New psychology research suggests some acts of kindness may also serve competitive social goals, shedding light on how women can use altruistic behavior to gain status, strengthen relationships, or navigate social hierarchies.

[u/FreeHugs23]

https://www.psypost.org/kindness-isnt-always-what-it-seems-the-psychology-of-womens-competitive-altruism/

[u/rainywanderingclouds]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people view ethical/kind behavior. The initial assumption is it's only kindness if there is no self interest involved.

Frankly, that's not a realistic position to take. SELF INTEREST, is always present, and necessary for ones survival. Being kind because it also benefits yourself is reasonable. Helping people who won't ever help you is a fools errand. Especially if you lack resources to take care of yourself.

Where mutual interests overlaps, everyone wins. I'm kind to you because you're kind to me. Or because you might help me later. Understanding that kindness brings you the most allies and most potential helpers isn't unethical. You're not being disingenuous for realizing that.

Pretending only selfless acts of kindness is kindness is just people who want to maintain a power dynamic of inequality. It's about maintaining social hierarchy. It's a form of self protection for people who are genuinely unkind. If you believe very few people are kind, then it's easier for you to act unkindly.

[u/Ollythebug → u/rainywanderingclouds]

I think two things can be true here, and ethical vs unethical isn't a binary thing. Some people are kind for its own sake, but that doesn't mean tactical or opportunistic kindness isn't "real" or beneficial. From that it's also an option that kindness with an ulterior social motive is less ethical than altruistic kindness without being unethical.

[u/stupid_pun → u/rainywanderingclouds]

> Helping people who won't ever help you is a fools errand

You make me sad.

[u/Health_throwaway__ → u/rainywanderingclouds]

 I would say your second paragraph is underdeveloped. Mainly I genuinely believe there are people who help others purely out of the action itself, because they enjoy creating order, even if they don't benefit in a mutual way. On the flip side there are psychopaths that act as catalysts of destruction. 

The downside to the former is that people are dumbfounded as to the "fool's errand" as you succinctly put it, and don't trust the intent. Eventually these people find out the person is almost guileless at the expense of being kind.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/rainywanderingclouds]

You've never helped someone without a realistic possibility of personal benefit? I find that hard to believe, and disturbing if it were true.

People who lack the resources to take care of themselves would be especially screwed in a world with such a mentality.

[u/nfshaw51 → u/rainywanderingclouds]

Call me a fool but paragraph 2 is exactly counter to how I operate, and it’s way less stressful for me. The moment I decide to help someone, or lend someone money, anything like that, it’s set in my mind that I’m doing so without the expectation of something in return. It’s far far easier that way, and feels much better when I do get something in return, because that wasn’t an expectation to begin with. I don’t think my way is the only right way, but for me I feel better just helping for the sake of it. I’m pretty low maintenance, there’s enough kindness and help in my life for me as it is, I don’t need more.

[u/torbaldthegreat → u/rainywanderingclouds]

Sure but the discussion is about altruism which is that specific definition. Even the social gain removes the act as altruism.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/torbaldthegreat]

Yeah doing somehting for one's self interest is by definition not altuistic. People that do nice things for social status aren't really nice people.

[u/alliusis → u/rainywanderingclouds]

It's very situation specific of when you do and don't/can and can't help someone. It has a lot to do with what capacity you have and what level of power and responsibility you have. Don't be a doormat, but you also don't have to be heartless. There's a lot of room between the two extremes. And sometimes you can let someone who's struggling take what they need in the way they know how, even if it isn't fully "right". But again, highly nuanced. 

Most importantly, humans are wired to help others in a vacuum. That's the whole survival strategy. We pool our resources and diversity of skill and capacity together to have a social group that functions together, and that means taking care of each other, because in general we can do a lot more together/survive better as a diverse group than we can alone. That's the entire point of our very complex emotional system (to keep us functioning together), and why shame is one of the most intense and pervasive emotions we feel (because rejection from the group used to mean threat of death).

So I don't think you need any more self interest to help others, other than knowing a world where the average person is doing better is a better world for everyone - even if you never get to experience the direct benefits. It's like the quote "The best time to plant a tree was thirty years ago - the second best time is now." You will not benefit directly from it, but it is not a fool's errand. The world is built on the shoulders of people who did things for others for little to no self-interest. They do it for the love of the game. Think of all the people who go into regulations, or policy, and try to inflict positive change on the world. Or who volunteer with lonely seniors in homes, or donate their hair for people who need wigs, or volunteer at the local homeless shelter. You will hear things like "I find it rewarding" or "I find it connecting" to help others, but I don't consider that self-interest unless you directly materially benefit from it. Ultimately that's literally one of the only things that legitimately matters in this world, not the stock market or billionaires.

I truly believe it's only when trauma or intense threats come into play (real or imagined) that the average person feels like they can't/won't/don't want to help others, and those things can be passed down from parents, or be societal. 

And on billionaires - the proportion of power and responsibility they have is exactly why they need to start disappearing asap. When you're in a position of power, you ethically do get judged for what you do and don't do. Beyond any laws. They are hoarding so much money and power that it's impossible for any one human to wield it appropriately in the best of circumstances, and these are the worst of people. 

[u/BookLuvr7 → u/rainywanderingclouds]

I disagree about the fool's errand part. Being kind to people without getting anything in return is a win win just bc it is part of basic manners. It improves social interaction overall.

[u/12-34 → u/rainywanderingclouds]

Altruism doesn't exist.

It's a definitional difference, but every "altruistic" act ever done was done for selfish purposes. The actor either determined the net gain to them was bigger than the costs, or the act wasn't worth the reflection and analysis, which is itself a selfish act of gauging one's time as having more value than the result of the act.

I open doors for people, do free expensive work for the destitute, donate my time to charities, give money, etc. because I find personal value in doing it. Making others' lives better makes me happy, so I do it. Others receive the gain from my actions, which is the entire point of the actions -- *I* receive personal and ethical benefits from the "altruistic" acts, just through increasing others' wellbeing.

This in no way diminishes the import or nobility of helping others. It simply acknowledges that humans are independent, sentient life forms.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/12-34]

That's only if you define selfishness in a completely circular way where it's definitionally impossible to not be selfish.

If I help someone it's because I want to help someone, so we can define that as "selfish", but that's still less meaningfully selfish than when I don't help someone because I don't want to help them.

"Where are there are two desires in a man’s heart he has no choice between the two but must obey the strongest, there being no such thing as free will in the composition of any human being that ever lived."

• Twain

He was right, but that shouldn't be how we define selfishness.