Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
Because the unselfish person in this scenario finds themselves giving, and others wantonly taking advantage of any kindness (theirs, or others'), the empathic sort would probably feel more disheartened by witnessing mistreatment than to notice their own.
The same dynamic exists with those hundred millionaire preppers. It's very peculiar to actively prepare for a world in which hundreds of millions are dead and you are surviving in a mansion in the boonies somewhere. That must signal something, some kind of disconnect between your plight and the plight of others.
Though the people discussing that aren't usually obviously "selfish" so it does seem that the people who are directing the controls (or have a shot at them) usually are lacking some kind of empathy. The lack of it is probably useful if not necessary to get ahead because if you do stop to consider the world, it's hard not to find it very depressing.
This seems a weird argument to me, because it works just as well if you replace "years" (or even months) for "centuries".
I'll be happy if I make 75 and I'll view every day after that as a gift and not something I deserve.
But these are just thoughts, happy to be wrong.
My puzzle is more over the line. Seems to me that if empathetic person can wish to live an extra year starting from their 50th anniversary, why not on their 100th or 250th?
how long should you want to live in such a world? one or two centuries ok; one or two millennia not ok?
There is nothing selfish about focusing on things that I can impact, and recognizing your a tiny fish in the vastness of space.
I think it's prudent to make it out business to get control over and fix things that are actively causing harm. Or as Raymond Chen might say, "Be somebody":
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110118-00/?p=...
If, as a starting point, someone believes the population is growing exponentially then they likely also believe it doesn't matter if they try to be selfish or not. There will be a lot of people with limited resources and that is probably going to reduce their quality of life.
Now there are a lot of issues with this view and the actual reality might favour anything, but I don't think the average selfish or selfless person has thought about them. So I'm pretty happy to excuse both until I see arguments with more facts than 'I think' or implicit 'selfishness is bad it sounds unfriendly'.
This is a really good point.
To remove the moral overtones, I like to think of selfishness as local vs global optimization. The prisoner's dilemma is a great (abstract) example where "locally optimal" or "selfish" behaviour creates a situation where everyone is individually worse off than they need to be.
In the real world, this kind of situation is especially visible in urban planning and traffic control. Things like lane widening or adding a new road can famously worsen traffic congestion. Lane mergers is another. The "zipper merge" is known to produce shorter queues and fewer accidents, but individuals have motive to "cheat" and merge earlier in these cases, which ends up causing worse traffic for everyone.
Personally, I find this game theoretic view point of "selfishness" to generate more precise and relevant questions than the more morally-tinted stances. Maybe that kind of thing is up your alley.
And I am confident I could do that more effectively as an ageless vampire overlord. The main weakness of a benevolent dictatorship has always been the succession.
The things you describe are just forms of insurance that are not considered must-haves by most people, but are sometimes chosen by super wealthy people for the same reason anyone chooses to insure anything.
When you consider that humans are just primates that evolved from a process known as "survival of the fittest" - it's really not that weird at all. Thinking of people in terms of wild animals makes our actions much more explainable.
But I think this is a good example of "perceived" injustice. The idea that someone may live indefinitely - at zero expense to you - makes you feel depressed.
It reminds me of the iconic kindergarten rule "if you can't bring enough for the whole class, don't bring it". Because there's always that one kid that will put up a tantrum if he can't also have a snack.
I think this is why many socialists identify with this article and also have depression. Like a kindergartener, they see what other people have and they want it. They think it's unfair that someone is wealthy while not everyone is. Then they "unselfishly" want to take and redistribute what wasn't theirs. Hence the "oh I'm so unselfish and depressed because I'm such a good person" type posts.
It's just I'm not sure that I'd want to, even if I could. Wouldn't it be incredibly depressing to watch something like WWI and then live to see humans doing the same dumb stuff 100 years later? Would you really want to see Twitter when you had lived through Twain? Wouldn't it be really depressing to be a thousand years old and to have every person you ever knew dead?
It's not someone having 1000 years and someone having 100 that depresses me; it surprises me that someone would want to live for 1000 years when some people don't get 1. I can't imagine living for decades having experienced stuff like Vegas multiple times. It seems crushing. Then again, I'm not 130, so who knows.
Yeah I get that. Crossing the border into Mexico is an experience. On one side of the line you have prosperity, on the other side you have soul crushing poverty. Then you go and enjoy some tacos.
