Symptoms and Theories

A friend of mine once told me that taking a class in mental disorders made her think that she (and everyone else in the world) had about 10 of them all at once because she kept seeing the symptoms of these disorders in her own (and others) behaviors. The truth was, she didn't have any of these disorders. But simply learning about them made her see those things in herself. I thought it was kind of funny that she thought there were all of these things wrong with her when it was quite obvious to me that she did not have any of these disorders just because she exhibited some of the symptoms.

This semester, I am in a theories in family perspectives class. One theory that we recently learned about is called Social Exchange Theory. The basic idea is that humans are self-interested and will try to maximize rewards and minimize costs in every situation they are faced with to have the most profitable outcome possible. A lot of research in the area of relationships has been done using this theory and it makes sense because isn't that what we all want in our relationships with others, be it coworkers, friends, or family? To maximize our rewards and minimize our costs? In learning about this theory, I've been seeing myself in some of the concepts that are presented. Or maybe it is just that now I have been exposed to this new information, I think that I am displaying some of the 'symptoms' of this theory.

However, there is a critique of this theory that also makes sense. If humans are self-interested, how can we account for altruism (kindness to others)? I think about church lessons on service and charity and how they always point out that even though we are helping others, we are also helping ourselves because we are happy as a result of our kindness. Does this mean that every time we do something nice for someone it is because we are trying to serve ourselves because we think we are going to get something out of it? Or is it just a happy byproduct?

Another critique of this theory also attacks the idea of self-interest. It claims that if we, as humans, are always trying to serve our own self-interest, then how can we account for sacrifice? When I think of sacrifice, I think about how something cannot truly be considered a sacrifice unless we are giving up something good (a reward) in favor of something that is not as good (a cost). According to this theory, my decision could not be thought of as profitable and therefore, I am not acting in my own self-interest. But what if the cost at that time is actually not a cost compared to what the reward is in the long term?  This idea brings to mind the Atonement. Choosing to go through so much pain and torture was very costly to His (earthly) body, but Jesus Christ's reward of eternal life and being able to prepare a way for us to return to Him was so much greater than the cost of sacrificing His (earthly) life.

So I guess my main thought is this: If we can sacrifice our own self-interests in favor of others self-interest, then our interactions with others are going to be more profitable than they would be if we think only of our own self-interest when making decisions. It's not that we are necessarily trying to serve ourselves when we serve others; instead, we can't avoid helping ourselves when we are trying to serve others. (I guess theories really are useful in helping us understand the world.)