The Misuse of Altruism (and why it matters!)

The term “altruism” is thrown around a lot in terms of social capital, citizen democracy, behaviour change and so on. We talk about encouraging altruism; but what do we mean?

When questioned most people give the layman’s answer; altruism = kindness. But does it?

The importance of language

Skinner spoke often and prolifically on the importance of correct language use. Words have meanings - they refer to perceptual units in reality (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand for an excellent, if not too technical, look at epistemology and word usage) that are concrete and distinct from other percepts. These words are referring to concepts that different from all other concepts. Sadly there is a trend in modern language to use words pragmatically, as mere placeholders for whatever the speakers feels. This may be all well and good in normal day to day language but it can be deadly when used in the sciences. Words are specific and we have to bare this in mind.

So what does Altruism mean?

Altruism is a distinct philosophical view of morality that states, at its primary, man should sacrifice in all things. Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the most important philosophies in modern history, was an advocate of altruism. His philosophy basically prescribed self-sacrifice. Now, when questioned, most people do not believe such things. For example we can’t sacrifice our food, or our air, or our money we would die. It’s impossible to consistently sacrifice. At its logical extreme self-sacrifice means suicide. Luckily this view is rarely held by people. Most people accept some degree of self-interest as necessary for survival. In and of itself this is not a problem. The problems arise when people use the term altruism to mean kindness.

The importance of kindness

Our society functions in part because of good will. When we help a friend, when we hold a door open, when we volunteer our time, or sit down and help our child with their homework we are being kind. Being good. I know of no philosophers (save perhaps Nietzsche) who don’t advocate some kind of kindness (heh): and for good reason. Kindness has survival value. It helps us build companies, institution and services. It keeps the world turning in a pleasant, civilised manner.

The problem

The problems come when a Psychologist or policy makers talks about Altruism as though it means Kindness. This is referred to as an intellectual package deal. Consider the following example; a policy maker wishes to encourage kindness amongst school children by instituting lessons on co-operation, sharing etc… in the legislation this is referred to as Altruism training. The teachers are instructed to teach altruism as currently described as being kind, sharing etc… there are no complaints (after all altruism means kindness and kindness is good!) so off they go. Soon, however, the government decides that Altruism can now be expanded to include mandatory “voluntary service” (something now instituted in schools in America) as a function of Altruism. Since no one bothered to properly define altruism in the first place this is accepted (perhaps begrudgingly) because to deny it is to explicitly deny altruism – something most people are unwilling to do.

Now this may seem like an unlikely example but note this has actually happened – and continues to happen. Let me be clear I support the fostering of pro-social skills. I think kindness is a good thing. I disagree, however, with altruism. It has demonstrably no survival value to an individual and in the countries where pure altruism has been mandated by law (Mao’s China, USSR, Cuba etc…) it has led to nothing but ruin. Not to mention the complete breakdown of law and order, whereas conversely countries with a more self-interested model (the modern West) tend to have higher rates of charity, kindness and good will from strangers. The take home message is Altruism does NOT equal kindness.

Why does this matter

This seems like a pernickety point mired in technical details but the words we use have a direct impact on the way we act and think. We all know about the fabled “Catholic guilt”, the notion that Catholics, taught quite aggressively, that self-interest is bad tend to feel constantly guilty. A direct contra-position to what they are supposed to feel. It’s not because self-interest is incompatible with kindness, but, surprisingly, that Altruism is incompatible with kindness. When we work on policy, or behaviour change, or anything that involves people we need to be clear that kindness is the pro-social behaviour we want not altruism, because kindness has defined limits and can be successfully quantified whereas Altruism becomes a blank check for systemic abuse of peoples good nature for malicious ends.

Final thoughts

A further reminder, I am NOT against kindness and so on. Nothing makes me feel better than helping out a friend in need. But that doesn’t mean I should accept the whole package of self-sacrifice as a way of life, and nor should anyone. A civil society can and will (I am ever the optimist) be forged around the ideas of good will and kindness. They are essential to our continued improvement and survival but to get there we need to uncouple the idea of Altruism = kindness. 

