You're not very compassionate..

..no, I'm not.

Published on November 22, 2006 By Draginol In Life Journals

A couple of years ago I wrote this blog about my own personal origins. In various debates on JU I know I come across as a total jerk. And there is a reason for that -- I am a jerk. I'm not proud of being a jerk, it's just something I've come to realize over the years. There are worse things than being a jerk though.

But what exactly is a jerk? A jerk, like most epitaphs, is someone who is not conforming to some rule of our society. As a society, we have an unwritten set of rules of how people are supposed to behave. I think a lot of people, especially men, are jerks. The difference is that most people have the good grace to at least try not to act like a jerk.

And I do try to not be a jerk most of the time and indeed, I'm not a jerk most of the time. If I'm around people I care about I'm willing to invest the effort to be a better person. I think many people can relate to that -- more than would care to relate. I know plenty of men and women that are cranky and impatient but do their best to soldier forth and not bite the heads off people.

But when I deal with strangers, I...just...don't...care.

Being a jerk isn't about being malicious to strangers. When I play games on-line I never grief. I'll even go out of my way when playing RTSs to make sure the other person is having a good time. Being a jerk doesn't mean I'm not empathic. And I enjoy, for whatever reason, making sure other people, even strangers, have a good time when they're playing a game with me. So I'm not really being nice as a selfless act, I'm not because I like being nice to strangers. I'm selfish. Self involved.

Being self involved is the essence of being a jerk. Or, I should say, being self involved and not having the good graces to conform to social expectations.

The inner jerk really comes out online. If someone annoys me on my personal blog, I'll blacklist them. I see people on JU all the time take holier than thou views about not blacklisting people. To me, those people just seem weak. But whatever. When I'm on my personal blog, it's all about me. I'll happily debate someone who has very different views. A lot of my good friends are very left-wing and I enjoy their company. It's not about people agreeing with me, it's about having people who can intelligently discuss a subject and show some level of respect.

The older I get and the more I read, the more contempt I have for the average participant in on-line debates. I understand most people are uninformed on issues and that most people are not very sharp. That's fine. But I have little patience for those same people who then choose to debate on some particular issue, especially politics. Debates on politics require some knowledge on history. And most people who debate politics can't be bothered to read history and that I find incredibly annoying.

And so, as a jerk, I am pretty candid about what I think about people's opinions. There are a lot of people woh are just plain losers. And nice people don't resort to thinking other people are losers. But the fact is, lots of people are losers. Not most people mind you. If you randomly select someone, odds are you'll find they're a good and decent person. But it seems today we live in a climate in which it is impolite to acknowledge anyone as being a "loser". To many people, life is about unearned self-esteem rather than achievement.

Jerks, being self involved, don't tend to have endless compassion for strangers. I certainly don't. I care not at all for people who don't work. If they're disabled -- truly disabled -- then I support helping them. But other people, no, could care less. They could starve. Whether that be the third generation welfare mother with 4 out of wedlock children or the 40 year old drunk who can't hold a job. I don't hold any malice towards these people. I don't want them to starve or be on the streets. No, it's just that I don't care if they are. The gazelle who runs for its life and still gets killed by the lion I can have compassion for. The gazelle that just sits there looking at the lion coming at them I don't have compassion for. Natural selection.

I have little patience for class envy either. Someone being richer than me doesn't hurt me at all. Class envy is a symptom of being a loser. If you are jealous of the possessions other people have, then grow up and get a life and a clue. It's just pathetic when someone sits around moaning about "the rich". It's pretty rare to meet an American who grew up poorer than I did. But I never felt envious of people who had more material things than me. How does their wealth hurt me? Good for them I always felt.

I'm "rich" by any definition of the term but I didn't get there by being ruthless or money grubbing. I got there through the voluntary choices of literally millions of people who exchanged their money for the goods and services I produced. So when I hear someone say that I should be doing "more" to help those in "need" I tend to have very little compassion. The reason being that I resent compassion being measured in what PERCENT of my income I hand out rather than the raw total. But that's a different topic. The pont is, "rich" people don't become rich in this country at the point of a gun. And money isn't everything. Too many people get fixated on money and it is ususally to their detriment.

