[Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[Dan Rosenthal]

I'm not sure the anorexia comparison is valid. I'm not a doctor and I  
haven't read the DSM on it, but I'm pretty sure that for one to be  
classified as anorexic, the starvation must become a psychological  
need, (thus removing the actor's control). If that's the case, then it  
would not actually be a "decision" to starve one's self. I have to  
agree with David Gerard, I view politicians and rich, famous people's  
actions in terms of game theory as well (at least, my 2 semesters of  
political science classes worth of game theory). Assuming they are  
rational most of the time, they would perform a cost benefit analysis  
when they make a choice as to how much that choice will hurt them, and  
how much benefit they will receive, and what are the relative ratios  
of benefit for each potential action they can take. So for example,   
Jimmy donating $5 dollars to the foundation, he thinks about it, sees  
almost negligible cost, sees a slight gain in terms of that warm fuzzy  
feeling. So he does it. But, Jimmy donating $50,000 to the foundation,  
he is working with a much greater cost, also more gain in terms of the  
warm fuzzy feeling and the ability to say "my donation kept the  
foundation running for X period of time", but the cost/benefit ratio  
is much closer and I could not say whether he would do that. Now look  
at this from an outside investor's opinion? They not only have to  
balance the costs of their spending, but the opportunity cost of not  
spending on others groups, with the "warm fuzzy feeling" being to them  
much less important, as well as wanting to see something returning  
back to them from it, be it money, or other benefit. Then they compare  
whether to invest in the foundation vs. another group, and if they are  
acting rationally they will go for the one with the best benefit to  
cost ratio.  That's the way that I see things.

-Dan
On Mar 8, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:16 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Antony said earlier that, as a Randian, [a Randian] would act only  
>> out of
>> self-interest and not altruism, but this is a false dichotomy. People
>> who act altruistically want to do so at some level, or else they
>> wouldn't. As philosophers put it, all reasons for action are internal
>> reasons, meaning they are based on the actor's desires, needs, and
>> interests, the argument being that a reason for action that has no
>> emotional resonance for you will fail to be magnetic enough to move
>> you to act. According to that argument, we are all psychological
>> Randians, at least a little. :)
>>
> Taking out the names, because they're irrelevant...
>
> I think there is a distinction between a rational act of kindness and
> an altruistic act.  It's not a quantitative distinction, but it's a
> qualitative one.
>
> If I spend 5 minutes on a weekend helping an old lady cross the
> street, that's one thing.  If I donate to the world what I believe I
> could turn into a billion dollar company, just for the warm fuzzies, I
> think that's clearly another.  I'd consider the latter to be an
> irrational act of altruism.  Were I a true Randian, I guess I'd even
> call it evil.
>
> [I'm going to snip out an example I put here which is closer to what I
> think actually happened, because apparently some people find the idea
> extremely offensive.]
>
> And to answer your point that "all reasons for action are internal
> reasons, meaning they are based on the actor's desires, needs, and
> interests", I can't agree.  For example, I can't say qualitatively
> that an anorexic's decision to starve him/herself is an example of
> acting based on his/her "desires, needs, and interests".  Maybe
> they're doing it for an internal reason, but I think there's a
> qualitative line to be drawn where some acts of self-destruction can
> be deemed irrational.  You could say, by definition, that anything
> someone does do is something s/he "needs" to do, but then your
> statement is circular and meaningless.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l