altruistic
behaviors.[6]
Every single instance of altruistic behavior need not always
increase inclusive fitness; altruistic behaviors would have been
selected for if such behaviors on average increased inclusive fitness in
the ancestral environment. This need not imply that on average 50% or
more of altruistic acts were beneficial for the altruist in the
ancestral environment; if the benefits from helping the right person
were very high it would be beneficial to err on the side of caution and
usually be altruistic even if in most cases there were no benefits.[6]
The benefits for the altruist may be increased and the costs
reduced by being more altruistic towards certain groups. Research has
found that people are more altruistic to kin than to no-kin, to friends
than to strangers, to those attractive than to those unattractive, to
non-competitors than to competitors, and to members ingroups than to
members of outgroup.[6]
The study of altruism was the initial impetus behind George R. Price's development of the Price equation, which is a mathematical equation used to study genetic evolution. An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae
until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular
fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the
survival of other cells in the fruiting body.
Selective investment theory proposes that close social bonds, and
associated emotional, cognitive, and neurohormonal mechanisms, evolved
in order to facilitate long-term, high-cost altruism between those
closely depending on one another for survival and reproductive success.[17][18]
Such cooperative behaviors have sometimes been seen as arguments
for left-wing politics such by the Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution and Peter Singer in his book A Darwinian Left.
Neurobiology
Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health
and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for
the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers,
using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October 2006,[19] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic
reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually responds to
food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed the interests
of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain
circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region.
These structures are intimately related to social attachment and
bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a
superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather
was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[20] One brain region, the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex/basal forebrain, contributes to learning altruistic behavior, especially in those with trait empathy.[21] The same study has shown a connection between giving to charity and the promotion of social bonding.[22]
In fact, in an experiment published in March 2007 at the University of Southern California neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that subjects with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex
lack the ability to empathically feel their way to moral answers, and
that when confronted with moral dilemmas, these brain-damaged patients
coldly came up with "end-justifies-the-means" answers, leading Damasio
to conclude that the point was not that they reached immoral
conclusions, but that when they were confronted by a difficult issue —
in this case as whether to shoot down a passenger plane hijacked by
terrorists before it hits a major city — these patients appear to reach
decisions without the anguish that afflicts those with normally
functioning brains. According to Adrian Raine,
a clinical neuroscientist also at the University of Southern
California, one of this study's implications is that society may have to
rethink how it judges immoral people: "Psychopaths often feel no
empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively
on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral
thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of
accountability?"[20]
In another study, in the 1990s, Dr. Bill Harbaugh, a University of Oregon
economist, concluded people are motivated to give for reasons of
personal prestige and in a similar fMRI scanner test in 2007 with his
psychologist colleague Dr. Ulrich Mayr, reached the same conclusions of
Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman about giving to charity, although they
were able to divide the study group into two groups: "egoists" and
"altruists". One of their discoveries was that, though rarely, even some
of the considered "egoists" sometimes gave more than expected because
that would help others, leading to the conclusion that there are other
factors in cause in charity, such as a person's environment and values.[22]
Psychology
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences defines psychological altruism as "a motivational state with the goal of increasing another’s welfare." Psychological altruism is contrasted with psychological egoism, which refers to the motivation to increase one's own welfare.[23]
There has been some debate on whether or not humans are truly capable of psychological altruism.[24] Some definitions specify a self-sacrificial nature to altruism and a lack of external rewards for altruistic behaviors.[25]
However, because altruism ultimately benefits the self in many cases,
the selflessness of altruistic acts is brought to question. The social exchange theory postulates that altruism only exists when benefits to the self outweigh costs to the self.[26]Daniel Batson
is a psychologist who examined this question and argues against the
social exchange theory. He identified four major motives for altruism:
altruism to ultimately benefit the self (egoism), to ultimately benefit
the other person (altruism), to benefit a group (collectivism), or to
uphold a moral principle (principlism).
