Altruism is a fundamental aspect of human behavior, and biologists have been exploring how it can evolve in the natural selection world. Hamilton’s rule suggests that altruistic behavior and aggression between close relatives can be explained by cost-benefit considerations. In social insects like bees and ants, workers tirelessly work for their colony without reproducing themselves. These cost-benefit considerations can explain both altruistic behavior and aggression between close relatives.
Sibling relationships are typically characterized by both positive and negative interactions, providing a safe environment for cooperation and friendship. Altruistic behavior occurs specifically between siblings, benefiting both the giver and receiver. Estrangement between brothers and sisters in adulthood is not uncommon, but in robust sibships, brothers and sisters can be more honest with one another than other people might dare to be.
The relationship between brothers and sisters is one of the most important in a person’s life, and it can last a lifetime through ups and downs, joys, and struggles. Altruism is behavior that benefits others of the species, while prosocial acts benefit both giver and receiver. While brothers and sisters can be great sources of cooperation and friendship, the brother and sister bond is often overlooked.
Some genetic models have been developed to investigate the evolution of altruism between siblings as a result of either kin selection or parental influence. Hamilton’s rule states that natural selection will cause an individual to value a sibling half as much as itself (50 altruism). A new study has revealed that siblings uniquely promote sympathy and altruism in boys, but there was no significant difference between the levels of agreeableness and altruism between first-born and later-born siblings.
In conclusion, altruism is a crucial aspect of human behavior, and understanding its evolution and impact on siblings is essential for understanding the complex dynamics of family dynamics.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Some models of the evolution of altruistic behaviour … | by B Charlesworth · 1978 · Cited by 168 — Some simple genetic models are developed for investigating the evolution of altruism between siblings as a result of either kin selection or parental … | sciencedirect.com |
| Altruism Among Relatives And Non-Relatives – PMC | by H Rachlin · 2008 · Cited by 239 — We found that a) genetic relationship and b) altruism varied inversely with social distance; the closer you feel toward someone else, the closer their relation … | pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |
| Some models of the evolution of altruistic behaviour … | by B Charlesworth · 1978 · Cited by 168 — Some models of the evolution of altruistic behaviour between siblings. J Theor Biol. 1978 May 22;72:297-319. doi: 10.1016/0022-519390095-4. | pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |
📹 Altruism
Hank explains the evolutionary basis for altruistic behavior in animals, including vampire bats! Like SciShow on Facebook: …
What Is The Golden Rule Altruism?
The Golden Rule, often articulated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," emphasizes treating others according to how one desires to be treated. This principle, regarded as an ethic of reciprocity, is prevalent across various cultures and religions, suggesting its universal appeal and significance in moral philosophy. Although frequently associated with Christianity, it traces back to ancient philosophical and ethical thought, including notable references by Aristotle and in ancient Egyptian teachings.
The rule promotes a concept of reciprocity, which implies a mutual understanding in social interactions. However, it raises discussions about altruism, questioning whether it adequately captures selfless actions done for others without expectation of return. Despite being a guiding principle for human behavior and moral reasoning, the Golden Rule is recognized as a moral principle rather than a rigid rule, allowing for flexibility and interpretation across different contexts.
Recent dialogues have emerged surrounding the compatibility of the Golden Rule with sociobiological theories like reciprocal altruism, indicating its relevance in understanding human behavior within an evolutionary framework. Ultimately, following the Golden Rule fosters empathy, compassion, and cooperative relationships that benefit individuals and society as a whole, enhancing communal and personal flourishing.
What Are The 4 Types Of Altruism?
Altruism exists in various forms, with four primary types identified: kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, group-based altruism, and moral altruism. Kin altruism involves unselfishly aiding family members, reflecting genetic altruism where individuals act selflessly to benefit those sharing their genes. Reciprocal altruism, or mutualism, occurs when one helps another with the expectation of future reciprocity.
Group-based altruism focuses on collective well-being within a community or group, promoting cooperation among members for mutual benefits. Moral altruism, also known as pure altruism, is characterized by selfless actions taken without expectation of reward, even at personal risk.
Experts have classified altruistic behaviors through lenses such as psychology, anthropology, and neurobiology, revealing underlying motivations like empathy and social bonds. Key actions demonstrating altruism include volunteering, donating money, and community service, showcasing how altruism manifests in real-world scenarios. Each type of altruism serves different psychological motives and reflects the complexity of human cooperation and selflessness, encompassing both close familial ties and broader societal engagements. Understanding these types helps illuminate the various dimensions of altruistic behavior in humans, emphasizing its significance in fostering social connections.
How To Tell If Someone Is Altruistic?
If you recognize yourself in the following traits, you may be altruistic: prioritizing others, considering the impact of your actions on others, feeling fulfilled after helping, being proactive, and having self-confidence. Altruism stems from empathy towards those in need and is a core personal value reflecting genuine care for others’ well-being. Acts of altruism can vary widely, from simple gestures like giving up your seat to significant sacrifices, such as risking one's life to save another.
Altruistic individuals naturally seek to assist others without expecting rewards, embodying characteristics like kindness, generosity, and compassion. Empathy is crucial, as it encourages understanding and sharing of others' feelings, promoting selfless behavior. Altruists often find joy in their actions, believing they contribute more to others’ lives than their own. They embrace the pleasure of helping, whether through small acts—such as donating to charity—or larger commitments like volunteering.
Altruism contrasts with selfishness, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing others' needs. In this article, we delve into altruism's essence, its benefits, and how to cultivate selfless behaviors, encouraging a mindset of compassion and generosity.
