Originally posted by no1marauderNot at all. The point is that there is a good evolutionary reason for it. Simple.
Are you seriously claiming that humans don't act altruistically far more than other animals, particulary toward non-kin? If so, you have abandoned any pretense of science and have moved into Knightmeister territory.
Originally posted by scottishinnzno1: Humans are special in the amount of altruistic behavior they engage in as even your sources concede.
Not at all. The point is that there is a good evolutionary reason for it. Simple.
SS: No, they don't.
Which is it: the post you wrote earlier on the page or the one you just did?
Making a contrived explanation for something is simple; the rub is when that explanation runs into the real world.
Originally posted by telerionAnd, in a small group, like we evolved in, the "altruism" would be remembered whether "warm glow" (the psychological reward for participating in a reciprocally altruistic interaction) or out and out (reciprocal) 'altruism'. Our group size has grown (or has it - how many people do you know (the most likely group you'll provide any reciprocal altruistic behaviour towards) or interact with each day? Probably not more than a few hundred.), and it's more difficult to keep track of who we owe, and who owes us. I don't know about most others, but I remember the people who I helped move house, and who helped me. There is a certain amount of collateral that we place in friendship. Friendship is an investment in the future. Future help, future labour, call it what you will - it's nothing to do with fun and games (not unless KM is right, and God really does exist)! We will invest in some degree of charity - some degree of risk taking. We are expending some of our energy, some of our work "just in case" we need that person in the future. Sure, it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of international charity - but international charity has only existed for 25 years!!! If we think small family group then a certain amount of sharing with no prospect of immediate reciprocation, a certain amount of good will building, makes perfect sense. Group selectionism (which Marauder is advocating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection)) just doesn't work.
I don't want to get in between you and no1 on this, but on this point, I thought I'd throw in a bit of my own discipline. In economics, we distinguish between two types of social behaviors when it comes to charitable giving. The first is called 'altruism' and is where an individual gives because they value the recipient's well-being. The second, called ' ...[text shortened]... r only a small fraction of giving and that the 'warm-glow' effect usually dominates.
Originally posted by no1marauderI certainly wouldn't say we are "special" in terms of the amount of "altruistic" behaviour we engage in. Certainly we are less altruistic than bees, which will die for the swarm. Perhaps you deny this? I think we are at the high end of the scale, but that's only because we [evolved to] live in large groups with complex organisation. Sources that I've cited have made this point that we are high up on the scale, but we;re nothing special.
no1: Humans are special in the amount of altruistic behavior they engage in as even your sources concede.
SS: No, they don't.
Which is it: the post you wrote earlier on the page or the one you just did?
Making a contrived explanation for something is simple; the rub is when that explanation runs into the real world.
Originally posted by no1marauderAsk Redmike if Russian "Communism" was communism? Or if the communism of North Korea is communism? They are not! They are dictatorships! And he talks to me about living in the real world.....[sigh]
Don't be an idiot, or even more of an idiot. I've read the abstracts and links you've given. Basically, they are simply circular arguments which take every instance of altruistic behavior and attribute a "selfish" motivation to it though there is no real world evidence to support such a conclusion. Here's a research project for ya; ask people if they hel ...[text shortened]... urely altruistically motivated but still. Maybe you should crack open a history book.
Originally posted by no1maraudermutual dependence and reciprocal interest
Since you're having a bit of a problem figuring out how Man can be self-interested, without being selfish, and the relation of society to government, I give you Tom Paine:
CHAPTER I
Of Society and Civilisation
[b]Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and th ...[text shortened]... n performed by the common consent of society, without government.
Rights of Man
Part II[/b]
prospers by the aid which each receives from the other [reciprocal altruism]
Common interest regulates their concerns [cooperation. again a selfish behaviour]
That's just the first paragraph! It's quite obvious that neither this guy or you lived in 19th C England, especially not as a poor person in a workhouse.
Originally posted by PalynkaSpecifically what are you referring to with "culture"? I think I'll need a specific example. Of course, I'm not looking at things like the specifics of manners; the important thing is that all cultures have manners! The cultural specifics are rather arbitrary, but the fundamentals are universal - taking a bottle of wine to a meal when invited, common dining, theft is wrong, etc etc
Murder is many steps away from altruism, please let us keep focused.
My point regarding cultural differences is that you seem to be dismissing one of the greatest sources of diversity in human behaviour which is culture and reducing it all down to genetics.
Accumulated knowledge, culture and especially hisotry allow human beings to go far beyond geneti ...[text shortened]... behaviours and it's absolutely false the claim that it all boils down to genetic selfishness.
Originally posted by no1marauderEverything I've written explains this!!! It's because we live in societies! In order to do the best for our genes we have to be willing to cooperate with others, and be able to recognise and value those values in others. Look at the people that we think are "good" and "bad" in society. Good people tend to be trustworthy, work hard, and project that image. Bad people tend to lie, cheat, steal, and do not generally tend to put across the best image. This is why con men are so effective, they confuse our ability to judge how likely someone is to reciprocate anything nice we do, or whether they are going to take advantage and not reciprocate. Again, this is part of a "selfish" ESS.
In SS' paradigm, there would be a major difference between the two types of "warm glow" as you have explained them. And he still hasn't answered the question why anyone would get "social recognition" for altruistic acts IF we are inherently selfish. It appears to me you would get satisfaction precisely because you were doing something without any reciprocal motive, something SS claims is impossible without self-delusion.
Originally posted by Palynka"PROVIDING for relatives [kin selection] comes more naturally than reaching out to strangers. Nevertheless, it may be worth being kind to people outside the family as the favour might be reciprocated in future. But when it comes to anonymous benevolence, directed to causes that, unlike people, can give nothing in return, what could motivate a donor? The answer, according to neuroscience, is that it feels good [as Dawkins would say "misfiring evolutionary response", or, of course, it may be a throwback to when the individual you are being benevolent towards probably was a relative - certainly, this is manipulation of the individual receiving the charity]."
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8023307
Indeed. The same way that masturbation feels good, but is unlikely to result in procreation.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe shallowness of your "thought" is truly breathtaking.
"PROVIDING for relatives [kin selection] comes more naturally than reaching out to strangers. Nevertheless, it may be worth being kind to people outside the family as the favour might be [b]reciprocated in future. But when it comes to anonymous benevolence, directed to causes that, unlike people, can give nothing in return, what could motivate a don ...[text shortened]... ndeed. The same way that masturbation feels good, but is unlikely to result in procreation.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzMaybe you should actually read someone's posts; you gave these as examples of Communism, not me. I see you refuse to respond to most of the points raised YET AGAIN.
Ask Redmike if Russian "Communism" was communism? Or if the communism of North Korea is communism? They are not! They are dictatorships! And he talks to me about living in the real world.....[sigh]
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're completely myopic. For about the fifth time, no one is denying humas cooperate quite often for mutual benefit. But they also perform altruistic acts for strangers with no real possibility of those acts being reciprocated. And furthermore, such acts are considered morally praiseworthy across pretty much all cultures.
[b]mutual dependence and reciprocal interest
prospers by the aid which each receives from the other [reciprocal altruism]
Common interest regulates their concerns [cooperation. again a selfish behaviour]
That's just the first paragraph! It's quite obvious that neither this guy or you lived in 19th C England, especially not as a poor person in a workhouse.[/b]