Is Altruism Darwinistic?

[drsatish]

Is Altruism Darwinistic?

Biological Altruism
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Hon'able Professor D, has kindly agreed to express his views on the topic this weekend, at Stanford Main Hall.

Tickets $ 499.99 only.

Limited Seats!

Rush to get Your Personal Best Seats!

Win the Rat Race!

Get there First!

It's ALL About ..Your SURVIVAL!

Satish

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, yes it is.

This is best exemplified by the "prisoners dilemma".
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just saved you five hundred dollars.

wa:do

ps. advertising is against the rules.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, and if you're interested, I am happy to explain why.

 

[drsatish]

Yes, and if you're interested, I am happy to explain why.

Please go ahead...

& make ME Altruistic...
& my Neighbor Too!

Satish
PS: I think it is my Neighbor who needs a lesson or two in Altruism and not Me really, such a fine fella!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Many social mammals show traits that pertain to altruism on some level. The examples from research done on apes (mainly chimpanzees) show this clearly, but my favourite is the various species of South American Vampire Bats.

Reciprocal altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As mentioned above, this all comes down to Game Theory, of which the Prisoner's Dilemma probably is the most well know demonstration. It's basically a game of tit for tat, or, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

Which (unfortunately for some people's notions) means that there is no such thing as a wholly altruistic act in the classical sense.

So to answer the question in the OP, yes, altruism is Darwinsistic and it is an Evolutionarly developed trait.

 

[Troublemane]

I think anyone who has been through tough times can more easily empathize with someone else going through difficulties, and its a short distance between empathy and charity. On the flip side, people who have been lied to, stolen from and taken advantage of, could come to believe that people on the side of the road begging for change are just running a "con game". I think people generally take their internal experience and project that out onto others, and this is what makes a person want to be altruistic or not.

On the day before Thanksgiving, I was working in southern florida and was at lunch outside of Wendy's (in my work clothes, in my work truck, drinking a chocolate shake). A guy on a bike came up and asked me for a dollar, he said he needed food for his kids, but the way he said it made it sound like a scam to me. I told him I dont carry cash, sorry. He thanked me and rode over to the convertable nearby. The guy in the convertable looked to be worth six figures easily, but he cussed the man out and drove off.

After 15 minutes, I was finished with my lunch and was ready to go back to work, but I saw the guy on the bike again, and he laughed about the guy in the convertable being a jerk. Somehow, this made him seem less like a scam artist to me, the fact he was just talking to me as a regular person and not coming to me for some hand-out. I asked him to stay there and I bought him a $50 gift card at the local grocery, and wished him happy holidays.

So if the argument that altruism is part of natural selection, I would have to disagree. I believe my experience has shown me that altruism comes from a desire to preserve some traits while rejecting others. I felt altruistic toward the man after he approached me as a genuine person, not repeating a sales pitch about his kids. I did not feel as motivated to help him when I thought he would just use the cash to by booze. I think this qualifies as more epigenetic (Ruse) than genetic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think anyone who has been through tough times can more easily empathize with someone else going through difficulties, and its a short distance between empathy and charity. On the flip side, people who have been lied to, stolen from and taken advantage of, could come to believe that people on the side of the road begging for change are just running a "con game". I think people generally take their internal experience and project that out onto others, and this is what makes a person want to be altruistic or not.

And all of this is explained under Game Theory.
The effect you are describing is what is called "tit for tat".
Tit for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if the argument that altruism is part of natural selection, I would have to disagree.

To be blunt, whether you agree or not is irrelevant. You are wrong and your opinion on the matter is of no consequence.

I believe my experience has shown me that altruism comes from a desire to preserve some traits while rejecting others.

Societal altruism comes from simple natural selection. These traits (or similar traits) are essential for effective cooperation between social mammals. We have many examples of this from the animal kingdom.

I felt altruistic toward the man after he approached me as a genuine person, not repeating a sales pitch about his kids. I did not feel as motivated to help him when I thought he would just use the cash to by booze. I think this qualifies as more epigenetic (Ruse) than genetic.

All our actions are either reinforced or discouraged through emotional stimuli.
Also, whether this is epigenetic or not is also irrelevant to the point of whether this type of behaviour is a result of Darwinian Evolution or not. Epigenetics is also based in genetics but addresses the phenotypical expression that various genes produce, including those related to behaviour, which, I suppose, could be considered an extended phenotype.

 

[Autodidact]

Please go ahead...

& make ME Altruistic...
& my Neighbor Too!

