People hate generosity

[Dr. Richard Grossman]

Hi everybody,

An article in The Economist (8/21/10) entitled:

“Too good to live:  People hate generosity as much as they hate mean-spiritedness”

summarizes a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (by Drs. Parks and Stone) in which people were asked to play a computer game (see the article for the summary) against/with 4 (unknown to the participant) virtual players (computer programmed) to try to maximize their chance of getting lottery tickets for meals.  When asked who they would play with again, not surprisingly the participants eliminated the virtual “selfish” player.  But in a total surprise, they also eliminated the “generous” player.

Why?  

The two main reasons given: “If you give a lot, you should use a lot,” and “He makes us all look bad.”  The Economist goes on to describe the results:

“In other words, people were valuing their own reputations in the eyes of the other players as much as the practical gain from the game, and felt that in comparison with the selfless individual they were found wanting…”

I would imagine that many of the participants on this Board are exceptionally generous (adult children of narcissistic parents often are—pleasing others in such families is one of the few ways to be seen and heard) and have not received the response they wished for…

Richard

[Ales2]

I think this can be very true. I've mistakenly always given bosses the extra effort and stayed late, sometimes forgoing personal plans to meet deadlines and satisfy clients. But when I was asked to join a "work team" where the groups were assigned to different projects and clients, I discovered I was one of the last ones picked. I questioned a boss and a colleague about this and discovered that while my extra efforts were appreciated, no one wanted to work with me because they thought it would mean a repeat of late nites and broken social plans due to my lack of assertiveness (ands sometimes not planning work ahead of time - my own fault, I'll admit that.)  So, yes, maybe what appears to some as hard work or generosity means others are judged by that standard and will come up short.

[teartracks]

If this premise that people hate generosity as much as they hate mean spiritedness is true, I have some serious rearranging to do.  Feels like a catch 22 or that no kind act goes unpunished.   

tt



 

[Dr. Richard Grossman]

Hi Guest,

Here's the setup (from The Economist [8/21/10] article):

"Participants, both real and virtual, were given ten points in each round of the game.  They could keep these, or put some or all of them into a kitty.  The incentive for putting points in the kitty was that their value was thus doubled.  The participant was then allowed to withdraw up to a quarter of the points contributed by the other four into his own personal bank, while the other four “players” did likewise.  The incentive to take less than a quarter was that when the game ended, after a number of rounds unknown to the participants, a bonus would be given to each player if the kitty exceeded a certain threshold, also unspecified.  When the game was over the points were converted into lottery tickets for meals."

Three of the "players" were programmed to contribute reasonably, while the fourth was programmed to either be greedy or generous.  And, obviously, subjects were not only thinking of themselves, they were thinking about the good of the rest of the players (you don't want to starve other undergraduate psychology students!)

And yes, tt, good deeds were indeed punished!
 
Richard

[Dr. Richard Grossman]

Hi Guest,

Thanks for your comment.  Could there be another reason(s) that people would essentially make sure that others playing would get more than they would?   Some on this Board, for example, might do just that because it was the only way they could hope to receive any acknowledgement in their families.  They would feel guilty, scared, and alone if they took “their share”.  That carries over into their interactions with the world.  To view these people as “holier than thou” would, I think, be inaccurate.  Thoughts?

Richard

[sKePTiKal]

None of us, as adults, have any right to a 'share'. Is it okay to seek ultimate happiness while other humans suffer? I don't think so.

Guest, I struggle with this a lot. My life took an unexpected turn toward financial security a couple years ago, after a lifetime of being the poorest of the poor and working my way into a working-class level of "we're OK". Money is only 1 aspect of this question, though. I don't feel guilty about the money - nor do I deny myself buying things I've always wanted. I do NOT think this is selfish or bad; because I don't equate "things" with "character" or caring about or giving to others. Who's to say if I'll have this opportunity tomorrow, or next year? I'm well aware that I can be very, very poor financially again and I'm OK with that, too. (I'm going to try not to be... but you never know.)

Simultaneously - a lot of those "things" that I could buy to fit in with my new neighbors?? I don't give a rat's patootie about those things; I don't want it... I don't buy it. Who I "am" and whether I'm happy has absolutely nothing to do with whether I blow a couple hundred on a meal in a gourmet restaurant or eat spaghetti sauce from a can that cost under $1 (and I actually prefer this).

Why don't we have a right to seek happiness? Is it within my power and control to bestow happiness on others? I truly wish I could; I've wished this for my whole life. But, I'm learning that denying myself happiness in some kind of counter-intruitive attempt to bring everyone along with me into that "place"... doesn't make any more sense than selfishly gloating about my good fortune and lording it over others... and then blaming the less-fortunate for their own problems. I know from experience that's not fair and not true.