Arrogance is another ingredient of being a jerk. And I'm really arrogant. But again, the older I get, the more I realize that yea, I really do know a lot more than most people on the topics I participate in. And as a jerk, I just don't have the good grace to be polite or patient with people so I'm arrogant. That isn't to say that I think I'm particularly intelligent or knowledgeable on all issues. I simply pick and choose what I want to talk about.

Another thing about being an arrogant, uncompassionate, self-involved jerk is that you make conclusions on people and can quickly decide whether what they think matters. And when I say "matters" I mean it in a specific sense (i.e. I believe everyone have the right to speak their opinion so in that sense it matters).

For example, a lot of the equivicators on the war on terror or taxes or whatever topic is being discussed don't matter. Their opinions are worthless. People who don't take a stand or have no firm principles don't matter in the real world. They're either working for the government in some way or they're probably some low level drone somewhere. Not always, but usually (20 years of experience in dealing with these kinds of people talking here).

Having strong opinions or taking stands on issues or making decisions may not lead to success, but not taking a clear position and not making decisions leads to nowhere. The world is run by people who make decisions. You can tell people who don't make decisions because they're the ones who scream out about stereotyping or generalizing. People who make decisions know you have to generalize to get things done (right or wrong). So the instant I see someone screaming about generalizing I know that that person's opinion is irrelevant and can be discounted.

To conclude this rambling essay. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily involve malice. I can't think of any people here on JU or elsewhere that I "dislike". Not a single person.

I can't think of anyone or anything in this world that I "hate". Being a jerk isn't about hating or disliking things. Quite the opposite, it's about apathy for me. I just don't care about things as much as society deems we should care (or more accurately, as much as people are supposed to pretend to care).

I believe the best system is the system in which we help each other by doing what is in our own best interest. So while I'm not proud that I'm a jerk, I don't think me being a jerk harms anyone and in fact has helped people. I don't spend energy worrying about strangers. I spend energy producing. And by producing, I help people because of the nature of our system. But I don't really care either way that that is the outcome.

Comments (Page 3)

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 25, 2006

Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you.

I'm going to address this elsewhere. Maybe if you saw the fallout of such a philosophy, you wouldn't think it was so noble.

Noumenon72

on Nov 25, 2006

Gideon, I'm afraid I won't see it if you post it somewhere else.

Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family.

I understand why what I said would be dumb if everybody just swapped their kids for someone else's. On the other hand, what you're saying sounds kind of like this: "Love my neighbor as myself? Why not just have everybody love themself as themself, then everybody will be loved by someone!" But I think MasonM is right, I'm mixing up the difference between morality and charity. I guess charity is the "extra credit" morality, and I just take for granted routine morality like not killing anybody, feeding your kids, etc.

Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness.

Cases where most people agree with this is that you don't blame a tower for falling on you or a lion for eating you. If you see entrepreneurs as just acting like mechanical self-interest machines, you won't give them any credit for what they make for you. Like if a beaver built a dam and made you a nice swimming hole. Maybe because most people aren't entrepreneurs and don't understand that in their morality, creating wealth is a moral command.

Which world do you think ends up with more misery?

The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers.

Or

The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in their own self interest.

World 1 sounds like people pull together to help out, but they have more guilt and more fights about whether people are freeloading.

World 2 sounds like people get to do what they want, but people who need help don't get help and they know nobody feels bad about that.

I think the cases of acute misery in world 2 outweigh the unpleasantness of the extra duty everybody has in world 1.

Myrrander

on Nov 25, 2006

I won't say much about class warfare; I think my own views on the matter are clear.

But Mother Theresa is a really BAD example of somebody who did good in the world. She was a religious fanatic who PROMOTED suffering as a way of "being like Jesus." She took money from dictators (like Duvalier in Haiti) and kept the people she was "helping" in abject squalor and misery so that they could get some sort of twisted enlightenement.

If we're comparing her to Bill Gates, well, then there IS no comparison. Gates has done far, far more to help those in need than Mother Theresa, he's been far more honest about his motivations, and despite some questionable business methods, he's still the better example of compassion in this comparison. Mother Theresa was a twisted, evil little woman who had the benefit of a great propaganda machine.

