The trap of altruism

[trenton]

I'm coming to the realization that altruism was likely a false life purpose for me. I didn't always have this leaning. For me there is something that resonated from Buddhist traditions in that altruism is a form of self punishment in that it is self sacrifice for a perceived greater cause. In my case the sacrifice felt worth it because my identity was already destroyed, so whatever identity I sacrifice is a miserable one anyway. However, this is a set up for self destruction regardless of any noble acts I ever do.

I'm now trying to figure out a purpose that is independent of altruism. I'm trying to figure out how to define my self worth in some way other than my utility to other human beings. No matter how many children I save from kidnappers or victims of predatory loaning I help it doesn't feel like it's enough to fill my inner void. These acts are designed to be proof of my inherent goodness and worth which I am still not convinced of despite the acts.

Furthermore, the reason I am drawn to changing systems and understanding social structures is because I am looking for ways to help the maximum number of people. This is why I am drawn to politics and "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, in my case I was happy with practicing to become a professional chess player. The reason I didn't do that is because of a series of obstacles I seemed unable to overcome. Therefore, I needed to create an alternative life purpose beyond chess. In order to compensate my misery and justify my continued existence despite the years of my life lost pursuing a false hope of joy and fulfillment, I increasingly emphasized my utility to others. I can't make a living off of chess because it is not valued by others in the same way I loved it.

The outcome is that following my passion was never really an option, but trying to change broken systems is even more unrealistic than becoming a grandmaster in chess. If replacing things that made me happy with altruism doesn't work, then I'm in new territory. I genuinely don't know what other type of purpose to pursue.

If I can't get fulfillment from career, impact, passion, and things of that nature, then what other purpose should I have? I could try relationships, but it requires building a new support system outside of my family. Maybe fulfilling relationships are possible, but I would need to move out to the right location with the right support systems.

Furthermore, the only other logical choice for meaning and fulfillment might be spirituality. The problem is that Truth and God transcend the self and meaning altogether. This would probably be spiritual bypassing if I tried committing my life to these things. Part of me doubts that I would be good enough to be a sage given my kind of track record and what goes on in my head and what I have been through. Of course I know I keep saying "I" even though I don't exist and it happens because I have a hard time describing things without contextualizing them within the framework of the ego self. Without "I" I don't know how to think, so no need to remind me that I haven't awakened. If spirituality really were a path to some kind of acceptable existence, then meditation and psychedelics seem like they might be an answer, although the outcome may not be practical change depending on how it is executed.

I unfortunately don't see any other paths to meaning and purpose. If altruism isn't the answer, then I need to rethink this whole situation in terms of what my goal should be. I have no idea what other sources of meaning I could be using.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

Trenton, this realization is not a failure. It is a liberation. You have correctly identified that you were running a moral ponzi scheme: borrowing self-worth from future noble acts to pay off a debt of present shame. That scheme always crashes.

You asked: 'If I can't get fulfillment from career, impact, passion... what other purpose should I have?'

The answer is competence.

You mentioned you loved chess. You gave it up because it wasn't useful or valued enough. Then you switched to changing systems to be useful, but found it overwhelming.

Here is the reframe: Politics IS chess.

The reason you are burnt out is that you are trying to play the game of politics/systems like a social worker (trying to heal every pawn) instead of like a grandmaster (trying to solve the board).

1. The trap of deficiency altruism
Maslow distinguished between deficiency needs and being needs.
Deficiency altruism: 'I feel empty, so I will help you so I can feel full.' (This is what you were doing).
Abundance altruism: 'I am overflowing with energy/skill, so fixing this problem is just natural play for me.'
You are currently in the deficiency zone. You cannot help anyone from there. You have to stop.

2. Reclaim the game
You said you were happy practicing to be a chess professional. That means you enjoy deep strategy, pattern recognition, and system mastery.
You don't need to be a grandmaster to use that engine.
The world is drowning in people who care (altruism). The world is starving for people who can see the moves (strategy).

Your new purpose:
Stop trying to save people. Start trying to solve the structural puzzles that trap them.
Don't approach a predatory loan victim with 'oh, you poor thing, let me hold you.' (That drains you).
Approach the banking system with 'This is a poorly designed algorithm. How do I checkmate this mechanic?' (That engages your chess brain).

3. Permission to be selfish
You need a period of what I call strategic selfishness.
If you don't exist, you can't help. Go back to the things that stimulate your mind (even if it's just studying chess again, or coding, or reading heavy theory). Fill your own cup first. When you act from a place of intellectual curiosity rather than moral obligation, you will find you are infinitely more effective, and you won't resent the people you are helping.