How Does Family Relationship Between Animals Affect Their Altruistic Behaviors?
Kin selection extends beyond parent-offspring relationships, enabling altruistic behavior when the costs incurred by an individual are outweighed by benefits to relatives. This evolutionary principle suggests that animals preferentially assist their relatives, thereby enhancing their own genetic legacy. Altruism primarily occurs among family members, as it significantly contributes to the transmission of shared genes. Animals are more inclined to engage in altruistic acts when assisting closely related individuals, as these behaviors can enhance reproductive success.
The genetic relatedness between the altruist and the recipient is crucial in this context. Notable examples challenge the perception of animals as exclusively self-interested, revealing remarkable cooperative behaviors, such as food sharing, warning calls, and adoption. Altruism is evident in species with complex social structures, where social behaviors often increase an individual’s fitness and reproductive success. Two notable theories—direct and indirect mechanisms of kin selection—help explain altruism, revealing that these behaviors primarily involve genetic kin.
Research supports that animals display altruistic tendencies similar to humans, bolstering the idea that kinship governs altruistic interactions. Ultimately, proximity in genetic relation enhances the likelihood of altruistic actions, affirming kin selection's role in animal social behavior.
How Do Adult Siblings Relate To Each Other?
This chapter explores the dynamics of adult sibling relationships, highlighting factors such as kin support, emotional closeness, practical assistance, and the frequency of contact. Research indicates that the foundation of sibling attachment is established in childhood, leading to lifelong connections. The advantages of nurturing adult sibling relationships are significant, particularly in fostering emotional well-being and alleviating loneliness during midlife.
Additionally, these bonds are crucial for coping with the aging of parents and the transition associated with their loss. Strategies to enhance sibling relationships include making time for each other and setting clear boundaries, especially if past interactions were challenging. It is essential to understand that strong sibling ties can influence mental health throughout adulthood, with warmth and intimacy being vital components. Self-reported data from older adults reveal a high prevalence of sibling warmth and low conflict levels, particularly among sister-sister pairs.
Overall, while sibling relationships can be complex, with varying levels of closeness, they remain a significant part of adult life and personal development, often requiring effort but yielding valuable emotional support.
What Personality Type Is An Altruist?
People with the ESFJ personality type exemplify altruism, embracing the responsibility to serve and support others while adhering to a clear moral compass. Known for their warmth and friendliness, these individuals possess a genuine interest in fostering relationships. As thoughtful communicators, they are attuned to the needs and concerns of others, skillfully motivating and uplifting those around them. Altruists exhibit humility and a supportive nature, thriving as effective team players who maintain composure in challenging situations.
Altruism manifests in various forms, including genetic altruism (benefiting family), reciprocal altruism, and heroic altruism, among others. Those with altruistic traits often demonstrate profound empathy and compassion, engaging in selfless acts, whether small gestures or significant sacrifices for the well-being of others. This personality type, characterized by sociability and care, is not just idealistic but driven by a deep-rooted desire to create positive change and contribute meaningfully to society. Altruism emphasizes selflessness, conveying a commitment to prioritizing the needs of others above personal gain.
What Is The Difference Between Altruism And Altruistic Behavior?
Altruism is defined as acting selflessly for the benefit of others, impacting those around us positively and often linked to benefits like improved emotional well-being and physical health. However, philosophers such as Ayn Rand view altruism as a vice, arguing that it promotes self-denial and is incompatible with true happiness, embodying a contradiction to the pursuit of self-interest. Altruistic acts range from small gestures, such as giving up a seat, to significant sacrifices, like saving a life.
The distinction between altruism and prosocial behavior lies in intention; while both involve helping others, altruism specifically denotes actions taken without any expectation of personal gain. Social psychologists analyze altruism by exploring its types—psychological, reproductive, and behavioral—and contrasting it with helping behaviors that may still serve to enhance one's own welfare.
Reciprocity and social exchange play important roles in these behaviors, as they can motivate individuals to 'return the favor.' Altruism represents a commitment to increasing another person's welfare, standing in opposition to egoism, which focuses on self-benefit. Distinguishing pure altruism from self-sacrifice is crucial: the former emphasizes helping without any loss to oneself, while the latter might entail personal cost.
What Is Kinship Altruism?
Kin altruism refers to behaviors that benefit a genetic relative's chances of survival or reproduction, often at a cost to the altruist's own fitness. A prime example is parental investment, where individuals may risk their safety or reproductive potential to care for their offspring. The evolutionary significance of kinship in altruism is widely supported by both theoretical frameworks and empirical research. Kin selection, a mechanism of natural selection, evaluates how the reproductive success of relatives influences individual fitness.
Through kin selection, organisms exhibit altruism by sacrificing for their genetic kin, which can enhance their genetic legacy. Altruistic traits are further complicated by findings that suggest altruistic acts need not rely solely on genetic ties but may also involve behavioral components. Research has shown that kinship moderates altruistic behaviors, with kin recognition mechanisms allowing organisms to distinguish family members for targeted altruism.
Despite varying perspectives, kin selection remains a critical concept in understanding altruism, especially within insect societies, where some researchers argue it should be reassessed as a central explanation for altruistic evolution.
What Is An Example Of Altruistic Behavior?
Altruism is the principle of selflessly acting for the well-being of others, often without expecting anything in return. This behavior stems from genuine concern for others and can manifest in various ways, such as giving lunch money to a friend, sharing limited food with a coworker, or donating to charity. Altruistic actions can range from everyday gestures to life-risking sacrifices, and are motivated by empathy and compassion rather than selfish desires.
