Loving a Game of Numbers...

Hey all! I hope everyone is doing well and what not. For some reason, I feel like writing and thinking a lot more this quarter, and that leads to more posts of course haha. It's probably due to the fact that I'm not taking four crazy upper division courses and thus have some time for free thought without it seeming like diving into the world of academia...
But yes, anyways, this post starts with a little story... Way back when on Monday, as I was walking back from work, I saw a sign for hot dogs and a soda for 25 cents. Well, being the sucker for a good deal that I am, I decided to walk over to the line and try to get a cheap lunch. As I was walking, my mind kept on thinking: What would be the point of selling something for cheap? Well, I decided to think for the best and just decided that they were trying to be nice to everyone at the start of a new quarter, and just rolled along with it...
Oh naivety... Well, needless to say, the line was pretty huge for such an event. There was about 30ish or so people in front of me, with about two cashiers. So, this process was going to take a while... As I was waiting and walking, I heard a voice from behind say hello. I turned to look and saw a dood wearing a GOC sweatshirt. At that point, everything just clicked; GOC stands for Grace on Campus, or a Christian group on campus. GOC is a group that places a huge emphasis on evangelism. I don't know if it's the central part of their doctrine, but I know that it is something very purported, regardless. So yes, if you haven't already put the pieces together, GOC purposefully made their food cheap so that way a line was built. In this line, members from GOC would go in and evangelize to people, for people couldn't leave without losing the deal of such cheap food. Thus, most people would go through the line to get their food, yet would most likely have to talk to a GOC member at the same time.
The dood's name that came and talked to me was Wes (or maybe West... One of the two). We had a nice little talk about religious backgrounds, ministry groups on campus, and different viewpoints on evangelism. All in all, it was a nice chat, even though I ended up leading it most of the time since he was kind of a quiet guy haha. As I was leaving, though, I saw my friend Jane being talked to by two other members of GOC. I joined in on their conversation, even though it was essentially the same as what Wes talked about with me...
After that nice little convo, I ended up talking with Jane just to get her perspective on these things... Essentially, the common perspective garnered was that of a bit more pressing than is comfortable... The GOC people really pushed to make sure that everybody knew what the Gospel is, and if there were any doubts they really seemed to push it. And of course, I mean, this is all in good intentions... These people view that they have this knowledge, this medicine, that will not save your physical life, but one greater than that. From that perspective, wouldn't it make sense to save as many people as you could? Thus, it makes sense to go and evangelize to as many people as possible and try to save them all... Show everyone how much you love them, right?
Of course, a big question comes up here: What is loving? Of course, trying to save everyone's life seems to be loving. But, this statement assumes that there is only one way to show this love. I would like to think that this is truly not the case... Take, for example, if you do have this form of love in the form of medicine. Now, if you take that medicine and force someone to take it, they're probably going to reject it and try to stay away from it, even if you believe the medicine will save them. Yet, if they take the medicine out of their own volition, they'll be saved, which is the point of the medicine. Now, again I shall ask, what act is more loving?
Please don't get me wrong at this point... I think that evangelism can be important and you shouldn't feel afraid to approach people, hoping that they may receive this medicine from somewhere else... It's just that the way the medicine is administered is such a key part to see as whether or not people are saved... Of course, some people may be more willing to take medicine over others if it is pressed upon them, yet I question if this would be true for the general population...
Of course, it is all a balance, but I just think that the problem with evangelizing to just about anyone and everyone is that instead of love for the other person, it can become love of a game numbers... Yes, Christianity does call for evangelism towards others, but don't forget that there are multiple ways for evangelism? You might ask, "Is this message really going to affect them for the better, or am I doing it simply for myself?" You see, the problem with evangelizing without proper connections or proper knowledge is that it could actually make people more averse to Christianity, which would be detrimental and actually taking a step backwards rather than forwards... You see, please don't get me wrong and think that I'm saying all forms of evangelism are bad... I just think that going through such a routine and attempting to evangelize to every stranger may give them a negative impression of not only you but also of Christianity itself... Thus, if that would be the case, would that truly be loving to the individual in question?
