Talk:Selfishness/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias

I believe that the first paragraph is biased. The introduction shouldn't describe any particular view but a basic description of what the word means. I plan on changing it. I will, however, keep the descriptions. D prime 03:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Egotistical?

When I was in psychology class we learnt a definition of egotistical that was different from selfishness. Should they really be in the same article? Ashi129.105.14.216 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation & reword

Added VoS citation (copied from above, tx).--TJ 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Reworded "is claimed requires" to "is defined to require" which tries to preserve the original meaning while sounding better.--TJ 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Interest

Selfishness: Jungle Self Interest, Enlightened self-interest:

• Survival is proportional to your power.

• A strong tribe in a jungle is more likely to survive than a weak tribe.

• Survival of the fittest; there are no laws—power makes right.

But technological advancement and training bring Enlightenment:

• Societal (enlightened) self-interest:

• Survival is proportional to playing by the rules, laws, or custom—right makes power.

Yesselman 21:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtue of Selfishness

From Introduction of Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, ISBN: 0451163931, p. vii.

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?"

To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it."

But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.

It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual "package-deal," which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word "selfishness" is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is: concern with one's own {true} interests.

From Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, ISBN: 0451163931, p. 70 by Nathanel Branden.

A genuine selfishness—that is: a genuine concern with discovering what is to one's self-interest, an acceptance of the responsibility of achieving it, a refusal ever to betray it by acting on the blind whim, mood, impulse or feeling of the moment, an uncompromising loyalty to one's judgment, convictions and values—represents a profound moral achievement. Those who assert that "everyone is selfish" commonly intend their statement as an expression of cynicism and contempt. But the truth is that their statement pays mankind a compliment it does not deserve.

Yesselman 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"The image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment."

Give me a break. It sounds like your confusing selfishness for nihilism, of which is absolutely not intention.

"Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is: concern with one's own {true} interests."

And that's because it's exactly right. Resaebiunne 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Altruism

I removed the statement before the "See Also" section which refered to Altruism as "the opposite of selfishness." This is not necessarily the case. Resaebiunne 16:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Selfishness = Good?

We have an article on selfishness and every subheading is about theories or ideas that view selfishness in only a positive light? That is obvious bias and this article needs information from the other side about the negative aspects of selfishness. U R A GR8 M8 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Tagged for neutrality check. 3Tigers 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Selfishness regarded as good, or a healthy thing

This section seems completely inappropriate here and looks like a commercial for some kind of pseudo-philosophical movement. By the way, which "non religious philosophies" is the author talking about ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.138.189.207 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

How is this section innappropriate? Is it because it is generally vague, or is it moreso the notion that selfishness is good? If the later, there's nothing wrong with the statement, and it should be pointed out. --Resaebiunne 07:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not the concept itself that's the problem. The problem in the section is much bigger than this. It has an "opinionating" quality, both in tone and the fact that there is so little sourced content evident from the text in that section to support the claims. Professor marginalia 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

POV check

There is work needed in other areas as well, but the article in its current state is too opinionated, and not NPOV. Since at least two of us are leaning toward a top to bottom rewrite, I'd rather remove the existing content than waste time editing it for neutrality. I see little to gain from keeping it, and think the superior option is just to eliminate the sections leaving the intro as stub. New content can be added as it is ready. Opinions? Professor marginalia 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some major cleanup and removed the tag. The job at hand now is to add supportable information which is about selfishness. The article can incorporate discussion of selfishness vs self-interest. Perhaps a separate article about self-interest is valuable as well.Professor marginalia 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

'Sole' concern change

160.193.56.93 changed the first paragraph/sentence from:

• Selfishness is a primary or sole concern with one's own welfare.

to:

• Selfishness is a primary or sole concern with one's own welfare without concerning the others' welfare.

Um, what exactly do you think "sole" implies? :) Reverting. - Korpios 02:21, 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Term "sole" does not cover the meaning deep enough. Collins Cobuild defines the term as follows:

Selfish:

"If you say that someone is selfish, you mean that he or she cares only about himself or herself, and not about other people"

From Dictionary.com:

"Concerned chiefly or only with oneself"

Exactly how does "sole" not "cover the meaning deep enough"? It seems to cover the meaning exactly. "Sole" means "Of or relating to only one individual or group; exclusive" (again, Dictionary.com). Are you arguing against the inclusion of "primary or"? If so, again, note the definition; one can be selfish and care for others so long as one's chief, primary, main concern is for oneself.