Examples of altruism include volunteering at shelters, helping the homeless, sharing personal resources, and performing acts of kindness like giving up your seat on public transportation or donating blood. Notable altruistic actions can involve significant personal sacrifice, such as parents prioritizing their children's needs or individuals risking their lives to save others.
While altruism is commonly recognized in humans, it has also been observed in some animal species, such as monkeys and insects. Regardless of context, altruism reflects a fundamental human quality—the ability to prioritize others’ well-being, often leading to personal costs but ultimately enriching our social fabric. In exploring altruism, it is essential to understand its significance in psychology and the motivations behind selfless behavior, supporting the notion that helping others enhances the lives of both the giver and the recipient.
What Is The Selection For Altruistic Behavior Among Relatives Called?
Kin selection is a natural selection process where altruistic behaviors benefit close relatives, leading to the propagation of genes for these behaviors. It encompasses extended families and populations where related individuals may later interact. Altruistic behavior often sacrifices the individual's benefit; however, such traits can evolve if they enhance inclusive fitness when the genetic relatedness (r) is significant. Hamilton's rule (r × B > C) outlines the conditions for the evolution of reproductive altruism. While kin selection largely explains altruistic actions, instances of altruism towards non-relatives, or non-kin altruism, generally lack direct benefits. The concept of group selection suggests that groups exhibiting altruism have advantages over less cooperative groups, contributing to evolutionary success. Kin selection sharpens our understanding of the interconnectedness between altruism and genetic ties, positing that the degree of altruism increases with genetic relatedness. Furthermore, the concept of reciprocal altruism, introduced by Trivers, describes how altruistic acts can develop from reciprocal interactions, enhancing survival within social structures. This theory is foundational to studying behavioral evolution, providing insights into how genes influencing altruism spread through populations due to the reproductive success of relatives over the individual’s interests. Thus, kin selection, through its effects on inclusive fitness, significantly influences the evolutionary trajectory of altruistic behaviors.
📹 Mechanisms of Natural Selection: Altruism and Kin Selection
We have learned all about so-called “survival of the fittest” which is a phrase we associate with natural selection. We typically …
Also, in a plant documentary there was a study showing that plants which came from the same mother plant share nutrients with one another to ensure both of their survival, while in pairs which were unrelated competition took place until one of the organisms perished. Fascinating stuff. Keep up the excellent work. Enlightenment to all sentient beings.
One minor thing, more a matter of semantics, but you don’t actually have to be able to ‘see’ the long term advantage of helping someone else move. Just in the big picture it turns out that is an advantage. It does not even have to be a direct benefit to be advantageous. If a society that helps each other overall improves survival, even if the individual act does not bring an advantage the overall effect would very positive. So, it makes sense that people can take pleasure from helping each other; there ancestors survived with it so it probably is a helpful behavior that has evolved. Why do people assume that you are really selfish? It sounds like evolving the feeling pleasure about helping other people, is because it is evolutionary beneficial. When i help someone i feel truly good, and don’t expect and often don’t get anything in return. And did this before i understood there might be long term advantages. I bet there are many truly Altruistic people who benefit from the behaviors they do without ever understanding, the “selfish” advantages it brings.
saying that everyone that ever does things for others always expects something in return implies that a human’s default state is self-serving, which probably isn’t true. the reason humans have thrived as much as they have in the first place is largely due to cooperation, love, and family. the title of this article is rather misleading. true altruism is fascinating and scarcely discussed.
I’m a sophomore in high school, and for biology, I had to read “The Lives of A Cell” by Lewis Thomas. When writing my paper on it, I based it mainly on altruistic behavior (although, I will admit, I had no idea there was a name for it) and had come to realize that this only happens in social animals. I wondered why that is, but if you look at a bee, it is (basically) one organism in a whole group of identical organisms. I relate altruism to how a cell sacrifices itself for the main organism.
I disagree with the “favour for a favour” idea. I help people because I like helping people. I compliment complete strangers because I know how much a simple compliment can make someone’s day. I get out of the way of people because I know how annoying it is to get stuck behind somebody slow. I helped my best friend move into his new house because it gave me quality time with him.
There are definitely many motives for altruism, this one only explains one point to it. There are ones such as helping yet not asking for anything in return, which also has its own smaller parts to it such as doing so out of choice and commitment to doing so (so even if you lost all emotions, because you made a habit and choice to have done it before it will pervade) and other is because you feel happy doing so, or both (where you do so out of choice but don’t mind being happy as a side affect).
I have never understood the big mystery about altruism. It makes perfect sense to be that way! You are improving the living environment around you, which you and your friends and relatives are part of. And to a lesser degree, you are feeling a positive sensation from having brought a positive impact into the world. That’s it. That’s the psychological driver. End of story! Except that there may be other reasons to be altruistic apart from that. Some have mentioned that we are often programmed by our parents or the larger community to be altruistic. It is inculcated into us. We are also somewhat addicted to a “good vibe,” and seek to expand the world’s supply of joy. Thus you will see things like people helping other animal species, and soldiers saving the life of an enemy soldier (under certain circumstances, and maybe only to take him prisoner, but still saving his life.)
Dawkins improved on this with the idea of the selfish gene. So your behavior is determined by whether is helps your genes. Without those genes actually caring about you as a person. Of course genes spread through the success of species. But different species helping each other can also help the spread of both genes. Altruism is instinctive because DNA that tends to help others is more successful than those who don’t. Because organisms co-operate with a lot of other organisms. Like our guts have tons of species of bacteria, so working with those helps us. I’d say even parasites co-operate with a lot more species of lifeforms than the number they exploit.