At this point, one may point out that I'm seeing problems but not really solutions. Granted, that is the case for now, but I believe that there is a solution. I'm not really a theologian that has a doctorate in evangelism, or anything close to it for that matter, but from the little knowledge of psychology I know, I believe that the more personal the interaction, the better... I mean, if the person you are talking with thinks that you actually care for them, and are not just treating them as "just another person to convert," don't you think they would be more willing to listen? This sort of goes back to my post "Big Brother's Watching You...", but I believe that the more personal the stimulus present, the greater the chance that internal conformity, or a rather relatively permanent change in behavior, is more likely to happen. Even if the person doesn't accept what you're saying as true, at least you can present it in a more personal matter and thus allow them to give it more of a chance for consideration rather than being turned off quite suddenly...
Jane stated this idea in quite an interesting way... Simply put, she said that perhaps the ideal standard should be empathy, not sympathy... Of course, sympathy is a good thing to have, but it's something that can exist without a strong personal connection. Empathy is something that seems to be built up the farther and stronger one's bonds with another are. Thus, if empathy is more present than sympathy, the act of evangelism may be more of a personal thing, rather than just a way to do something that one feels called to do... Of course, distinction of these feelings may be quite hard to do, which means it may just be best to focus on how personal/strong one's bonds with another may be. Again, this may be begging the question, for what is personal, but that is something that may be a bit more clear, if only intuitively, than the distinction between sympathy and empathy...
As I close this post, please let me clear up a few points. Again, I'm not trying to rag on evangelism. I believe that it's not only important in itself but also the way it is done is quite important as well. And to all of those who are not Christians yet still take the time to read my posts, I'm sorry if you feel as if you were treated as just another number for an attempt at conversion... People have good intentions, but sometimes they just don't manifest themselves in proper ways... So yes, thank you all for the time to read this post, and hopefully I have given you some food for thought...

Squirrels, Altruism, and Sir Karl Popper

Hey all! Sorry for not writing again for so long... I'm quite questionable when it comes to consistency it seems. Last quarter was academic madness for me since I attempted four classes of all upper divs... I did well in the end, but it didn't leave much time for leisurely goodness, such as writing and what not haha.
Oh yes, I must give credit where credit is due. The last post about Big Brother and the use of stimuli was thought out with my friends Christine and Nitya. We all had a good talk and they helped further ideas/inspiration to write on that, so yes, thank you to them!
Anyways, before I start really discussing for this post, we have to flash back to Fall Quarter... I was enrolled in Life Sciences (LS) 15, which is essentially LS for those that aren't hard-core sciencey yet need to take a science of some sort. My professor was Jay Phelan, and he's quite a smart guy. He studied at UCLA, Harvard, and Yale for Bio I believe, so he totally knew his stuff. Anyways, one of the things that was most intriguing to me at the time was his discussion of altruism.
Altruism is somewhat like the opposite of selfishness. It's hard to pin an exact definition down, but essentially it's doing something completely for another, with no real selfish intentions in mind. Thus, an altruistic action has no intrinsic selfishness/motivation, but is purely for another/something else.
One of the most common examples is Belding's Ground Squirrels. Essentially, if I remember my LS 15 somewhat correctly, these squirrels live out in the prairies and have to keep an eye out for aerial predators such as hawks. What happens is that there is a chance that one of the squirrels will give out a distinct call to let the other squirrels know that a predator is coming. Yet, as a result, 50% of the time the squirrel that called out is the one that gets attacked by the predator. Thus, this act is coined altruistic because one squirrel gives their own life (most of the time) in order to save the other squirrels present.
Well, that would be one way to look at it, but not the commonly accepted way... Professor Phelan presented to us the "selfish gene" approach. For those not familiar with biology, the "selfish gene" approach is essentially that animals are subject to survival of the fittest, which is a measure of reproductive success, and not living itself. Thus, even if one may die, yet its genes are passed down, it is still in the contest. To over simplify, the whole idea is to get as many of your genes passed down as you can, whether it be through having sex with as many mates as possible or by ensuring a healthy life for future offspring... Thus, the squirrel is able to further the chances of its offspring living a healthy life, leading to more babies in the future, by sacrificing itself and giving in to the survival of the fittest.