Altruism that ultimately serves selfish gains is thus differentiated
from selfless altruism, but the general conclusion has been that
empathy-induced altruism can be genuinely selfless.[27] The empathy-altruism hypothesis
basically states that psychological altruism does exist and is evoked
by the empathic desire to help someone who is suffering. Feelings of
empathic concern are contrasted with feelings of personal distress,
which compel people to reduce their own unpleasant emotions. People with
empathic concern help others in distress even when exposure to the
situation could be easily avoided, whereas those lacking in empathic
concern avoid helping unless it is difficult or impossible to avoid
exposure to another's suffering.[23] Helping behavior is seen in humans at about two years old, when a toddler is capable of understanding subtle emotional cues.[28]
In psychological research on altruism, studies often observe altruism
as demonstrated through prosocial behaviors such as helping,
comforting, sharing, cooperation, philanthropy, and community service.[25]
Research has found that people are most likely to help if they
recognize that a person is in need and feel personal responsibility for
reducing the person's distress. Research also suggests that the number
of bystanders witnessing distress or suffering affects the likelihood of
helping (the Bystander effect). Greater numbers of bystanders decrease individual feelings of responsibility.[23][29]
However, a witness with a high level of empathic concern is likely to
assume personal responsibility entirely regardless of the number of
bystanders.[23]
Many studies have observed the effects of volunteerism
(as a form of altruism) on happiness and health and have consistently
found a strong connection between volunteerism and current and future
health and well-being.[30][31] In a study of older adults, those who volunteered were higher on life satisfaction and will to live, and lower in depression, anxiety, and somatization.[32]
Volunteerism and helping behavior have not only been shown to improve
mental health, but physical health and longevity as well, attributable
to the activity and social integration it encourages.[30][33][34][35]
One study examined the physical health of mothers who volunteered over a
30-year period and found that 52% of those who did not belong to a
volunteer organization experienced a major illness while only 36% of
those who did volunteer experienced one.[36]
A study on adults ages 55+ found that during the four-year study
period, people who volunteered for two or more organizations had a 63%
lower likelihood of dying. After controlling for prior health status, it
was determined that volunteerism accounted for a 44% reduction in
mortality.[37]
Merely being aware of kindness in oneself and others is also associated
with greater well-being. A study that asked participants to count each
act of kindness they performed for one week significantly enhanced their
subjective happiness.[38]
It is important to note that, while research supports the idea that
altruistic acts bring about happiness, it has also been found to work in
the opposite direction—that happier people are also kinder. The
relationship between altruistic behavior and happiness is bidirectional.
Studies have found that generosity increases linearly from sad to happy
affective states.[39]
Studies have also been careful to note that feeling over-taxed by
the needs of others has conversely negative effects on health and
happiness.[35]
For example, one study on volunteerism found that feeling overwhelmed
by others' demands had an even stronger negative effect on mental health
than helping had a positive one (although positive effects were still
significant).[40]
Additionally, while generous acts make people feel good about
themselves, it is also important for people to appreciate the kindness
they receive from others. Studies suggest that gratitude goes
hand-in-hand with kindness and is also very important for our
well-being. A study on the relationship happiness to various character
strengths showed that "a conscious focus on gratitude led to reductions
in negative affect and increases in optimistic appraisals, positive
affect, offering emotional support, sleep quality, and well-being.".[41]
Sociology
"Sociologists
have long been concerned with how to build the good society"
("Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity". American Sociological
Association.[42]).
The structure of our societies and how individuals come to exhibit
charitable, philanthropic, and other pro-social, altruistic actions for
the common good is a largely researched topic within the field. The
American Sociology Association (ASA) acknowledges public sociology
saying, "The intrinsic scientific, policy, and public relevance of this
field of investigation in helping to construct 'good societies' is
unquestionable" ("Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity" ASA). This
type of sociology seeks contributions that aid grassroots and
theoretical understandings of what motivates altruism and how it is
organized, and promotes an altruistic focus in order to benefit the
world and people it studies. How altruism is framed, organized, carried
out, and what motivates it at the group level is an area of focus that
sociologists seek to investigate in order to contribute back to the
groups it studies and "build the good society". The motivation of
altruism is also the focus of study; some publications link the
occurrence of moral outrage to the punishment of perpetrators and
compensation of victims.[43]
Pathological
altruism is when altruism is taken to an unhealthy extreme, and either
harms the altruistic person, or well-intentioned actions cause more harm
than good.
