What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

[Kayra]

It is not true altruism when there is the expectation of future reciprocity, is it?

 

In fact evolution built in many safeguards to detect a lack of reciprocity, and ensure that the actors remember and exclude perpetrators from future "Altruistic" offerings.

 

Interesting. If reciprocal altruism is not true altruism, then what is it?

 

I also expect that the altruistic act would not be selected for if one life form did not at least come out of the exchange even, and the other ahead. That or there was a reproductive advantage.

 

I am stuck in a circle ;)

I keep coming back (in my head) to the fact that all life is a constantly tuned balance between selfish and reproductive forces.

[IDMclean]

1) Actors may do good unto others, despite their best interest.

2) Actors may receive good from others, despite other's best interests.

3) Actors who honor reciprocity in this arrangement are more likely to benefit from it than those who do not.

4) Therefore, it is in fact often in your (long term) best interests to act AGAINST your (short term) best interests.

 

Part 2

1) Actors who cheat system described in part 1 may be "discovered" and no longer benefit from it.

2) You may be seen as "cheating the system" if you are not "doing enough good"

3) It is therefore in your best interest to always do good unto others, even if you cannot see (or there may not be) a long term best interest for yourself.

 

Question: How does this system keep from selecting out people whom play nice and all that, but are seen as cheating?

 

This is if I am not mistaken a subjective system, which would lend itself to the needs of the individual and therefore would be against Alturism...

 

*Curls up and begins speaking in tongues*

 

I mean I often find myself attempting to help others and repeatedly I find that I am seen as doing so for my own interests.

 

*ponders for a moment*

 

I mean that I am often seen as a heretic for my views, expressed opinions and actions. However what I do is in the interest of livingkind.

 

Oh and something to keep in mind is this: Alturism is a fractal of selfishness. If I do good for group A and I am subset of group A then I am doing good for myself. That the group benefits from my actions and contributions does not earse the fact that what I am doing is ultimately for myself, in some way.

 

Now if we decide that dividing into groups is bad, it still remains the same. What is good for the group should be good for the Individual, if it is not then it most likely is unhealthy in the long term.

 

;)

 

I hope that makes sense to you people cause I'm confused.

[Cedars]

Good post TFS.

 

Altruism is still a learned behavior. Its not an evolutionary mandate, its a cultural/social phenomenum that is only granted when conditions allow it (excess in the selfs own resources).

 

As far as liars/cheats not getting to spread their genes I would say prove it. We have film of chimps screwing around on the side when the dominant male isnt looking, among other examples.

[Michaelangelica]

I just posted this in "Quirky Science Facts" but it is relevant to evolved behaviour too

 

Males between the ages of 12-23 go though "testosterone dementia" where more than two thirds of male deaths are due to accidents and suicides (in modernised countries)

Men are at this time more than three times more likely to die than women

 

"Testosterone dementia makes maturing males enthusiastic warriors, hunters of large game, or fighter pilots, but poor insurance risks, as the driving records graphically show"

Source "Why we Age" Stephen N. Austad

[IDMclean]

Oh! Cedar, that reminds me.

 

About the child birth rates of Industrial Countries versus Pre-Industrial Countries.

 

I know exactly what you mean. I've, with the help of my Mother, come up with a model of the projection of Child births over the next few decades.

 

The funniest thing happens when resource Needs are met. Child bearing drops through the roof. Nippon, being prime example here. they have something crazy like .8 or something like that of children born to each woman. mexico in the last few decades went from like 12 per woman to something more like 6 per woman.

 

It's in the Statisical data of the world, as a country industrializes and the people's needs are met the rate of child bearing drops *dramatically*

 

It is for this data that I have predicted, statisticly, that in the next 10-30 years we will reach, world wide, a stagnation point and begin entering into the territory of reducing populus. In some countries this is already the case. I believe it's Italy that has a reduction of like 1/3rd per generation due to their low replenshiment rates...

 

I'll get some sources for this later, right now it's kinda hot and I don't want to do much more than rant.

[Michaelangelica]

I hope tis is worth the two fingered typing. It seemed very relevant to me.

