In the New Scientist recently was an article about what the authors call pathological altruism. They cite the case of a woman who lured her estranged husband to her home, then coldbloodedly shot him first in the back, then again and having killed him, disposed of the body very carefully. Despite the facts of the case being clear, there is apparently a group of supporters who believe she is a victim, rather than a perpetrator. These people hold to this view in spite of the clear facts of the case. You may need to register to view the story

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128290.300-the-dark-side-of-altruism.html?full=true

They say: "A pathological altruist is someone who is sincerely motivated to help others, but whose supposedly altruistic acts have harmful consequences."

I believe this has become endemic in our society and informs a lot of the advocacy that has so contaminated the debate on social welfare. I'd go further and suggest that some Sociology departments, especially the Gender studies branch of places like UniSa, LAtrobe, Uni of Wollongong, Uni of NSW, have become dominated by such pathological altruists. I've called such people "victimologists", but that doesn't properly describe the pathological nature of their behaviours.

The pathology is evident in the way facts are regarded as subordinate to intent. In other words, "selctive use/misuse of information", to quote Charles Pragnell (who is associated with a group based around UniSA) is perfectly reasonable if one is doing it for "the right reasons". The pathology has been used by less scrupulous types to manipulate public discussion, or "progressively frame the debate" as George Lakoff put it.

The Family Law is another area in which these pathological altruists wreak havoc. Education is another, even healthcare has become skewed through such a pathology, with huge money being spent on some areas and much less on other areas of need at least as great, simply because of misdirected altruism.

So what do we do about it? Do we need to do anything, or will it run its course once the boomtimes end?

Antiseptic

Examples of pathological altruism abound. It well describes many of the so-called asylum seeker "activists."

Back in the 1920s Lenin called those susceptible to pathological altruism "useful fools." So this has been going on for a long time and, no, I don't think it will fade away

Decisions about health and education are tied to more than just altruism. There are many other influences, pressures and biases from various lobby groups. Maybe sometimes those decisions will be flawed. If you mean the 'do gooder' sydrome there is nothing wrong with that if there is some rationale to the 'cause'.

If pathological altruism leads to bad ends I guess it defeats the purpose of helping others. One definition states pathological altruism is more damaging to the giver when altruism becomes so self-sacrificing the individual suffers as a consequence.

Sometimes people do kill in self defence and that is recognised widely by the Courts. (I did not register to read the particulars of the case you refer.) Altruism is a desire to help others and maybe in relation to justice to identify shades of grey. It is a difficult area because victims and their families may not be satisfied by the outcome of a trial in all cases. Sometimes the accused may also incur a harsher than necessary punishment as well - pathological altruism may work both ways in these sorts of scenarios.

It is a bit like Left and Right politics, over time the excesses of one ideology usually lead to it's demise with a move to the centre or the 'opposite'. When that cycle or trend becomes extreme with bad outcomes, the opposite happens again in a push pull cycle. One big balancing act.

As long as the opposite of pathological altruism is not to ignore victims altogether and withdraw all supports because it has becme politically incorrect or unpopular, that would be an equally bad scenario. Balance is rarely achieved to everybody's satisfaction.

Dear Antiseptic,

You said; “The Family Law is another area in which these pathological altruists wreak havoc. Education is another, even healthcare has become skewed through such a pathology, with huge money being spent on some areas and much less on other areas of need at least as great, simply because of misdirected altruism.”.

However without solid examples there isn't much to debate. How about giving us something decent to get our teeth into because it might turn into a good discussion, though probably along idealogical lines.

Here is one to get us started. The teachers at my kid's state school will readily admit that 60% of their time is spent on 20% of the students. I understand that in a State school there is far less inclination to 'weed out' disruptive, or high need children from a class. I suppose I am exhibiting a kind of altruism since I do believe in the societal benefits of my kids and their peers accommodating those with differing abilities and those coming from a range of different circumstances.

Dear stephenlmeyer,

The same goes for you. You claim; “Examples of pathological altruism abound. It well describes many of the so-called asylum seeker "activists."”. What? Were the efforts by the Australian government and various church groups to take in large numbers of Jewish immigrants after WW2 'pathological altruism'? Please explain a little further if you would.

Pelican, I'm not referring to those who are pushing a barrow necessarily. There are all sorts of reasons for people to want to agitate for some aoutcome or other, including simple self-interest. I'm more interested in the people who are very sincerely motivated to create a good outcome for others, but whose efforts are so misdirected that bad outcomes occur. If the supporters of the murderous woman discussed in the OP had their way, there would have been a bad miscarriage of justice, for example. They simply refuse to believe facts that contradict their preformed view of her as a victim and as we all know from the decades of propaganda, victims can never be blamed for anything.

csteele, you're right, it was a thin start. I think the common factor I'm looking at is the tendency to reduce complex matters to overly-simplistic dichotomies in which there is a "villain" and a "hero" and very often a "victim" that the hero is "rescuing", whether the victim needs it or not. Here's a few examples of the sort of thing I'm refering to.

In the Family Law: approximately 80% of all FL matters are resolved without intervention. Of the remainder, approximately 80% are resolved without recourse to the Court - through mediation and consent orders - meaning only about 5% of all family law matters end up in court. Of that 5%, nearly all involve either large property disputes or children's matters or both and nearly all involve some allegation of violence, usually of a pretty minor nature, such as shouting or mutual argumentation. Yet, if we believe the advocates, "family violence" is an apparently enormous problem, that needs urgent changes to the FLA to "protect children". The reality and the pathological construct are at odds with each other and the pathology is coming out on top. If the current changes go through, as seems likely, many kids will suffer separation from their fathers because some small number of families can't get on.

[cont]

A similar type of pathology occurs in healthcare, where the altruism of Glen McGrath, having lost his wife to breast cancer, has lead to the establishment of the McGrath foundation and the widespread success of "Pink Ribbon Day". However, this has a dark side, as well, with the Cancer Council making the point last year that other cancers have more impact and receive less funding, while the McGrath foundation has large cash reserves and has exceeded its funding requiements. In terms of population health generally, Aboriginal outcomes are much worse than for other groups, yet I can't recall anyone suggesting we have a "Black Ribbon" day to raise funds for Aboriginal health research. Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.

Similarly, in education we have had a massive effort to create "safe" schools and to stamp out bullying. This is leading to unprecedented rates of suspensions and expulsions. I would also suggest that it is leading to a cohort of people who will have little capacity for resilience in the face of unpleasant behaviours and is creating a group of students that will suffer life-long disadvantage through having missed out on important school opportunities because they were identified by pathological altruists as being "perpetrators" and therefore less worthy of consideration.

Further, in education there is a massive disconnect between the results that boys achieve and those of girls, largely as a result of altruistic intentions to make schooling more accessible to girls. Boys now make up only about 2/5 of the students at university, yet the pathology continues, with no abatement.

There are many, many other examples of the ways in which public policy is being skewed to the detriment of all by the best of intentions, manipulated by those with less than pure intentions of their own. The point of Newspeak was to pervert people's perceptions, after all. Some call this "debate framing".