The term "pathological altruism" was popularised by the book Pathological Altruism.
Examples include depression and burnout seen in healthcare
professionals, an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's
own needs, hoarding of animals, and ineffective philanthropic and social
programs that ultimately worsen the situations they are meant to aid.[44]
Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote altruism as a very important moral value. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, and Sikhism, etc., place particular emphasis on altruistic morality.
Buddhism
Monks collecting alms
Altruism figures prominently in Buddhism. Love and compassion are
components of all forms of Buddhism, and are focused on all beings
equally: love is the wish that all beings be happy, and compassion is
the wish that all beings be free from suffering. "Many illnesses can be
cured by the one medicine of love and compassion. These qualities are
the ultimate source of human happiness, and the need for them lies at
the very core of our being" (Dalai Lama).[45]
Still, the notion of altruism is modified in such a world-view,
since the belief is that such a practice promotes our own happiness:
"The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense
of well-being becomes" (Dalai Lama[45]).
In the context of larger ethical discussions on moral action and
judgment, Buddhism is characterized by the belief that negative
(unhappy) consequences of our actions derive not from punishment or
correction based on moral judgment, but from the law of karma, which
functions like a natural law of cause and effect. A simple illustration
of such cause and effect is the case of experiencing the effects of what
one causes: if one causes suffering, then as a natural consequence one
would experience suffering; if one causes happiness, then as a natural
consequence one would experience happiness.
Sculpture depicting the Jain concept of ahimsa (non-injury)
The fundamental principles of Jainism revolve around the concept of altruism, not only for humans but for all sentient beings. Jainism preaches the view of Ahimsa
– to live and let live, thereby not harming sentient beings, i.e.
uncompromising reverence for all life. It also considers all living
things to be equal. The first Tirthankara, Rishabhdev,
introduced the concept of altruism for all living beings, from
extending knowledge and experience to others to donation, giving oneself
up for others, non-violence and compassion for all living things.
Jainism prescribes a path of non-violence to progress the soul to
this ultimate goal. A major characteristic of Jain belief is the
emphasis on the consequences of not only physical but also mental
behaviors. One's unconquered mind with anger, pride (ego), deceit, greed
and uncontrolled sense organs are the powerful enemies of humans. Anger
spoils good relations, pride destroys humility, deceit destroys peace
and greed destroys everything. Jainism recommends conquering anger by
forgiveness, pride by humility, deceit by straightforwardness and greed
by contentment.
Jains believe that to attain enlightenment and ultimately
liberation, one must practice the following ethical principles (major
vows) in thought, speech and action. The degree to which these
principles are practiced is different for householders and monks. They
are:
The "great vows" (Mahavrata) are prescribed for monks and "limited vows" (Anuvrata)
are prescribed for householders. The house-holders are encouraged to
practice the above-mentioned five vows. The monks have to observe them
very strictly. With consistent practice, it will be possible to overcome
the limitations gradually, accelerating the spiritual progress.
The principle of non-violence seeks to minimize karmas which limit the capabilities of the soul. Jainism views every soul as worthy of respect because it has the potential to become Siddha (God in Jainism).
Because all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is
essential in one's actions. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life,
advocating harmlessness towards all, whether the creatures are great or
small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms. Jainism
acknowledges that every person has different capabilities and capacities
to practice and therefore accepts different levels of compliance for
ascetics and householders.
Altruism is central to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospel, especially in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. From biblical to medieval Christian traditions,
tensions between self-affirmation and other-regard were sometimes
discussed under the heading of "disinterested love", as in the Pauline phrase "love seeks not its own interests." In his book Indoctrination and Self-deception,
Roderick Hindery tries to shed light on these tensions by contrasting
them with impostors of authentic self-affirmation and altruism, by
analysis of other-regard within creative individuation of the self, and
by contrasting love for the few with love for the many. Love confirms
others in their freedom, shuns propaganda and masks, assures others of
its presence, and is ultimately confirmed not by mere declarations from
others, but by each person's experience and practice from within. As in
practical arts, the presence and meaning of love becomes validated and
grasped not by words and reflections alone, but in the making of the
connection.