Of course, we're still talking about happiness = money or resources or opportunity or __________. THINGS. Happiness isn't dependent on things. I've been blissfully happy at various times, with about $10 to my name... and debt out the wazoo. Happiness isn't something that you can reach out, put in a box and display on a shelf... it comes and it goes... it can be a mild little ripple of happiness or a tidal wave surge of joy. It's not something that "seekers" usually find, either. Happiness is an elusive thing... and it will drive one mad to chase it and try to contain it.

You can share happiness - but you can't "make someone happy". Happiness is sneaky and tricky... and the oddest things evoke this emotion in people; unpredictably. There's no "prescription" for happiness; no process or method or spiritual path that has an absolute, 100% of the time guarantee to it.

But there is no doubt in my mind anymore, that we ALL have a right to enjoy it when it's bestowed on us.

Edit in: I almost FORGOT! DUH! If I set myself "conditions" for happiness... even if those conditions get met - I'm still not happy. Don't know why. I guess because conditions are always changing, too.

And one last point - happiness is contagious. It tends to spread from one person to another - just like doom & gloom does - so I sorta feel obligated to be as happy as I can and to share that with people I come in contact with - hoping that they "catch" it, too.

[sKePTiKal]

Thanks for clarifying, Guest! (yeah - I did misunderstand what you were trying to say...)

and I agree with you about people who dedicate their life to seeking "happiness for happiness sake"... because if they only looked about them - they'd find theire "share" right in front of them. A lot of times, these folks are running away from something - just as equally as they're trying to acquire something.

Perhaps, happiness doesn't exist as a "right"... simply because it's not possible to guarantee happiness (though we have the right to the "pursuit" of happiness, which in this case I don't believe is a verb; if collecting something generates happy-feelings - or swimming - or writing - then my "right" is to that "pursuit")... and it refuses to be "domesticated" or "come when you call"... and last I checked, it doesn't do windows, either! 

Carry on...

[Sela]

Hi all,

It does sound a bit...... jealous..... to say that "people hate generosity" and it seems one can do a study to prove just about anything.  Doesn't make it absolutely true every where for everyone though eh?  Not even close, imo.

Personally, if someone gives extra time/effort/whatnot, with kindness and it helps someone else or others, if the giver expects nothing in return....to me that's generosity, which I admire.  And if I, find it within myself to do some of that, some times, with the same expectation (or lack of, I guess)..... I feel grateful, usually, for the opportunity and I guess I automatically gain a boost in self-esteem (so one could argue that I do it for selfish reasons but really, I don't think I think about that beforehand or even pay much attention afterward.  Seems like just a bonus, if all goes well....and if not, it can be a kick in the face so ya.....being generous can even be dangerous under some circumstances...a risk).

As to happiness, I like this quote:

"Happiness is not a choice, but a circumstance." which I believe is a shortened version of:

"Happiness is not in our circumstance but in ourselves. It is not something we see, ... Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times."
Scottish Proverb

Perhaps?

Sela

On edit...after thinking on it some more......

Maybe I'm just stubborn and refuse to give up my belief that some people are just simply generous and it's a good thing that most others appreciate?
I guess it goes hand in hand with my other  belief that some people are just selfish, a bad thing that most others do not appreciate?
A little black.....a little white......likely most people are usually some shade of grey

[teartracks]

Be as generous as you wish, just don't look like lunch! 

tt

[Dr. Richard Grossman]

Hi CB,

Thanks for your terrific post.  I appreciated it.  One comment:  some would argue that the age group that is being tested (sometimes known as Gen Y) is more narcissistic than preceding groups.  If so, the study would implicate this age group, rather than the population at large.  But I think you're right--we never know how much we can generalize from findings like this--the sample is just not broad enough.

Richard

[teartracks]

Hi CB,

In the US, on the other hand, we love stories about people who rose from nothing and then gave back to the community they came from.   We love grand displays of generosity--at least as a viewer.

I think both observations are true.  Generally, I 'trust' the one who rose from nothing and gives back to the community.  I don't trust the grand displays of generosity (whether they rose from nothing or from 'something') where distribution is done by  grand 'handlers'.  Maybe it 'feels' like leaving the distribution to the grand handlers sets the stage for and is apt to become the breeding ground for N's regardless of whether the giver is one.  But where the article is concerned, what I think on this point is of little or no  consequence.

tt



    

[Sela]

TT, as Rodney Dangerfield said:

"I looked up my family tree and found out I was the sap."

 

Hey Guest!  I love your new signature, if you adopt it!

This topic must have hit a nerve some where for me.  See new thread "Vivid Dream".

Maybe I don't "hate" generosity but maybe, like TT, I don't trust it?

Sela