Well I assume that if I have long life that there are others too. Think of the deep relationships that one could form over a 1000+ year period.
But that doesn't really factor into my moral reasoning. My living forever wouldn't necessarily make things worse for people who don't get to do that. So, as a consequentialist, I don't think it would be wrong. Making things better for some people without making them better for other people is better than not making things better for anyone.
Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years, when the entirety of human civilization which made that possible is now dead? Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world. It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it, I'm just saying it's irrationally ego driven and it can't be fully embraced without a lack of empathy. If you can live for 150 years and not get worn down by the things people do to each other, more power to you.
Or to put it in plain words and as I can't find a way to make it less confusing: why isn't your position equivalent to advocating for everyone to kill themselves (or at the least, not caring at all whether they live or die)
It's a natural ego driven thing to want to survive, but it is still driven by ego.
We've been seeking to and succeeding at extending our natural lifespans since forever. The only sensible argument against it is that the planet would eventually be overcrowded, assuming we don't become interplanetary any time soon.
What I'm trying to say is that all progress has occurred within our now millenia old system of relatively short lifespans. It means that within 150 years, societies can completely change because new individuals and experiences have to take over. Even the ancients saw death as a kind of leveler. We all die, even the mighty don't get to take anything with them.
Does that happen if we change that equation? Maybe it doesn't matter because people are good at adapting, but there's still a possibility it isn't all sunshine.
Also, if you live forever, almost everybody will be able to make a lasting impact on society, sooner or later.
Obviously this would depend greatly on where you live (much more likely to be shot in the US or Mexico than in Japan).
I'm not sure why this is a question. Barring inhumane levels of pain (emotional or physical), living is always preferable to death.
>Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world
Agree, we are all dust in the wind etc, etc. But why does that matter? Should I decide to stop living at 27 because my trajectory means I won't accomplish anything with my life?
Personally, the strongest motivator to live as long as possible is to experience as much "existence" as possible. My lifetime is constricted to the 21st century right now and that means I will never experience humanity's future. Sure, it will happen regardless whether I'm there to experience it, but that won't matter to me, I'll be dead.
If wanting to experience life is selfish, then I'm sorry for being born (not directed at you, just in general).
As an example I leaned Japanese. To do so I moved to Japan at 33. My experience there tells me if I want to learn Chinese and actually remember it I need to move to China for 6-8 years. Given I only have 20-30 years left and probably less in pure freedom of movement (meaning my body will get old and limit where I live and what I can do), then ATM I only get to choose 1, 2 or 3 more major things to do with my life. If I could live forever I'd choose to do all of them knowing I have plenty of time left. I'd spend 8+ years in China. Maybe 6+ years in Germany and 6+ in France and 6+ in Italy and 6+ in Spain and a few in South American countries and then others. I'd go back to school and learn various topics spending several years in each.
I don't agree with your assertion wanting to live a long long time has anything to do with ego. People used to only live to an average of 30. Today I saw a program on Japanese TV showing they have 60000 people over 100 years old. They showed several having productive lives, some were still running stores. One was a hairdresser. She still loved meeting and talking to people while cutting their hair. She was 102. The current stats say that 60k number will be 120k in only 3 more years.
What does the fact the people in the past died have anything to do with anything? People in the past died of all kinds of diseases so people now are ego driven to use the tech that prevents those diseases? I also see no relation to empathy. In fact the older I get the more empathy I seem to have.
It's the definition of ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
It's not a moral argument, it's the recognition that your desire to live all of those lives is an egotistical thing (this is not a judgment).
Poor people want be rich and have a Mansion not because the think they are important enough to have a Mansion, but because being able to afford a Mansion is better than not being able to afford a Mansion.
Common misconception. While median lifespan was that, it was heavily influenced by infant mortality.
It was bad, but it wasn't that bad
I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it
That's the problem, clearly you are when you use that first word.
From an emotional point of view, I do not want my parents to die.
They're in 70s, but I think that the time they have left is too short. I'd like them to live to see their 80s, their 100s, their 200s. I would like them to be there in 20 years when the last of my children graduate university. I would like them to see their grandchildren get married, and celebrate the birth of their great grand children.
I do not want to see my friends die. I have been with them since we were 4 years old, and I'd like to celebrate life with them for more than the 30 years have left according to actuarial charts.
I do not want my mentors to die. They're already in retirement homes, but they have so much more to experience, but many won't see their life's work come to fruition.
I would like everyone I know to live to see their 300th birthday, and I would like to be there with them.