Innovation, the Individual and the State

Governments in the West are finally beginning to recognise the powerful role of innovation. That is to say they are recognising that human beings thrive when they are encouraged to think creatively about the problems they face. Increasingly the age-old method of mechanistic taxation, subsidy, incentives and punishments are being eschewed for more dynamic models of behaviour change. For example large taxes on cigarettes has not been sufficient to reduce smoking (and in turn not allayed the massive healthcare costs which in modern society are in part borne by the state), recent proposals to introduce plain packaging to cigarettes are designed to reduce the allure of brand recognition (and supposedly the discriminative function of such stimuli [see my Behaviourism article]) on the face of it this seems like a good pragmatic suggestion (setting aside ethical arguments) but consider it in some detail. The assumption underlying it is that smoking behaviour is a function of the availability and salience of cigarettes; a fair assumption, but perhaps not the whole story. Instead, consider the effect it will have on public perception of smoking. By making it someone hidden, something secret and frowned upon you risk increasing the appeal amongst certain individuals in so far as it becomes a grown-up thing to do, something secretive… almost like a club! How powerful does it feel to be part of a special club? We all know the sense of belonging it creates.

This is not a blog about smoking regulation and I’ll leave that sticky subject for another blog, but my point is that standard approaches to managing behaviour have been ineffective.

Considerations about the individual are often left entirely out of an analysis. Similarly the negative effects of state intervention are often ignored or treated as a necessary evil. We often hear talks about “innovation in society” or how “our community can innovate”. These are fancy buzz-words picked up by politicians designed to garner votes, but they don’t hold up to serious analysis. Anyone who works in a sector charged with innovation on any level know how deeply personal innovation is. Yet it often requires collaboration but that is not its defining feature.

The individual

Each person is unique. We all have a unique learning history and, as such, set of behaviours. Our thinking (after all another type of behaviour) is equally unique, especially as we diversify. A psychologist sees the world in a very different way to a designer and an anthropologist. Each of us, however, is capable of innovating in interesting and important ways. For example, as a behavioural psychologist, I tend to view things in terms of – you guessed it – behaviour. In designing a unique intervention I may be biased towards my own literature, my own way of looking at things. I may, concurrently, completely ignore the role of visual design (since I am not skilled in it) and as such miss an important innovative opportunity (and vice versa).

The State

The state has an important role in civilised society. It is a policeman, a peacemaker, a co-ordinator, and a protector. It has legitimate functions and illegitimate functions. When the state over-steps its bounds it can wreak havoc with innovation. Example time again! Consider the NHS. The pride and joy of every British citizen. A shining light in the modern world. Unfortunately it has failed to innovate. Mired in bureaucratic roundabouts it becomes impossible (indeed illegal!) to innovate within the confines of it. Any innovation that does occur is slow and ineffective because it becomes dependent on government approval. Want to trial a new way of handing A&E? Forget it. Want to reorganise a ward for better management? No way. Those on the ground; nurses, doctors, cleaners, healthcare workers of all stripes, are hog-tied and bound by rules and regulations. Those charged with managing the NHS are given wide powers but are not directly connected (nor skilled enough) to make the appropriate changes, similarly they are hidebound to obey those above them and so on. When you finally get to the top – parliament – you are faced with opposing political factions all with their own ideas of what an NHS should look like and all obstinate in their refusal to agree on anything that could possibly help patients because it violates their ideological commitment.

The Truth

It’s a hard pill to swallow (pun intended!) but innovation requires freedom; importantly it requires the freedom to fail. In our highly controlled public sector innovation is all but stifled. Failure is not tolerated. In fact there is a direct incentive to stick with the status quo because those who do risk it all and fail are summarily fired and publically humiliated and witch-hunted. On the one hand we demand better services, on the other hand we can’t stomach the conditions required.

Something has to give

If we are truly serious as a society about innovation we have to recognise some vital truths. The age of big government, top down intervention and micro-management of public services has to end. This is not an ideological argument but a pragmatic one. We cannot have our cake (perfectly symmetrical, all-purpose public services) and eat it too (a rapidly innovative set of services).

So what’s to be done?

It’s impossible to say for sure what needs to be done (we need some meta-innovation for that one!) but what we do know is that our public services need more breathing space. We need to introduce incentives for trialling new ways of doing things. We need to be prepared to fail. We need to respect the role of the individual in such measures. Instead of rejecting evidence-based interventions in favour of political point scoring our governments have to recognise that more autonomy has to be granted to public services in order that they can make bespoke changes to respond to the evolving needs of the citizenry they serve. If including a flat-fee for hospital admissions reduces the strain on our doctors and nurses, we have to be prepared to implement it. If a widening of police powers decreases crime, we have to be prepared to do it. More importantly though we should be allowed to see it fail.

The answer is not a simple one. There is a long argument to be had about how much freedom is necessary to both safeguard public services for as long as people want them, but to make sure those services don’t devolve into inefficient drains on limited resources, in the end they are funded by our taxes and in a very real respect we are all owed well-run services. Central to it all though is a very simple truth. We either innovate, and on a massive scale, or we risk losing the services we hold so dear. Can we let go of preconceptions about what a government and an individual should and should not do in order to achieve the best possible world for everyone? 