…it may work out, but that is an infinitely complex equation to tackle. 3. Maybe the ecosystem itself acts as an ant colony–gaia type theory, the earth as an organism. 4. It has been shown that kindness benefits the health of the giver as well as the receiver, so kindness does actually help survival. Actually kindness has even been shown to benefit the witness of it! Wins all around. I have heard of these studies, but never looked at them myself. I would love an episode on this.
Hey Hank, First time for Sci Show, loyal fan of Crash Course. Great episode. I also saw a Yellowstone documentary wherein one elk who has been harmed is being chased down by a pack of wolves. When she is on a cliff with no way of escape another elk put itself between the wolves and the injured elk and scared them off. That was quite interesting and could also be another sort of unstudied behavior since that definitely doesn’t help survival odds and there is no real promise of a situation requiring reciprocity.
I really like your articles, and I generally find myself just nodding along and listening because I’m a dumb person. But I actually know a little more about this topic than the others you post about. I wish you would have addressed siblicide and infanticide in relation to altruism. Not because they’re cheery and happy topics, but because they take that equation you talked about and go ‘WHHHAAAA???’ Maybe a different episode? I’m know I’m super late to the party, but I just learned about you and your brother a several months ago. Maybe you two can team up on the siblicide episode.
I would agree that “why?” is the most important question. Many scientists are not disappointed by the answers they discern, because they discern there is great order, beauty, and reliability in the universe. I personally find the grandeur of the universe unsettling, but I work at not letting that stop me from trying to work in harmony with it, because I think it’s the right thing to do, the unselfish thing. Whether the word for that is “altriusm” or not, that’s where I seem to be at.
Thanks for promoting the topic. 2 quick comments about the comments! 1 – People often make the false assumption that our purpose in life is to survive and procreate. This is a mistake in logic. Look up the “is ought problem”. It is not our job to survive, this urge is simply a by product of our evolution. Evolution does not have “intent”. So the guy who selflessly eliminates himself from the gene pool is not an idiot. He has not “failed to do his job”. 2 – on the point of whether altruism really comes from self interest. One good argument is that we evaluate our decisions based on our “unease”. If taking a path creates more “unease” then we are unlikely to take it. So once we realise the importance of compassion, we act out of compassion because it’s uncomfortable to ignore it. In otherwords, it can be argued back to self interest.
All social animals are dependent on reputation. We can derive another equation here which explains everything: Reputation = reputation + (contribution) * (reputation of someone you are contributing to.) Altruism is a way to build reputation. and it managed to get encoded into our genes so gets expressed all time even when useless.
2:15 Some people may give gifts expecting something back but what if you just freely give your money to someone they don’t know and expect nothing in return. I guess it could be argued that they do it hoping someone would do the same for them when the chips are down or that you do it simply for the feeling you get of peace that comes with being kind or maybe even some afterlife reward that is greater than the sacrifice of the time, money, or whatever it was you gave. 0:55 I really like this thanks for sharing this info in your article, well done.
Every science article. All of them. Religion. I used to be pretty neutral about it, but I really honestly believe the world would be a better place without religion at this point. I think people who feel the way I do are the reason religion is dying. I hope you guys like the chunk of the pie graph you have now. Soon ‘Unaffiliated’ will have most of it.
The very definition of a sacrifice is: to give up something of value (like your time) for something having greater value or a more pressing claim (a person who needs to move). The definition shows the determining factor is, not your own need for feeling useful, but the need of someone else. If you feel a measure of satisfaction for helping someone (and not everyone does) this would not make it self-serving. Whichever scientists Hank followed here have misrepresented benevolent behavior.
1. Lots of genes are just what we’re left with after eons of evolution. It is possible that on a really basic level, we do nice things because it feels good, and it feels good because that part of us does not distinguish details like species. 2. We do tend to do nice things for species that are closer to us genetically. We are more likely to help mammals than insects or salamanders. So B x R may well be >C, even for other species. If we could measure all the relatedness and benefits…
When you create something, it is a part of you. If you spend your time and energy creating a chair, you and your self-governance was a necessary condition to the existence of that chair. If you give that chair to someone else, and they like that chair, you created their happiness in that moment, and own it in a small way. The same applies for why we have children; we are a necessary condition for their entire existence, and making them happy makes us happy. I of course wouldn’t call children property in the same sense I call umbrellas or cell-phones property, but I think something is to be said about the link between what makes property and why we value certain other things.
Part II: Altruism and emotion are pretty clearly defined and supported with observable evidence. For example, look at the range of primary emotions for a cockroach versus a dog (social animal). Social animals develop these emotions and altruism as they are needed for cooperative survival. While scientists agree the universe has order, but within this order is extreme randomness, and paradoxical complexity like how the universe might be a 1D curve with the illusion of 3D & matter’s instability.
Everything is a product of evolution, and so more or less helps or does not hinder our species’ success. Kindness is not a trait we have ever “gained”, it has been a way to cope with living together with other individuals. As a lone individual, kindness is a weak trait and would by natural selection be rooted out. The reason why we embrace it now is because it helps to forward our society (in sociological respects). There is no “Value” in kindness other than what we (our brains) prescibe to it.
Tonsils are actually part of the lymphatic system. They do perform a function, they just aren’t necessary to live comfortably. They’re kind of like a backup, like having 2 lungs and 2 kidneys even though we only need one of each. We’ve got other lymph nodes all over the place, so we can live without tonsils, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything. The other things you mentioned are useless though.
The argument presented in this article overlooks the fact that many people act unselfishly, such as by helping their friends move, because they actually love and care about those people. They choose to help whether or not they benefit. As far as theories go, scientists are right now prepared to overturn some major theories they’ve believed in for decades, if new evidence points that way…Speaking of evidence, some scientists wonder at the orderliness, functionality, and beauty in the universe.