Cheers.

Draginol

on Nov 25, 2006

If you're speaking in absolutes, both would result in a lot of misery for someone.

You can't state that as a fact. Show evidence that someone acting in their own best interest will cause pain to someone else.

Draginol

on Nov 25, 2006

In the real world, there's a middle ground where people would naturally do both. A truly moral person would act against their own self interest if that was the correct moral choice in a given situation, and a charitable person would sacrifice to give a hungry person something to eat. Both of these people would still generally act in their own interest in most situations as does everyone.

In the real world most things fall somewhere in the middle ground.

I don't think it's in the middle by a long shot. I think it's mostly people acting in their own self interest most of the time. I think disaster occurs when people start arguing that we should sacrifice for others. That is the basis of Communism incidentally. That we are putting the interests of society above our own. It doesn't work.

A society based on enlightened self interest in my opinion has a lot less misery. I think you'll find that the people who accomplish the most real good for other people are believers in enlightened self interest.

cactoblasta

on Nov 25, 2006

I think disaster occurs when people start arguing that we should sacrifice for others.

Your philosophy is quite interesting Draginol. You preach this callous disregard for the good of others and the selfish creed of 'enlightened self-interest' and yet you do a lot which seems in total opposition to your philosophy, including running this website. You're a man of many contradictions.

That we are putting the interests of society above our own. It doesn't work.

It does work, but not when everyone has to do it. We always need a few to fall on the grenade to save their friends and show us how glorious the world would be if only humanity had a widespread capacity for selflessness. These people are regularly lionised - the brave in war, the doctor who sacrifices their life to medicins sans frontiers, the microcredit bank owner etc.

Occasional selflessness makes the world a better place in my view. It wouldn't survive legislation and in fact never has, but it's not the negative your argument seems to be suggesting.

MasonM

on Nov 25, 2006

Show evidence that someone acting in their own best interest will cause pain to someone else.

I can think of an example in your theoretical scenario.

Let's say that one guy in a group falls and breaks his leg. Let's also say that the group as a whole has a goal to achieve.

Obviously if the other members of the group chose to act only in their own self interest they would leave the fallen member to suffer and die.

In order for the fallen member of the group to receive any aid, someone must choose to act in his interest instead of their own.

MasonM

on Nov 25, 2006

I don't think it's in the middle by a long shot. I think it's mostly people acting in their own self interest most of the time.

The key word here is most of the time. You presented two extremes and I stated that the truth lies in the middle of the two which I maintain is true and you must also believe so by the statement "most of the time" which indicates that sometimes people do act more in the interest of others.

Yes, most people do act in their own interest most of the time. That's a given and the human race would likely not have survived for very long if it were otherwise. But most people do also act in the interest of others at times as well. It isn't all or nothing at either end of the spectrum, which was my point. That middle ground can be pretty wide and varied when compared to the two extremes.

I agree with you that the argument that "we" must act in the interests of others is not the way to go. Forcing or coercing someone to act in another's interest is neither moral or productive. Most people will help out another person if they are able and given the chance, without the need to be coerced.

I really don;t think we actually disagree here. I was just responding to the two hypothetical extremes you proposed, neither of which are realistic or desirable. For a society to function effectively the people can't be totally selfless or totally selfish. The naturally occurring broad middle ground is what works and is what is generally true.

Noumenon72

on Nov 26, 2006

MasonM, in your example, someone could argue that helping the guy with the broken leg is in the others' best interest because it will help them accomplish their goals. Why not go simpler. I want to feed my family. I dam the river and irrigate. Miles downstream, people starve. If it was one mile downstream, it might be in my self-interest to share the water with my neighbor. But if it's a thousand miles, it's definitely in my self-interest to let them starve.

Plugging different resources into the same scenario, maybe I hire all the workers to staff my profitable software company. Elsewhere, some guy can't get field hands and starves. Are you seriously asking this question? Of course acting in my self-interest is going to cause harm to some, it's just that the benefits to others outweigh it. K-Mart's CEO gets fired because Wal-Mart's CEO cut prices. Children die because the self-interest of either parents or toy manufacturers doesn't cover making everything ultra-safe. And that's not even using any examples from all the zero-sum games out there, like if my self-interest is served by crashing my competitor's Web site.