I have left out big chunks- so go to the book if you find the argument a bit truncated.

 

"The Impact of the Gene from Mendal's Peas to Designer Babies" by Colin Tudge, hill and Wang NY 2000

 

"The fact that most societies through history. . . have behaved selfishly, aggressively, and often murderously is an unfortunate oddity that can be explained perfectly well by a little game theory.. .

The point is easily made by reference to one of the simplest models in game theory: hawks versus doves. The hawks and the doves are metaphorical, of course: they refer to individuals who behave selfishly and aggressively versus people whose mien is more passive, who never pick a fight, and who do not retaliate when provoked.

. . .

Suppose, first of all, we have a society that consists only of doves. . . symbols of dovvisness, which behave dovishly...

the all dove society wastes no time at all on fighting. Where appropriate, every task is undertaken cooperatively, with all the gains that thus accrue. All energy is thus expended toward useful ends - or to sheer enjoyment- and all tasks are undertaken with high efficiency. The sum total of wealth and happiness within such an all-dove society is as high as it could possibly be. IF all the wealth and happiness is shared equally, then each individual would do very well.

 

Game theory ( and common sense) revels, however, that such asociety, though in some ways ideal, is unstable. For suppose, in the midst such a society, a hawk appears. In genetic terms, we might say a mutation occurs: a gene that hitherto encouraged cooperative peacefulness mutates into one that promotes aggression and self-centeredness. Such alone hawk has an easy time. He grabes whatever is going, without working for it, and his dovish neighbours neighbours simply stand asside. The overall productivity, happiness and well-being of the society go down because the hawk is taking without giving back. . . .

In short, an all- dove society, enviable and unimproveable though it may seem, is vulnerable. A hawk can come and prey on it.

So what happens next? The hawk grabs plenty of mates and produces plenty of offspring. Unfortunately- both for the hawk and for the society as awhole- the offspring inherit the hawkishness. Soon the society contains agret many hawks.

 

The circumstances have now changed. When the hawk was on his own, or when there were only afew hawks, they could swagger about taking what they wanted without fear of redress. Now there are plenty of hawks, and every now and again- in fact more and more frequently- a swaggering hawk meets up with another hawk. Now when a hawk simply demands, he finds himself in a fight. Soon there are fights everywhere. Everyone is now suffering.

The fact that the overall efficiency of the group goes down is true but not relevant; the hawks at least are not thinking in terms of overall well-being. What bothers the hawks is that their unalloyed hawkishness no longer pays. They keep running into trouble.

In a society shot through with hawks, the doves start to do better. They get involved in fewer fights ( since they do not provoke any) and when they meet another dove, cooperation results.

So, although the hawks do well at first, and multiply, the time soon arrives when they start to do badly Too much hawkishness may indeed drive asociety to extinction. What cannot happen is that the hawks will produce an all-hawk society. An all-dove society is vulnerable, but as long as it remains univaded it works very well. An all hawk society cannot function at all.

I turns out, then, that the only society that is truly stable is one that contains both doves and hawks.. . . .

an ESS Evolutionary Stable Strategy. . .

However, in an evolutionary stable society the doves are bound to outnumber the hawks. But- and this is the snag- because the hawkish minority are aggressive, they rise to become the leaders. . .

Thus societies may contain a huge majority of sociable, hospitable, unselfish people and yet be ruled by people. . .who are. . . dangerously mad. . .

Democracy should solve this problem. . (but hawks can prevent democracy happening at all. . .and hawks put themselves forward as candidates . . doves do not.

. . .The overwhelming task for humanity. . is to devise systems of government that make it possible for doves to rise to the top and, having risen, to conserve their dovishness. . . .

 

This analysis surely explains why the world has had so few truly great leaders, or rather, so few of dovish men. Of course, it has many larger-than-life, hyper aggressive superman-style leaders: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, classic hawks to a man. All had greatness of akind, but all, when you boil them down, were fundamentally killers. The Twentieth Century suffered scores of such people. . .Stalin, Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic, Hitler, Salazar, idi Amin Saddam Hussein and so on and so on.