Altruism is a subtle survival strategy. Many of you would instantly misinterpret the apparent paradox “altruism is selfish” because “selfish” is such an emotive word- however I refer to biological selfishness which is just the way things are: if altruism helps survival and success, it will be selected for. Same as any trait. Dawkins was here long ago with “The Selfish Gene”. Dawkins has a gift for crisp clear expression but using words like “selfish” is of course (sadly) asking for trouble!
This was a topic I thought about a lot while on a spiritual retreat. Basically this retreat was based on how being of service to others is the key to enlightenment, and that if you make it a point to anonymously do good deeds for others eveyday for 90 days, you will see significant, positive changes in your mental and spiritual fortitude.
Just because a question remains unanswered at this time does not mean science will never answer the question. Besides the origin of life is a separate discipline from evolution. I really wish creationists would learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. They are two totally different fields that are only related by both being life sciences. It’s like saying that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are the same theory.
Altruism is an intellectual behavior not a natural trait..it must be wanted by the perspn giving. Altruism must be forced..because as an intelligent being..we need to survive and we’ve found that other aren’t as altruistic..and have self worth because we are instilling a victim culture..mostly warranted by a ruling class of greed and avgovernment who need to get rich from thier power..altruism isn’t real..we only give what we think we can part with..
Emotions are also proven and explained by science and evolution. An individual will develop emotional attachment to someone else for their own benefit. A mother will love her baby so she would feed him instead of eating him, thus, passing her genes. It sounds cold, i know, but emotions are as mechanical and self beneficial as everything else. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy emotions, it’s like the brain – a collective of passive actions creates an active human being with thoughts and emotio
Goosebumps are actually an interesting feature in human evolution. Its a vestigial response to fear or cold. Think of what cats look like when their scared or pissed (they get goosebumps too). It makes them look intimidating and it can capture more air for insulation purposes. As for the tears, some scientists believe that its just the way we show distress in combat at close proximity to near by allies without letting your enemies know. Personally, I think that theory is too vague.
An altruistic behavior basically makes environmental factors less of a death sentence to your life and genetic offspring. Therefore, by generally surviving better, you can concentrate on other factors… Like that sweet sweet hip-torso ratio. Also diversity in a genetic pool seems generally favorable for a species for various reasons, including faster genetic adaption to the environment. So yeah… Keeping people alive benefits us all.
lol u shud notice that there is a character limit for messages, and the way i spell my words is to squeeze in as many words as possible so i can send a larger message, i actually learned how to spell my words like that from ppl i met while using the internet, i dont usually spell like this with anything else
I do not feel that when I am moved to help someone that I am doing it so that I gain something, but merely helping because I am moved to help by compassion and to help the person not suffer, Been looked at favorable by society because of my act of compassion or bravery does not attract me at all, However I can see how it would be a benefit, either by been recognized, a cash reward, feel good or the hope I would be saved, the cash reward would in fact would make me feel bad and not good.
Nothing on George R. Price? I find his work with altruism insanely interesting, and only noticed two people mention him on the comments. The short form is, he did some work with the altruism equation, couldn’t accept that there was no such thing as altruism without risk/benefit analysis, and then spent the rest of his life trying to disprove his work. Perhaps a follow-up article is in order? (For those interested, Dark Matters did a segment on him; “Killed by Kindness”, I believe?)
Not sure which comment led me to say, I was speaking generaly, I kind of lost track with been quite busy. But see if this might help.—I’m talking about each person spreading their own human genes/traits and each and every animal spreading its own genes of its own traits, so that its genes/traits can survive and not its competitor of its own kind which is in competition to it.
Your English is excellent, I wish I could speak another language fluently. I love your analogy between the two things: 1) humans and animals have markedly different levels of emotional capacity and 2) computers of the past and today’s supercomputers, have very different levels of computing capacity. You mention that computers were built by someone. Isn’t it reasonable then, that humans with their complex emotional system, were also built? Wouldn’t it advance science to know who that builder is?
Good point, but were talking about humans transferring genes of humans to humans so that their survival traits go on. Nature has diversified so that all life has a survival chance for each species. Its possible some characteristics may have ooccured and survived without the need for the species survival.
al·tru·ism Noun /ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/ 1. The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others 2. Behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense The definitions of the word show that altruistic actions are not done for a future returned debt, which goes against the whole basis of this article…
There is a book that does explain in great detail about people doing things for the return of a favor. It’s called “Give and Take” by Adam Grant. In the book it breaks people down into 3 groups: givers, matchers, takers. Givers give for the greater good, matchers are people who see an eye for an eye philosophy, and takers take for their own selfish reason. Most people are matchers, but the people in the comments who are saying they do it just to be nice are probably the givers of the group.
“Emotionalism” is what you’re wary of, and properly so. Some emotions are correct though, are they not? A mother’s love for her baby, may be practically instinctive, but who would say it is illogical or unreasonable? Logic helps us to evaluate our emotions. They should work together, not apart. The best science is done by those who properly feel wonder and admiration for the subject being studied, whether it’s the brain, the atom, or anything else. Let’s not give up on emotions completely.
Many other animals don’t have as complex emotions as we do, so, scientifically speaking, there must be some benefit to having evolved emotions. While we don’t know the exact benefit yet, scientists suspect that all emotions offer a reproductive benefit to the organism. Yes, it sounds cold, but you are right. A mother’s love for her baby offers a benefit over her abandoning her baby, so her genes are more likely to be passed on, benefiting her indirectly.