As first, I was quite hesitant to accept the viewpoint of this second view. What evidence was there really to show that the squirrels just wanted to pass on their own genes and not actually commit an act of altruism? (Ok, that sounds funny in hindsight, since a squirrel may not seem the best indicator of altruism, but it was a naturally occurring thought!) Well, there's a little bit more to when the squirrels will call or not. The thing is, only females that have some form of kin are the ones that will call out. To boil down lots of bio and not really do it justice, lots of animals that are males don't care so much about losing offspring since they have the ability to reproduce continually, whereas females are limited by gestation periods and what not, thus making individual offspring quite valuable. (I highly suggest for us Valley Kids to take some form of bio while in college, since we never got too great of a view in high school haha). And the thing is, the females won't call in every situation. In one experiment, females with some form of kin were transported into a new habitat and assimilated with other Belding's Ground Squirrels. When an aerial predator attacked this group, though, the female would not call. Thus, it seems as if the only times females will call is when they have some form of kin/genetic relationship with the squirrels present. Thus, it seems like this quite a bit more in support for the "selfish gene" theory rather than the existence of altruism...
As the course continued, Professor Phelan elaborated that genes are not only selfish in squirrels, but in all forms of animals. Any act that may appear altruistic on the surface usually has some ulterior, intrinsic motive, whether it be for one's personal gain or for one's offspring, thus contributing further to reproductive success somehow. In fact, when he mentioned all animals, he included humans. Any act humans commit, whether for prestige or personal gain, may appear altruistic yet has some form of ulterior motive.
Honest to goodness, I was curious to hear more since I liked to think that altruism does exist. Thus, I visited his office hours one day, just to try and figure out more to this thing called "altruism." As I asked him to elaborate on all acts being selfish, we proceeded to look at things such as giving to charity, or helping out a friend. From his viewpoint, he saw charity as a possibility for simply title gain. Imagine that you are with a group of people, and then you decide to donate $20. People at this point will think you are kind and generous, and thus more likely to have positive actions in the future, such as may when you need something from them. Or, let's imagine you have a sick friend that you help for the night. After helping them, you now have a favor to hold over their head. Since you helped them, and gave up something relatively small, you should now be able to ask them a favor since you gave them a favor. Thus, things such as charity or helping others can be trickled down to selfish intent.
Ok, writing things this way may portray the wrong idea, so let me just clarify: I really liked, and still like, Professor Phelan. He's a really smart and nice guy who was eager to talk to me about ideas like this. I'm afraid that presenting only this stuff about him may make him seem like some crazy egoist, but that's not really true haha. So yes, he's a good guy and a good teacher. Don't get me wrong!
So in conclusion, I remember asking, "So you don't really believe there's any such thing like altruism that exists?" He replied to the degree of, "No, I don't think so. I mean, you don't see anyone taking a homeless person off the street and giving him food and shelter. It just seems to me that it doesn't exist... Yet, here I am, talking to you, when I'm going to have no further interaction, and thus it wouldn't make sense really either, now would it.." Frankly speaking, what Professor Phelan said does seem to hold some merit. I mean, on initial thought, if someone was truly altruistic, why don't they just give everything away? They could give their house, their money, their possessions, and just everything to someone else. That would be a sign of altruism, yes? Yet, I don't think anyone really does that... Any time an "altruism" act is committed it seems to have some form of net-gain for the actor. Thus, it seems that "altruistic" acts only happen for personal gain and thus aren't truly "altruistic."
It's easy to see why this viewpoint holds so much merit... It just seems to fit so well, and it's quite easy to see from animals that this seems to be the way things truly are. Yet, I don't think life is quite that simple (Kingdom Hearts reference anyone? hahah). First things first, let's look back at the total charity example Professor Phelan mentioned. If someone really did give everything the had away, would that still really be considered "altruistic" by his definition? It would just be so easy to say that he's doing it for prestige, or he's doing it to make a name for himself and thus be remembered in history, thus making the person still be selfish.
It's at this point that one raises the question if there is truly any act that would be considered altruistic. Or, in other words, is there any way that we can prove that humans are not totally selfish? Even with a large number of thought experiments/hypothetical scenarios, it seems like there can always be some point that can be linked back to the person, thus making altruism purely possible to exist, and thus making this "selfish gene" theory impossible to disprove...
