Hacker News Reader

Comment by araneae | Hacker News Reader

Lesson x: Person does nice/bad thing. Person gets unexpectedly rewarded/punished.

I hate this kind of article because it implies that you should do good things on the off chance that if you don't you'll lose a quiz point or get a T.V. You're never going to benefit from knowing the janitor's name, and you are never going to pick up Mrs. Cole, and (venturing into fairy tales here) you are never going to run into a decrepit homeless person who happens to be a powerful witch or an angel.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do those things. You just shouldn't do them expecting anything. These are modern day fairy tales.

View on HN

Knowing the custodian's name has never gotten me a point on a quiz. However, last year my custodian was swamped with the task of cleaning 7 dorm buildings. Since I knew him by name, and took the 30 seconds to say hello or thank him when our paths crossed, my dorm was always cleaned with care.

This article may have been sickeningly sweet, but it's definitely true that recognizing people's humanity is a Good Thing. It may not get you a color TV, but it will get you the respect and loyalty of the people around you.

Exactly. I honestly don't know the name of most of the cleaners or waiters or shopkeepers at the places I frequent, but I do recognize them and they recognize me. I'm also polite to them. You do get better service or other perks sometimes, but that's not why I do it.

I know what it's like to be in a crappy service job where everyone who has a bad day wants to take it out on you, so I try to show them a little appreciation.

Well it depends on your basic view on altruism. What is the basic motivation for it?

Do you think people are inherently selfish and even when the do good things they do it with an expectation of some kind of a greater payback (even if it is an emotional high) or do they do it because they want to simply help another without an expectation of a any payback whatsoever.

I haven't figured it out one way or another yet. But the story can be interpreted by both sides. The selfish side turns this into some kind of a lottery -- "Be good to people, you never know when you'll meet a Donald Trump in disguise and he will reward your beyond measure" or from the pure altruism side -- "Look be nice to people, it is the right thing to do, a small gesture one your part might make a large impact on them"

Then of course, as you mentioned, there is the fairy tale angle. Few would be impressed by an article that read something like : "It was a cold rainy night, I picked up a woman waiting for a bus in the rain and took her home. I don't know who she was or even her name. The end." I think those things happen to people but they just don't make good blog stories. But "Donald Trump in rags" story is just fantastic for story telling purposes and gets lots of attention.

Getting rather off-topic, but if there's one thing I can't picture it's Donald Trump acting humble, disguising himself, or not showing off his wealth.

For reference:

"Trumped Up" - an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/luck/trump.asp

To be fair, that was only the lesson for stories 1, 2, and 4. Lessons 3 and 5 were "awww, little boys are so sweet".

Seriously, I agree -- if you're going to try to persuade people that doing these things is inherently good, skip the fairy tales. The Mrs. Nat King Cole story is especially bad -- they guy did a small favor (giving a ride) that made a big difference in someone's life (Mrs. Cole got to see her husband one last time), but apparently the author thought that what really matters is the fact that the guy got a TV out of it.

(I'm using "fact" loosely here; I have no idea whether this story is true).

According to one ancient belief system, the 8 levels of charity:

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. When the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor does not know the identity of the recipient.

3. When the donor is aware of the recipient's identity, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. When the donor and recipient are unknown to each other.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

Obviously, #1 is better than #8. But #8 is still better than doing nothing at all.

I think another interesting framework would be:

1. Help someone when it benefits you.

2. Help someone when it is easy/neutral to you.

3. Help someone when it is costly/time-consuming/harmful to you.

This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better.

Instead, it makes sense to measure utility against cost. Helping someone at great expense is good. Helping someone at no incremental expense is better. Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all.

> This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better.

I would say that these are two distinct acts. You do not help someone by setting another dollar on fire. Rather, the comparison would be giving someone your last 10$ vs. giving 10$ when you are a billionaire. I think in some ways, perhaps unquantifiable, that it is more 'noble' about acts that are not in self interest. Businesses are not the same as non-profits, even if they functionally provide the same service.

> Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all.

I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience.

