Altruism is an Illusion

Altruism is an Illusion

The definition of altruism:-

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism ).

Altruism is the selfless helping of others. However, biologists, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists have been telling us for some time that there is no such thing as altruism and imply that it is self-interest and not actually the benevolent helping of others. This page looks at the differing underlying selfish reasons why we help others.

Biologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have all held that "altruism" is never what it seems. That all apparently selfless acts are self-centered is known in the sciences as 'universal egoism', which according to the prominent psychologist Richard Gross, "is the dominant ethos in social science including psychology. [...] Sociobiologists consider that acts of apparent altruism turn out to be acts of selfishness in disguise". There is such agreement amongst psychologists and specialists that it seems "altruism is an impossibility"1.

If altruism is an illusion, merely a label that covers peoples' confusion over why they behave in a good way, then what are the causes of behaviour that seems selfless?

Biologists, sociologists, philosophers and above all, psychologists, have held to the "universal egoism" theory; that all apparent altruism is really selfishness in disguise. Most arguments for altruism are based on ignorance of the underlying reasons for behaving good towards others or are purely semantic in nature, not logical.

People behave altruistically for a number of selfish reasons. We are programmed genetically to behave in a way conducive to the sociability of the species: This unconscious species-instinct is the closest thing we have to true selfless altruism. In nearly every other conscious sense, altruism is an illusion. We behave well because social good behaviour fires off pleasant neurochemicals in our brains (the pleasure reward), because consciously or unconsciously we want others to see us as a good person (the social reward) or to feel good about ourselves (for pride and self-esteem). Altruism is image and illusion.

Richard Dawkins, the great evolutionary biologist, argues that we should educate people about the true nature of altruism. He is the author of "The Selfish Gene", and says that when we understand our motives better, we are better equipped to behave well, and overcome the ethnically-biased altruism that we are born with.

Altruism is an Illusion

Click Here

The Selfish Gene -Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene -Richard Dawkins

Prediction in a complex world is a chancy business. Every decision that a survival machine takes is a gamble, and it is the business of genes to program brains in advance so that on average they take decisions that pay off. The currency used in the casino of evolution is survival, strictly gene survival, but for many purposes individual survival is a reasonable approximation. If you go down to the water-hole to drink, you increase your risk of being eaten by predators who make their living lurking for prey by water-holes. If you do not go down to the water-hole you will eventually die of thirst. There are risks whichever way you turn, and you must take the decision that maximizes the long-term survival chances of your genes. Perhaps the best policy is to postpone drinking until you are very thirsty, then go and have one good long drink to last you a long time. That way you reduce the number of separate visits to the water-hole, but you have to spend a long time with your head down when you finally do drink. Alternatively the best gamble might be to drink little and often, snatching quick gulps of water while running past the water-hole. Which is the best gambling strategy depends on all sorts of complex things, not least the hunting habit of the predators, which itself is evolved to be maximally efficient from their point of view. Some form of weighing up of the odds has to be done. But of course we do not have to think of the animals as making the calculations consciously. All we have to believe is that those individuals whose genes build brains in such a way that they tend to gamble correctly are as a direct result more likely to survive, and therefore to propagate those same genes.

We can carry the metaphor of gambling a little further. A gambler must think of three main quantities, stake, odds, and prize. If the prize is very large, a gambler is prepared to risk a big stake. A gambler who risks his all on a single throw stands to gain a great deal. He also stands to lose a great deal, but on average high-stake gamblers are no better and no worse off than other players who play for low winnings with low stakes. An analogous comparison is that between speculative and safe investors on the stock market. In some ways the stock market is a better analogy than a casino, because casinos are deliberately rigged in the bank's favour (which means, strictly, that high-stake players will on average end up poorer than low-stake players; and low-stake players poorer than those who do not gamble at all. But this is for a reason not germane to our discussion). Ignoring this, both high-stake play and low-stake play seem reasonable. Are there animal gamblers who play for high stakes, and others with a more conservative game?

Handicapping is an a challenge. Betting is an art and Money Management is a chore.

There are no holy grail of finding a winner and will never be one, none whatsoever but there are simply one or two of many possible tools that can be used in conjunction with others. This game is a game of chance and it can only be well figured out to a certain extent. IMHO it is only through serious critical thinking, hard work, due diligence and discipline combine with patience and consistency. And through logic, observation and evidence we can win and stay ahead.

The Godfather of handicappers: Pittsburg Phil changed the game forever - By Ryan Goldberg

The Godfather of handicappers: Pittsburg Phil changed the game forever - By Ryan Goldberg

One of history’s greatest horseplayers, George E. Smith, better known as “Pittsburg Phil,” was collared in the paddock one day in the 1890s by a young Jacob Ruppert, then a businessman and Thoroughbred owner, later the owner of the New York Yankees. Ruppert needled him about the “easy life you lead. Just a few hours of pleasant work every afternoon out in the open air, and getting rich.”

Phil asked Ruppert why he only came to the races on Saturday or when a horse of his was running.

Because I have my business to handle, Ruppert answered.

“You don’t think, then,” Phil persisted, “that if a merchant only gave four or five hours a day to his business, he would be successful in it.”

“He might not last a year,” Ruppert said.

“Neither would I,” Phil said, “in the business of betting.”

Phil often said the reason most bettors lose is their unwillingness to put in the time. He once observed, “Playing the races appears to be the one business in which men believe they can succeed without special study, special talent, or special exertion.”

Shortly before he died, in 1905, of tuberculosis at age 43, Phil offered this counsel to a New York turf writer named Edward Cole. Cole was the only writer to whom Phil confided his methods. Three years later Cole published that wisdom in a book called “Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburg Phil.” The book went out of print for decades but found a second life, importantly, after it was reprinted in the 1960s.

Pittsburg Phil’s book provided a handicapping blueprint framed by anecdote and aphorism. Matching this style, the modern volumes of Tom Ainslie, Andrew Beyer, Steve Davidowitz, and others followed Phil’s original contribution. Seen this way, Phil was the first modern handicapper. He perfected the art of picking winners, and a century after his death his maxims and methods remain instructive, in some cases timeless.

Phil approached the game not only logically but philosophically. The lessons may sound like common sense, but only because they are now accepted handicapping wisdom:

A good jockey, a good horse, a good bet.

You cannot be a successful horse player if you are going to get the worst of the price all the time.

Watch all the horses racing closely.

Know when to put a good bet down and when not to. Don’t temper your bet to the price.

Phil was alone among the spectacular bettors of his time – a headline-grabbing era of high-rollers, sporting owners, and larger-than-life match races – in that he never went broke or lost his nerve betting ungodly sums of money. His scores put a dozen or more bookmakers out of business. When he died his estate came to almost $2 million, a sizable fortune in those days. Almost all of it came from playing the horses.

Why hassle around?? Quietly pocket the winnings and laugh all the way to the Maybank!!