St Thomas Aquinas interprets 'You should love your neighbour as yourself'[46] as meaning that love for ourselves is the exemplar of love for others.[47]
Considering that "the love with which a man loves himself is the form
and root of friendship" and quotes Aristotle that "the origin of
friendly relations with others lies in our relations to ourselves,"[48]
he concluded that though we are not bound to love others more than
ourselves, we naturally seek the common good, the good of the whole,
more than any private good, the good of a part. However, he thinks we
should love God more than ourselves and our neighbours, and more than
our bodily life—since the ultimate purpose of loving our neighbour is to
share in eternal beatitude: a more desirable thing than bodily well
being. In coining the word Altruism, as stated above, Comte was probably opposing this Thomistic doctrine, which is present in some theological schools within Catholicism.
Many biblical authors draw a strong connection between love of
others and love of God. 1 John 4 states that for one to love God one
must love his fellowman, and that hatred of one's fellowman is the same
as hatred of God. Thomas Jay Oord
has argued in several books that altruism is but one possible form of
love. An altruistic action is not always a loving action. Oord defines
altruism as acting for the other's good, and he agrees with feminists
who note that sometimes love requires acting for one's own good when the
other's demands undermine overall well-being.
German philosopher Max Scheler
distinguishes two ways in which the strong can help the weak. One way
is a sincere expression of Christian love, "motivated by a powerful
feeling of security, strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible
fullness of one’s own life and existence".[49]
Another way is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ...
nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in
other people’s business."[50]
At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak,
and the oppressed is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse
to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth,
strength, power, largesse."[51]
Islam
In Islam,
the concept 'ithaar' (إيثار) (altruism) is the notion of 'preferring
others to oneself'. For Sufis, this means devotion to others through
complete forgetfulness of one's own concerns, where concern for others
is rooted to be a demand made by ALLAH on the human body, considered to
be property of ALLAH alone. The importance lies in sacrifice for the
sake of the greater good; Islam considers those practicing Eyaar as abiding by the highest degree of nobility.[52]
This is similar to the notion of chivalry, but unlike that European
concept, in i'thar attention is focused on everything in existence. A
constant concern for ALLAH (i.e. God) results in a careful attitude towards people, animals, and other things in this world.[53]
This concept was emphasized by Sufis of Islam like Rabia al-Adawiyya who paid attention to the difference between dedication to ALLAH (i.e. God) and dedication to people. Thirteenth-century Turkish Sufi poet Yunus Emre explained this philosophy as "Yaratılanı severiz, Yaratandan ötürü" or We love the creature, because of The Creator.
For many Muslims, i'thar must be practiced as a religious obligation
during specific Islamic holidays. However, i'thar is also still an
Islamic ideal to which all Muslims should strive to adhere at all times.
Judaism
Judaism defines altruism as the desired goal of creation. The famous Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook stated that love is the most important attribute in humanity.[54] This is defined as bestowal,
or giving, which is the intention of altruism. This can be altruism
towards humanity that leads to altruism towards the creator or God. Kabbalah defines God as the force of giving in existence. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
in particular focused on the 'purpose of creation' and how the will of
God was to bring creation into perfection and adhesion with this upper
force.[55]
Modern Kabbalah developed by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag, in his writings about the future generation, focuses on how society could achieve an altruistic social framework.[56]
Ashlag proposed that such a framework is the purpose of creation, and
everything that happens is to raise humanity to the level of altruism,
love for one another. Ashlag focused on society and its relation to divinity.[57]
Sikhism
Altruism
is essential to the Sikh religion. The central faith in Sikhism is that
the greatest deed any one can do is to imbibe and live the godly
qualities like love, affection, sacrifice, patience, harmony,
truthfulness. The concept of "seva," or selfless service to the community for its own sake is an important concept in Sihkism.[58]
The fifth Nanak, Guru Arjun Dev, sacrificed his life to uphold 22
carats of pure truth, the greatest gift to humanity, the Guru Granth.
The ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur, sacrificed his head to protect weak and
defenseless people against atrocity. In the late seventeenth century, Guru Gobind Singh Ji (the tenth guru in Sikhism), was in war with the Mughal rulers to protect the people of different faiths when a fellow Sikh, Bhai Kanhaiya, attended the troops of the enemy.[59]
He gave water to both friends and foes who were wounded on the
battlefield. Some of the enemy began to fight again and some Sikh
warriors were annoyed by Bhai Kanhaiya as he was helping their enemy.
Sikh soldiers brought Bhai Kanhaiya before Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and
complained of his action that they considered counter-productive to
their struggle on the battlefield."What were you doing, and why?" asked
the Guru. "I was giving water to the wounded because I saw your face in
all of them," replied Bhai Kanhaiya. The Guru responded, "Then you
should also give them ointment to heal their wounds. You were practicing
what you were coached in the house of the Guru."
It was under the tutelage of the Guru that Bhai Kanhaiya
subsequently founded a volunteer corps for altruism. This volunteer
corps still to date is engaged in doing good to others and trains new
volunteering recruits for doing the same.[60]
Hinduism
In
Hinduism Selflessness (Atmatyag), Love (Prema), Kindness (Daya) and
Forgiveness (Kshama) are considered as the highest acts of humanity or
"Manushyattva". Giving alms to the beggers or poor people is considered
as a divine act or "Punya" and Hindus believe it will free their souls
from guilt or "Paapa" and will led them to heaven or "Swarga" in
afterlife. Altruism is also the central act of various Hindu mythology
and religious poems and songs.
Swami Vivekananda,
the legendary Hindu monk, has said -"Jive prem kare jeijon, Seijon
sebiche Iswar" (Whoever loves any living being, is serving god.). Mass
donation of clothes to poor people (Vastraseva), or blood donation camp
or mass food donation (Annaseva) for poor people is common in various
Hindu religious ceremonies.
Swami Sivananda, an Advaita scholar, reiterates the views in his commentary synthesising Vedanta views on the Brahma Sutras,
a Vedantic text. In his commentary on Chapter 3 of the Brahma Sutras,
Sivananda notes that karma is insentient and short-lived, and ceases to
exist as soon as a deed is executed. Hence, karma cannot bestow the
fruits of actions at a future date according to one's merit.
Furthermore, one cannot argue that karma generates apurva or punya,
which gives fruit. Since apurva is non-sentient, it cannot act unless
moved by an intelligent being such as a god. It cannot independently
bestow reward or punishment.
However the very well known and popular text, the Bhagavad Gita
supports the doctrine of karma yoga (achieving oneness with God through
action) & "nishkaama karma" or action without expectation / desire
for personal gain which can be said to encompass altruism. Altruistic
acts are generally celebrated and very well received in Hindu literature
and is central to Hindu morality.[61]
There exists a wide range of philosophical views on humans' obligations or motivations to act altruistically. Proponents of ethical altruism maintain that individuals are morally obligated to act altruistically. The opposing view is ethical egoism,
which maintains that moral agents should always act in their own
self-interest. Both ethical altruism and ethical egoism contrast with utilitarianism,
which maintains that each agent should act in order to maximise the
efficacy of their function and the benefit to both themselves and their
co-inhabitants.
A related concept in descriptive ethics is psychological egoism, the thesis that humans always act in their own self-interest and that true altruism is impossible. Rational egoism is the view that rationality consists in acting in one's self-interest (without specifying how this affects one's moral obligations).
Comte, Auguste, Catechisme positiviste (1852) or Catechism of Positivism, tr. R. Congreve, (London: Kegan Paul, 1891)
Knox, T. (1999). "The volunteer's folly and socio-economic man: some thoughts on altruism, rationality, and community". Journal of Socio-Economics. 28 (4): 475–967. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(99)00045-1.
Steinberg, David (2010). "Altruism in medicine: its definition, nature, and dilemmas". Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 19 (2): 249–57. doi:10.1017/s0963180109990521. PMID20226108.
Bell, Graham (2008). Selection: the mechanism of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 367–368. ISBN978-0-19-856972-5.