Satish
PS: I think it is my Neighbor who needs a lesson or two in Altruism and not Me really, such a fine fella!

Alright, well it helps to remember that we evolved as hunter-gatherers, and were hunter-gatherers for almost all of our existence as a species. If you are a hunter, and manage to kill a wapiti or whatever, there is no way you and your family can eat it all. It would go to waste. So you give away huge chunks of it to your neighbors, who are happy and grateful, and consider you their friend. Because of this, when they kill an impala later, they will do the same with you. The result is that both of your families are more likely to survive, especially the children.

If on the other hand you try to hoard the meat and not share it, people will treat you the same way, and your children will be more likely to starve to death.

This applies equally to a nice big find of berries or honey or any food item, really.

For this reason, genes for altruism, as well as justice, reciprocity and revenge, tend to survive in the population.

And that is why people are kind to others; they have evolved to be that way.

 

[drsatish]

Alright, well it helps to remember that we evolved as hunter-gatherers, and were hunter-gatherers for almost all of our existence as a species. If you are a hunter, and manage to kill a wapiti or whatever, there is no way you and your family can eat it all. It would go to waste. So you give away huge chunks of it to your neighbors, who are happy and grateful, and consider you their friend. Because of this, when they kill an impala later, they will do the same with you. The result is that both of your families are more likely to survive, especially the children.

If on the other hand you try to hoard the meat and not share it, people will treat you the same way, and your children will be more likely to starve to death.

This applies equally to a nice big find of berries or honey or any food item, really.

For this reason, genes for altruism, as well as justice, reciprocity and revenge, tend to survive in the population.

And that is why people are kind to others; they have evolved to be that way.

If 'sharing' promotes 'group survival', can you explain why 2011 Society has 'Hoarding of Meat for Oneself' as the Highest & Best Objective?
(Read - Billionaire...)

Satish

 

[Autodidact]

If 'sharing' promotes 'group survival', can you explain why 2011 Society has 'Hoarding of Meat for Oneself' as the Highest & Best Objective?
(Read - Billionaire...)

Satish

I didn't say it promotes group survival. Is your question, why are people sometimes NOT altruistic? And how does evolution explain that?

btw I think you might notice that many billionaires do in fact "distribute meat" freely, even up to half their fortunes.

 

[painted wolf]

You know that behavior like all other traits occurs in what is best described as a Normal Curve... with extreme forms of the trait expressed in the narrower edges. For example extreme altruism and extreme greed. Most people fall in the middle.

Like so:

Such variety in behavior is healthy and allows for adaptation to a broad range of circumstances.

wa:do

 

[drsatish]

I didn't say it promotes group survival. Is your question, why are people sometimes NOT altruistic? And how does evolution explain that?

btw I think you might notice that many billionaires do in fact "distribute meat" freely, even up to half their fortunes.

"The result is that both of your families are more likely to survive, especially the children."

I assumed that meant 'Group Survival', especially when you don't stop sharing with just one other family.

"If on the other hand you try to hoard the meat and not share it, people will treat you the same way, and your children will be more likely to starve to death."
-Unlikely prospects for the Children of the Billionaire who does not share at all.

Billionaires usually become billionaires by 'extracting' from the many by 'clever moves' in the 'system' - either directly or indirectly; legally or illegally. So if you want to give back half of what you 'extracted' from the 'many' to 'some others', why 'extract' in the first place?

How does giving away 'half' of his wealth 'improve' the billionaire’s chance of survival?

Does today’s human society permit the Billionaire to have 1000 wives so that he may beget 2000 kids who will carry on the ‘genes’ and have more probability of survival?

Why does he do it at all?
To see his name on papers and TV?
...or due to the arising of some genuine love and compassion in his heart?

"why are people sometimes NOT altruistic? "

Do you think today's human civilization works MAINLY (say 95%) on altruistic principles?
-right from the grass-roots level to the top-hats level?
or is it working MAINLY on 'self-aggrandizement' principles?
Billionaire-Motivation is MAINLY 'Self-Aggrandizement' as
1 Billion is really not required to survive for an entire life-time..!
$ 53.5 Billion....?....for What?
Bill Gates No Longer World's Richest Man - Forbes.com

Pioneering study shows richest 2 percent own half world wealth
Pioneering study shows richest 2 percent own half world wealth

Putting it figuratively, draw a circumferential line along Greenwich Meridian line and divide the globe into two halves.

1. Put 2 humans on one half and give them all the lands and oceans there.
2. Put 98 humans on the other half....

Would you say current human society is 'sharing' based & altruistic?