The Behaviour of a Behaviour Changer

As you may be able to tell from my “about me” page I was recently hired by the Wales Centre for Behaviour change as a Behavioural Psychologist. Since I got the job a number of people have asked me… “What do you do?” and often I have to stop and back track my thoughts because… well… it’s not exactly easy to describe what a Behavioural Psychologist does, it’s more about what a Behavioural Psychologist is.

Simply put I provide theoretical expertise to the team I work with, and I help with intervention design for businesses that work with us.

But that’s not what I am; it’s just what I do. What I am is something very different… and it’s hard to come to terms with.

So a little bit of context is necessary here; 4 years ago I started my undergraduate degree at Bangor University, I was 18, impressionable and armed with only a vague sense of what I wanted to do with my life. At first it was difficult to acclimatize to my new role as “student”, I was equipped with my own home, disposable income, responsibility. No one was breathing down my neck, and no one was following up on my every move. I was free – but trapped by the unfamiliar contingencies of my surrounding.

Over the three years of my degree I got used to it. Then, just as I was used to being a student I became a post-grad. Damn, now there is a jump! The most interesting thing for me was seeing with hindsight how controlled undergraduate study was (even though relatively it was free), compared to post-grad which was very hands-off. There’s no spoon-feeding. It’s sink or swim.

So that’s me until now. I was a student, and then I was a post-graduate student. If you aren’t flush with academic culture there is a big difference between an undergraduate and a post graduate in terms of respect and expectation, but there is a sheer gulf between student and behavioural psychologist.

When I found out I had got this job I was elated. The reality, of course, hadn’t really set in. At first I didn’t believe it. I told myself it wasn’t what I thought it was. I told myself it would be revoked. I told myself everything except; “you’re going to be a Behavioural Psychologist”.

I started the job.

The weirdest thing is that people actually listen to me. Imagine going to work every day and being told what to do by people who know way more than you, and then once you just start to master a task they pull the rug out and expect you to learn something new again – imagine this repeating itself for four years and you’ve got yourself the basic student experience. Now imagine the next day you go into work and all of a sudden people are hanging on your word, nodding as you speak, actually asking your advice. That’s what it’s like to go from student to Behavioural Psychologist.

It’s ridiculously scary.

So one and a half months into my job, what am I? Well I’m a behavioural psychologist and I’ve shrugged off most of the student mantle. It’s amazing really how much we are defined by the opportunities presented to us. Would I be as I am had I simply passed in

There’s a lesson, if you’re willing to look. We are a product of our environment. Our self-image, our sense of responsibility, our way of relating to ourselves and others – all are tied inextricably to the context we find ourselves in.

to a PhD program typical of my peers? Probably not. I’d have assumed a different set of behaviours to cope with the differing contingencies.

P.S/ A bit of meta-reflection – as I sit here writing this blog I’m casting my mind back to the last month or so, trying to distil the essence of it, and as I re-read the words I’ve written it all seems much of a muchness. It’s anti-climactic. More of a musing. I hope I haven’t bored you with it!

Absence, musings and the drive to do it right...

So you may have noticed my absence from this blog for a few weeks. Strange thing to do on a new blog right? Yeah. Not exactly the way to build up a readership. Nonetheless it happened and I have a very good reason - at least, I think I do...

These last few weeks I've been acclimatising to a new job - not an easy task! - and then I went for a trip to the Eden Project, both of which will be the subjects of upcoming blogs. The real reason I've been quiet, however, is that I want to do this blog right.

When I started this project I had in mind an idea of what I wanted this to be. I didn't want a place just to rant and vent. I didn't want a place to express a "side" of myself that I didn't feel comfortable expressing in public, and I didn't want this just to fade into obscurity and placed on the digital shelves of my life.

What I did want was a place where I could augment my career, stimulate intellectual discussions and pretty much just add an extra dimension to my academic life.

So, in sum, I wanted to do it right.

The drive to do it right is very important. Too many people, in my opinion, don't want to something right because it's too much like hard work. Well, I say, bring on the work!

So, first - I apologise for being absent. Second - I hope you understand that to do it right, takes time. Third - would you feel better if I told you what was coming up? Good, because here it comes.

In no particular order, coming up are blogs on;

The Eden Project
My new job
Induction in Behaviourism
Review; The Logical Leap

And a surprise article which I won't reveal now!

So stayed tuned (figuratively) because I've got plenty lined up for the future!