 

Great doves, however- leaders who have preached and practiced cooperativeness and restraint- have been far more rare. from the twentieth century, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the present Dali lama come most easily to mind . . . yet none of the great doves has truly held power. All fought, throughout their lives, against some greater power. All in effect have been rebel leaders. . . .unless Gandhi (etc) had first been cast in the role of rebel leader, they would never have achieved power at all. In a straightforward run for power they would have been out-gunned and outsmarted by nature's hawks.

 

Jesus Christ was the archetypal dovish leader. he may have been somewhat fiercer in real life- more of an anti-roman, fiercely pro-Jewish zealot. But the Jesus of the New Testament, as portrayed by Paul, is the apotheosis of the dove. As a political leader he is in the same category as the rest: leader of agroup that was answerable to amore powerful oppressor.. he also, of course, is the world's greatest and most unequivocal advocate of dovishnmess.. . . .

(Jesus asked us to aspire to an al-dovish society). . ."

etc and more from

"The Impact of the Gene from Mendal's Peas to Designer Babies" by Colin Tudge, hill and Wang NY 2000

 

--

Michael

[Kayra]

Interesting Michaelangelica

 

Personally, I think we all have both in us, and do so by design. If you ascribe this theory to the balance of those attributes in the general population, then it would make sense.

 

Most folk, when faced with aggression, respond in kind. When faced with a smile and an open hand, they also respond in kind.

 

I also think the story would have reflected reality far better if it had started from a fully hawk society, and gave reason for the evolution of doves.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe all life is inherently selfish. With a DRASTIC improvement in survival rates that come with cooperation, it was only a matter of time until evolution stumbled upon every tool it could to harness selfishness to create cooperation.

[IDMclean]

However, in an evolutionary stable society the doves are bound to outnumber the hawks.

 

You know that's funny cause that would reflect men and women. Due to the fact that men take more risks and hence die off at a higher rate, and women are more prone to avoiding risk and hence die off at a lower rate. So the ratio is slightly in favor of women.

 

An interesting problem to concider though is this: men are born at higher rates than women, so what happens if the hawks begin living longer and cease dieing off at higher rates? Will there end up more hawks than doves? or will it once again shift so that there are more doves?

[TheFaithfulStone]

It is not true altruism when there is the expectation of future reciprocity, is it?

 

In fact evolution built in many safeguards to detect a lack of reciprocity, and ensure that the actors remember and exclude perpetrators from future "Altruistic" offerings.

 

But there is no expectation of future reciprocity. Perhaps initially there may have been, but at this point, the idea of being kind to others is actually selected for to such a degree that it's ingrained in us.

 

Some casuistry for you:

If you make a model of a car in such exact detail that it is in fact, a car, haven't you made a car?

 

At the point where you are acting "well" regardless of the consequences consistently, aren't you in fact now "good?" If in fact, you CLAIM to be acting out of concern for others, and believe this to be true, and your acts support the claim, then how can any outside party judge you be a liar?

 

If Bill Clinton said he "did not have sex with that woman" and in fact, he hadn't, how can we logically judge - "but he WANTED to, and that's as good as him really doing it." We're back to circular logic and the attribution of motives.

 

If you act out of a genuine concern for others, and this in fact leads to increased biological fitness (as I have shown), then is your concern lessened or cheapened?

 

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

 

I keep coming back (in my head) to the fact that all life is a constantly tuned balance between selfish and reproductive forces.

 

I'm not saying that selfishness is not part of our make up, or as you pointed out, the headlines would read "650 killed in attempt to save survivor." I'm saying that selflessness is ALSO part of our make up.

 

As far as liars/cheats not getting to spread their genes I would say prove it. We have film of chimps screwing around on the side when the dominant male isnt looking, among other example

 

This explains it pretty well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

Also, adoption, which occurs world wide, is a good example of an altruistic act which actually acts to decrease the fitness of the parents, and doesn't result in any measurable reciprocity.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

Good post TFS.

 

Altruism is still a learned behavior. Its not an evolutionary mandate, its a cultural/social phenomenum that is only granted when conditions allow it (excess in the selfs own resources).