Satish

 

[drsatish]

You know that behavior like all other traits occurs in what is best described as a Normal Curve... with extreme forms of the trait expressed in the narrower edges. For example extreme altruism and extreme greed. Most people fall in the middle.

Like so:

Such variety in behavior is healthy and allows for adaptation to a broad range of circumstances.

wa:do

Aha! Another Bell Curve!

Man! I like Belles...(of the French kind)
&
Curves (of All Kinds!)

I mentioned the Bell Curve in my previous post on Kings & Saints....the 2 extremes.

The Bell Curve can be used to 'explain' Anything! (I guess)

..but what should make some sort of sense is..
...how tall it is
...how wide it is..
...how steep the slopes are..
...is it a Normal Distribution..
...it is skewed to one side?
The Left Half: the size of a cat
The Right Half: the size of a rat's tail?

That is the Actual Shape we should study.

Progress/Regress...is basically a change in that Actual Current Shape.

Humanity can progress basically ONLY in 2 Areas:
A. Character.
B. Material-Manipulation.

Now we must draw Actual Bell Curves for A and B,
put one on top of the other,
see the match / mismatch....etc.

THEN...these Double-Bells.....

may ring some bell!

Satish

 

[Autodidact]

"The result is that both of your families are more likely to survive, especially the children."

I assumed that meant 'Group Survival', especially when you don't stop sharing with just one other family.

No. The genes of a person who shares are more likely to be passed on than those of a person who doesn't. Individual survival.

"If on the other hand you try to hoard the meat and not share it, people will treat you the same way, and your children will be more likely to starve to death."
-Unlikely prospects for the Children of the Billionaire who does not share at all.

You're forgetting where we started. Remember, we evolved to be hunter-gatherers, which we were for the first 99% of our existence as a species. So when trying to understand human evolutionary psychology, think hunter-gatherer.

Even for the best hunter or gatherer, there will be times of shortage when neighbors can help.

Billionaires usually become billionaires by 'extracting' from the many by 'clever moves' in the 'system' - either directly or indirectly; legally or illegally. So if you want to give back half of what you 'extracted' from the 'many' to 'some others', why 'extract' in the first place?

We didn't evolve to be Billionaires; we evolved to be hunter-gatherers.

How does giving away 'half' of his wealth 'improve' the billionaire’s chance of survival?

That's not the point. The point is that a billionaire is a homo sapiens who evolved to be altruistic because it benefited our ancestors. This trait survives in all of us, although we are modern humans.

Does today’s human society permit the Billionaire to have 1000 wives so that he may beget 2000 kids who will carry on the ‘genes’ and have more probability of survival?

In many societies, more prosperous men do have multiple wives, concubines and mistresses.

Why does he do it at all?

Because of evolution, he has the trait of kindness in his genetic heritage.

To see his name on papers and TV?
...or due to the arising of some genuine love and compassion in his heart?

Yes.

"why are people sometimes NOT altruistic? "

Do you think today's human civilization works MAINLY (say 95%) on altruistic principles?

Can't give a real estimate. Maybe half and half?

There are also evolutionary reasons to hoard and to excel, especially for males. The male who excels the most gets laid the most. So men have a strong drive to excel--at anything, including making money. Guy with most resources gets most wives., hunter-gathererly speaking.

 

[drsatish]

Aha! This is a good example of how "the same thing / event" is Perceived as the Truth ...but differently by 2 human brains!

both of your families are more likely to survive

... and the picture I got was "2" families
(say one with 3 sexually-active men, 5 sexually-active women and 17 children.....hunter-times you know......and the other family with another configuration)

Both families...."share".....meat.

No. The genes of a person who shares are more likely to be passed on than those of a person who doesn't. Individual survival.

...you mean, the Genes of the Child who usually takes the meat across?

So when trying to understand human evolutionary psychology, think hunter-gatherer.

..then Why did Humanity label itself as "Civilized?"

civ•i•lized (sivÆà l#zdÅ), adj.
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

or is it that we are "Civilized-Hunter-Gatherers?"

"Kindly pardon my intrusion, madam. It is with extreme displeasure that I have to tell you that I have to take away your TV and if you object, it will fill me with more displeasure?"

Even for the best hunter or gatherer, there will be times of shortage when neighbors can help.

Shortage for the Billionaire?.....You mean the unthinkable $ 2,000,000,000 LOSS!....from the $ 53,500,000,000 ? Man! My eyes are getting 'wooly' here...how many zeroes...? where is my calculator?....can a calculator HANDLE such big numbers...should I go to my computer...?