[trenton]

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Thank you very much for this response.

This is the direction I was thinking in. I have been looking into ways to change systems that trap people, or perhaps develop alternatives that might help people escape from the systems that trap them. Of course, my goal is not to help every individual because that is impossible. The most efficient way to help people would be by having a stronger system in place that can support as many people as possible. To me an obvious example would be a homeless man. I could give him some money to buy a meal, but once the money runs out he will be in the same spot as before begging for food. If there are hundreds of thousands of desperate people like him, then there needs to be a more efficient system for supporting such people, although this is complicated by many factors including political opposition to housing first programs along with inadequate systems for criminal rehabilitation and mental health services. My tendency is to look toward building a better system, but of course this is hard to do.

I have looked into things like game theory, and I applied it across many domains while discovering the limits of game theory as well. Some of the systems I looked into include economics, international relations, sociology, environmental policy, organizational behavior, education, criminal justice (the one that inspired me to use game theory), politics, and religion. I noticed that American society is efficiently aligned toward wealth concentration in terms of its incentive structures across many different fields, including religion which is required to satisfy its billionaire donors by painting Jesus as if he were a capitalist. Meta game theory goes into how the incentives should be structured and what outcomes should they be aligned toward. Again, this is hard to do if my methods require interfacing with broken systems, especially the legal system due to various lobbyists and interest groups who might oppose my methods if I don't properly account for them.

I have a couple of examples that might work, and I am looking for more examples. In the case of an individual I helped, it was a victim of predatory loaning who was repeatedly failed by the legal system in which no lawyer was willing to take her case. I have come to understand why this likely happened because prosecutors are caught in the same incentive structures that make it difficult to win against white collar criminals and costly if you lose. The way I helped her wasn't by fighting hopeless legal battles or uphill activist movements against injustice. Instead I researched programs that might help the victims of predatory loaning, and I discovered that she qualified for a program that was open during the Biden administration. When she managed to get her debt forgiven, she cried tears of joy because of how much I had changed her life by showing her an alternative to the hopeless court battles she had been fighting. On the other hand, I bare in mind the fact that there were likely tens of thousands of victims of predatory loaning who never realized they qualified for this program. There are still alternative programs that might help with such matters should lawyers fail people like my coworker.

Another example, I have in mind might be recategorizing different types of sexual abuse due to how the mental health system failed me repeatedly and caused other problems. This might have a chance to succeed in that it requires minimum interfacing with legal systems, but I would still have to face other problematic systems. One example would be to use the term "legally recognized sexual offenses." This makes it less ambiguous than "childhood sexual abuse" because the mental health system and the legal system use two different definitions for this which in turn creates a lot of confusion for people entering the mental health system. Other categories might include "psycho-sexual abuse" which typically is not legally recognized, but can be just as damaging as physical sexual abuse in terms of the psychological impact. The lack of legal recognition for psycho-sexual abuse adds to the confusion when the mental health system does consider this sexual abuse. I might be able to explore how recategorizing these matters might be a means of reducing confusion, thereby helping people to recognize different types of abuse they may have experienced and then get appropriate help.

I have many ideas for changes that need to happen within our overall collection of systems, but that seems nearly impossible to accomplish. I'm currently trying to think of examples of systems failures in which there are battles that are small enough to win and big enough to matter. I would like to come up with more examples other than the two I just mentioned.

I am still lost in terms of how I should go about developing some kind of career around systems design, and what specific systems should I be focusing on. I previously tried going back to college for social work with the idea of joining a think tank, but my education was interrupted by medical complications related to depression. I tried appealing the loans to get them cancelled and although the college said they would take care of it, they did not leading me to pay out of pocket for classes I was unable to attend. It seems to be hard to change a system when you yourself are a victim of the system that blames you for its failures. This is the difference between real life and chess. In chess I am in control of all of my army and I have perfect information on my opponent's army. Meanwhile, in real life I myself am a pawn in the system or a cog in the dysfunctional machines. In order to have my ideas implemented, then like in the game of chess I need to be positioned with control or power, which requires entering a corrupt legal system. At least in chess the rules are clearly defined, but in real life the rules are constantly changed or ignored based on who they serve.

Part of my problem is that I don't know who values people like me with these specific interests, even though it clearly seems to be what the world needs on many fronts. I am then lost on how to go about building such a career around such interests while being caught in the systems I wish to change. I have considered think tanks before, but one of the problems with think tanks is that the think tanks which get the most influence and funding are those who work for the military industrial complex, giving them disproportionate influence while keeping those who contradict them insignificant regardless of factual accuracy.

Will I need to invent a system for changing systems?