Huh? You said the idea of sources talking to journalists is perplexing, mystifying, and indicates “unknowable” psychology, but then listed one of the obvious — not perplexing, not mystifying, and eminently knowable — explanations for this behaviour, i.e., a sense of moral obligation or social responsibility.
It’s not perplexing, mystifying, or unknowable at all! You said why it happens!
I find posts like this unsettling. This is such a Machiavellian, cynical, dominance-oriented mindset — obsessed with power, obsessed with status, obsessed with advancing your own narrow self-interest. What kind of people are you hanging out with? Frank Underwood?
My experience of people is that they mostly don’t think and act in this way. Most people:
Often care more about ideals or the public good or contributing to society than about advancing their own individual self-interest
Are willing to make small altruistic self-sacrifices for strangers (and occasionally medium or large ones)
Have a strong sense of empathy for people who are suffering, for stray and cats and dogs, etc. and feel a sense of hopelessness and despair when the problem feels too big or they feel like they can’t help enough (or don’t know how, or don’t have the will to sacrifice more)
Are often willing to go out of their way to help neighbours, acquaintances, or members of their community very generously and kindly, not out of a desire to manipulate people into liking them but out of a genuine sense of emotional connection to these people and a sense of care for them — this is true even when the help given is not visible and when the chances of the help ever being reciprocated are zero or very low (e.g. people will often go out of their way to help, say, an elderly neighbour with dementia in a way that nobody sees and that the neighbour doesn’t have the capacity to reciprocate)
Don’t think that often about which actions signal what ideas, or about which actions are high-status or low-status, and think more in concrete terms like “does this person like me?” or “if I say this, will people get mad at me and say mean things to me?”
Are more driven by a desire for authentic love, connection, and belonging than anything else in life
Find the idea of having significant power over other people more scary than appealing
Ah yes, unfortunately journalists are very cynical in general (more on this in the upcoming newsroom epistemics post.) And rationalists are very suspicious of journalists. Together, that means my points probably sound pretty cynical/defensive. I agree with you that in practice some sources are motivated by altruistic, pro-social reasons as well.
Huh? You said the idea of sources talking to journalists is perplexing, mystifying, and indicates “unknowable” psychology, but then listed one of the obvious — not perplexing, not mystifying, and eminently knowable — explanations for this behaviour, i.e., a sense of moral obligation or social responsibility.
It’s not perplexing, mystifying, or unknowable at all! You said why it happens!
I find posts like this unsettling. This is such a Machiavellian, cynical, dominance-oriented mindset — obsessed with power, obsessed with status, obsessed with advancing your own narrow self-interest. What kind of people are you hanging out with? Frank Underwood?
My experience of people is that they mostly don’t think and act in this way. Most people:
Often care more about ideals or the public good or contributing to society than about advancing their own individual self-interest
Are willing to make small altruistic self-sacrifices for strangers (and occasionally medium or large ones)
Have a strong sense of empathy for people who are suffering, for stray and cats and dogs, etc. and feel a sense of hopelessness and despair when the problem feels too big or they feel like they can’t help enough (or don’t know how, or don’t have the will to sacrifice more)
Are often willing to go out of their way to help neighbours, acquaintances, or members of their community very generously and kindly, not out of a desire to manipulate people into liking them but out of a genuine sense of emotional connection to these people and a sense of care for them — this is true even when the help given is not visible and when the chances of the help ever being reciprocated are zero or very low (e.g. people will often go out of their way to help, say, an elderly neighbour with dementia in a way that nobody sees and that the neighbour doesn’t have the capacity to reciprocate)
Don’t think that often about which actions signal what ideas, or about which actions are high-status or low-status, and think more in concrete terms like “does this person like me?” or “if I say this, will people get mad at me and say mean things to me?”
Are more driven by a desire for authentic love, connection, and belonging than anything else in life
Find the idea of having significant power over other people more scary than appealing
Ah yes, unfortunately journalists are very cynical in general (more on this in the upcoming newsroom epistemics post.) And rationalists are very suspicious of journalists. Together, that means my points probably sound pretty cynical/defensive. I agree with you that in practice some sources are motivated by altruistic, pro-social reasons as well.