Billionaires usually 'BUY' people. 99% of his surroundings will be working on money-based-relationships. Even his 'wife' will be there for the 'Love of His Money'....and Not Him. Women are usually very possessive about their husbands. Their main enemy in life is 'the blonde' who is trying to 'hook' him. But you say....Many Wives, Concubines, Mistresses etc ....all are females, I assume and LIVING in HARMONY? ...How COULD this Happen? ...What a question to ask in a Billionaire's Mansion/s? ....Everybody here LOVES MONEY. Period.

We didn't evolve to be Billionaires; we evolved to be hunter-gatherers.

U in Denver?
U in US?
Denver in US?
Is Capitalism related to US Fiscal Policy?
What DRIVES America?
What MOVES America?
Who 'evolves' ..socially...in US?

By the way, do you mean there are only hunter-gatherers in the US?
...that the best of the hunter-gatherers there are called by the term homobillionicus..?

The point is that a billionaire is a homo sapiens who evolved to be altruistic because it benefited our ancestors.

I don't quite follow this statement:
1. Do you mean a billionaire became one because he is altruistic?
or that Altruism is closely related to Billionairism?
2. You mean altruistic behavior of 'His' Ancestors!
(Assuming that you are NOT a Billionaire. Chances of a billionaire typing answers to queries..in a...Religious Forum....are a bit remote, I guess. S/He has better things to DO!)
What about the Billionaire's 3rd cousin who is a garage mechanic?
...ancestors being the SAME!

As you said, due to some reason,
the Billionaire LOST 53 Billions,
53 Insurance Companies which had "covered" him WENT BANKRUPT!

Now, will ANY of THE "Wives, Concubines, Mistresses"
...COVER him with a blanket, when he is on the pavement?

LOVE?

Because of evolution, he has the trait of kindness in his genetic heritage.

Because of evolution, EVERYBODY has SOMETHING or OTHER!
...perhaps you can trace a LINEAGE of a KIND-FAMILY for 50 generations!

"due to the arising of some genuine love and compassion in his heart?"

Yes

..you think that most of the people on earth look upon Billionaires as kind and compassionate folks? Just ask these questions on your next shopping trip to the mall.

Q: What do you think of Warren Buffett?
A: Such a nice and compassionate person.

Q: What do you think of Li Ka-shing?
A: Such a nice and compassionate person.

Q: What do you think of Nassef Sawiris?
A: Such a nice and compassionate person.

(Names picked at random from Billionaire list)

Can't give a real estimate. Maybe half and half?

So taking your estimate at face value, can we say that
Evolution works 50% of the time by the Law of Survival of the Fittest
and 50% of the time by the Law of Altruism?

Tell me how many people on Earth have interpreted Darwin this way...or
whether this is what Darwin actually meant.

evolutionary reasons to hoard and to excel, especially for males

See my previous post on "What is BEHIND BANKS...?."
We have the same views here!

..not that I disagree totally with your other views.
..I believe all children are born innocent...

but 'something' happens when they grow-up...
..somebody sneezes..
..2 Continents go to War
..last street fight..
60 MILLION CHILDREN KILL ONE ANOTHER!
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

600 MILLION CHILDREN KILL ONE ANOTHER!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_casualties(Under Construction for Destruction)

Where were we?....altruism...ah.
Satish

 

[painted wolf]

Aha! Another Bell Curve!

Man! I like Belles...(of the French kind)
&
Curves (of All Kinds!)

I mentioned the Bell Curve in my previous post on Kings & Saints....the 2 extremes.

The Bell Curve can be used to 'explain' Anything! (I guess)

..but what should make some sort of sense is..
...how tall it is
...how wide it is..
...how steep the slopes are..
...is it a Normal Distribution..
...it is skewed to one side?
The Left Half: the size of a cat
The Right Half: the size of a rat's tail?

That is the Actual Shape we should study.

Progress/Regress...is basically a change in that Actual Current Shape.

Humanity can progress basically ONLY in 2 Areas:
A. Character.
B. Material-Manipulation.

Now we must draw Actual Bell Curves for A and B,
put one on top of the other,
see the match / mismatch....etc.

THEN...these Double-Bells.....

may ring some bell!

Satish

Just plug in the data.

I'm reasonably certain though that human behavior will fit the standard model of the Normal Distribution. (Bell curve is an ambiguous term)

Greedy billionaires are a very small segment of the population.... the majority are modestly generous and those that choose to give everything they have are another small segment of the population.

wa:do

 

[drsatish]

Just plug in the data.