At this point, I think it's time again to say hello to our old friend Sir Karl Popper. For those of you that may remember, I talked about Popper and why he favored deduction over induction... Well, anyways, one of Popper's biggest interests was the clarification of what is true science and what is pseudo-science, or what is labelled the Demarcation Problem. Science is something objective and testable, whereas pseudo-science is something that looks like science, yet is not truly science because it is not objectively falsifiable. As for an example, Popper points out Dr. Adler's theory of Selfishness (Well, who would have guessed, eh?). Essentially, Dr. Adler believed that everyone was truly selfish and did things only for themselves (again, this should sound familiar!) Imagine someone is drowning in the river. You have two choices: Jump in and save them, or just pass on. Well, if you jump in, Dr. Adler would say that you're being selfish because you gain prestige and also have the chance for reward. Yet, if you pass them by, you're being selfish because you're just letting them drown. So, no matter what happens, you're selfish and thus all humans have this form of selfishness complex (Again, I bet there's a lot more to it than this, but this is just a general understanding...).
You see, it seems kinda weird to have a science where you can't really disprove anything but can only find examples to further it. In fact, Freud's theories about dreams and sexual behavior also function this way, basically speaking. Part of science is through testing and disproving, for the function of science is to disprove and not prove (this has to do with induction being fallible and deduction not; crazy to think and oversimplified, I know, but it's the basic idea). Thus, when you have a theory that is not able to be disproved, Popper believed that that was not actual science. Thus, any theories that cannot be disproved are considered pseudo-science, for they seem to hold some merit, yet are not truly testable in the same means that actual science is.
Thus, this theory of the "selfish gene" seems to have been presented before and pushed down. The thing is, even if it's not true science, there still may be some merit to the theory since it seems to fit society so well. Even if it's not totally true, or falsifiable and thus probably not the best way to really think, it does appear that selfishness is so true in today's society. I mean, favors are usually talked about ways of getting help later rather than being done just to purely help the person out. Again, I may be looking at this through a universal selfishness complex, but part of it does stand out...
The thing is, as Joey and Dave mentioned, life does not seem to be governed by extremes as simple as this... Let's take two different scenarios; in scenario a, a person mugs and kills a random stranger. In scenario b, a person donates $20 to a local charity. Granted, both of these acts could be linked to selfish ties, yet something would seem horribly strange to give these acts equal weight... I mean, is mugging someone as selfish as donating? I guess one could argue that both are just forms of selfishness, yet I still don't think that would make them equal. If someone argued that all selfish acts are equal, then I think I would be stuck there. Yet, if that is the case, again, I think it would be best to refer back to Popper and classify a theory so extreme as simply pseudo-science. But, in an attempt to give some merit, I would say yes, much of the world is selfish. It's so easy to classify the world that way since so many acts are committed with something in return. Yet, maybe I'm just naive, but I like to think that some acts are committed without an expectation of something in return. The problem with this idea is that you have to measure intentions, which of course is not something measurable... And, even if you could somehow find out someone's intentions, people could argue that the motivations are not only conscious but also subconscious, thus making it possible that everyone is still victim of a universal selfishness complex.
But, if we adapt the first view that not all selfish acts are equal in weight, it seems that acts could be classified on a gradient of selfishness, with one pole representing altruism and the other pole representing selfishness. All acts would fall on this gradient, but depending on where they fall would represent if one act would be more selfish/more altruistic as compared to another. Thus, this view would seem more accurate, since it seems more plausible that if all acts are selfish, how selfish they are and how altruistic they are may vary. It seems like this may be a more accurate way to represent the world, but the question of whether or not an act can be truly altruistic or truly selfish, where the influence of the other is not present, can actually exist. I don't know if it's whether or not I have a pessimistic viewpoint, but it seems much easier to link something as being purely selfish over something being purely altruistic... All in all, though, this may just simply be a problem of viewpoint, whether or not it is actually the case. Of course, I think the view of universal selfishness may be more universal (hence the prominence of the "selfish gene" theory) over the idea of altruism possibly existing... Again, it may just be the way society's current viewpoint is, but nonetheless it is interesting to note...
Hmm... If I had to just sum up everything, I guess it would be important to note that some theories that permeate today are forms of pseudo-science. These theories may seem to fit the world well, but it's questionable as to how far they should be taken since they can't truly be disproved and thus their measure as science should be questioned. Nevertheless, it seems fitting to say that a great deal of the world is selfish, yet to say all selfish acts would be questionable... It may seem more fitting to say that acts may fall on a universal scale, where acts have a certain degree of altruism and a certain degree of selfishness. Yet, if any acts can be fully selfish or fully altruistic is something questionable, and may not even be able to be fully known... So yeah, some food for thought, at the very least, and thank you for reading!