On the subject of the academic side of things that I mentioned earlier, the field of social constructionism is rich with the pathologically altruistic, especially those departments that identify primarily as Feminist. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that Feminism is an ideology that is reliant on such pathology.

A grat deal of the output of the departments I mentioned is concerned with Feminist discourse and attempts to justify special treatment for women. Now I'm not suggesting that anyone who wants to help women is pathological, but a quick perusal of the outputs of the departments mentioned will show a clear prefernce for a social construction that has "man as violent brute to be controlled and burdened with obligations/woman as idealised paragon to be exalted and freed of all responsibility for outcomes". This fits well with a Victorian middle-class view but is not terribly helpful in a world in which women are competing with men as equals, doing the same work, competing for the same opportunities. Instead, it creates conflict and discord and taints the normal sense of mutual obligation that informs most people's personal relationships. Men are not to be given the option of exercising their finer feelings - they are to be compelled to act in certain ways even if they would have chosen to do so anyway. In other words, good actions receive no credit, while actions defined as "not good" receive much opprobrium, whether genuinely bad, or simply not in the "good" set.

In another thread, someone made the point that we are no longer assumed to be able to do whatever is not prohibited, we are constrained by what is permitted, often for the best of reasons. Qld even has a law relating to participating in "unregulated high-risk activity". I think that is pathological.

Dear Antiseptic,

Can I try and trim the broad brush a little.

Firstly to Family Law. Are you not as guilty as those you accuse when you draw from your statistics the conclusion that family violence is only an issue in only a few cases of 5% of 20% of a further 20% of the whole? A recent fairly amicable divorce close to our family that didn't get near the Family Court certainly had potentially serious violence issues associated with the relationship. In another case one of my in-laws was stabbed 19 times by her divorced husband. Would her record at the Family Court show up in your statistics as non-violent? Probably.

You state; “Yet, if we believe the advocates, "family violence" is an apparently enormous problem, that needs urgent changes to the FLA to "protect children".”

We don't need advocates telling us there is a problem when we have cases in my state of father's throwing their daughters off the Westgate Bridge or driving their three kids into a dam to drown. The rightful feeling of utter horror at these deaths surely warrant calls from the community to have their government act to combat such violence. I would hardly call this 'pathological altruism'.

To health, One easily imagines Glen McGrath's work in setting up and promoting the Foundation as probably being very cathartic for him and his family but one would need to look closely at the donation figures for cancer funding to decide if there has been a pathological result. I suspect while there may well have been some skewing of which cancers receive the most funds there will have almost certainly been a bigger pie because of his efforts. As it is often only the realised result that can determine if an altruistic act is pathological we are left with the conclusion that as an aggregate altruism is a good thing and we wouldn't want to dissuade the community from engaging in it. What would you have had Mr McGrath do instead?

Cont..

Cont..

You said “Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.”.

Surely all altruists exhibit this tendency. Why should the pathological ones, if they exist, be any different?

To education. There is currently a rush to private school driven, in part, by the belief that the lack of discipline and out of control bullying is rampant in public schools. It is hardly an altruistic act to send one's child to a private school nor is it altruistic to want to disruptive and bullying children removed from the school be it public or private. I can imagine a far more substantial case being made about pathological altruism against those advocating the retention of these students within a school body to the obvious detriment of other students and their outcomes.

The issue of the boy/girl ratios at university is in part a furphy. I have a child doing VCE at the moment. Many boys at their school are not focussed on high ENTER scores but on gaining apprenticeships. A case in point is one of my nieces who is slogging her way through full time employment and a part time uni course while her boyfriend of the same age who works in a trade and pays more tax than her annual wage. Both are only a couple of years out of school. Many of the jobs the current boom is delivering are male orientated. Women now need to chase university degrees to have even the slightest hope of competing in wage parity.

I'm willing to concede this is probably a personal perception thing but many of your examples and arguments tend to have you yourself coming off as the victim. I'm sure there are stronger examples out there to support your position but the chatter from 'ivory tower feminists' doesn't support the conclusion that pathological altruism “has become endemic in our society and informs a lot of the advocacy that has so contaminated the debate on social welfare.”

If your primary issue is with the Family Law then perhaps we should focus on that.

'I suspect while there may well have been some skewing of which cancers receive the most funds there will have almost certainly been a bigger pie because of his efforts. As it is often only the realised result that can determine if an altruistic act is pathological we are left with the conclusion that as an aggregate altruism is a good thing and we wouldn't want to dissuade the community from engaging in it. '

Sounds like the trickle down effect to me. Who cares about the divide between rich and poor. Somehow I doubt a simliarly generous appraisal of 'Big Business' from one csteele.

'I can imagine a far more substantial case being made about pathological altruism against those advocating the retention of these students within a school body to the obvious detriment of other students and their outcomes. '

Wow! Perhaps there's been a personality change. Will the real csteele please stand up!

'"selctive use/misuse of information", to quote Charles Pragnell '

I'll Dorothy Dixer you anti! Please provide links.

I admire that kind of honesty. Like when MrRabbit said don't take everything I say as concrete policy and they all shouted 'Liar'!

I'm happy with the acceptance of the fact people will do and say anyhting to further their agenda. Mr Rabbit does it, ALL lobby groups do it, and so does Juliar.

In summary, as I have said before, I am no longer shockled by 1 in 3 that 50% that, epidemic, crisis, any quoting of any 'statistics'. Espicially the economy losing $Billions a year.

IT IS ALL CRAP.

No matter how 'altruistic' the motives, I say, f^ck em all!

Zero tolerance. Don't believe the Hype!

The more any charitity claims 100% of people are victims of xyz, it makes me all the less inclined to give them anything.

f^ck em all! Liars the lot of them.

The ends does not justify the means.

On the heads of every PR department, every marketer, every self-serving career-building advocate and shrill statistics screaching awareness raiser is the ZERO dollars I will give to any of these charlatans.

Want me to wear a red nose? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear a little badge? F^ck Off!

Want me to grow a moustache? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear jeans today? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear pink for..? F^ck Off!

Want me to cry a river or look shocked and concerned for your 1 in 3 people yada yad? F^ck Off! F^ck Off! F^ck Off!

I AM ALREADY AWARE OF WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE 'RAISING AWARENESS' ie SPREADING PROPAGANDA ABOUT.

ALL CHARITY SHOULD BE GIVEN ANONYMOUSLY AND DISCRETELY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO GRANDSTRAND ABOUT.

Play all the violins you want call me anything under the sun but I really couldn't give a toss about your conspicuous 'caring'. If I want to care, I'll do it in private, with dignity (No red nose, in jeans I wear every day) without making a big f^cking song and dance full of deception and lies and hypocracy.

Anti, Somebody in the thread - sorry but I lost track - said “Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.” and this is the crux of the problem and makes me think that it is more useful to describe this sort of behaviour as 'tribalism'.

Tribalism is a recognised psychological term, based on the idea that behaviour is based on the idea that we evolved in small tribal groups and so the sort of behaviour that goes with tribalism still motivates us. Members of a tribal group support each other no matter what - no rule of law type of thinking. The group member is always right and the outsider always wrong.

It seems to me that the people referred to in the Scientific American article, who support this woman as a victim of male violence, despite all the contrary evidence, are part of a tribe; a tribe who support women against men no matter what.

They have a type of psychological functioning - based on brain chemistry and neuronal connectivity - that makes them more able to ignore any disconfirming evidence. It seems that it is highly emotive issues that allow the worst examples of irrationality - is that a word?

I don't think there is any need to make up a new term when there are already more 'basic' terms to describe the behaviour and I'm not convinced that the behaviour is pathological or altruistic.