I'm reasonably certain though that human behavior will fit the standard model of the Normal Distribution. (Bell curve is an ambiguous term)

Greedy billionaires are a very small segment of the population.... the majority are modestly generous and those that choose to give everything they have are another small segment of the population.

wa:do

"In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a continuous probability distribution that is often used as a FIRST APPROXIMATION to describe REAL-valued random variables that tend to cluster around a single mean value. "
Normal distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Note the words "FIRST APPROXIMATION" as opposed to "REAL"!
2. Note that in the top graph on the wiki page, there are 4 Normal Distribution Curves!

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Money each Human has",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity...on Distribution of Wealth.
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Age",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity...
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Suffering",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity.
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Compassion and Love",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Education",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Wisdom",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

etc.

On skewing & shape of tails, you can check:
"Quantities that grow exponentially, such as prices, incomes or populations, are often skewed to the right, and hence may be better described by other distributions, such as the log-normal distribution or Pareto distribution."

Heavy-tailed distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fat tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Long Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Real Question is:
1. What type of Distribution exists "Naturally" for a particular parameter right now.

2. What type of Distribution LOOKS /FEELS "Good" as a Future Objective by the ACTIVE INTERVENTION of MAN'S THOUGHTS & ACTIONS.

3. What can be actually achieved...etc.

Hope I am able to come across,
Satish

 

[PolyHedral]

1. Note the words "FIRST APPROXIMATION" as opposed to "REAL"!

However, "real" means something totally different from what you think it does in that context.

2. Note that in the top graph on the wiki page, there are 4 Normal Distribution Curves!

Well, yes. The equation PW provided is multi-variable, and you can put in whatever parameters you want to get whatever graph you want.

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Suffering",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity.
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

f(x)=0.

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Compassion and Love",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Education",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Wisdom",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

f(x)=+∞

 

[painted wolf]

"In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a continuous probability distribution that is often used as a FIRST APPROXIMATION to describe REAL-valued random variables that tend to cluster around a single mean value. "
Normal distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Note the words "FIRST APPROXIMATION" as opposed to "REAL"!
2. Note that in the top graph on the wiki page, there are 4 Normal Distribution Curves!

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Money each Human has",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity...on Distribution of Wealth.
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Age",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity...
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Suffering",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity.
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Compassion and Love",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Education",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

Assuming the values depicted there in to be "Wisdom",
WHICH IDEAL...would be BETTER for Humanity..
Blue, Green, Red, Beige..?

etc.

On skewing & shape of tails, you can check:
"Quantities that grow exponentially, such as prices, incomes or populations, are often skewed to the right, and hence may be better described by other distributions, such as the log-normal distribution or Pareto distribution."

Heavy-tailed distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fat tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Long Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Real Question is:
1. What type of Distribution exists "Naturally" for a particular parameter right now.

2. What type of Distribution LOOKS /FEELS "Good" as a Future Objective by the ACTIVE INTERVENTION of MAN'S THOUGHTS & ACTIONS.

3. What can be actually achieved...etc.

Hope I am able to come across,
Satish

Since when is having money the same as having altruistic tendencies?
Are poor and moderate income people incapable of caring about others?
Is money the only measure of giving?

I understand our economic system is far from ideal... but cash is not the only measure of how we treat each other. Money is not everything.

wa:do

 

[crocusj]

Alright, well it helps to remember that we evolved as hunter-gatherers, and were hunter-gatherers for almost all of our existence as a species. If you are a hunter, and manage to kill a wapiti or whatever, there is no way you and your family can eat it all. It would go to waste. So you give away huge chunks of it to your neighbors, who are happy and grateful, and consider you their friend. Because of this, when they kill an impala later, they will do the same with you. The result is that both of your families are more likely to survive, especially the children.

If on the other hand you try to hoard the meat and not share it, people will treat you the same way, and your children will be more likely to starve to death.

This applies equally to a nice big find of berries or honey or any food item, really.

For this reason, genes for altruism, as well as justice, reciprocity and revenge, tend to survive in the population.

And that is why people are kind to others; they have evolved to be that way.

Can you please provide evidence for anything that you have said in this post. Can you positively show that altruism was part of human culture before agriculture surpassed hunter gatherer? Indeed, many hunter gatherer cultures that exist today are fiercely territorial when it comes to their hunting grounds (human and animal) and altruism is conspicuous by its absence outside the group. Your idea of sharing kill surplus is pure supposition, indeed I would suggest that the opposite could well be true and is still alive and well in the population today. And what is this revenge gene?