Originally posted by inimalist
a recent study modeling the interactions between groups found that early human civilizations would have been most successful with a combination of in group altruism and out group hostility.In a sense, the altruism you are talking about comes from a larger in-group (nation or species rather than just tribe), but ya, strongest group does better by not being altruistic to its competitors.
Well, the leading scientific theory says that altruism is evolutionary, in that mammals protect their offspring from harm so they can pass on their genes. So in other words, its a genetic benefit.
But evolution can't account for altruism that has [i]no[i/] genetic benefit. Like if you give up your bus seat for an old lady or let someone know that they dropped their wallet.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, the leading scientific theory says that altruism is evolutionary, in that mammals protect their offspring from harm so they can pass on their genes. So in other words, its a genetic benefit.But evolution can't account for altruism that has no genetic benefit. Like if you give up your bus seat for an old lady or let someone know that they dropped their wallet.
sure it can
the first point is that studies have shown that sort of random altruism is far more likely when people know they are being watched (to the point where people will behave more morally if they think a ghost might be in the room or if you talk to them about God just before hand). Anonymous people are less likely to be altruistic.
From there, it is the idea of mutual reciprocity. I act good to you, because you and everyone around will see me, and it will benefit me. Now, this sounds underhanded, but it is largely driven by subconscious mechanisms.
Its a lot like the proposed evolutionary purpose of gossip. While we all hate it, it does serve as a "security check" for people in a social group. If someone doesn't pick up the wallet, I'll tell you, you will tell your friends, and all of a sudden, we don't like that guy, and he has less survival and procreation potential.
A lot of this stuff is going to be a HUGE interaction of social and genetic factors, so looking for the evolutionary principal of "giving up a bus seat" is somewhat moot. The evolutionary principal of "I will act nice to those in my in group so that the in group acts nice to me" (remember, subconscious, not someone manipulating people [at least in most cases]) however is general enough to explain how certain social functions could be conditioned.
...
are you really interested in the long winded explanation or are you looking for the loophole in my explanation that lets you go "just a theory" and ignore the rest?
Originally posted by inimalist
sure it canthe first point is that studies have shown that sort of random altruism is far more likely when people know they are being watched (to the point where people will behave more morally if they think a ghost might be in the room or if you talk to them about God just before hand). Anonymous people are less likely to be altruistic.
From there, it is the idea of mutual reciprocity. I act good to you, because you and everyone around will see me, and it will benefit me. Now, this sounds underhanded, but it is largely driven by subconscious mechanisms.
Its a lot like the proposed evolutionary purpose of gossip. While we all hate it, it does serve as a "security check" for people in a social group. If someone doesn't pick up the wallet, I'll tell you, you will tell your friends, and all of a sudden, we don't like that guy, and he has less survival and procreation potential.
A lot of this stuff is going to be a HUGE interaction of social and genetic factors, so looking for the evolutionary principal of "giving up a bus seat" is somewhat moot. The evolutionary principal of "I will act nice to those in my in group so that the in group acts nice to me" (remember, subconscious, not someone manipulating people [at least in most cases]) however is general enough to explain how certain social functions could be conditioned.
...
are you really interested in the long winded explanation or are you looking for the loophole in my explanation that lets you go "just a theory" and ignore the rest?
Makes you wonder though why the West should take care of Third Wolrd countries though....
Originally posted by queeq
Makes you wonder though why the West should take care of Third Wolrd countries though....
in group definition
clearly, what one considers their in-group is socio-culturally determined. While in these pre-civilization tribes it may have been distinct physical features or small territorial boundaries, today, because of the press for human rights (as opposed to the rights of a citizen in a particular state) and media connectivity, it is possible for an individual to include all of humanity in their "in group". In fact, education that promotes human rights would probably be found to increase the size of an in group for a student.
Another interesting example is with animals. Some people include non-human animals in their "in group" and thus give them the same rights as humans. This, imho, is largely due to urbanization (re: most people don't love with animals) and propaganda aimed at anthropomorphizing animal behaviour, but again, shows that a social influence can affect who is within the "in group" an individual has.
EDIT: On a personal political note, I don't feel that the West should take care of the rest of the world, rather, I feel that this explains, to a large degree, why people in the West feel that they should.
Yes, I understand. But that has nothing to do with evolution. It seems on that field man is basically taking over evolution in that sense. Especially when you just consider us sort of the most superior outcome of evolution so far, why bother with the weaklings. The political agenda you mentioned is mostly fueled by remnants of religious awareness or religious groups. But from an evolutionary POV that seems a bit weird.
Originally posted by queeq
Yes, I understand. But that has nothing to do with evolution. It seems on that field man is basically taking over evolution in that sense. Especially when you just consider us sort of the most superior outcome of evolution so far, why bother with the weaklings. The political agenda you mentioned is mostly fueled by remnants of religious awareness or religious groups. But from an evolutionary POV that seems a bit weird.
Not at all.
I agree with inamilist on this almost to the letter. Evolution explains altruism elegantly, and the scenarios and situations you're describing are just this same phenomenon on a macrocosmic level.
Certainly there are social and psychological forces involved as well, but they all have their basis in our evolutionary design.
The idea that evolution is only about "survival of the fittest" or "why bother with the weaklings?" as you put it, is a mistake in scope. Survival of the fittest applies at the genetic level, but the phenotypic effects of those genes can and do include altruism toward those who aren't as genetically "fit."
Originally posted by queeq
Yes, I understand. But that has nothing to do with evolution. It seems on that field man is basically taking over evolution in that sense. Especially when you just consider us sort of the most superior outcome of evolution so far, why bother with the weaklings. The political agenda you mentioned is mostly fueled by remnants of religious awareness or religious groups. But from an evolutionary POV that seems a bit weird.
Evolution doesn't have a POV. As a culture, everything we do has an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. We cannot know which.
This is an interesting article.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/are_you_genetically_programmed_to_cheat
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
For your child it does, but not altruism for a complete stranger you'll never see again in your life.
as I described with the principal of reciprocity, you are compelled (biologically, not by choice, by the influence of your genes) to be nice to those in your in group.
Because our societies have large in groups (re: we believe we are all humans), there is lots of reciprocity.
This, while explaining why I wouldn't be mean to your child, also explains why people can be VERY cruel to those who they do not deem as themselves. It also explains why the "dehumanization" of victims is important for military personnel. It also goes a long way in explaining Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not just making this stuff up, its pretty well established, and at the very least, the statement you have made has long since been covered.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The latter comes from religion.
not at all, however it is very likely that the "we" and "them"/"saved" and "damned"/"good" and "evil" mentality of religions has origins in the in group altruism/out group hatred mechanism.
Originally posted by inimalist
as I described with the principal of reciprocity, you are compelled (biologically, not by choice, by the influence of your genes) to be nice to those in your in group.Because our societies have large in groups (re: we believe we are all humans), there is lots of reciprocity.
This, while explaining why I wouldn't be mean to your child, also explains why people can be VERY cruel to those who they do not deem as themselves. It also explains why the "dehumanization" of victims is important for military personnel. It also goes a long way in explaining Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not just making this stuff up, its pretty well established, and at the very least, the statement you have made has long since been covered.
And a stranger is not in your group. They're....a stranger, an "outsider".
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I did, and there's no scientific explaination for letting someone you don't know, know that they dropped something. There's no incentive there; its being nice for its own sake.
being nice for its own sake in your in group HAS survival and procreational mechanisms
See what I already wrote about gossip. Ask if you don't get it.