Those are all plausible scenarios. What of the person who “wants to” help another? They don’t think, “I’m going to feel good if I help this person”, but they get caught up in the moment, see a need, and feel motivated to reach out and fill it. Often it’s not with matters that mean survival of the species or our family. Why are we at times genuinely kind? (holding open a door for an older person, making a thoughtful gift) Where does that inclination come from? Could we have been made that way?
Oh: and another thing that leads to altruism: Cooperative groups tend to out-compete groups that are not cooperative. For instance, if a republic were to attempt to expand into an anarchy (as in, take one over). Because the “anarchists” wouldn’t have a formal military, and likely many people wouldn’t be interested in building them military equipment, people wouldn’t organize well, ect. they’d have no real choice but to accept republic rule.
The thing is, a mutualistic “worldwide symbiotic network” couldn’t form in the first place. Firstly, the world is REALLY big. One of the main causes of speciation is because being separated geographically occurs quite often. Secondly, and this is a reiteration of my last post, it’s very easy for a species to be taken advantage of. Let’s just imagine for a second that an ecosystem exists purely through mutualistic relationships. If an alien species comes along then the ecosystem is ruined.
The only thing this article doesn’t explain, in my opinion, are those who will go and rescue others they have never even seen before in their lives and in turn give their own lives, which defeats both the theory that their family can pass on more of their genes, and that they expect something in return. I personally think that there won’t ever be an explanation for this, and that’s part of what makes those people so extraordinary.
When I help a friend move, it’s because I want them to know they are not only supported in achieving their independence; they also have a village member to reach out to that is aware of them living solo and they are not alone when they need support if and when it can be provided. Certain groups and races of people are self serving, and some understand the significance of community. Altruistic people, are mostly community based if they grew up in one. And not many have. Like you mentioned earlier, some people are just naturally and born that way. I mean yes, it is nice to know you have a support system when you need assistance. However, help out because you know it will help another person more than them owning favors. Like an actual “good Samaritan”
cont- b- There is of course the feeling of guilt or looking really bad to others, but do we really think of that in times of urgency. or do we act instinctively based on who we are saving, so if its a loved one, you will save them for them because of the love you have for them. Would you say the act of love for another to save them is a selfish act, even though you are putting your self at high risk. This could be seen as an irrational or selfless act, as the benefit could be zero.
Considering the type of life we have on Earth right now, I would say that it’s always possible to benefit by hurting others. Give me any relationship on Earth where two organisms help each other, and I can think of a way for one of them (or a third party) to take advantage of the situation in a way that benefits itself by harming the other.
I am through with kindness, i’ve asked the why and this is what i came up with. It’s quite obvious really, if you look at other species. We’ve just as a race forgotten it. The next why is rather disappointing, and the why after that is quite mindbending. Tell me when you get there! P.S, this post is not a personal attack in any way, i wanted to say that i appreciate this discussion!
This article really reminded me of a chapter of Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion. Dawkins suggests that morality and altruism are misfirings of the evolutionary process. He says the he doesn’t find the argument Hank poses in this article satisfying as a biologist. If your interested, check out Chapter 6 “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good” of The God Delusion.
hmm, i like the theory of altruism helping our intelligence as a whole. When i used to go to programming competitions, robotics matches, or engineering expositions, competing teams were always more likely to help their opponent when a problem would arise then i would see at baseball or football games where the injured is ignored by the other team.
The interesting part isn’t What we feel, it’s why we feel it. It’s like looking at an atom and assuming the world isn’t more complicated than that. It’s like a doctor that only looks at symptoms. It won’t get you anywhere; analyzing the world requires you to always ask “Why”. You never stop, you never settle with “Because that’s how it is”, or you wont get the full picture. At a glance it may seem hypocritical of me but just ask me “Why”, and then we start being scientific, and that’s the Magic.
Now, knowing this, i could go out of my way to do “good”, but alas, i’d be doing it because it’d make me feel good, because there is an evolutionary imperative for it, or because i’m trying to prove that i can counter my human nature. Some people who identify themselves as altruistic do “good” things simply because to not would be to go against their image of themselves, it would be simply unthinkable for them.
You really shouldn’t underestimate the extent of emotionalism. While most people usually recognize how basic emotions like fear and anger can interfere with reason, especially the more complex emotions still cloud their minds. Once you start noticing it you can see it literally everywhere, in almost every person you encounter. One example of this is how the same argument laid out in good rhetorics appears much more reasonble than if it came in the language of a 10-year old.
When it comes to everything around us: buildings, signage, art, everything: it reflects that we are working within the capacity the materials from the earth allow us. We see advancement in our understanding and ability to make use of these things, but no new “elements” are being formed. We manipulate material, we don’t create any. What evidence is there that we could develop things abstract and intangible like emotions, if the capacity were not there to begin with?
Evolution by natural selection is a theory based upon an individual organisms ability to survive and reproduce, not a ‘civilization’ of species. That is why this debate is so contentious, because how could a purely altruistic gene pass down the generations if the individual who bears it does not survive? + what happens when a mutant individual who is selfish arises?, wouldn’t he/she be more prone to surviving and reproducing his/her selfish genes? Civilizations don’t abide by Natural selection
You can not call emotions generally “correct”, even if they coincide in most cases with logical reasoning. The reason for that is because while logical reasoning accounts every information known to you (depending on your intelligence), emotions are just triggered by simple combinations of stimuli, so there will always be some exceptions where emotions work against reason.