 

True Altruism exists at every level of life. The cells in our own body kill themselves if they are invaded, or even simply to allow our brain to form the proper network of connections. The Mold cells I spoke of originally give up their very own lives to form a stalk so that others can pass on their genetic material. These are only a few examples. This form of altruism is forced genetically upon non-thinking life forms.

 

In thinking or complex creatures that have the ability to override the predispositions that evolution placed upon them, other methods had to be found. Aspects of altruism exist at a genetic level. They may be expounded as virtues or derided as weakness by society. Those aspects of altruism are learned. But the basis for it is bound in the genetic code in us all.

 

As far as liars/cheats not getting to spread their genes I would say prove it. We have film of chimps screwing around on the side when the dominant male isnt looking, among other examples.

 

In a society that recognizes and remembers cheaters, the effect is that they are looked down upon by the tribe. If that is the case, the best genetic stock would be less likely to allow them as a mate. If that is the case then they are less likely to pass on their genes in times when mates are scarce.

 

Evolution does not require that life forms with undesirable characteristics not be allowed to mate, only that the chance of it be reduced. Time and circumstance will take care of the rest.

[Kayra]

But there is no expectation of future reciprocity.

 

Sorry, I thought there was. It seemed self evident to me. Without the expectation, why would be be upset if it did not occur?

 

 

Perhaps initially there may have been, but at this point, the idea of being kind to others is actually selected for to such a degree that it's ingrained in us.

 

It strikes me that the attribute would only be selected for to meet the minimum requirement of cooperation. Go to far, and you end up with the school situation again. Remember that we are still innately selfish. You and I end up in competition for a mate. You are obviously a better candidate then I am. You are of her race, younger, and better looking. Will I do the right thing and let you have her, or will I do the selfish thing and try my best to make the girl my own. Selfishness is as important as apparent altruism.

 

 

I'm not saying that selfishness is not part of our make up, or as you pointed out, the headlines would read "650 killed in attempt to save survivor." I'm saying that selflessness is ALSO part of our make up.

 

And I say selflessness is motivated by how the selfless act makes us feel. Without that, we would not be selfless. This makes us selfish. (drat.. Circle again?)

 

This explains it pretty well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

I will read this later :) Wife wants to play Camelot

 

Also, adoption, which occurs world wide, is a good example of an altruistic act which actually acts to decrease the fitness of the parents, and doesn't result in any measurable reciprocity.

 

TFS

 

The act of raising a child provides some of the deepest feedback you can imagine. So much of our wiring allows the child to provide pleasure to the parent. The reciprocity is the warm feeling you get when that child looks with awe, pride, love, wonder in your eyes. Even an adopted one. Again, without that positive emotional feedback, mankind would likely not bother to raise a child.

[TheFaithfulStone]

In a society that recognizes and remembers cheaters, the effect is that they are looked down upon by the tribe. If that is the case, the best genetic stock would be less likely to allow them as a mate. If that is the case then they are less likely to pass on their genes in times when mates are scarce.

 

Which in fact selects for REAL selflessness. So in a paradoxical twist of evolutionary biology, acting against your own best interests IS in your own best interests.

 

Wife wants to play Camelot

 

If you're watching Camelot with her, I'd say that is an act of altruism right there. :)

 

TFS

[Kayra]

If you're watching Camelot with her, I'd say that is an act of altruism right there. :rolleyes:

 

TFS

 

Play, not watch :D

 

and the fact that she lets me tag along is the true altruistic act. I suck at the game :friday:

[Cedars]

"The fact that most societies through history. . . have behaved selfishly, aggressively, and often murderously is an unfortunate oddity that can be explained perfectly well by a little game theory.. .

The point is easily made by reference to one of the simplest models in game theory: hawks versus doves. The hawks and the doves are metaphorical, of course: they refer to individuals who behave selfishly and aggressively versus people whose mien is more passive, who never pick a fight, and who do not retaliate when provoked.