Draginol

on Nov 26, 2006

I don't have a callous disregard for the good of others. I just don't really care that much about the fate of strangers.

Let's use JoeUser.com as an example. The site exists because of my self-interest. I want a blog site where what I write gets read by more people. To do that, I need there to be more content and more activity. To do that, I opened it up so that others could do the same thing. By helping others, I help myself.

If you look at how JU is designed, it's the fulfillment of enlightened self interest. By helping yourself, you help others. The more people who come to read what I write, the more people are exposed to what you and everyone else writes. They in turn, get their own readers who are exposed to my writings as well.

As I've written other times when someone has tried to argue that I should be serving them or something, I care not at all whether people blog here other than how it helps my own agenda of increasing site popularity to increase my own readership.

JU is the product of enlightened self interest in action and demonstrates how enlightened self interest helps others.

Draginol

on Nov 26, 2006

Couple things about ths. First, they didn't cause the pain. Secondly, if they have a group goal to solve, then they are probably better off with that man in many circumstances.

Draginol

on Nov 26, 2006

The key word here is most of the time. You presented two extremes and I stated that the truth lies in the middle of the two which I maintain is true and you must also believe so by the statement "most of the time" which indicates that sometimes people do act more in the interest of others.

I am not arguing how the real world actually functions. In the real world, there are people who act to help others before themselves -- the mother Theresa example.

My "extreme" example only exists in the world of the theoretical.

Sometimes, enlightened self interest involves helping other people because it makes the person feel good. No human being is all one way or the other since we are emotional creatures. I've pulled over in my car and helped get a turtle across the road on many occasions over the year or lost hours of a day helping other people. But part of that is the emotional reaction of feeling good for helping other people.

So like most people, it's is about "most" since no one is an absolute.

Noumenon72

on Nov 26, 2006

That's actually a very cunning strategy for getting people to read your blog. It's too late to catch the first wave where you could get big just by being there first, like Instapundit. So start a blog site that builds a community around it to draw more hits.

ThinkAloud

on Nov 27, 2006

Draginol , I am not surprised that you like to see an example of people acting in their own interest that causes pain to someone else. of course, how youd you know ..... you dont care about anyone you dont know. if you did you wouldnt ask this question. it would have been so self evident to you. I guess that shows the danger of your principle of just being self-involved. look around you a little ... beyond your own cirlce (no matter how big that circle is) and you would see that your primciple is so narrowaly define your OWN interest. I can assure you that if you were less self-involved you would have achieved many many more than what you already have. please dont misunderstand me, if there is one less tolerant than myself for stupidity, ignorance and the rest you dont tolerate i would like to meet him or her. However, that doesnt necessariy mean you ignore or not care about others just because you dont know them. One's actions, regardless of position or status in life affects all. In this global-village World, you will be surprised how far a simple action by a simple person affects people thouthands of miles away. if in self-interest a custom officer let a shipment of medication or of food with an expired date be exported to another nation, no one will ever know how many people died because of that resulting in many orphans and widows. All because the officer didnt stop the shipment to keep his/her job. You think that is a hypothetical? far from it ...... if you cared about people you dont know you would have known that very well indeed. The world and life are not one sided as you think. it is not all about results only or intentions only. they are not mutually exclusive. no good can come from immoral means and good intention is useless if it is just talking and it can not be a justification for bad results or for doing foolish things.

Draginol

on Dec 02, 2006

Paragraphs are your friend.

Second, you still don't list any specific examples. You provide very strange hypotheticals that start with the premise that doing something bad is in someone's best interests.

The only time doing bad things is in someone's best interest is if there's a deficiency in the law or the laws aren't being effectively enforced. The quasi-theoretical example you provide assumes that a custom officer has it in his best interest to let expired medicine be shipped. That's an "under pants gnome" like argument.

Why not just say "What if it is in someone's best interest to go on a murderous rampage"? You have to make the case that it is in someone's best interest to do the action FIRST and then go from there.

At the end, you then insist that it's not hypothetical but don't explain in what way it's not.

People don't do bad things generally because it's not in their best interest to do bad things because there are very negative consequences for it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!