Well, our first ancestor species that could actually make tools didn’t need those stuff as much. Which means millions of years later (yes, evolution is that slow and gradual) we got less of those stuff. By the way, on the claws thing, chimps don’t have claws. So that’s not necessary. (Although they do have sharp teeth.) Oh, and we can definitely travel over the terrain of the African savanna barefoot, where our species started.
Sorry did not get this comment as it was marked as spam for some reason. By benefit I simply meant in order to increase our chance of survival. If gratification is helpful in our survival then yes that would be included as a benefit. Compassion could be seen as a selfless act because they feel, sad to see suffering, Or to imagine the suffering of another is unpleasant, does not come across to me as been a selfish act, but a desire to help and end their suffering.
I have helped many times and did not receive rewards, Ok naturally I may have felt good about it, but I felt my act was to help, I did not think that I helped so I will receive a reward. I would save a loved one from anything even if it put me in great danger, even if I knew I would be killed, I would try, not so I would not feel guilty, although that would come into it, but my act was a selfless act because of love. As I have said earlier this may been seen as a selfish act because -cont- A
There is no confusion. According to Wiki: “A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.” A scientific theory is also subject to change – as it should. An informed idea does not equate to a factual idea. Just like people obeying their “conscience.” You must have a well formed conscience.
They are all sisters and their efforts go to securing the success of their genes by supporting the reproductive life of their mother- the queen… it helps to think of the colony as the organism: the Queen then represents the reproductive organ, and the workers, soldiers etc represent other organs of the superorganism. This is not just a metaphor: the individual ants carry the same genes similar to the way my liver cells, my bone cells etc support my reproductive cells to pass on their genes.
For the former argument, if the other members are fighting then it’s no longer a purely altruistic ecosystem. For the latter argument, in ecosystems today parasites and predators rarely wipe all the food in their surroundings. Otherwise they would die off and stop reproducing. For example, compare the common cold to the bubonic plague. The common cold is so much more successful (in Darwinian terms) and would be the more likely type of organism to survive in this altruistic society.
Well, I did not mean it literally. You have to look at evolutionary behaviors as they affect an entire population. You may not be in exactly the same situation but you will definitely be down on you luck one day. It also does not have to be a rational expectation on your part, but a general feeling built into you because it has benefited mankind and our ancestors.
Whether or not you personally miss an evil person is not what determines what rights they have. You’re making a judgement call on someone else you do not know, about a situation you do not entirely understand, and saying that based on your personal likes and dislikes, this person gets to live or not. That’s not justice. Justice is a slow, methodical process, which is passionless, blind, and looks at the evidence to ensure the punishment fits the crime.
Lots of people are good people, at least from their own, or their society’s, point of view. What he’s trying to figure out is WHY they want to be good people. There are probably a lot of other factors other than what he mentioned; social & economic pressures, religious influences, and childhood training to name a few.
Most of the time Evolution expands in a environment with unlimited resources and the strong survives etc. w reciprocity encouraged to mitigate temporary setbacks. If the environment is closed or fixed a species will become extinct, or evolve to fit another niche. It is a dynamic system. Works alot like….. technology.
Remember that the global society we live in today is less than 100 years old. During the millions of years that humans evolved our brains it was only possible to help those who could potentially return the favor, so we got the instinct to help everybody a little. In the modern, global world evolution hasn’t yet had enough time to make change our behaviour accordingly.
Noone does anything which gains them no benefit. Helping people because you love them makes you “feel” good, knowing that your action is appreciated makes you happy. Why do you love people? would you love a total stranger who happens to not appreciate anything you do for them? would you continue to help them for reasons other than trying to prove a point? i think not. there is no such things as true “altruism”. There is a self-serving (Gene-serving, as it were)motive behind EVERYTHING.
Our perspectives are shaped by our environment and culture. In other words, we are raised in a bubble (our limited perceived world) no matter how open you think you are. So no, you and I don’t have an open mind. But if you wish to be what you are claiming to be, I think science will make you change your perspectives almost immediately once been presented with a conclusive evidence (scientifically of course). If “open mind” is what you are trying to go for, try to understand science not religion
If your reason for helping a friend is to gain something in return, would that not be objectivist seeing as your looking to gain something for yourself in the future. It would only be true altruism if you did it for the sake of doing it and not wanting for foreseeing wanting something in return in the future.
Doesn’t philosophy already cover this? Altruism is hedonism in sheep’s clothing, i.e. the best one can offer is something that in turn benefits them. Also let’s take this in anthropological sense, if sharing in a hunter-gatherer community keeps you fed when your buddy gets you back with a brace of fowl for that deer leg you shared last time, wouldn’t you keep doing it? I mean it’s pretty self-explanatory, humans are just particularly “good” at it because we keep score and have a concept of the future that outdoes other animals hands-down. but wait, call now and you will receive phenomenally minimalist metabolism generally beaten only by a collection of mega-fauna mammalia with fat storage, courtesy of your primate ancestry…
@ 0:35 idk why it never occurs to other people that multiple, complimenting reasons, not just one end all answer, could exist for an explaination to a problem or theory (in this case natural selection) Nothing’s simple in nature as it is on the surface; it’s easier to get w/ 1 theory, but it tends to be a whole system of interworking but independent processes converging together to function & properly perform task(s). Much like altruism. Fancy that.
I agree that there is much selfishness in humans and animals, but do not agree completely. I accept your comment in that we may do thinks so we dont feel bad or it may give us a higher status in society. I still however feel we can do things to help others without any benefit at all. I have felt compassion many times for people of today and of people who have long gone Such as people in history who have suffered. I use to have a cat and it caught a bird, the bird was chirping loudly- cont-
Since we originally lived in very small comunities, we evolved in an enviroment where we were surrounded by reletives. So the origin of the impulse would probably be to protect reletives or their offspring. But now that we live in such large communities those impulses no longer work as effectively as they’re supposed to (biologically speaking).