Is that forever? No.
Forever may be too long, but 70 years upon this earth is too short by far. If living to see 500 healthy years is within the grasp of our technology, we should seize upon it.
I do not think this view is egotistical, or selfish. A world where no one dies except by accident or deliberate choice would be a much better world than what we have today.
Too often 'live forever' posts focus on the greats of history, theorising what would happen if they lived longer... but I challenge you to think of it in a more personal respect. Do you want your friends and family to die when they do not want to?
Knowing there's a time limit, you would want to extend it. Knowing there's no time limit, everything would stop having any meaning. Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?
I had thought the point was answering "why would you want to live forever?" so I gave it my best shot. :)
> Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?
Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now.
Frankly, speaking, I cannot believe people would be willing to delay satisfaction for 100s of years, merely because they are immortal.
But what if you're right? Well then...
If in fact living past 200 causes everything to be meaningless, we'll likely just find out people waste away from old age depression, and the point of the debate is moot.
If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll just find the first members of the immortal generation do worse than their mortal peers in all respects.
The question of "how much life is too much life" is something I would rather find out through primary research on people who are 500 or more years old, instead of debating in the hypothetical.
Practically though, I doubt immortality is within the grasp of this current generation. Research into 'immortality' is just using forever as an ideal---not as an expectation of what will really be delivered upon.
Extending life by a few more decades is a valid goal for our generation.
You already raised 4 generations of humans by now or you can still do the same thing because you're not even half way your life. Why would you want to do it now when your "teenage" years last 50 years and your "twenties" 100. You can experience everything, just for longer.
>>> If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll just find the first members of the immortal generation do worse than their mortal peers in all respects.
500 year life expectancy vs immortality is another discussion.
>>> Practically though, I doubt immortality is within the grasp of this current generation.
Yeah, I know. It's all hypothetical for us
If biology were no constraint, I can imagine some people would have children once every hundred years, and spend the next century shepherding them into good position in their growing dynasty.
That said, with vastly increased life spans, the whole notion of reproduction and marriage would take on new meaning, and I doubt many of the ideas we ascribe to today will be of much concern in the future.
> Yeah, I know. It's all hypothetical for us
Yes, which is why I don't see much of a reason to be so pessimistic. Those whom want to live forever---hypothetically will. Those who do not, as they are bored or tired, will choose not to continue onwards.
I can imagine a future of mostly happy immortals.
Nobody is important and nobody deserves anything. There's no outside force making decisions about who is allowed to have what. You get what you figure out how to get and you keep it as long as you figure out how to keep it.
> It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals.
But assigning yourself to be the arbiter of who is or isn't "important" enough to "deserve" an extended lifespan isn't ego-driven?
> If you can live for 150 years and not get worn down by the things people do to each other, more power to you.
If you're going to let your own mood be dictated by the never-ending stream of terrible things in the world, I'd be surprised if you could make it through even a a normal lifetime. There's a lot of wonderful things in the world too. Why ignore those?
I realize I'm not important. My opinion that ultimately no individual is especially important is not based out of ego but a recognition that there's been like 10 billion of us and there will be more. But if you want it, have at it; maybe just consider why you want it.
If you're going to let your own mood be dictated by the never-ending stream of terrible things in the world, I'd be surprised if you could make it through even a a normal lifetime. There's a lot of wonderful things in the world too. Why ignore those?
That's what keeps me going.
However, if only one person can be immortal and for instance it's you Aaron... then you will become important out of virtue of your status. In a ten thousand years, you might be the only remaining record of the 21st century.
Beyond that, I want to live long enough to go on interplanetary and/or interstellar voyages. My desire to experience the marvels and mysteries of the universe are irrespective of humanity's conditions, whether we are facing an apocalypse or living in a global golden age.
Ok if not 10,000 years, why not 500? Still too much? Another 50 then? At what point does this argument tell me I should just kill myself right now because I don't "deserve" to live any longer?
It seems to me that you've chosen an arbitrary number (current average lifespan) and somehow chosen that to be "fair" and that living any longer is "selfish" and "ego driven".
In the absence of modern medicine we might live on average for 50 years. Is living that extra 30 years I might get from technology also selfish?
Hypothetically, if everyone can live forever if they want, is it ok then?
I'm surprised how strongly people feel about that post.
Seems ironic.
Indeed. I tell people all the time that poor/starving people should stop having children so that poverty or having to starve "dies out". I post here so that this message gets a much larger audience.