Pat Barcaly. The evolution of charitable behaviour and the power of reputation. In Roberts, S. C. (2011). Roberts, S. Craig (ed.). Applied Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001. ISBN9780199586073.
Okasha, Samir. "Biological Altruism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 May 2011.
Wendy
Iredal and Mark van Vugt. Altruism as showing off: a signaling
perspective on promoting green behaviour and acts of kindness. In Roberts, S. C. (2011). Roberts, S. Craig (ed.). Applied Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001. ISBN9780199586073.
["Altruism."
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A.
Darity, Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008.
87-88. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 10 April 2012.]
[Batson, C. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.]
[Batson, C. (2012). A history of prosocial behavior research. In A. W. Kruglanski, W. Stroebe, A. W. Kruglanski, (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 243–264). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.]
[Batson,
C., Ahmad, N., & Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial
motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D.
Dunning, D. Dunning (Eds.), Social motivation (pp. 103–126). New York,
NY US: Psychology Press.]
Hudson, James M.; Bruckman, Amy S. (2004). "The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation". Journal of the Learning Sciences. 13 (2): 165–195. CiteSeerX10.1.1.72.4881. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2.
Musick,
M. A.; Wilson, J. (2003). "Volunteering and depression: The role of
psychological and social resources in different age groups". Social Science & Medicine. 56 (2): 259–269. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00025-4.
Koenig,
L. B.; McGue, M.; Krueger, R. F.; Bouchard (2007). "Religiousness,
antisocial behavior, and altruism: Genetic and environmental mediation".
Journal of Personality. 75 (2): 265–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00439.x. PMID17359239.
Hunter, K. I.; Hunter, M. W. (1980). "Psychosocial differences between elderly volunteers and non-volunteers". The International Journal of Aging & Human Development. 12 (3): 205–213. doi:10.2190/0H6V-QPPP-7JK4-LR38.
Kayloe, J. C.; Krause, M. (1985). "RARE FIND: or The value of volunteerism". Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 8 (4): 49–56. doi:10.1037/h0099659.
Brown,
S. L.; Brown, R.; House, J. S.; Smith, D. M. (2008). "Coping with
spousal loss: Potential buffering effects of self-reported helping
behavior". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 34 (6): 849–861. doi:10.1177/0146167208314972. PMID18344495.
Moen,
P.; Dempster-Mcclain, D.; Williams, R. M. (1992). "Successful aging: A
life-course perspective on women's multiple roles and health". American Journal of Sociology. 97 (6): 1612–1638. doi:10.1086/229941.
Oman, D.; Thoresen, C. E.; McMahon, K. (1999). "Volunteerism and mortality among the community-dwelling elderly". Journal of Health Psychology. 4 (3): 301–316. doi:10.1177/135910539900400301. PMID22021599.
Underwood, B.; Froming, W. J.; Moore, B. S. (1977). "Mood, attention, and altruism: A search for mediating variables". Developmental Psychology. 13 (5): 541–542. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.541.
M (2004). Key Concepts in the Practice of Sufism: Emerald Hills of the Heart. Rutherford, N.J.: Fountain. pp. 10–11. ISBN978-1-932099-75-1.
Neusner, Jacob Eds (2005). Altruism in World Religions. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press. pp. 79–80. ISBN978-1-58901-065-9.
Kook, Abraham Isaac; Ben Zion Bokser (1978). Abraham Isaac Kook: The lights of penitence, The moral principles, Lights of holiness, essays, letters, and poems. Paulist Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN978-0-8091-2159-5.
Luzzatto, Moshe Ḥayyim (1997). The way of God. Feldheim Publishers. pp. 37–38. ISBN978-0-87306-769-0.
Presents, a Life with a Plan. My name is Karen Anastasia Placek, I am the author of this Google Blog. This is the story of my journey, a quest to understanding more than myself. The title of my first blog delivered more than a million views!! The title is its work as "The Secret of the Universe is Choice!; know decision" will be the next global slogan. Placed on T-shirts, Jackets, Sweatshirts, it really doesn't matter, 'cause a picture with my slogan is worth more than a thousand words, it's worth??.......Know Conversation!!!