- Korpios 02:47, 25 June 2004 (UTC)

i feel that in common usage "selfishness" is more a tendency to have "primary or sole concern with one's own welfare" than a concern per se. sure, when you speak of someone's selfishness in a particular circumstance, you really do mean the latter. but generally you probably mean a character trait that is not restricted to a particular concern. - 160.39.129.96

Wouldn't the meaning you suggest simply be a "tendency for selfishness"? - Korpios 20:52, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

If it is only going to be a description, you minus well put it in the wiktionary. Please make an article out of this, not a dictionary term. Thenk you.--72.74.112.203 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a top to bottom rewrite

This article is subjective and poorly written, especially in comparison with similar articles on ethical terms, psychological states, and philosophic concepts. It needs a top to bottom rewrite with sources, not "to some it means" and "to others", or subjective concepts stated as fact (the mother-daughter story). It cites no dictionary definitions of the term, and confuses the meanings of "selfishness" (which always implies exploitation or lack of conscience) with "self-interest" (which doesn't). Tagging.3Tigers 01:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I went WP:BOLD with the intro but am inclined to go further and scrap much of the rest of the article too. This could be a good article here--but needs a lot of work and, sorry to be so blunt but I don't see myself that there is much to work with in it as it is. There are various religious and moral opinions about it, philosophical views including objectivism, economics, politics, and on and on. Professor marginalia 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the remainder, which was off-the-top-of-the-head, unsupported, POV etc. A clean start is needed.Professor marginalia 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a complete rewrite, and preferably multiple definitions for selfishness. Most definitions imply or state explicitly that selfishness is negative, and that it requires doing harm to others. But some (notably Ayn Rand, as quoted in an above section) define selfishness as "rational self-interest". I believe that this article should at least mention this definition, to represent all points of view on the matter. realityChemist 23:26, 1 September 2011 (EST)

I would say delete it, put it out of its misery. The stuff that's supposed to be "Game Theory" is especially pathetic. Maybe replace with a disambig page with links in different categories. The current patient is beyond saving as a regular article but what's here is good material for a such a page. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidate Sources for Game Theory

Until we've resolved the above discussion, I will list candidate sources here (where they will not be deleted by reversion):

http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_G000007&q=game%20theory&topicid=&result_number=3 "Blaming game theory – or, for that matter, economic theory – for selfishness is like blaming bacteriology for disease. Game theory studies selfishness, it does not recommend it."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

Jj1236 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition and discussion

I find that another user has re-included the suggestion that "selfishness" is to the detriment of others, but the cited source does not display any such claim in the dictionary definition. This requires better sourcing than what is present currently. The section on game theory is entirely un-referenced (linking it to Game Theory does not transfer the strength of the latter's references). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate procedure is to add citation needed to materials with insufficient sourcing. If no sources are provided in a reasonable time (typically a few months), then the material may be removed. In this case, you can find the sources by following the link to Game Theory. If you consider further sourcing as necessary for this material, please follow the link and add the sources. Here is another source to add for the definition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfish . I will return to this when I have more time, and welcome any help improving the content and sources. Thank you!Jj1236 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources. The practice is not to leave around uncited material for "typically a few months". I am reverting your changes, further misrepresentations and edit warring will be reported and you may be blocked from editing if your unhelpful attitude continues. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, My apologies for anything perceived as unhelpful. For the policy, please see Template:Citation Needed, as well as WP:NOCITE. The latter entry says that "citation needed" should be pending for a "reasonable time." What qualifies as a reasonable time is up for interpretation, and depends on contextual factors such as how many people are regularly editing a page. The "selfishness" page as relatively few visitors and few contributors, and so a few months seemed like a fair window. What alternative time frame would you suggest?

Here is the definition that I had in mind from that source: 1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc, esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others.

With regards to using "self-interest" as a synonym for selfishness, there is some room for debate. It seems useful, and common in regular usage, to distinguish between actions that harm oneself, actions that help oneself, and perhaps actions that are neutral to oneself (if that is possible, given opportunity costs and baseline energy expenditure). Furthermore, the same evaluation applies with regards to others. In common usage, we do not say that someone is being selfish when she donates money or time to a charity (which does not materially benefit herself), even if making the donation makes her feel good and she prefers to live in a society where people make such donations. Such broader consideration is sometimes called enlightened self-interest. We say that someone is being selfish when his choices materially benefit himself at the expense of others.

I would be happy to discuss this more, as well as to discuss the sources from the game theory page. Which of those sources do you think is inadequate, and which (if any) are good candidates for importing to this page? Jj1236 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say include uncited assertions with a {{cn}} template and leave it there for a few months. And a reasonable time frame is not interpreted as a "few months" on Wikipedia. Either you produce proper sourcing, or you remove material. Newly added material needs to be backed up by proper sourcing or it will be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)