The only way in which sex helps you escape from poverty or starving is prostitution.
Moi? If I knew there was going to be a nuclear explosion I'd likely drive into the mushroom cloud. Perhaps in this case my imagination has gotten the better of me?
I work in areas that look at suffering and alleviating that (in ways most people on the planet don’t) but I also wonder and wish if I could live much longer than currently possible (longer life without tackling aging is pointless, IMO). The main reason for me is that I’m so utterly fascinated and awed by everything humans have accomplished and continue to accomplish (even though there are vast areas of improvement), and I really, really want to see humans going to another planet, setting up a colony, etc., among many other things. Life itself is such a wonder and seemingly miraculous (without assigning any supernatural motives).
Her help consisted in giving people constantly money, yet this only made them dependent of her and made her feel good.
Teach a man to fish, don't give him the fish.
Sadly this person passed away, we miss her a lot. she had really good intentions, but she wasn't really helping others.
I do think the depression comes from thinking about someone's situation, thinking "wow, that would be really sad/stressful/aggravating" and then starting to feel those emotions myself quite strongly. I would also say this tendency in myself increased a lot after becoming a parent. Avoiding reading the news has helped considerably, although that's not a great solution.
It's not "Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression", it's "People who Wind Up with Depression Are More Likely to be Unselfish". Which kind of sounds like a non-story.
The article says, people who feel bad in response to specific types of stimulus (a perceived slight), rather than just shrugging it off, are more likely to develop full-blown clinical depression down the line.
Personally, my opinion is that the ambiguity of people's self-perceptions of their persona allows there to be an asymmetry between the harm they might get receiving advice about their personality and the benefit they might get from heeding advice about personalities that they can at least envision themselves as being perceived by others as having, if that makes sense. It probably isn't particularly empirical, but I don't know if we will get to a science of personality within our lifetimes (but (maybe..?) it would be nice to be proved wrong).
Nonsense. Depressed people are not just sad about everything, and depression affects selfish and unselfish people alike. Trying to derive general laws from shallow stereotypes is likely to compound misconceptions. Doing so to engage in pedantic critiques of a headline while ignoring the rest of the article is just a waste of time for everyone.
Likelihood as such doesn't have directionality; it expresses the frequency of co-occurence of two phenomena.
That is to say, "Unselfish People More Likely to be Depressed" doesn't assert causality as much, and "Depression Correlates with Unselfish Traits" even less.
> Here, we demonstrate that functional magnetic resonance imaging activity patterns in the amygdala and hippocampus induced by the inequity between the self and other rewards during an economic game can predict participants’ present and future (measured one year later) depression indices.
This seems to suggest that the headline is not terribly inaccurate with respect to the study itself, at least. Unselfishness (sensitivity to economic inequality) predicts markers for depression.
This path would lead directly to depression when you find out that the person you are emotionally dependent on isn't going to dedicate themself to making world look just to you.
Sorry if I'm reading too much into it, but this reads like the preamble to at least 10 articles people have handed to me in defense of Ayn Rand.
It doesn't make terribly much sense to imagine that people can be divided into two groups, "selfish" and "unselfish".
If your reasoning here is, that every person just does what feels good for them and therefore everyone is just "selfish", then that certainly isn't the whole picture why people do what they do.
There're certainly people doing things because they feel right, but it might not be a pleasure for them doing it.
Reducing everything to just being selfish doesn't make that much sense.
Person wishing to do the right thing and doing it ("unselfish")
Person doing the right thing against their wishes ("righteous")
Person wishing to do the right thing but not doing it (akrasia, you missed this one)
Person not doing the right thing and not wishing so ("selfish")
It's all about image of oneself and the experience of being burned by your actions, and every person out there shows plenty of behavior from all four quarters. So dividing people doesn't makes sense. Now, dividing actions does.
It seems it's more about you thinking that someone else does this here or in the study.
> Now, dividing actions does.
But the study is about actions and how people feel afterwards. It isn't about unselfish people, but about unselfish actions of people.
Sure, if they call the group 'unselfish people' it's not quite right, but that's not the point of the study.
Exceeeept when you're doing it arbitrarily to make a point?
If your sources are pretty high school why should anyone here listen to them?
Maybe not everything is an exercise in pushing an economic ideology.
https://evo-lutio.livejournal.com/509588.html for the quick description of the dynamics that I am referring to
Do you understand what's being conveyed here? Because I have no idea. But it doesn't sound overly legitimate to me. Of course, I didn't read the original research.