 

 

To put it into other words for a comparison, I think one only needs to look at the structure of the pack (primarily canine in this reference). There are hawks and doves there (dominant/submissive) males and females. It is the hawks that keep the pack strong and the doves help this by cooperation and their natural submissivness. It is fear that drives the naturally submissive of the pack. And there are dogs/wolves who never attempt to overthrow the leaders, their whole lives with the pack. But when things do get extreme (such as starvation) they (the doves) are the ones who do not thrive, its the hawks.

[Cedars]

You know that's funny cause that would reflect men and women. Due to the fact that men take more risks and hence die off at a higher rate, and women are more prone to avoiding risk and hence die off at a lower rate. So the ratio is slightly in favor of women.

 

Interesting tie-in there. With the examples of altruistic behavior being more prevalent in the female than the male (in regards to what has been observed in the wild) could lead to the source of altruistic behavior as being related to the maternal processes involved with bearing/raising the offspring.

[Michaelangelica]

It's over! Last chromosome sequenced

Patricia Reaney

Reuters

 

 

Thursday, 18 May 2006

 

The last human chromosome to be sequenced, chromosome 1, is the biggest and contains the most genes (Image: iStockphoto)

 

Scientists have reached a landmark point in one of the world's most important scientific projects by sequencing the last chromosome in the human genome.

 

Chromosome 1 contains nearly twice as many genes as the average chromosome and makes up 8% of the human genetic code.

 

It is packed with 3141 genes and linked to 350 illnesses including cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, according to a report today in the journal Nature.

 

"This achievement effectively closes the book on an important volume of the Human Genome Project," says Dr Simon Gregory who headed the sequencing project at the UK's Sanger Institute.

 

The project started in 1990 to identify the genes and DNA sequences that provide a blueprint for human beings.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1641588.htm

[Cedars]

This explains it pretty well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

Also, adoption, which occurs world wide, is a good example of an altruistic act which actually acts to decrease the fitness of the parents, and doesn't result in any measurable reciprocity.

 

The link does explain their postition well however, there were a lot of assumptions within the link you posted, and some issues used to prove a point that have not been explored in the wild enough to verify whether or not the appearance of altruism is as it appears. Other examples used simply cannot be explained the way it was manipulated in the article. Monkeys screaming an alarm when a predator approaches is a fear reaction. People scream when they are terrified too, but the motivation has nothing to do with altruism, is fear and an adreniline rush. Many types of birds sound alarms too. Want to find a predator? Listen for gangs of crows/ravens calling out in a very loud action. What is interesting to me is how many other types of animals understand and react to the alarm calls of various species they hear calling out. Language and the ability to learn the warnings of other species.

 

The Vampire bat reference was particularily interesting when you add in snippets from actual research on these animals, which shows it is primarily a female action and highly tied to kin relationship. There are alot of aspects of the Vampire bat which need to be explored before declaring it is altruism. The little I read about them which went into detail would lead me to explore other scent related aspects as the trigger for the food sharing done within these colonies rather than altruism.

 

Wolves in the wild have (on occasion) been observed adopting an orphaned pup. It is very rare but has been observed. In Minnesota, our wolf researchers do introduce unrelated young into existing wolfpacks, even in the wild. I cannot remember the methods used but it basically involved fooling the mother into adopting the unrelated pup. Once the pup has nursed enough to pass the adopted mothers milk thru the system the pup is fine. With scent being such an important part of canine behaviors, it would make sense to assume the reactions in the adults is based on the scent released by the young as being neutral in the least or triggering a chemical reaction in the brain of the canine (via scent) which results in the apparent altruistic actions of these adults towards the young animals.

 

35 years ago our foster boy brought home what he believed was an abandoned fawn. My parents contacted the DNR and they instructed us to put the fawn back of course. In the conversation, we were told that even if the mother was dead, the fawn would most likely be adopted by one of the other deer if she had a fawn of her own. So yes, animals do adopt. What is unknown to me is, are the adopting parents related to the fawn. Kin selection falls within scopes of animal behaviors and seems to be driven by maternal actions/behaviors which are related to genes and chemical/hormonal/scent processes which are not altruism, at least in my understanding of altruism and its meaning.

 

You may have picked up that I have some deep reservations when applying such a subjective behavior [altruism] to an evolved reason for motivation/actions of people.