Well pets is easy to explain, actually. The “pet” is fed and has shelter. As for what the human in the situation gains, that goes back quite a ways. For example, at one point humans tamed wolves for protection, and to aid with hunting, since they could more easily detect prey. These days, it could be hardwired into our instincts, and it can still be seen as a “social” activity.
We romanticized our emotions, the cold hard truth is that they’re not like the emotions from a 1970’s sci – fi movie where a robot’s head explodes because he can’t calculate love. emotions are basically a bunch of chemical reactions that goes on in our brains. With humans, and several other mammals (mostly primates), that process is extremely complicated, but still a chain of simple electric reactions between neurons (i think hank has a article about it, look it up). we can see how less developed
Yes. Dawkins himself would agree that the phenotype gets overlooked by focusing too exclusively on the gene. Yes. Degree of relatedness is only one criterion for altruism- also crucial is transaction with non-related individuals you can count on for reciprocity. Hence development of ever larger social groupings from family to tribe to nation… to globalism. I so agree that imitation/mimicry/emulation is central in developing human (and other primate) cultures, and normalises behaviours.
That quote is a bit misleading. It ignores other possible reasons for working as a unit, such as mutual hatred for a common enemy. Although altruism may be used as a tool to commit those awful deeds, that doesn’t mean it is a bad thing in and of itself. Just like guns aren’t inherently evil just because some (a lot) of people use them to kill and destroy stuff.
True it may give gratification, but all in all you have helped someone not to suffer, because you felt sad for them, it may have made you happy to help end that suffering but not because it makes you happy but because you wanted to make them happy. Still I suppose that could be seen as selfish act if you think it was only for their own state of mind.
If you please yourself from pleasing others and to much of a good thing is a bad thing and you do something enough you get good at it then the worst people give everything to everyone for nothing= due to the fact that to give everything means eventually you have nothing, and maybe legally intoxicated from “euphoric gifting” because there is no law from binge gifting cause if that was a thing, to stop giving, would only allow taking so then everyone has to take and only the government gets to do that.
so far as i can tell, morality is simply an idea. we experience emotional responses in accordance to environmental response, b it something that happens in ur living or social environment. a vast majority of “emotions and morals” that we give credit to humans for r regularly displayed by countless other species. to b social at any lvl is to require certain responses to reinforce bonds, or in some cases destroy them. its a requirement, not a gift
Thank you. My example was meant for evolution. But i am not suggesting that there wasn’t someone who created the first system, the first cell, that started the whole thing. What ever made the first cell (spontaneous creation, time travelers or a supernatural being) is still debatable. Unfortunately, until we’ll get time travelling working, we won’t be able to find this out. And believe me, scientists are working their butts off trying to figure this out.
There is no need to imagine. Our entire economy is built on this principle. No one grows their own food, makes their own clothes, provides their own healthcare, builds their own cell phone towers, manufactures their own phones. There are fixed costs associated with all of these. If I want to have my own cell phone network, each person would need to get a degree in RF engineering and build their own system of towers. That is enormously expensive and only achieved through specialization and tradin
If the person who was in danger was a love one, then I would do everything to save them despite the risk to myself even if that risk was great, This act may be seen as selfish because you might say that I saved them in order to save myself of the suffering and regret of not trying, but my heart tells me I put myself in danger to save them not to save my feelings. They may have my genes but still if I am to spread my genes then I would not put my self in great danger,-cont-2
I’ve never known a friend who was willing to vomit blood into my mouth when I was hungry. It’s kind of sad that I don’t have close friends like that. Usually their faces turn sort of greenish and back away slowly; maybe that just means they haven’t eaten either, do you think? I’m no good at this mind-reading stuff.
Over the course of my life the vast majority of people I have known to take some form of assistance wether that be food stamps or child programs for glasses and basic care, abuse the system. Some do it without even thinking of it as bad cause thats the same there parents did so they think its normal. My neighbor used to do this with programs for her kids while her husband made good money asked her why and she said “isn’t it normal to do so ?”. For some people its been institutionalized.
You know that a lot emotions like love and loyalty are just self-implanted illusions we give ourselves to feel more accepted, confident or other things. If you did a kind act and you did not want anything in return you still that person to know you were nice to them and you could feel good what you did. The truth is we didn’t feel good about ourselves by doing good deeds no human would help each other.
^ What she said, and also: Logic is a deduction of facts at your disposal. Logically, knowing more tomorrow than what you did today would effectively change your reasoning (if ever so slightly) and eventually bring on a new paradigm. You are a vector, And there is no orientation; And you are only ever wrong when you assume that you have the correct answer because of your own observations and experiences
True if I analysed a situation where I am in danger I may not help, That may of couse be seen as a selfish act, especialy if there was a chance of saving him and myself, or I have refused to help because saving him would be to risky and therefore is not rational or I could say was it was a selfish act because I was thinking of my self rather than taking the risk anyway. -cont-
Way I learned the genetic altruism is if you have a 3 children and they are about to be killed, it is better for you to be killed in their place. While is you have to chose between your one child and 3 of your sisters children, you should kill your child. This is completely dependant on genetics: You have 1 of your genetics Your child will have 1/2 of your genetics (potentially) Your sisters child will have a 1/4 of your genetics (potentially) Therefore: 1 x 1 < 1/2 x 3 thus the three children is more genetically important 1/2 x1 < 1/4 x 3 thus the three nieces/nephews are more genetically important