One can come up with an example that makes the same point I made before, but isn't 'two distinct acts'. Stabbing yourself in order to donate blood in person versus doing it the usual needle-and-bag way, for example.

My point is that arbitrarily adding costs to a given act doesn't make it better. Charity isn't good because it sucks for someone; it's good because it's good for someone.

If you're giving your last $10, you're putting yourself in financial danger; you might need that money. The billionaire isn't in any danger from being $10 short. Thus, the first person is causing net harm to the world; the same $10 has been donated to the same charity, but the result is one person closer to penury. Whereas if the billionaire did it, that wouldn't happen.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...

Lots of charities do that.

My main point is that judging charity by cost is dumb. It produces bad incentives. Arguably, those charities are superior to other charities, since they make it so expensive to help someone. To do $100 worth of good at the Disabled Veterans Associations, you need to donate nearly $10,000! Donating to a more efficient charity means you suffer less pain for a given amount of money making it to the end recipients. If costliness makes charities better, shouldn't we seek out the most inefficient possible charities? Why not?

This sounds like Maimonides Eight Levels of Giving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Charity_.28Tzedakah.....

Sounds like http://www.modestneeds.org/ and kiva are the highest form of charity.

I do my level best to treat everyone with respect and be genuine and polite and all that. I do it because that's just how I am, I don't expect anything for it. And, no, I don't always get it right. I'm human and perfectly capable of making an arse of myself, sticking both feet in my mouth and all that. And I have had plenty of experiences that fit with the saying "No good deed goes unpunished". But I also have found that people in service industries and the like will be wonderful to me because I treat them like a human being instead of a doormat to wipe my feet on. (People in positions of power seem to divide up between those who are offended that I don't grovel and kowtow and those that are charmed.)

Some actual experiences of mine:

Long line at a crowded mall food court eatery. I'm a regular and I tend to order the same thing most of the time. My order is ready and waiting for me by the time I get to the cash register. I walk off to find a table and eat while other people who ordered and paid ahead of me (and still don't have their food) stand there with their mouth's hanging open, fuming and apparently wondering "who the fuck is she???!!!"

Long line at an eatery. I am brought the cappuccino I typically order with lunch well before I get to the cash register. While other people stand around looking at me funny, I sip my cappuccino and guiltily wonder if the person who brought it to me might get in trouble.

Last few minutes before the place is closing early on a holiday and I slip in to get something to go. They toss in a free cup of their new soup for me to try.

I have also been given free sodas, discounts on my meal, had sides/other extras tossed in for free, and have been given a stack of promotional coupons when other people are being given one coupon with their order. At the grocery store I frequent, it is common for someone to open an extra register basically just for me, so I won't have to stand in line.

If you are genuinely nice and respectful to people who routinely get crapped on, there are tangible benefits. I don't recommend you do this with some expectation of tangible benefits. I think people can smell it when they are basically being used in that way -- it might pay off initially, but will likely come back to bite you later if you are just being a smarmy manipulative charmer. But if you are genuine, yes, this does tend to pay off -- though it doesn't magically protect you from people randomly being asses to you or some such. Some people seem to behave more badly towards me because I sometimes wind up with a reputation for nice, polite behavior. They seem to be either jealous or trying to provoke a reaction to prove I'm not that nice ....or something. So it's not all upside. Still, I find the benefits I do get out of it are pretty valuable to me. It seems to routinely pay off the most under the worst circumstances, when I most need a little something extra. For me, this is frequently a saving grace in a life that can be pretty tough.

Right. I try to help people even if they wouldn't know that I helped them. Why? For the purely selfish reason that it makes me feel good.

I personally got the impression of being nice, selfless. I don't see how 3rd and 5th stories implies what you are saying.

You are completely correct. This is the worst kind of American materialistic sentimentality and myth-making. None of them ring true, and sound like synopses for some old, bad, country songs. You should never give charity (or act charitably) expecting a return, or hope for one by some kind of miraculous lottery pay-out.

I don't see how them not being true diverts from the main point of the article which is to be good to people in general.

"The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason" - T S Eliot

Reply on news.ycombinator.com