Depression may be a social illness because people with heighten empathy feel something is wrong with the system around them resulting in depression.
That seems a stronger argument then some macro economic argument about ill defined inequality.
That's the trade off for placing personal autonomy and self-expression at the paramount of social priorities--the guard rails come off.
Pedanticism aside, you make a very good point. I feel like Western society has been progressively getting more and more individualistic, with movements like Libertarianism on the rise. People who just want us all to get along are being down-trodden by the people who just want to get ahead.
I am pro individualism as it helps people define themselves. But as you pointed out when it is turned into a zero sum game of getting ahead in an already developed system it becomes a hollow view.
At some point I has to change to we for progress to happen. Strangely it was my extremely competitive corporate executive father who told me stop using I switch to we. A simple change that allowed me to see problems collectively instead of individualistically.
I put a large part of the blame on suburban development. What did we expect when we took social animals and then sequestered them into little boxes far away from where humans congregate - requiring you to fit into another little box to drive to the next box for your planned and highly controlled social experience. Nevermind the 1.5hrs+ the average suburban commuter sits in a little box 5 days a week.
I've been thinking of where to move to finally "settle down" in the US - and I'm coming up with a blank to be honest. I want to live somewhere I can be part of a community that shares my values and pulls together on a day to day basis - not just when some national news style emergency happens. I want daily interaction with my neighbors, forced or otherwise. I want the neighborhood kids to come running through my yard/sidewalk/whatever and to feed half a dozen of them lunch if they happen to be around when it's time, and to expect the same when my kid is off wandering and exploring.
The phrase it takes a village to raise a child is absolutely more true than I ever realized. We destroyed nearly all our villages, and now wonder why we're so divided and depressed. We no longer function as a society that shares the same major goals.
Talking to someone who lives in a semi-functional (I'm not sure functional exists in the US) community from a large city compared to the average suburbanite is eye opening in the disconnect from reality the latter has. I grew up around it, and simply didn't realize how damaging it is until I started to travel the world and see how actual communities function.
I know some folks do well in suburban-style living, but I would say that the majority who say they love it are actively being mentally and socially damaged and simply don't know it. The views they express are now completely normalized.
Oklahoma towns and cities tends to be more community centered. This may be do to a lack of money in a community or physical isolation from the rest of the country. But it is still there.
There are the same problems that other cities have, but we do provide good housing for most of our citizens. Tulsa, in particular through the work of the Mental Health Association of Oklahoma has ended chronic homeless within its borders. We are working on the same in Oklahoma City. We believe hard work matters and people can be leave poverty. The community providing the support systems for that to happen. Now, no one is going to give it to you. We just allow an affordable education path for betterment. And have a strong network of nonprofits and family foundations supporting programs of many kinds.
That is just in the area I am fortunate to work in. Oklahoma is not perfect one just has to look at where we stand national on things like teen pregnancy, women incarnation, drug abuse etc. It is just there are some places where community still matters and Oklahoma is one of those places.
In his book Give and Take, Adam Grant talks about givers who are "otherish:" they demonstrate strong compassion for others, but not at the neglect of self-interest. Those who identified as otherish were least susceptible to burnout or compassion fatigue and could sustain their patterns for giving more help than they received for long periods of time.
I suspect there is some correlation between high concern for the interests of others and low prioritization of self-interest. But the real culprit is low self-interest, not high empathy or a strong concern for fairness.
I don't mean to offend or flame, but putting this bluntly feels important:
Why don't you want to keep living?
Likewise, “unselfish” conflates two simultaneously-weighted perceptions virtue-signaling (appearance of giving) and genuine caring about individuals and people (substance of effective helping).
Another issue is that culturally, some people resent each other when there is difference in default attitude: selfish vs. unselfish. It may seem racist but I’ve observed an underlying tension between Arabs and Israelis arise from this difference in outlook in individual relationships.
In my experience, many 'unselfish' people are people that don't take the time to study and understand human nature. Since it's human nature to be 'nice' they default to this behavior and never seem to get the results they are after. Hence the depression.
On the other hand, once you study, you'll learn that principled selfishness is the KEY to getting what you want. Hence better results and less depression.
By not doing what you find rewarding your brain doesn't have enough dopamine running through your system.
It's still a concept in development so I'm open to any counter arguments.